Conservation Laws, Gravity, Renormalization, and Driving With Eyes Closed...

 How is gravity nonshielding yet all the forces made of gravity are not the same? I think it's possible the other forces just convert over to electromagnetic units of 1 and -1 to fit relativity even though the radius of electric charges also changes by Emc2 so masses are continuous not 1 and -1 too.

 If the fractional strong electric charges are lighter than light and electrons and you lighten up to go fast by F=ma, they may be faster than light. Gravity if not shielding might go around the outside of each electric charge's field. If the fractional charges always convert over to unified charges then they may disobey relativity at close distances (even though they and the spins and more have to add up to one and minus one to fit relativity.). Perhaps relativity is disobeyed and not in control for fractional charges deeper in even though it always ends up at the speed of light e.g. in decay only to 1 and -1 particles, ect. Thus there is not so much relativity inside heavy particles even though it always wins for electric charges on the outside radius of each strong force particle. So I wondered if electromagnetism is excluded inside the heavy particles could gravity also be excluded by the electric field? That is to say like the proverbial creator that set the cosmos in motion and then the details are just generally set by this being, could gravity be just on the outside of each electric charge and the electric charge mostly on the outside of the heavy particles, with the compression of the field lines of electric charges removing the lines of gravity and the strong force in turn excluding electromagnetism? If gravity just flows around the outside of each electric charge and then reunifies of the other side plus some entropy like a superfluid, this would explain the lack of shielding (and super fluidity itself even being possible at higher energies derived from this basic flow). This would also why the electric and strong force are "antigravity" lifting us up against the downward force of 32 feet per second.

 If gravity is only attractive and the most important field being the basis from which the other forces are energised up to (by the conservation laws where the stronger the force the laws below plus some of more laws for that force are added, energy conservation and all the forces ect. being evidence for a unified field) how can any resistance to it be seen? Or if this resistance is achieved to lift us up by the fields of molecules under us why doesn't gravity shield? If it flows well around the outside but shields with not much gravity inside this would allow both.

 This might be a solution to the problem of gravity being caused by particles (i.e. La Sage's belief). If the particles implode why is matter so enormously permeable? If the gravitons automatically flow to the space between the heavier particles there might be no shielding (like as is known by eclipses with no delay over historical times known) because the impact with heavy particles would be less common. And this is a good definition of gravity, it decreases the space between masses. As with WSM (Wave Spherical Mechanics) I believe the most basic particles "like the Higgs'" are just two things, a frequency and a speed. The particles could implode changing speed and frequency by interaction with outgoing waves converting over to these waves near the center, thus by these "Higgs'" being their own antiparticle the earth doesn't gain huge mass per second and the space attracts without filling up too much, otherwise more attraction and space would be more and more solid.

  One problem may be about volume. If the gravity flows around and impacts with gravitons around the outside of masses and if each heavy atom has a smaller volume/to surface area of the nucleus than lighter ones we might expect a large number of heavy atoms like uranium to not weigh as much as it should relative to say an equal atomic number of hydrogen atoms of the same total mass. This research with gravitational weight not mass of heavy particles is not as well established experimentally so it's possible even though much is known about the mass without gravity as the force being measured.

 The field has to be both "unaware to itself" yet gravity always wins at low energy and the universe hasn't fizzled out to 0 density over infinite time. Certainly it would seem the cosmos is a gravity bubble at long distance to always unify, so perhaps this may also be how it unifies our world and nearby is the cosmos possibly seen in higher resolution for us.

(Did you know research shows when you take a two hour drive at 55 mph at high resolution, 20 miles of the drive, your eyes are completely closed? I know lots of coupe drivers who could solve the other 20 minutes. And they see how to improve the country the most!)

