Encyclopedia Computoria

2012-02-15T08:39:00.000-08:00

They may have found the dude who in 1971 gave a ransom note to the airliner over Oregon for 200,000 and parachuted to the ground and wasn't seen or heard from, except when he would yell, I'm rich! and they would yell, He's in prison! They think his name was C.B. Cooper and they may have gotten contact with his uncle, who was the informer, ect. The ATM's on the airliner were all closed that day for 480 months!

They found Amelia Airhardt! She's selling Amway in Australia!

They're using what's called smell marketing to put "scents invents" in stores, this won't work well for the seafood diet, or the garlic diet you always look the same!

They are remeasuring Mt. everest in Nepal, they don't know how high it is. What was the highest mountain before they found Mt Everest? Everest but not necessarily.

Cheeze has all this bad stuff for you, fat and salt. Milk is much better, it's often the best "whey to get your cheeze!"

2012-02-09T09:22:00.000-08:00

How Alcoholism and Other Problems for Those with Substance Abuse (Even including Obesity) Might Be Solved by A Simple Method.

Alcoholics have two problems, the physical use of the substance, and the other is the emotional strain itself when reducing the alcohol.. You may say, to solve problems like this you could remove the booze or food, ect. gradually perhaps, reduce the strain and they recover. This may not often be probable or even possible though a lot of labor is done to achieve it, like the BBC!

In this post I'm using my considerable knowelege of health science, because I use both green clay and melatonin for better health. Clay is a good absorbent to absorb out toxins, and melatonin is a sleep aid used by millions.

I offer the following method for alcoholism, obesity and seven other problems of related type, e.g pain relief, anxiety and other problems like this.

We imagine a sensor in the mouth, that senses when the person has had too much food, or other substance to reduce. This is of worth no doubt, two police in the news were seeing about Breathalyzers this month and tried booze and spent the afternoon like seeing stars and moonlight, could happen to anyone, and it's rare but even better if millions of lives were saved by curing alcohol and other problems. The police would save huge costs like in court fees, ect. and though any one's risk of being in an accident with each trip is like 1 in a million, the police are helping us to make this true, and to help them even more...

if the sensors were aligned to some way to gradually reduce the amount of alcohol before it reaches the stomach, then by computer the most optimal amount of alcohol or other substance could be gradually reduced at the right rate. A sort of gradual sort of nicorette, at least an improvement. If the overall reduction was real slow and relaible, there would be much more chance of solving the problem, just as climbing a steep hill all at once may be tiring, but climbing on a road with almost no slope makes it so almost anybody can climb, if just blending in this much each day, sooner or later you would reach the top. I imagine this could be computerized at least sometime to such a gradual change that many types of addictions could be cured even by this, especially if aligned with something like software to retrain the brain to reduce the stress ect. both emotionally and cognitively, ect.

If this is uncomfortable for many people trying to quit, even so, e.g. if they don't have time to wait, ect. I have a deeper defence for those who want to do more than break even at the wager.

For the sensor in the mouth I thought of a band to attach the sensor to the tooth like an orthodontist band or wire so it's reliable to stay where the sense of perception is hopes of health for life in general. A sort of small hammer on the tooth puts the sensor in, not a Phil Collins song! The sensor as like ones in use is real cheap, like 50 cents, just two wires of the right metals to move in the presence of what to sense at the right rate for that substance only, no other sensor needed, at least to solve just one problem at a time say obesity only. This is no problem to find alcohol in the breath, easier than over the lips over the gum, look out stomach here she comes, and more reliable... About alcohol it's good to sense if you are all lit up in the moonshine, but the problem is if a big crash with the booze in general if it's causing a lot of people to have DUI, for instance I liked green tea a lot and I didn't know why, then I realized I was getting subliminal messages from Andheiser Busch!

My next question was, if we have the small sensor on the tooth, what would we blend with that alcohol to make it so it essentially is rendered more and more less powerful, so they automatically quit in time so they wouldn't have to feel so bad to stop, how do you blend with the booze and intercept it before it's down the tube? I thought of a simple fan in the throat, so to seal their lips if yes they are they are schmoozing and boozing, so the person would just spit the alcohol back out if via a fan. In smoking the great American smokeout, they have the fan to blow smoke out from the person, so they have the nicotine fit of the star search realm.

I hoped to invent a plate like an orthodontist's plate in which what would combine with the booze would stop the booze, by a computer chip, though no booze with the munchos so often like the Breathalyzer when the officers were research mode. Then I realized green clay, a great absorber, might be of worth. It cleanses out heavy radiation, and other toxins. This is why I think they don't get diabetes at the sugar plantations in SA. where all day they eat sugarcane, not just because they have a lot of fiber in the sugar, and never get ill. Fiber is not that valuable for blood sugar, but clay would absorb sugar and other acids out,stopping it at the source including fat for heart fitness while putting in 80 or 90 monotomic minerals, and the body only uses what it needs. More about green clay. It's been found the people in the US who move to the US from SA are the most healthy in life expectancy because they don't smoke, I think the clay may have a major influence here, they've been cleansed out with they clay so much they have much less toxic buildup from the start. People in SA don't smoke as much, it's true and another way the Latinos may be stronger in general is because often the more pastoral life is good to make their immune system stronger, plus fitness in general may be a boost. A good foundation of minerals we don't find due to no absorbancy of most vitamins ect and intensive agriculture reducing our minerals a lot plus absorbancy out of toxins like fat salt and sugar may be the main general way to healthier life.

For the dental plate, the clay inside would use the awesome honeycomb structure which has small strong electron holes to strongly attract and hold many toxins well, it absorbs 500 times its weight in water so I drink water with clay to cleanse out stuff like the heavy metals from the parking lot. They do research and find like 200 unnatural harmful chemicals in most people's circulation. Green clay is real powerful so whatever to blend with the booze ersatz, powered by bites perhaps. If the sensor senses the alcohol and the computer does a quick number crunch, no munchies, then just the right amount of the absorber is to blend in the mouth. This is the first phase, no fifth phase, no not Beethoven! How would you make it so it would reduce the anxiety?

Here is where I get my inspiration. I was sometimes using melatonin, a sleep aid used by millions for part of my diet plan. I was taking melatonin for other health and it was so drowsy for a while, and I was hungry and didn't notice while I was doing my bit of research! I would sometimes wake up real hungry after a good night's sleep, and I thought of trying this to diet one day, but I wasn't even aware of the hunger. Melatonin is one of the least toxic substances ever found, less toxic than water, found in every cell in the body, and it causes a deep restful sleep, but it's not addictive and has no known side effects, other than positive ones. The only known problem about melatonin may be that it causes low blood sugar with long use and for most this one known problem would be rather healthy presumably. (No important cautions for melatonin have been seen in 15 years since it was first available.) People have been taking melatonin about 15 or 20 years, I wasn't asleep right now! Melatonin has been proven mostly safe, far safer than something like narcotics, at any rate. Or for melatonin we could substitute something like say passionflower that would be strongly enough soothing for long enough to lose weight, stop alcohol, ect. Even if they recommend to rest melatonin one week after three months, I used far less to sooth my diet than the recommended dose. People I talked to about melatonin say it worked too well, an insomnia cure for 12 hours no doubt, so more recently they've reduced the OTC dose to just 3 mg, not 10, and 1/10 this much and I sleep fine when I have a bit of this. And it's super cheap at this rate for a daytime dose it could be of worth. If not melatonin whatever would be most optimal to relieve the anxiety is of important to this idea. There may be many substitutes for green clay or melatonin in this method, perhaps custom fit to the problem, the person's health ect.

When dieting sometimes my question about melatonin was, how to make it so the dose wouldn't rise till I was too sleepy and then fall too low in the daytime? When too low I was drowsy and too much and I was hungry. I thought best would be inbetween, both in comfort and losing weight too, perhaps continually no sweat, how to be hungry and be unaware yet alert? Most herbs or other OTC's or pharmaceuticals have a base e dose, It peaks at first then gradually tapers off slowly in a more wide arch on the right side. This is a logarithm based on how much of it's present, if more is present it multiplies up then falls off as more is absorbed. This is all the base e is about in math.