  This idea that the fields including mass itself may exist at long range and all the short range properties like heavy muons and protons always add up to units that only fit the lower energy fields like relativity for overall change would be why recent improvements that omit calculations that add up to 0 for Feynman diagrams much simplify calculations of interactions.  If the fields that add up to 0 are omitted this also gives a graviton without infinities.( Note that as in my theory of GWD, relativity is being violated even internally by FTL motion of the virtual light (e.g. to shape the wavelength of the light reaching a high speed starship it is a signal, and only by FTL can it communicate to have just the correct redshift to fit relativity because if the virtual field were at just the speed of light, no signal between it and the starship and the light to be cohesive internally seems to have to have an internal faster than light component, e.g. from the leading to following zone of the light wave so it could send information like by optic fibers. The light wave in special relativity has to send and recieve information about changes in speed of the starship, and mass, ect, and so on as I say in my Physics Synopsis page click upper left.) With the virtual Feynmann particles they are "really there" except that they are subtracted because overall they must fit Relativity, or Feynmann's calculation, and so on. The reality of these components of each field is in order to unify them in GWD, all fields have at least some components of all the other fields. I believe we can act like the virtual light's contributions are always to fit relativity, but ultimately they may not completely, in order to interact with gravity, and so on.)

  It's possible the method of gravity as not shielding could be found by more indepth research about the neutrino, how it goes right through most matter without shielding, I think it's possible like gravity the neutrino doesn't shield by moving through the mostly empty space of the atoms, flowing like a wave around the heavy particles and then unifying on the the other side. If so research about the neutrinos may be of worth to know more about gravity.

   The exclusion of gravity by heavier forces could explain the jets of black holes. If relativity was there and the field moves inward at just the speed of light, c no jets could escape. In my belief, the strong gravity around the side of the massive field could separate the virtual particles in a way something like Hawking Radiation (except inside the "event horizon"). Super ionized real particles then fall to the center and poles and become much more massive (a fifth and sixth by Newton's Third Law). These "superfusion" particles might then unite at N and S and exclude the gravity creating a region of no gravity inside and huge radiation power here, to then move out in superluminary motion of the jets seen in astronomy. As I say here  this may be the mechanism of the regional not cosmic expansion otherwise believed to be the big bang in my improved cosmic jet cosmology. "We see only the jet of the cosmic galaxy". The other jet is too distant ect. as seen with great cosmic regularity by the probes of the CMB. The universe has regular "sides" and a highly symmetrical center dot (this could be the center of the cosmic jet as seen in the image link. I believe that only Faster Than Light gravity could create such regularity. Light seems too slow.). Click here for my comments and the CMB image found by the Wilkenson observatory.

  This about exclusion of force relates to a classic question Einstein asked and that was asked by the ancient greeks. "How is the world in unity and how do differences around us arrive from this?" Or as Einstein asked, why does the electron have the charge and mass it does? Why not some other mass with implosion just to this level and then reradiance here? Or if a basic field is unified like gravity how can imperfections arise out of this field? We must allow both and yet contradiction of the basic field but not both at once, thus if we allow each lower energy field to exclude up the next plus having properties "locally unknown" to the more basic field, both union and local change are allowed provided the changes always fit in with the frame of each foundation of the lower energy force. Thus while gravity is always obeyed and has no reradiance, electromagnetism is actually unlike gravity and shields, the disunion of each higher force would by literal exclusion of the field lines of the lower energy field by compression though never completely because the forces are all unified, eg. in three dimentions of space, with other symmetries too.. The gravitational mass of heavy particles may thus be considerably external as in the experiments I propose. If so this may help with our knowledge of gravity, the neutrino, the conservation laws, and renormalization.

 If gravity just flows around the outside of electrons, the electron can have huge mass and inertia inside just so it always subtracts so none or a little carries over to the outside. (Physicists have believed in this process of renormalization, subtracting out a positive infinity in the electron from a minus one to leave a finite residue, well known to 50 decimal places, one of the most high resolution ideas in the history of science, in perspective to know pi to three decimal places gives the earth's volume to 1/8000 of an inch, so 50 decimals is real "sharp resolution".) Fermi's observation was that "renormalization doesn't follow from any known physical principle". Yet renormalization's great success seems evidence for the bare charge, itself determined by deep inelastic or elastic scattering experiments, in distinction to Wolff's ideas about WSM, where the bare charge is merely an artifact of the calculation. (If so the electron wouldn't have recoil.) How can the electron have infinite mass inside or large mass at any rate but usual mass outside even so? The huge mass would seem to have huge gravity if gravity is known not to shield. If each lower energy force frames and flows around the outside of heavier forces, then renorm is saved, the conservation laws are explained and the gravity doesn't see the renorm or shield, and fractional strong force charges disprove relativity locally too. (More spin than the electron's speed of light spin would be needed in GWD to also be the cause of all heavier particle's mass. In General Wave Dynamics "mass is spinning energy". More mass even if internal would be because the spin would be faster than light locally inside of the electron e.g. the huge mass of renorm would need much internal speed of spin if mass is spinning energy to unify all the fields of mass and energy as one. The Higgs' gives mass and has spin 0, right? The problem here is that although the Higgs' may be more fundamental, I believe it is not the final level of physics since all fields move through time like a model with her outfit at rest in high fashion! Fields don't have to move through space but they all are in time, and the ultimate reason is that the model's atoms are spinning like brooches on her golden watch small clocks of spin.. All time is measured by periods of oscillation.Fundamental theorems state that time is proportional to frequency, and time is acceleration. If the Higgs' the foundation and has no spin, higher levels of time would not be seen around us.. )

This would also explain confinement. The fractional charges are confined at short range though always unified at long range. Just as electric charges "disprove gravity", fractional charges would "disprove relativity" as long as they do so  unknown to gravity or electromagnetic flow, by excluding the field lines of both. The fractional charges average out to about e.g. 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/2 or 7/6, and this was about the speed found in Chou's experiments. They're about 1/3 lighter than light so they would move that much faster than light at about 1.3 times c.

 No doubt, all is momenta, so many of the same properties are common to gravity that electromagnetism has. Thus some of the lower energy fields are not removed, even so I think they are mostly on the outside of the electric field.

 Frank Wilczek won the 2004 Nobel prize by assuming the fractional charges are not faster than light. Actually Chou's experiments seem in contradiction to this (as I say on my Synopsis page, or see link upper left at top of site.). Wilczek's methods seem to use "relativity seen from the outside", the charges always add up to one or - one, so all the results seem to fit relativity, when actually I believe it's possible further improvements in the tunneling experiments may essentially prove what Chou's experiments seemed to show, as I say on my synopsis page, with further refinements in these experiments there is a definite way to prove GWD or not, at least with QCD. Even if this turns out to be disproven, GWD still predicts much faster than light gravity, and the methods of proving this part of GWD are with atomic clocks or the Cavendish machines by measuring the speed of gravity from CME's the most explosive events in the solar system (as on my synopsis page).

 I agree with Einstein that the Uncertainty Principle is not absolute and he believed a low energy particle could get around it, this would be a sort of low energy Higgs' that would be a true fundamental particle more like the graviton, a high energy Higgs' like found by the LHC may be just another high energy particle, and it fits in with the Uncertainty Principle so it has to remain at it's high energy level by small size to be small enough to fit in it's mass "outside". If it has a lot more mass than the electron and since it's measured there by gravity perhaps it can't be more fundamental. (The electron doesn't get it's renormalization mass from the uncertainty principle itself, rather just the impact of the probe used to see it. The uncertainty principle always seems to fail because it has more mass and smaller size, yet all around us the larger mass has more size.) If the heavy Higgs' doesn't disappear in the vacuum, why doesn't the vacuum have huge mass density? And to go to near 0 size as in the vacuum by the Uncertainty Principle would have infinite mass if it were an infinite loop.
 The LHC high energy Higgs' is considered to be a mediator between the electric fields and the strong force, and perhaps this will remain its rightful zone I believe to explain more basic physics than the Uncertainty Principle there might be a phase change at lower energy where we might then find the low energy Higgs'. Actually it might be best named "the low energy Einstein". The problem of Uncertainty here, which Einstein demerred and, like the problems of SR which I also note, are about loops of quanta. The electric charges are quantised, so by Maxwell's method (as I tend to generalize to more use as I say on my synopsis pg.) the speed of light is constant. Reduce the quanta with a lower energy field and you might go faster than light. So too if Einstein was a nonrelative of Uncertainty in his belief, this problem of the observer seeming to control what's observed contrary to the ancient beam in our eye being disproven seems like a loop that might be restored to common sense in a way, by a phase change allowing Einstein's low energy particle here that we may find with improved low energy quantum experiments being devised.