So I wondered, how to level this out. What if we had something to sense your anxiety and if you had something like a lie detector on your wrist or perhaps even in your mouth to sense the electrical change in your nerves and sends a signal to the little melatonin hold, and the person hoping to reduce automatically gets the right amount of melatonin in a breath spray ect, and so on. This could solve the other part of the problem of reducing, of many types of problems like this.

There are other types of dieting methods that automatically reduce the pain signals, they have implants that are in the stomach to interrupt signals from the vegus nerve and overweight people lose 2/3 of their weight easily with no anxiety, and so it might seem logical to use something like acupressure and pinch the nerve between your stomach and your brain do it ourselves. If you pinch your brain caution! I looked this up in my encyclopedia without a hoot, And it turns out this nerve is of real import, like for vision, breathing and other important stuff in your physiology ect. So the only person who would change it should be a doctor. Or a surgeon if the nurse sews you up on the laugh side, and the nurse likes my insurance and uses not a suture, a zipper! The advantage of my method though is if you have any kind of stress, you automatically get the right dose of melatonin or whatever to reduce the pain or anxiety right at the most important times. This would be of worth for pain relief for ill people, and by using the reduction/anxiety relief method to stop smoking by way of the plate, the sensors, the computer bit and the clay and melatonin or ersatz, green clay would also be of worth for stopping smoking perhaps because it's good for respiratory problems especially. Tons of green clay were used to absorb the radiation of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Russia because it's absorbent of radiation. Green clay is a good detoxifier. Animals in the Amazon are not toxified by eating green clay so they aren't toxified and have a source of food out of reach of all the rest. The Indians in the high Andes actually eat clay to eat some of the foods to reduce toxins like tannins a form of alkaloid (what else?).

Although other compounds than melatonin or green clay could be used also depending as I say green clay seems a good first approximation perhaps for curing smoking at any rate because it has lots of minerals for strengthening general health, believed to be the cause of most illness which Linus Pauling believed, the Nobel Prize winning Vitamin C doctor who lived to be 90.

One wondrous thing about green clay for stopping smoking is it's good for respiratory relief, so green clay in their stall stops horses from nose woes because breathing ammonia in their stalls is cancelled by green clay and so they have more than 80% reduction in respiratory problems (good for us too if we use bleach or ammonia).

So the clay could be used for smokers perhaps with small fans combined with the melatonin by the plates and sensors. (I have fans that make smoke rings is the heat of hot weather.) This could be used for solving many types of addictions by reducing anxiety at the right time and in general. They have another type of stomach pacemaker that shakes the stomach so they lose weight also and no discomfort. But this might not be as safe and needs an operation to achieve, the plate herb and sensor method could be real cheap, just buy it OTC. It could solve many types of behavioural or substance problems and could even be used to relieve problems like debt, gambling, ect.

While clay and melatonin may be a good first approximation, I think we could tweak the herbs, e.g. ginger the cooking herb is a lot better pain reliever than aspirin, it relaxes the body 8 ways, and improves and protects the liver 7 ways, to improve absorption and other herbs might be used to tweak the method. For example for losing weight, diet is like getting a spleenectomy, and so herbs to shield the spleen or to fit the type of solution for the type of problem.

They found the virus one in 5 people who are obese actually have. They eat the same as anyone else but they gain more weight. We could think of antivirals that would stop the weight gain for these people though this wouldn't help these innocent people actually lose the weight, the herb and sensor method might be better.

They have the vaccine for mice that are addicted to heroin, and they stop eating the heroin in lab research, and they now have a vaccine for cocaine addition too. The use of dental plates by this method might be useful for curing opium addiction, and also to boost the power of the vaccines for these problems if they aren't perfect. If these were good enough methods for curing problems like this we could reduce the power of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is using opium addiction to stay in power there by way of the economics of heroin addiction. You can believe contrary to what the Taliban might say those people don't want to be addicted to heroin the rest of their lives.

By finding the optimum dose of a soothing herb like melatonin when most of worth like when the boss is yelling, or like women in research who are told their body size is too large eat 3 times as much afterward, and they've found that mice when they're asleep with a light like a TV gain twice as much weight later on. I think sound might be another diet influence. When you hear a sound like noise your blood pressure goes up for hours afterward in research even when you're asleep, so sensors that change the dose of heart stress and counteract it may save many lives. It's estimated 200,000 people die each year because of noise.. (For this I think antinoise sleep hats may be of worth since they stop the noise and thus the high blood pressure, but for substance problems the solution would be more internal.) Noise may be an influence worth considering to control obesity. Even dogs and cats put on more weight the deeper in the city and the more noise there is per se (and woof!) 50% of dogs are now overweight, they don't say fetch they say, you go fetch! (I once thought of a computer control dog power treadmill that the dog travels without biting anyone and stays cozy and calm outside, exercise on snowy days, ect). They have timed released melatonin but it wouldn't release the melatonin at the right time in the day like by the herbs and sensors. For substance control once the cure was achieved it would be a true cure because anytime after this and they try to drink booze, the clay, or other m

herb ect, would automatically cancel out the booze. No matter how much they drank they would not get more, permanently. The plate could be made tough to remove, and they wouldn't want to if the temptation was all changed to resistance and pleasure more in life. To me it seems the real reason the suicide rate of alcaholics is so high is not because they're dumb, it's because they think there's something wrong about it they want to improve a lot, right. The bite counters that measure how much you've eaten by how many times you raise your hand up to your mouth to eat, ect. are good for weight loss and long life. If she spends her life on hold she'll live to be 1000 years old!

While vaccines my be of worth for heroin or cocaine, the plates my be useful for any type of activity where it's useful to gradually reduce any kind of stressful event or substance. A constant dose of it would be administed by the plate to achieve the cure so no unpredictable swings. The vaccines may take years to develop, and the plates use existing science and can be used for obesity or other problems that this may be of worth for, though there may be vaccines here also.. And this could be used with other methods for a more complete cure. It could be useful for curing drug addiction, anxiety disorders, chronic pain, stress of other types like mental illness, smoking, and obesity, and it might be useful for behaviour like gambling or even debt.

Though alcoholics have the highest suicide rate of anyone in society, there hasn't been a new perscription for alcoholism even in 35 years. I imagine a time relatively soon when detox or obesity clinics may be changed from places of sadness, to places of salvation, charity and hope.

2011-12-15T09:34:00.000-08:00

About The Neutrino and the Speed of Light

Recent experiments by the European Organization for Nuclear Research CERN, Geneva Switzerland with 16,111 neutrinos and by measuring their speed found the speed slightly faster than the speed of light. Out of the 500 miles they went about 20 meters more than they should have. I've been saying in my belief about physics what I call GWD, General Wave Dynamics, gravity for example is lighter than light or electromagnetism, so it might travel much faster than light according to how much lighter it is. Thus the neutrino being somewhat lighter than light might move somewhat faster than light according to how much lighter it is. Even so my method of calculating the speed of the neutrino would be a bit more complex;

We imagine there's a quantum well, the well implodes and then rebounds in loops like the electric and magnetic fields for particles like the photon and electron, with reradiance caused by the resilience of the field.

There is the general union of the fields by way of the implosion of the most basic field with its conservation laws to energise up the electromagnetism with the same laws plus more, then to stronger forces with those laws and more yet. This is the hierarchy of conservation laws, and I believe they are an expression of all the fields being unified in this way.

The gravitational field of the earth has a sort of abstract version of the same general idea. At higher altitudes the air is lighter, so a projectile launched with the same force goes at higher speed. Deeper in the mass is more dense, so if we hold up a cup of water and spin it it would have a deeper well, while higher up the cup is more like a saucer, this would be the neutrino, and would travel faster than light because it's somewhat lighter than light, and this would mean all energy including light has rest mass. Einstein believed light has mass in General Relativity and it's believed the neutrino like light has zero rest mass and moves at exactly the speed of light. If the neutrino has rest mass, we slow it down like they've been able to slow light down to lower speeds, so we assume we might be able to slow the neutrino down to its lowest speed. What gives the neutrino its mass is its degree of slowness of the field. Unlike light the neutrino is much less interactive through matter. If the neutrino interacts much less strongly than light we might expect it to travel much faster than light. Adhesion of a particle thus would not be the same as the more basic field of the matter wave of the general altitude of the gravity. My grandfather would take the coffee cup and make a Lava Java cup with his hand. Einstein believed mass itself is not electromagnetic.