A large number of low mass Higgs' would fit all the quantum numbers, constants ect. of the more common subatomic menagerie of heavier particles like mesons or baryons. The many uses of the low energy Higgs' would be like pixels, many smaller pixels would at a distance seem continuous, but each wheel or tappet of the quantum road machine of more fundamental worth "the god particle" perhaps a wave.

 Einstein believed it was impossible to conceive of a truly fundamental particle that could emit and absorb waves, thus a more wavelike Higgs's as the foundation could be the answer.

All this would explain the hierarchy of conservation laws, renormalization, and so on and, why no mass induction has been found by extensive searches including my own experiments click here. Even though to me before the idea of antigravity as in an upside down circus wheel seemed of value, inertia always has no source, that is, it's internal. The removal of field lines from heavier particles may be why. Thus inertia may also fit with this method, on my link however, I consider the possibility that if Einstein was right here, inertia (or centrifugal force) and gravity if equivalent would seem to allow real antigravity inside the wheel. "Just cancel downward gravity with upward centrifugal force." On the other hand, if they aren't the same, relativity fails, and faster than light wave motion for lighter fields might then be possible, so it seems in either event we win with this type of science. I tend to believe since gravity and inertia are loosely connected so you're somewhat lighter at the tropics due to centrifugal spin, in a more general more wavelike continuum as in F=ma, the more general equation in GWD, unlike it's relativistic corollary Emc2 allows both relativity like quanta and waves too, in a more general sense. We might thus get some antigravity with the machine and yet because of only a loose connection between gravity and inertia or mass and energy like by F=ma not Emc2 alone, there's a loophole in GWD allowing the possibility of faster than light. Certainly only a way to extend, not disprove relativity is needed.

 If all was in quanta, nothing could change, and there would be absolute relativity, a contradiction in terms. F=ma allows prediction of more than the speed of light (taken on faith by Einstein in which all else must then fit). Instead GWD may allow more general predictions of the speed of gravity and other forces based on the density of the waves by Maxwell's method I hope to generalize in GWD. In all the glory of relativity, people forgot how in the world Maxwell predicted the speed of light so well.
  Gravity may be a way to definitely prove or disprove this about the ideas above by pulsars. Gravity wouldn't shield through us by perhaps just going through the spaces inside and between atoms. There is such high density of the masses with superdense starstuff that gravity might be changed by eclipsing triple pulsars. I think perhaps the mass could be so dense like the electron it could just flow around the outside of the pulsar and gravity is much reduced inside it. If so the pulsar has low mass and also low inertia inside the star. We can't know the mass of the pulsar itself except by external sighting, and this in turn isn't a measure of what may be the internal change in mass, but I think it's possible if both the internal mass and inertia of the star are reduced, the pulsar could spin faster than allowed by it's size. This could be measured by measuring the size by measuring the limb of eclipsing pulsars, just found to see if they are larger than they should be, that is if they're spinning they might otherwise explode by the large centrifugal force and this would be the cause by the reduced internal mass of the pulsar. The gravity is reduced but so is the inertia so it may seem the same, even so it would be externally lighter so it would be an external connection by the magnetic field, changing it to slow down more than it would if it had the inertia caused by conventional physics and conservation of  angular momentum used to make the pulsar by the supernova.

 Another possibility is about how gravity seems to be about spin. If mass is just spinning energy, you would also mostly change gravitational mass with changes in any force, so I believe gravity might impact at near radius of the outside of each electric field of each neutron, pion, or muon, this is how it would exert pressure which seems to be needed to explain the usual exertion of gravity when you fall at 32 ft. (Particles would move along with you like the water around a boat in the river, you feel no force by way of their motion with you, unlike standing waves in WSM which would move faster and you would feel force as you fall, and force at rest in the field, how does it move if a standing wave?. See my synopsis pg, "Boat and River" for my comments). Gravity is at near enough energy to exert force, yet is ousted by the field lines inside. If superdense mass inside pulsars has reduced room between the particles some or many of the gravitons could make it through the interstices by the spins aligning, indeed this would be why spins may align in general in common high energy physics, the matter waves, actually a wave of higher energy gravity being continuous, align. The noncontinuous quanta otherwise being discontinuous, would also have discontinuous signal, no connection and no alignment. If gravitons were moved between the heavy particles and compressed, we might expect to see a change in the force of gravity here too, rather like Plinko on the Price Is Right, even if the gravitons will eventually reach the other side of the star. Change would be seen in gravity of pulsars, including perhaps faster than light precession of the poles known by measuring the limb and thus distance traveled as it spins. Perhaps like quasars in observations seen some pulsars too may have "superlumal motion", caused by the inertia moved more to the center and the gravity more yet outside, reducing friction and increasing resistance to it. Otherwise it could soon slow down by friction with the field. This would be too why particles spin and don't slow down.

 If gravitational and inertial mass increased equally as Einstein believed gravity wouldn't increase more than the inertia with higher mass density, and with these events there would be rapid deceleration because of friction with the external field. Inertia wouldn't seem equivalent if gravity holds the field together more than inertia can reradiate.

 Noting that the magnetic field of a pulsar, like that of an electron externally isn't renormalized, so it will drag around in attraction to external fields and this will put a limit on the maximum internal gravitational and inertial mass reduction possible. It's easier to slow down a lighter mass faster with the same force applied. This may not be either/or because there just may be relatively small changes in the rate of slowing, and the external brakes that the field would slow by are often distant. If the galaxies are all too radiant, perhaps the pulsars are a bit also. I've believed the galaxies might spin fast by reduced gravity, actually since they spin as a solid body, they might actually have reduced inertia instead.

 Gravity always seems to win out overall, as it seems it must for us to be here and not fizzled out to 0 density over infinite time of entropy and the reradiance of non gravitational heat itself. If pulsars are stronger in gravity the internal exclusion of field lines would give them more inertia, essentially the cause of inertia itself and the external increase of the fluidity of the field would balance moreso and this balance of strong forces would explain the great stability of the periods of pulsars over time.

 This idea of dense gravity field exclusion and shielding may be the cause of what seem to be "slow" jets of some galaxies. They are so slow they would need low gravity of the black hole to escape. If there is no necessity of a central black hole holding its galaxy itself together, the internal gravity of the black hole might have the gravity is reduced in pressure for the same input mass that created the physics there by field exclusion. Click here for the site with observation and discussion about these "slow" jets.

Another possibility I consider here is that if the fifth and sixth force preventing the collapse of Einstein's mistake, the singularity, are of complex matter, that is black holes have matter with more complexity than even the strong force, giving rise to a possible reduction of the overall force of gravity somehow. Though the spectra of the jets don't fit any known standard physics, of these two options I would believe more in field exclusion, because there's complexity of the strong force around us and it won't stop or shield gravity.

  Obviously this vis a vis pulsars would be a change in energy conservation itself, as in the higher speed of the spinning galaxies seen in contradiction with relativity. It's been noted that when we see the motion of these masses, we may be seeing massive disproofs of relativity. Even so once set spinning at that rate by the implosion explosion that caused the pulsar, the mass and inertia are then set but at another level than energy conservation would allow. The distinction would be in the rest mass of the supernova star and total energy lost by radiance compared to the pulsar. The pulsars slowing by gravity waves is relative to the rate of spin already set and itself would obey relativity well.

 As I believe energy conservation is about relativity (no doubt!) Emc2 is about the quanta because photons and other quanta conserve energy exactly, more mass just that much more spin. Lower energy fields like gravity may be more wavelike so energy conservation and relativity may not hold so well here. I believe gravity is not relativistic, e.g, the sun is more at rest than the earth, and the earth is more at rest than the moon by conservation of momentum, and heavier masses are more privileged ways to know who is at rest or in motion. Or if all motion is relative, the cosmos would spin each day at hugely greater than the speed of light in equivalence to just the Earth only moving, and develop huge centrifugal forces, and with all the particles spin too it would spin much faster in all directions.
 