The saucer of the quantum well might be more important for the speed of the neutrino than the electromagnetic interaction. The neutrino has a slight magnetic moment but it's so much smaller than light's magnetic moment that we assume it's speed would be much higher than the speed of light if the moment were most important in determining the neutrino's speed. The implosion of the general fields are more important than reradiance since the field is unified so in both a literal and figurative sense the altitude or energy of the general field are the most important, like the cup of Java at higher altitude or lower energy to tune up the radiant waves of the FM star above, so wires to reach WiFi.

The lack of higher speed than much faster than light motion of the neutrino I believe may be about the more subtle distinction between resilience and entanglement. Maxwell used the density of the field to calculate the speed of light exactly without using the assumption of entanglement he didn't know what entanglement was. Entanglement seems particulate like electrons, even so resilience seems more important yet having to do with waves and the union they create. Resilience seems like the quantum well and entanglement I believe may be more about the complex subparticles within the well, low energy particles like the Higgs. The higher energy Higgs hasn't been found yet. My belief is this particle may exist, needed to unify the higher energy forces, no doubt I believe this is what would unify there. But this isn't the god particle as they call it because if they are all unified, small changes of the field are needed. Thus all the subtle non quantum events in subatomic physics I believe may be unified by a low energy particle like Einstein used to get around the Uncertainty Principle. He asked, "Do you really believe the moon isn't up there when you don't look up to see it?" All around are examples of measuring particles being of another general energy than what's measured like this, so I agree there's no reason there wouldn't be a low energy particle like Einstein believed also. "Einstein's particle" would be the god particle I believe, this is why they haven't found the high energy Higgs, because it won't unify all the fields. A super heavy Higgs couldn't make the tiny often high speed changes in the mass of the waves seen. One problem with renormalization where the heavy mass is cancelled out by a light mass at short distance, allowing only results of the huge mass seen at long range is about renormalization also being needed to cancel not just electric charge, it's also used to cancel mass itself. QED is the most accurate physics ever seen except for General Relativity. We know the charge and mass of the electron to 50 decimal places based on the assumption of renormalization and this includes the negative mass, which would seem to cause huge gravity shielding. A possible way out might be that gravity is lower energy and while the mass is indeed superheavy at short range, the gravity would just interact with the low energy outside bubble of each mass, flowing in the lower energy space between each particle so shielding would not be caused by renormalization. More probable may be the energy of the mass and negative mass are never infinite because the measuring particle needs to be infinite in energy to make the assumed infinite mass itself, so renorm is only assuming what it's trying to prove. The super sharp resolution of renorm would only be acting as if the infinities exist when there is no infinite physics lab or physicist who can give the electron infinite mass or charge. But no infinite electron would also mean no super heavy Higgs acting like a super light particle. The electron acts light because it's light.

If the general resilience of the field is more important than entanglement, how entanglement might take place by the mechanism I outline on this page. The lower energy particles combine when they entangle, you move them apart and they continue to resonate by way of the lower energy field, also much faster than light as Einstein believed in the EPR. The particles are unified a signal determined by the initial configuration of the low energy particles. Entanglement being about more complex (nonlinear) particle spin isn't as important as general resilience, because waves being more important to hold all the fields together, ect.

Experiments show that though entanglement is quite common, the effect is weak and much smaller than the more common waves of physics. This is why I believe the adhesion of the neutrino by the more complex process of entanglement is not as general to determine its speed in GWD compared to resilience.

As I say on my site about My Three General Principles of Physics

the field must always implode more than reradiate or we would have long since fizzed out to lower density over infinite time of energy neither being created or destroyed. Only if the more basic field of gravity implodes more than reradiates can we be here so the waves are more important for the entanglement of the particles.

Another problem the idea of a saucer type quanta for the neutrino may solve is about how the neutrino changes its mass while travelling.

The neutrino was first found based on all the physics unified. When they first found the beta decay there was some missing mass, and the prediction of the neutrino by energy was a triumph of physics, ect. How the neutrino changes it's mass seems rather wild. Perhaps at higher energy like the rest of subatomic physics relativity and Emc2 are unified while for the neutrino at more reach, it actually changes its mass. I believe gravity like the neutrino may be continually changing mass winding up the cosmos. Einstein believed the electron was continuous in mass and would gain mass in a gravitational field with time. Experiments found older electrons weigh as much as when new. This I explain by the extra energy of gravity. Like a spring in a flow of water, the spring stretches and then no more. There has to be extra flow to hold the earth together so this would implode and reradiate. If there wasn't extra field it would radiate out so gravity would have to disprove energy conservation at least some for the world to unify, ect.

If gravity has changes in extra angular momentum this is one reason I believe it violates relativity by Emc2, this would always be about a direct and simple connection between mass and energy by way of the quanta. More mass, more spin. Gravity and the neutrino would have lower energy quanta (perhaps of entangled particles to some level of foundation) where the fluid could more easily flow in and out.

Click Here for my Physics Synopsis. Gravity would be like a superfluid compared to the quanta and flow at another wavelength than the quanta mostly so at much higher speed without so much interaction like two antennas at different wavelengths not resonating, this gravity like on star trek might mostly suddenly change phase and the problems about infinity of relativity would be uncommon for the physics of gravity here.

This would be how the neutrino could change its mass while in travel, the cup flows over and like gravity it could change its mass in time. You may say the earth is not changing its mass by gravity. But the neutrinos like the gravity could because they are "nonquanta" when considered alone, with mass flow in and out while the limits of quanta are constant with time. Even so at short distances and high energy the neutrino would be like relativity by way of more stability of its well.

My belief is if the quanta are like a dish at low energy this would be evidence that relativity with Emc2 is not as general as the equation Maxwell used to predict the speed of light, essentially F=ma.

No doubt the experiments with the neutrino are not completely well established, even so its possible the neutrino really is at the speed of light, and this might be because the tiny electric field of the neutrino really is important to determine the speed but this would seem highly coincidental.

There are those who will say relativity can't be disproven because of backward time travel of FTL and "imaginary mass" but these are not "predictions of relativity" only guesses by people other than Einstein as I say on this page about the logic of Faster than Light and why time travel may uncommon for FTL other than the general reversal of time of gravity mostly reversed in entropy, imploding inward and speeding up in general while electromagnetism would slow down as radiant. A mass in orbit is not travelling in rewind of time even so.
"Imaginary mass" this seems to merely be antimatter already predicted by relativity as Dirac tried to combine Special Relativity with quantum mechanics.

As I say on this link there should be as much antimatter as matter if both QM and SR are true, and since this is not seen, either QM or SR must be wrong, and I believe it would be Special Relativity not the more general QM that may fail. Einstein believed in both particles and waves for QM but only particles for SR because this was logical "by wave of" constant particles uninfluenced from emission to absorption of light at the constant speed measured, 186,282 miles per second. If I were to "choose one to fail" QM seems more general of the two both waves and particles not just particles and much more complex too, with hundreds of particles not predicted by Einstein, as if for me physics reality in bloom all around! Though this is just a possibility for now, the experiment seems interesting, and I make several hopeful predictions in hopes of extending SR, eg. about the speed of gravity.

If the fractional charges of QCD are lighter than light, perhaps they may also go perhaps a third faster than light too as I say here.

The neutrino if having a slightly different wavelength and this would correspond to a slightly different speed. The neutrino may violate Relativity's Emc2 and this may relate to the graviton that may be of near energy to the neutrino. there's the speed of acceleration of 32 feet and as you fall in the Earth's gravitational field you're in the rest frame of a sort of bubble and since there's no force acting in your rest frame as you fall,, if there are particles there exerting pressure you would feel different pressure with different speeds. When you're at rest the particles would be exerting force on all your particles as the measured force. This might be because all the bubbles unify and when at rest there is deeper penetration of the spaces between the bubbles as work is done of the field all the particles would change radius of operation ect. a fundamental measure of work done is change of radius, as in the Earth's field if you stay at the same altitude the gravity is the same. To change radius is much more labor than to stay level, ect.