 Binary pulsars, not eclipsing triple systems have been used to measure changes in gravity waves and lines of force, slowed gradually by the external brake on the field lines. External braking by electromagnetic forces or radiance of gravity waves may not be a measure of the internal exclusion of field lines i.e. shielding possible with eclipses of triple pulsars. For most matter like mass nearby, moving them closer together will increase the mass, but for more dense matter, I believe they may reduce the mass. Einstein believed massive fields increase gravity by pressure, this seems to say it would reduce it. Consider a pulsar going to explode; the field lines are removed from the superdince (wow i can spel!) core which has reduced mass and this sends the signal about the change in mass to another star (most are binary) at Faster Than light as GWD predicts. Suddenly the orbiting star has a change in orbit and moves farther away, a prediction of GWD by the speed of gravity and the conservation laws.


Five Reasons Why I believe in the "Einstein" Einstein's Low Energy Quanta...

Since gravity seems to need low energy physics and low energy fields seem useful in general, here's why I agree with Einstein about this...

a.The Uncertainty Principle Itself

Einstein believed in a low energy particle that would be low enough in energy to get around the loop of the observer's ray of illumination being like a particle of light to illuminate a box or a sphere around us in the room. There's no fundamental reason to believe the observer has to influence the observed at about the same energy the illumned mass. This was Einstein's belief, that the observer doesn't have to always influence what is seen. This of course is non relativitistic, and I think the low energy particle if found, via Einstein's belief is good general evidence that relativity isn't always so, or more often!

b.Entanglement

My explanation of entanglement is that each particle like the electron has subparticles in large numbers. The exact number and symmetries of the particles are large in possibility, with each particle having a unique signature of its subparticles determined by it's previous entanglements. The number of these components isn't infinite, and it thus may be more like the uniqueness of snowdrops, they've actually found some alike snowdrops. There needs to be a unique signature of each particle for each electron to "know" and resonate with just the other electron, no other, and this would only be both impressed and maintained in the electron's field by a stable configuration of just that electron of the subparticles.

c.Masses of common subatomic particles

 The masses of the particles are known to be given by reaction with the Higgs' in general but the exact masses can't be predicted so I believe large numbers of subparticles may explain why the individual rest masses of the particles found are in no definite units like units of the mass of the Higgs'. Ignoring radioactivity and considering the rest masses alone, the masses are stable, like by subparticle yet the exact mass seems continuous as if the particles are just too small to be seen directly. The stability of the "continuous" masses would seem to come from subcomponents. And no doun=bt the Feynmann method, the Lamb shift of hydrogen, and renormilization aren't going away, a relativistic ether, something Wolff ignores in WSM..


d. Collapse of the Wave Function

 The input of probes in scattering experiments have a finite output, if you put one particle in the collision to impact the other, there seems no way to know exactly what the reradiant content will be. Put in a pi meson and you get out five other outputs, yet no way is known other than by weighted probabilities to predict the exact result. In GWD the subparticles are faster than light and like gravity are acausal. gravity, an acceleration, is nonlinear, the opposite of relativity (gravity pulls down, electromagnetism's speed of light lifts us up by outward entropy and the reradiance and disconnection of the slower speed of light.). So while light only changes wavelength, gravity, being opposite in GWD could change both speed and wavelength being an acceleration. That is to say, unlike Einstein's Spinozan belief in complete determinism where if you knew the exact motions of all the particles before, you could know all the history of the universe from start to finish, but particles like Einstein believed for special relativity and light (since it would be unchanging and constant speed from emission to absorption) are not like waves, particles like in pool halls and where to park your yacht in the swimming zone are easier to find out like a machine. Even if generally GWD is more like a mechanical view of relativity, since not so much is taken on faith, there is a fundamental element of unpredictability needed as in any deep physics. After all if there were no source of change, where does all the change around us come from? Thus if you put in one change at the top of the fall, the waves being nonlinear may overlap and change speed in complex ways in order to multiply up the attraction, complex ways that can't be predicted, the wave has a soul of it's own, perhaps the cause of the soul or life force since all life is motion. The world needs a source of motion, and quanta being unchanging wouldn't seem to change.