As I say above about renormalization, this may be a way the gravity may be strong without shielding if inside the bubbles, and radii may change in the most fundamental way for gravity by interaction at lower energy on the outside of each bubble. Gravity would get in the general area and not have to be that precise, not that strong to have a real influence. A higher energy field could be much higher speed in order to overcome its own entropy so it attracts with reversal of entropy not found in the other forces. This is why bubbles may be a method to explain force in acceleration at 32 ft fall and at rest. Even so the field may be flowing at the speed of about 32 ft per second and this may be why the gravitons may have a mass near to the neutrino and this would be why the matter wave field of subatomic physics is easy to measure and find, if it's made of gravitons, perhaps the same as Einstein's low energy Higgs.

The quanta are definite and relate spin and mass well. Even so I believe gravity may speed up in the presence of mass. Light slows down here, and gravity is an acceleration, so "to conserve energy" in a loose sense like e.g. Einstein's gravitational and inertial equivalence (which actually isn't except in a loose general way or you would weigh as much at the pole as in the tropics while what you won on Wheel of Fortune is business!) gravity would speed up to conserve power here too.

If the neutrino is of different mass than light we might put them in a tube and apply the same gravitational force at right angles to both and let them go at their natural speeds which they will by F=ma. If the neutrino changes it's mass its speed is changed and this might change it's angle according to the speed.

If as in the CERN experiment the neutrino is changed just 1% compared to the speed of light, there would also be just 1% of the bending compared to the light.
If the energy changes by relativity the change in speed won't be about the change in mass, because mass and energy are equivalent in SR. Apply the same force and the neutrino would move at the same speed.

In the experiment with the bending of light and the neutrino, we might use an ultracentrifuge of billions of g's to bend them both outward, If gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent this could be possible, even so my own experiments with this "mass induction" at much lower energy have turned out without a result. This would seem to allow disproof of relativity here too, thus perhaps faster than light. My belief is that this may be seen at billions of higher g's so relativity may be loosely true for gravity because F=ma though mostly nonquanta and continuous without the constant c in Emc2. Even so as I say here induction of mass seems possible and as I say on this link about my experiments we might find both faster than light and even antigravity both by allowing the light to bend somewhat but not the degree Einstein believed by the more elaborate way I describe via perhaps the centrifuge as for lift like in a summer circus wheel.

Gravity is an acceleration and if it actually creates it's own acceleration by being wavelike and has internal nonlinear changes (as an acceleration is a curve) gravitons would accelerate by being mostly wavelike changing both frequency and speed if the opposite of relativity since gravity accelerates us down in the earth's gravity and the inertial forces like of the speed of light being heavier would be slower and linear as in the uniform motion of SR, ect. Light in SR is constant in speed and wavelength from outside by what is seen, but in GWD gravity seems to change both its speed and wavelength. and this would be achieved by the waves being more important in general than particles since they could create their own internal (not so superficial) force. The mechanism for gravity might be because of the high fluidity of a more wavelike field with lower energy quanta a change in the wavelength might create a change in the speed and this would then perhaps create a change in the acceleration, and so on in loops. Gravity is an acceleration with an orbit that is nonlinear, a loop. As I say the loop would depend on the lower energy of the quanta so the field flows like a superfluid as some have thought.

If the neutrino shares this with gravitons, I believe it might also act somewhat like a graviton; the graviton accelerates under the field under it's own power. Thus the neutrino might change its speed somewhat more than conservation of energy might allow in the gravity of the earth. Relativity is about the quanta because the speed of light was determined by Maxwell according to the resilience of the field (waves like in General Wave Dynamics). The constant electric charges that generate the resilient media are quanta, so the speed of light is constant too. Though the field in SR would have a tendancy to accelerate foreward as all bodies in motion tend to have, the quanta would resist the change for a balance between the acceleration and inertia. With gravity the quanta don't resist so much and the acceleration wins out. If the neutrino is more like the graviton than light, it too might have extra acceleration not predicted by SR, essentially a law of complete energy conservation. The speed of light is contant, the quanta are constant, and no work is ever done in uniform motion. More to the point, acceleration and uniform motion become completely the same in relativity, so a linear line of motion and an acceleration become one, a contradiction. This would imply that there would be as much matter as antimatter, and truth and false would be the same. Thus it may be interesting to compare measures of neutrino speed at changes in distance through the gravity of the Earth, ect.

If neutrinos are somewhat like gravitons, we might be able to find out more about gravity and if the gravitons are low speed.

Van Flandern believed gravitons might be much faster than light, and Newton, Maxwell, and many others considered a particulate way of gravity. I had been oscillating between two possibilities super high speed particles, much faster because they are much lighter since gravity is much lighter too. The other way was of gravity waves that are much faster than gravity and the much splower particles at just perhaps the usual 32 ft of the Earth's field. I considered much slower gravitons to be of worth because the force dissappears in free fall and than reappears at rest. This seemed logical enough because the particles are moving beside you when you fall so no force is felt, and then it restarts when the particles would move by you at the usual rate. One problem is if there are slow particles they must be heavy in general. The changes in mass in subatomic physics e.g. the mass of heavy particles are much smaller than heavy motes would be. Where are the heavy particles? We would find them in all the reactions seen. Thus I have believed in not heavy slow particles, rather faster lighter particles to create the same force. Gravity is much lighter, so the particles might move much faster. Thus while we may find more about gravity by way of the neutrino, other methods may be needed to see the gravity waves or the gravitons..Recent IP involves using neucleons to generate gravity waves. And I envision other possible machines as on this page. The problem I consider on the page is that gravity is low energy yet it must reliably connect up all the other forces for energy conservation to generally be true, so it must have some way of connecting between low energy gravity and higher energy forces. This would seem to need an intermediate field, and the problem is it would often have to be near in energy to particles like light. Where are these heavy "lighter" particles? As I say above about acceleration in a free fall, all the force dissappears here, so it's not impossible that the lower energy field interacts here with just the bubble. Inside the bubble there is no force, even though outside it the force is being applied, a relatively strong force, the acceleration of gravity. I believe the bubble itself is made of the familiar matter waves of QED. As when you have the mass moments of two bodies spinning like two masses on the ends of a beam, the distance from the heavy mass to the center of balance and the light mass to the same center are =. If the mass changes so does the center of mass, and so this field which isn't gravity changes in a regular predictable high energy way. This would be the bubble in free fall and the much higher speed gravitons would flow around the outside of these bubbles exerting the force. By interacting indirectly, the problem of no force in the common free fall would be solved for much higher speed gravitons. If they are higher speed there would be motion past the person in fall, exerting force there too. So I believe in the higher speed gravitons like Einstein's low energy particles because we haven't found them yet, and also because of the low energy of gravity, low energy would mean higher speed. Higher speed would have the force bubble problem of acceleration at 32 ft. So matter wave mass bubbles as in QED around all matter that would then be accelerated by the much higher speed low energy field would be the mechanism of gravity. The lower energy gravitational flow of the field would change at much faster rates to align and overpower the thermodynamic entropy, because gravity is the opposite of relativity. (the earth is more at rest than the moon and the sun is more at rest than the earth). If the low energy wave particle field couldn't change real fast the particles it contains couldn't do this. Heavy particles would be too slow. So gravity as we know has a more inderect influence on mass lumping it into worlds or other bodies. After all union is oneness. Heavy particles would create quantum changes not seen. If heavy particles were the intermediate gravity would be particulate, and thus nonlinear. Waves attract in union, particles radiate by disconnection unlike gravity.

2011-11-08T09:31:00.000-08:00

How We Might Calculate the Probability life Might Exist on Other Worlds Like Mars, Jupiter's Moons Europa, Ganymede, Or Even the Moon of Saturn Named Enceladus

It's believed life may be possible on any of these four bodies, and it's possible life could exist on Jupiter like worlds, a possibility Carl Sagan considers in his book Cosmos (Einstein said the secret to creativity is to hide your sources, how would he hide the cosmos?). Sagan considers there may be life like the sinkers and the floaters, the floaters a kind of herbivores and the sinkers more mobile and try to stab the floaters and harvest the chemicals like methane found in the atmosphere of Jupiter. I think the problem here is that life needs a surface as they have found in the interstellar frequency of life chemicals like sugars needed for life, these chemicals are only found on bodies like asteroids that have a surface. It's believed by many Jupiter has no surface though my belief is it has a slush surface below the top so the Great Red Spot has a permanent foundation in order to explain it's permanence. Sagan's other idea that the spot is a permanent tropical storm seems improbable to me because a tropical storm is a bubble of heat that rises and fizzes out. With all the extra heat of Jupiter the storm would dissipate in just hours not even the days of a tropical storm of more prosaic realms nearby on Earth. My explanation is that the GRS may be the crater of a large impactor, and that more permanent the interruption of the field lines may even be the cause of the ice ages since the much larger field of Jupiter could be modulated to control the sun. (All the astronomical explanations of the ice ages need cycles and being astronomical they would be permanent, cycling in and out indefinitely. If there were a few impactor events in the history of Jupiter and the Earth, this might explain most of the major glacial epics in general, with non glacial periods of great duration between Jupiter impactors like the GRS to damp the field when there would then be astronomical oscillations of the cooler Earth. Milankovitch's explanation doesn't have this general advantage which might even lead to general weather control , as I say on this page).

Though I thus believe Jupiter may have a slush surface I speak of a surface for life in more general chemical sense. I once in my teens had the idea that life might exist on the surface of some stars that had the oscillation of fields like the solar cycles in the 11.2 year solar flux (by the way this is quite near the 11 year cycle of Jupiter's orbit. This seems obvious but earlier researchers discounted the Jupiter influence because the cycle is not an exact fit and, with many cycles Jupiter would be ruled out. My reply here is that while Jupiter's orbit is indeed not 11.2 years, the satellite Io creates a huge torus of sulphur around Jupiter at an angle and the precession here is more fitting to fit the period of the solar cycles, the sulphur is highly magnetic (this was how the ancient Greek philosopher Thales discovered electricity by the spark of amber.) The magnetic field of Io thus could thus influence and modulate Jupiter's great field of 100 Gauss, modulating the solar field of just .5 Gauss which then might cause the ice ages e.g in the Permian or archeozoic, otherwise the sun's field of just half a Gauss wouldn't be strong enough even to much influence itself, ect. The 11 year solar cycles would be constant (trees have 11 year cycles of the rings they evolved to, even so the general cool weather would only be caused by an impactor like perhaps the GRS impactor, and the sun never burns too hot for life in the much longer interglacial times in history so I think we can all rest at ease about global warming as I say on my Weather Control page, ect. )

In my teens I thought of the possibility of life on stars with the oscillations of the fields because life needs the oscillation of flow, sort of like how life may have evolved in tidal pools with the cycling in and out nutrients of the tides. Though like most teens I was in great need of a win then so though I thought of this, actually a sort of modern version of Sir Issac Newton's I later realized that the mere flux of the field was not the same as general chemical stability, a sort of small realm where life also has a surface to compute. Stars and presumably Jupiter type worlds wouldn't have this because of the general chemical instability of the constant updrafts of too many chemicals shearing the stability of the evolution of the life before it could evolve. We read that the winds of Jupiter are only like 100 mph and a Cessna would not feel too bad if sailing if and out of these storms so it might seem that Sagan's idea is possible at least for some Jupiter type worlds. I tend to rule life out for Jupiter itself because of the strong chemical influence life would have on Jupiter's atmosphere, as Sagan says, 99% of the air was created by life, oxygen. We might assume life on Jupiter like worlds would be eternally held down by the constant updrafts of the caustic chemicals, but to believe life was always on the defensive and unable to win seems unlike like in evolution, or in a shortened form of this, no life is probable there or on most Jupiter like worlds. Sagan doesn't consider it as more than a possibility, and though good for hope for creative science, I tend to discount Sagan about this. My conclusion is that Jupiter like worlds with life may have a special chemical signature, and Jupiter seems to not have it though other worlds like Jupiter might. There's methane, but the methane seems undigested by the burp of small cells or higher life. Where's all the computation?

My question is as I say, how might we calculate the possibility of life on other worlds. It's well known life has to have the 5 elements of earth Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus and, Sulphur, or the old exercise motif named CHINOPS, (Cheops is not in the afterlife now!). How is it we know this, we know because life can't exist without these elements, so this seems like a vehicle, and the are certain things we have to have for it to run, it has to have to run, it needs gasoline, it has to have wheels (though this may not be that essential, jet powered squids have jet propulsion. We could say the wheel was invented in evolution because each tiny atom is wheel, so life invented the wheel or discovered it we might say.) If we have a car the van has to have some source of power, steering and brakes. And so too with life what can't life do without, much as we might as what life can't do without or with. Even so we could say cars in their basic sense have a lot of problems and we could say in a basic sense it's the same going in a Rolls Royce or a Volkswagen, more than 3/4 either way, or uphill both ways is good for exercise! Travel is travel, zone A to zone B. I would add that the other elements in life beyond the basic ones add the change, the change that makes it like the insurance company says we need to thrive not just survive, after all insurance is about the living and life. And if we say that life must change more chemicals in life than just the basics are better. Without more than just the basic compounds of CHNOPS life couldn't evolve as fast or as well. An abundance of more than just the basic chemicals would be of more value particularly because of without more elements than the basic five the life would be sort of rigid and so more self limiting. Creating life may be more necessary than evolving it because to evolve it needs to have a foundation.

And if it's evolving life needs liquid water. And if it has to have liquid water it needs moderate heat, not just light since life is found deeper underground away powered by heat. Life needs water, heat and a surface. Almost all the oceans life lives near the shore. And 75% of the world's people live near the shore, lacustrene to the max, the big stream is the ocean. (Lacustrene means pertaining to lakes and oceans.). Not lacustrene, like a stream., if we have the waves and weather fronts flowing (they actually found this under the oceans). The fish are all or moist near the shore, the ocean is like a vast desert of water, water water all around and not a drop, of sand. (In ancient times all they had was the hourglass and sundial for a watch.) I believe life evolved in small tidal pools, where the most life is found in research for ease of study, where most types of life are found at once. The tide comes in, the pool fills up and all these types of life are there. We can imagine this happened over millions of years of life, it has a source of water, a resource of nutrients and a source of change, to start the evolution of life or at any rate more advanced life if it's believed by many life was originally sulphur based like near vents, these could have been near pools too. They're searching for life in the vast system of lakes and rivers under Antarctica, like the liquid ice in lake Vostok, one of the largest freshwater lakes by volume in the world, liquid water under the ice by pressure. They are trying to find in life in lake Vostok to see would be what life might be like in the presumed ocean beneath worlds like Europa and Ganymede, oceans of liquid water presumed there by the low mass and high volume of these worlds. If you have liquid water and a source of water and a tide to slosh it around, perhaps the radiation of Jupiter is keeping that water liquid, then we have both perhaps nutrients because presumably the water is sloshing the minerals around, and the heat or whatever of the tidal flexing, this is why it's thought by some it's possible there's life on Europa, and that since there's a liquid fountain of water seen from Saturn's moon Enceladus, it's as though life might be there. Even so if this was common over geologic time, all the water would be lost outward and so for life to exist inside enceladus there must have been no fountain of water from then to now. Thus either no process to create the fountain or a near time in geology of the fountain would be needed for life inside Enceladus.

Mars might have life, since the old days and much Rand D of those like Shaparelli, and there was intelligence on one side of the telescope and we know which side and he knew which was which as Sagan notes in Cosmos..