 Thus if the subquantum field is nonlinear because it's mostly more a matter wave like gravity, the output is mostly not predictable by the "slow" quantum field of light. Even so the probabilities are in definite weighted values so this means the subquantum field has structure. Particles are more solid and structured than waves so this seems to be evidence for subquantum events like Einstein's low energy particles.


e.Preons

The preon road to leptons and other more basic heavy particles was devised in 1979 and like QCD most of these use fractional charges like 0, 1/6th or just plus and minus one with other properties like electric charge to build up the elements..

These elements of the basic leptons and other particles are easy to fit in a table rather like the ones used by Mendelyev for the elements or the ones originally used for quarks yet more simple, and they fit well, predicting the allowed charges found like via charges of 1/6th that add up to just the particles seen in a simple method that seems profound in value. Unlike all the complex computation that finally convinced us of QCD, there aren't hundreds of particles to explain; prions only need to be the cause of just the leptons and fractional charges, no more. The prions are simple, a few seconds to see.

For access to a description of the simple preon "table of elements" here's the article page, though you may need to sign up with the site to reach the table.



Where Are They?

Good question..Searches with the LHC are underway for these elements, yet so far no structure like small particles as in e.g. deep inelastic scattering experiments or any changes in e.g. the electron's magnetic moment have been found at the right energy predicted (it's believed by some the energy may be much higher though in reach of the LHC)..

Einstein believed the Uncertainty Principle fails and he believed in the low energy particle to solve this problem. Thus we can say this particle if it exists has to be low enough energy to not interact so much as the Uncertainty loops yet high enough energy to interact at all. Therefore I believe the energy level may be near.
 Here's where I wonder vis a vis the Uncertainty Principle's possible failure (Uncertainty Always will!) If this may also correspond to a phase change, that is to say at all lower energy of the field like for gravity, the field may be like a superfluid as some think. Thus the field has reduced quanta, and flows more like a wave, and like gravity because it's lighter than light it may go much faster than light, if it could also change phase at much higher speed. There would both be the prions at an intermediate energy, yet many more of the more wavelike particles like the Higgs with each lepton or other element made of both some prions and many more Higgs' type particles of much lower mass and size. The combination of both a large number of these lower energy waves and the other more particlelike masses are involved here since both prions and these more numerous Higgs' are used to explain the complexity of entanglement with a unique combination for all particles, not just the numerology of the prions to explain the particles known by combination and also the EPR..

The lower energy Higgs' type particles would form the prions in an emergent way, the particles created from the more basic waves. Even so the much higher speed like the gravity waves in GWD if lighter than light being faster than light by that much and by the phase change might then allow the prions not just to move at 6 times the speed of light if 1/6th in charge but rather at a much higher speed. If no quanta are there there may be not much quanta to resist, so the much higher speed Promethean field (not a new element) could move so fast it would just seem like a blur relative to the much slower electromagnetic field. Essentially the prions could have enough particulate resonation to show up in the counting to make what is well proven about muons electrons, and so on, yet they would also be just a wave and splash relative to the incoming ray.

To find the internal structure of the electron, I think we could stabilize two electrons by the NS magnetic fields of each and then slowly move them together or apart, and the impact of the prions might show up as changes in the resistance to the moments of the electrons. By moving the electrons in and out slowly, perhaps in months or years we may get much higher resolution to possibly find the substructure if it's low energy.

  We can't just bounce a high speed particle into electrons to find low power structure, this has already been tried (though I think it's not impossible they might be at higher energy). If the low energy field like gravity is winding the cosmos up so it hasn't fizzled to 0 density in billions of eons this is by way if its negative entropy by the more general wavelike attraction of gravity (since waves are continuous and attract, particles alone being without connection would radiate, and gravity mostly seems to flow in toward mass). Via faster changes from wave to particle than thermodynamics and the slower speed of light, a high speed phase change like gravity could implode any incoming wave and reverse its entropy before it could act like a prion, so it seems smooth to the incoming particle. Even so it's a radially standing wave. Thus I believe to find the electron's structure if it exists, low energy experiments merely moving the electrons near and far may be better to find the low energy field. radial high energy implosion might make it smooth and implode more but slow speed change might build up a more reliable higher resolution amp of the field. If the field is low energy as Einstein believed, low energy resonance might measure it better than high energy.