Titan is the large moon of Saturn with the methane oceans, like life. Titan I tend to rule out because though it has the oceans of methane, one of the building blocks of life, Titan has the problem that though it has methane it hasn't got the rest of the building blocks. This has to be life under pressure if there is life there it must be able to change relative to the extremes of the other chemicals. If life evolved on earth on the surface and much more rarely lives in the deep this (benthic) life under pressure is improbable by way of our own experience. Action reaction pairs of each chemical reaction like plus and minus charges would have to be both more extreme to withstand the pressure and yet balanced to allow change. Life on Earth favors large numbers of smaller changes in evolution and even down to the atomic level, metals are not life's need or greatest hit! High voltage with it's high pressure under balance on a power wire so a chipmunk can walk without shock with no external connection, or living under ocean pressure in balance is indeed relative, but pressure is pressure, voltage is voltage, and chemical ionization in the extreme is not presumably better for life. (Indeed this is one of my lines of objection to relativity itself. Relative balance of force may allow no change in the speed of light so no labor is in the universe. If all is in balance in inertial frames, there is no change. Only with gravity added in is there a "real" more nonrelativistic picture, the Earth is more at rest than the moon, and the sun more than the Earth in the nonrelativity of gravity. Click here for more about my method to hopefully add more to Special Relativity, General Wave Dynamics;)

If Europa has the ocean of liquid water, some would say the heat for that ocean is coming from the radiation from Jupiter but this has the problem that the radiation has to go through the ice on the surface, which shows enough melting to have lots of craters, the heat would have to go through the ice and they would have melted, ruling out this possibility some have conjured of the inner radiance powering life there leaving either the possibility the ocean is liquid only by tidal heat, and this would rule out life on the surface of Europa too because the radiation is so intense, the cosmic rays. If life exists inside worlds like Europa or Ganymede or even Enceladus presumably it would create oxygen and the oxygen being lighter than the water would seep out through the top of the ice and over time we would expect the size of the ocean would contract and we would expect to see signs of this in the outer ice layer of Europa via contractions of the ice. This is one of the main reasons I don't believe in the possibility of life inside Europa, the craters are ancient enough to show signs of life. Another problem with evolution of life in Europa or Ganymede is there is no surface other than the interface of the water and ice for life to evolve, and ice isn't conducive to life, it's too slow for life to have started evolution, not much of a surface because a surface under water. The first land life on earth was what are called stromatolites, slushy sort of sponges that lived near the shore by fossils the oldest kind of land life, they just got there in the marshes, they didn't evolve underwater, they evolved in the tidal pools the interface of the land and the water. The beach is a good place, we like to got to the beach in the summer because it so rich in life, thus we would say life needs a good place to evolve and needs a good surface. This is why we may find life under the south pole or deeper as they are finding perhaps in lake Vostok, my belief is that life first evolved in easier places to evolved and then it added it's reach to healthier and special realms. These more extreme biomes evolution wouldn't have been able to adapt to in the start of evolution. E.g. prions viriods or viruses were not original to evolution. It's believed larger life evolved first, then the smaller life. This would be like the history of machines, we started out with big simple machines and now we are building smaller machines. So to say life on Mars would be like the least life on Earth, lake Vostok I believe is not a valid argument that doesn't follow from the premise. To say conditions are like on Mars and that life exists here under those conditions is not to say life may have ever existed on Mars under those conditions, sure life exists in extremes, but like a small business' mere 20 percent survival rate means to start life in even moderate extreme conditions may be much more improbable than extending it once it starts. Mostly my objections to life elsewhere in the solar system are about temperature and chemical extremes and the need for moderation in evolution to start life, many types of foods in moderation were the perscription for life for ancient Greeks like Hippocrates.

For life to have existed on Mars the best bet would have been in the oceans where we see evidence for erosion in the river valleys and the craters. The giant river valley Valles Marineres, "valley of the mariners" is seen. If we have the water flowing around the craters by the science of stratigraphy (from the word for "strata or layer") we could put a limit on the last time liquid water was flowing on Mars. Craters after liquid water would have no erosion. Note that in the following where I argue for a shallow ocean of mostly iron there's evidence this was of short duration and shallow because we see many craters only partially worn away.

The last erosion by water of the craters seems to put a limit on the last time that liquid water flowed on Mars. Later times had no liquid water because they would have eroded the craters more than just some over many millions of years. But the Valles Marineres took a certain amount of time to form, so before it started to form we presume there was no liquid water either, or at least that we could extend the time of liquid water from the last water flow via stratigraphy back to the time of the formation of the Valles Marineris. Or I would say if there was lots of liquid water before Vallis Marineris why wasn't it formed before then. We can therefore say when the last water flowed and then extend the reach back to the formation of this canyon, but no further would this degree of liquid water have existed.

The Vallis Marineris is 7 times the length of the grand canyon so it might seem it would have taken much longer to have formed than the Earth's own grand canyon, but the grand canyon is actually quite young, a few million years, even though the rocks that make it up are wiser and wiser like me or just my celebration! I believe the Vallis Marineris may have formed rapidly because if you look at the erosion patterns, the tributaries have a sharper dropoff than streams on Earth have Mars has two general zones, a Northern lowland and a S highland, both mostly plains. If the Vallis Marineris was formed over lots of time there would be more elaborate systems of tributaries seen, there are just the plains above and then the water seems to just fall over the side and into the Vallis Marineris and no inbetween. I believe the original crust of the highlands was therefore chemically different from the highlands because of long weathering before that. The Southern plains were sort of solidly welded together but once the water reaches the Vallis Marineris, and reaches the water of the highlands there would be chemical erosion. I think the Vallis Marineris may have been formed in just a few million years. If it were formed slowly there would have been more elaborate channels and meander patterns like we see on older rivers of Earth. When there is a system of drainage by long evolution anywhere the streams meet, the elevation and erosion of both rivers is much the same. But there are fewer rapid dropoffs except by reduced times of erosion. I believe the patterns of the Vallis Marineris show something like corrosion by acid, or perhaps by rusting and oxidation of the rocks of the N by the oxygen in the ancient air and water of Mars. some have wondered where all the water came from to begin with, the answer might be as on the Earth most of the water comes from steam of volcanoes. So Olympus Mons the largest volcanic construct in the solar system is right ahead of the Vallis Marineris, it starts where the Olympus Mons is. Thus we have a real steam from Olympus Mons and it flows right into the Vallis Marineris. This might lead to a rather large ocean in the N hemisphere of Mars. And it might simplify the chemistry of Mars. The high energy reaction of the oxidation of the formation of the Vallis Marineris would have created a sort of uniform chemistry of Mars. This is why and how all of Mars has iron everywhere, a planetwide layer of iron.

If you have the surface covered with this lake and just for two million years, this is a far shorter time than the billion or so from the formation to the evolution of life on the Earth. And all five of the chemicals of life aren't in abundance, there's just one ocean. So we think of the ocean as a sort of artificial iron ocean. And unlike the oceans of the Earth the ocean of Mars didn't have constant tides each day, to inflow nutrients and compute to higher and higher life with each cycle. About the surface area, life needs a lot of surface area to start. Of you want a good life search for a lot of life so the saying goes. The more chances to start life the more probable it will evolve. This is why on Europa with no surface area much compared to the Earth this wouldn't be more improbable for evolution of life.