 This is related to another experiment using atomic clocks to slowly move in months or years between common lab masses to map out the field near them like in the Cavendish machine to see if the redshift fits relativity or if it has a gravitational blueshift of gravity, plus interference bands of different wavelength from different frequency due to the much different speed and the acceleration not common with light, and without the redshift not the redshift in just the optical wavelengths. The nearer to the mass, the more gravity might compress the field. It unifies masses together, indeed the Earth like two masses on beams secured and thrown into the air spinning have the Earth more at rest and the lighter mass like the moon spinning in orbit at higher speed. The mass moments have the spin center nearer to the heavy mass by compression of the field. This isn't "empty space" as Einstein believed. If so it couldn't change, yet this "empty space"  does change in a regular and reliable weigh, much like F=ma, not Emc2. (The heavy mass moves slower the lighter mass moves faster. if mass and energy are equivalent here their masses would move the same speed no matter what force was added, more mass, more energy by relativity so it would move that much faster and the moon and earth would fall around a center of mass half way to the center and all mass would seem to fall at the same rate). Newton's Laws were said to be derived from relativity. To me it seems the other way around, e.g. Newton's Third Law so important to relativity because of its balance of symmetry like the speed of light between the opposite electric charges seems more the cause of energy conservation itself, and so on.

 Other low energy quantum experiments being devised use light twisted like a small balloon in smaller zones to measure more reduced energies than the quanta were believed to allow. So perhaps we'll find Einstein's disproof of uncertainty here. Any substructure whatsoever is considered to be major evidence  by those who believe in this possibility of more than leptons and other elements even so if on the road  to the non quantum cosmos..

UAV PARCEL SYSTEM

Cheaper than Rail, Higher Speed Than Cars, No Crashes Like Drones, Cheaper Than People Movers

  Drones (UAV's) are poised to bring personal air power to the masses, they could hover for surveillance powered by yay mere wi fi connections. And some are even using UAV's to fire pizzas throughout the skies. There are some problems, however. Crashes of drones into houses might "be" common, crashes of drones to bee houses already are and the physics of air travel need much more power and larger machines to send extra cheese.

  To solve both these problems for United Vegg. Pizza Savings and Loaner (Rolls royce helps fund Pizza Vans) using heavier airships of light travelways may be of worth. The ways here are like the small roads used for people transport, no pilot by computer, pilots aren't people too if they sometimes cause patients in beer accidents, the cheaper the booze, the worse the hangover they say, and the more booze in your beer jugs you see the better women look, smaller with reduced "roadway" costs is cheaper than people movers, actually like most I don't imbibe, herbs from the health food store are cheaper than a hangunder and some jail, a pizza hangunder if boosed from on high by UAV is awesome!

  This would allow the post office to save the freezing post delivery in winter for United Cash Parcel Savings, hire them when they like in good weather at high speed and value. The "roadways" may cost no more in real estate since telephone poles or upside down pylons by existing roads or railroads could be used or via A frames on both sides and above roads, with the machines at the top, these would support the weight.

  Some say the rails would be in a line not like a dip with each wire for speed and perhaps multivel wings would help untrim the christmas branches as it zooms past if the are a bit wild.

  Because smaller airplanes are used to reduce the number of crashes via reducing the number of UAV's in the skies, surveillance would be another seperate use of UAV's since the government plans to allow drones in the same airspace by 2015 as conventional airplanes if they have crash and smash avoidance software to stop arial burrito bombing.



International Optimism

   Research shows that either nodding or shaking your head while reading can influence whether you agree to what you read or vice versa. Even so , in India "a head shake means yes" and often in conversations I find myself shaking my head yes when saying what's of worth, so I've often believed the real meaning of  a headshake is yes. Actually, "what's up" in the research, is more an association of our own culture, and in the "world of channel surfing" we would often we would often have a meltdown even if we looked so good in crashing, what would it matter.

   Have you heard of the new brainwave controlled interactive headset you wear to watch television, you can change the plots of movies and via hundreds of other uses by a blink (love I dream of Jeannie reruns, she always blinks us!).