If you go under the earth the temperature goes up 100 ft per degree. The gravity is weaker on Mars no doubt but there is pressure and though the water is liquid on the surface I think it may be possible there could be liquid water deeper down. The ground water might start to seep and move. Even though water moves a foot in 100 years here, it does flow so we could imagine the water would gradually seep through the rocks and start to flow. Perhaps it would flow and form channels and rivers and larger lakes like lake Vostock.. If the pools start to form we imagine a sort of hydrological cycle, that would be necessary for life to exist, but like a hydrological cycle at the least there isn't so much water. We might imagine a sort of system of life on Mars with a hydrological cycle underground. And because the gravity is lower the realm of habitable zone would be larger than the Earth's where there's heat nearer us. We imagine steam vents from these realms, and they may be possible and I think they are worth looking for. Most of the pressure on Mars would be the cause of heat not radioactivity, they find the asteroids are actually warm and in radiation. The inner pressure may thus be common to most heavanly bodies. And since no steam is seen if there are underground realms on Mars like this there is only the alternate source of water flow, the evaporation and condensation of the water for flow. If in high school science if you take a jug of water and put it on the shelf and let it evaporate, sure enough it does, not with steam we might imagine the water would trickle up and rise and this would be a way to complete the hydrological cycle. We might not have steam but the water would trickle up as it was heated, it could flow on all the roofs and back to the river channels. I have my doubts about this because in any event it would be much slower than the flow like around geothermal vents of our oceans. Remember the lack of steam vents seen puts a limit on the heat output of the pressure of Mars and thus a limit on the heat in the possible underground system if it exists. The main problem here wouldn't be lack of minerals beause the water would circulate minerals since after the shroud of iron water the other rocks reemerged by erosion, just that it would be so slow the life wouldn't have enough change. Another problem would be lower air pressure that would perhaps leak out and stop the cycle, even so with the large volume thess realms could be in due to the lower gravity and not just a narrow zone like on Earth where the pressure and temperature are too high there could be sealed off realms where life has evolved.

We may be able to calculate based on considerations like these, the actual probability of the evolution of life. It's been known now we can actually calculate how fast viruses are evolving and by doing all the possible options in iteration the virus has, we can find out how long it takes to solve the given problem we have and stay ahead of the virus by developing drugs that give us more power in time than the virus has. This is essentially like a computer, we evolve, and the virus, one computer against the other. And the same would be for life. The virus has a certain amount of computing it's a small amount but it is a computer. We can imagine the matter of life itself in tidal pools or wherever as having a certain amount of resources. It's known by some in the field of computers that any computer given enough time can solve any problem and smaller computers take more time to solve problems than bigger computers. We think of the matter on Mars as breathing the life, this was why they thought there was a false result on the experiments to see if there was life on Mars. The clay acts a lot like life and has respiration as if life had incorporated the processes of the clay into its own physiology. it's the incorporation of natural processes like these that may have started the evolution of life.

If we know all the chemicals in the tidal pool, and the tide comes in and out, we know the surface area they have, we know all the components they have we not what's necessary to be there and the advantage of having light, and so on then we may do the same thing we do with the viruses. The computing power is there, we know the resources, so we can know how long it would take for those compounds to be more, alert! And I think this method might be of worth to find out the probability of life on other worlds and whether there would life on what world. If we can calculate the probability of life by these types of equations combinted with lab work we really might not have to send expensive machines to many realms. I think there will be no life on the surface of Mars anywhere. And to calculate beforehand we may save a lot on research. And we could understand our own life better. Another possibility is to try to build self assembling machines out of the same chemicals as life may have evolved from.

To calculate what a virus does with its resources might not be nearly as valuable as what we could do with ours.

I don't believe the there was any life on Mars was of such short duration of liquid water even if there are those underground circulating rivers and stuff, the flow of water would be so slow just by evaporation and condensation, life wouldn't be able to have started.

While I don't care if there are bacteria on other worlds there are those who say thank goodness our dog is finally getting enough cheeze.

Even so we might send a probe to Europa and drop a heated probe with a heated wire down to the ocean of water. And just for the celebration of life we might see if there is any life there.

Use of the equations and as in artificial life we might improve the Drake Equation to know which Earthlike or other world to do the most research on.

For instance the Earthlike worlds with a coast with tides and most Earthlike worlds with a smaller coastline wouldn't have the advantage of computation to create the life, and for this reason I think worlds with both tides and especially if the coastlines when the life might have evolved are most extensive would have the most probability of life.

It's thought that the best move may be to find the chemicals of life in vitro, but by using these methods we might find the solutions with a mainframe, the beach of the world.
..

2011-10-26T10:20:00.000-07:00

Are Cybersecurity Problems a Mirage?

Remember word processors? Memos are great! Scott Borg in what I think is an amazing article because of a simple omission he may seems unaware of says malware is what he calls a "cybersecurity nightmare." To quote,

"The world of cybersecurity is is starting to resemble a spy thriller. Shadowy figures plant 'malicious software' on our computers. They slip it into emails. They transmit it over the Internet. They infect us with it through corrupted Web sites. They plant it in other programs. they design it to migrate from device to device-laptops, flash drives, smartphones, servers, iPods, gaming consoles, copy machines-until it's inside our critical systems. As even the most isolated systems periodically need new instructions, new data, or some kind of maintanence, any system can be infected."

He then goes on to list sabotage problems like planes crashing, trains colliding, health machines failing, banks being discredited, poison drinking water and so on. Then he continues with what we can know about malware to stop it, e.g. we can't read the code right before our ears with my vision how, right?

We can't find it in hiding because of many places the machine can't read the code, the code to check the bad code may already be tainted, and so on.. Sharing is alright if health not illness. Hope you recieve a card from Blue Cross, says Hope You Feel Rich By This Month! If you go to the doctor and she Says, the Opthamologist will see you now, your eyes are brown and you see right...

My simple question about malware is;

Why weren't there the same problems in the old days, say with the security of the banks or the power wires, my old word processor or when mom calls? (Thanks mom each Mom's day each time you call me..)

The answer could be in simplicity only up to the point where you couldn't know if you win or lose, (If you don't know how you know what you know, you lose more than otherwise"). Consider the three ways computers send code in the second paragraph; instructions, data, or some sort of maintenance. The "wiser" machines of "older tymes" had much more of the data sent, not "instructions or maintenance". People did all the machine operation and maintenance with stuff like business agreements and hand shakes. The wires were secure, the copy machines were secure because there wasn't all the extra add on nonlinear stuff between the machines that can't be known so well. I always thought it was so idiot about the slow upgrades I would see taking up hours of my time, by surprise. Why do I need these, to go in the library and read, or to send a letter was simple and no problem in the old days. This is why I say the middle of the three, of instructions, data and maintenance is too complex. My solution would be to stop the codes for data by converting it to analog first and sending it high speed, then the machine reads it much like an older letter by an onsite sensor, ect. Edison imagined the wires of his Ma Bell machine to be used to send automated letters. A Letter is a letter and if you ask me and doesn't have to be a number so much. This method using microfilm to store the web sites once edited would simplify the process of sending documents like memos, all one simple type of machine. And it's secure. This would solve the problem of tainted malware web pages. There are mechanical computers that are much faster and more energy saving by far than electronic machines. I was a bit too aware like mom the journalist when we found we couldn't buy a simple word processor anymore in the old days. It was simple without all the idiot complications of a PC.

Once data was more sound, like a great library, the question of instructions or maintenance might be solved by just doing without. We didn't need them then or now or we certainly need a way to adapt to the need to change so the foundation is sounder. I was a musician for years to no avail, I tried many ways to remember and be good. Finally 25 years later I got wise 10 years ago then and realized slower but surer is more the merrier, evolution takes time, and knowing what you get is also how the chess machines win. If you make a move where it understands the payoff it will chose to make a move where it understands the payoff over moves where it doesn't know, this is wiser and how it would win. As I listen to my better older songs I found that if I would improvise so for any one mistake I did it three times the the more sound way, even if I was unaware of exactly what I got, it was more and more evolving, a sort of Bayesian method used by many computers. Loose lips sink ships, so even if this makes a great song using both the method of improvement by question and answer "like science" for the song and then memorizing by saying the words of what I wanted to remember in each loop of the rep won by the science method to set boundaries and structure on my improvisations won by the three out of four method also, this method is not the same as for something like a cheap war machine or where a person's life is at risk if harm was so.

Because slower but surer is more like the old days. What about the "modem wars" you may ask? The modem wars are where the army is being attacked millions of times, faster than humans can think via modems. If the US stopped all the codes by the above it would take a while to convert all the machines to a complete system without code between any of them. This is a step that would slow our machines a bit but the malware problem would be solved. As we are vulnerable due top the web, any nation that's without a secure system is too. Thus while it would take awhile to convert out the code we would be more able in war not less if we do. If other nations didn't also convert, we might lose some business, and it would cost more for the machines. I think this is like the middle ages, if they had a castle and it was secure, though not a complete luxury like the web often is here, it would make it so we could make it to the more advanced methods if we realize here we may pay a lot more if we allow the codes than if we don't. This would involve much the same method as ye old word processor, careful checks by simple more reliable machines we know we can trust, no demons or dungeons, the older ways were best. Decartes would say in the old days, I think therefore I am, (they spelled wrong on his 400 year commemorative stamp in the Old World www.) The idea here is simplicity of our machines is predictable, but only up to a certain level, if the machines are always below this level of complexity, we would win more than without. This also relates to the problem of the complexity of the business of making chips has gotten so international bad characters can sometimes put hardware in that may cause problems months or years later, or why not not at all? If all our machines are with our own ways to solve like the royal days, and the code can't be sent, all shall be well, hope so.

The hardware problem could be solved by standardizing the the chips by one common type of chip so there's no hardware where bad code could hide. I think a good solution might be the IP of molecular crossbar chips. These are a simple mesh of wires with a bit where each wire meets. This is a real simple chip to make. Some might object to the lower speeds this type of chip has even if cheap to make. A solution here that's been invented might be to perhaps use a particle as a bit where the wire meets and as it rotates around in mostly continuous space it would store the angle well. Each small bit has three components; a write component, the particle that moves at libitum, a brake on the particle by another to store the angle, and a read component that only would read the brake, which itself doesn't much give way when being read. Since space unlike a quanta is continuous, and the field that is stored or changed is much more precise than a quantum, even one of these by storing the angle could store perhaps an 80,000 bit number. And it's nonlinear so even two of these small bits could store 80,000x 80,000 times as much as a base two chip. This would be super low power in consumption and high in efficiency, and super fast. So the standard chip would be of value even if simple.

About the code, there three levels, the top level is the general method of using prime numbers to agree to the transaction. This level is probably secure because it's based on the well known idea that it takes much more number crunching and division to factor out a code than it does to multiply up two numbers and create the code, the standard method of cryptography currently used. It's based on the ancient science of number theory, and since it involves both division and multiplication, it also involves addition and subtraction, and new operations other than these four operations are not likely to be found. If it were not mostly sound the web would have long since crashed.

The third level is just the binary ones and zeroes the machines encode from the prime numbers for ease of making simple chips.

The second level, however is where the problem seems to be after all a number is just a number without giving instructions to a machine. This is why even a single number out of place can down a machine. The machine can't understand if it's under attack, it's mostly a robot per se.

At the dawn of the internet we would hear of the wonders of all computers speaking the same language. Actually this isn't a language yet, rather just a series of instructions, leading to my thought about the code; how is it we understand when we speak and we know the other person isn't trying to hit us (booses are the exception, hint boss don't read this). The answer is that we share a language with rules of grammar and vocabulary, ect. This isn't just code we always accept without hopes for more. To say computers always speak a common language seems like saying a copy machine is reading and understands the volume. And here may be an important solution or improvement to the problem of bad code.

If we reedit the code and make it like a real language with steps like we speak in sentences, in two part components, noun verb found in all languages, with rules of grammar for each step, the machine could perhaps know what's allowed or to be stopped. In essence, the noun verb would always be about physical power just as in brain research any change in ideas has a change in physiology in parallel, ect. Another form of the noun verb might be a question and answer sort of like Plato's method of dialogs. (Why are you doing this? Like a claim and proof in rhetoric, a thought the straight line and the punch line in comedy, a setup a bluff and a move in the NCAA, or the idea of Noether's that all there is can be classified by what changes and what stays the same, important to physics and the foundations of math.). If the computer doesn't agree to the claim it could stop just that claim and save the rest, leading to much reduction of computer idiocy.

My mom the English professor says, speak and say well, real well, not real good. You look up the definitions of usage and, like who cares, there is no standard usage just a hope of marms to control the language that never has won or would hope to win. With computers on the other hand her utopia might be seen! The machines might not fail if all definitions are set at the outset. This is essentially what we didn't achieve when the codes of the second level were founded. Like the synapses being much more in area than just neurons like other life, making the code a real language might be both much more reliable and economical about efficiency than no codes as in the above. The only problem here may also about standard use since presumably there might be more worth in evolving the language just as with real language, e.g. because of per se economy to make cheap machines. Even so I believe redefinition of the web by this method may save it from malware.

I've defined the three levels of the code, as with the "simple language".the possibility of higher levels of the code; this would be like a spy who sends a letter to another with code words or letters embedded in the usual sentence. However if the letter is only read at the middle level and no higher because the machine reading the letter by what it knows is well proven, no bad code would be involved. This would be like a third person like me reading the spy letter who would, say, Well Duh! No doubt the machine might call the boss so the higher code is stopped, even so real language might well stop malware.
..

2011-10-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

Problems and Solutions About "Linked Pages"

A Comic "Rate Schedule" on a sign I read;

Answers 1$

Answers That Require Thought 2$

Right Answers 3$

Dumb Looks Are Free

Tim Berners Lee was the founder of the internet in 1989. On Christmas day almost 1990 so the story goes he had the first web page and one computer this was the size of the internet then, high speed, is all there was and will be, or whatever.

Tim is up to his tricks yet more, yes! His hope is for "linked pages" where you type in and get an actual answer not based on just popularity of the site like Google, rather Tim offers the example of some type of enzyme that solves a problem in GE or DNA and you type in Google and you find nothing, but type in the linked pages and you get 8 possible compounds that could be the answer more definitely, all of them solve the problem by offering a solution that is more directly about the problem. This could be of huge worth, e.g. much better for millions seeking health solutions, it might literally save millions of lives and billions of dollars. Linked Pages may be a solution, now if I type in Linked Pages When will they Be Available, you get not much, but with Linked Pages You Would. While High speed is a relief for web woes studies show so many people are so frustrated with their computers this may also be a real improvement for most people who want to use the web more efficiently, me!

THE PROBLEM;

As with the "rate schedule" we can find answers, but how do we know if the answers are true? This could cause problems, for example each year thousands of doctors, lawyers, and pizza hut fans are slandered, don't know why, and their business is harmed. Like you know, that site for the defence of these persons, reputation.com, a site devoted just to holding on to their business against these people who slander them on the web, ect.

If there is this possibility with linked that literally anyone could just go online and type in any lie they like, and then anyone else asks about them like a background check by potential employer, and they find all the answers, and they are all lies.

SOLUTIONS

Though this is bad and though I believe linked pages are better than not, I think there may be ways to find the truth;

One would be to seperate on the search engine the linked pages from the popularity pages. This has the problem that 90% of the books published when there were actual volumes were nonfiction, that is problem solving, and so most people would seem to pass the popularity pages and go right to the linked pages, thus another strategy might be best...

In the ancient art of rhetoric there is a discussion and when often inevitably if not moreso there is a dispute sometimes, there are two ways to resolve it, not Tim Berners Lee typing in 200 million pages typing out is of more worth! The two ways are to either ask an expert or for the person making the claim in dispute to improve it and resubmit for consideration, then if it's not accepted, to either ask another expert or improve some more, resubmit, ect.

For web pages to know the truth, using the popularity of sites may be one way to insure that most people have already agreed that the page is improved for consideration, and the other way is to ask an expert, i.e. authority sites like wikipedia for science, and sites like WEB Md. for medical stuff. This would be based on a more complex ranking system, the best of both linked pages and popularity.
..

2011-10-13T10:39:00.000-07:00

Why Do Galaxies Spin as a Solid Body?

Hubble thought that the types of galaxies called giant ellipticals (a round oval!) are in transition to the spirals or barred spirals. In this scenario the newer galaxies are with the quasars and then they lose power and settle down to a disc with many small spirals. Over time these could evolve to fewer spiral arms of more size somehow. Later research disproved this simple evolution scheme. Because the spiral arms don't actually form in the ellipticals having too little dust for more star formation. Ellipticals have quasars and the other types of spirals don't, so it would seem the lower energy spirals are without the quasar continually and from the start the more massive galaxies are massive and the lower power galaxies are influenced by lower mass from the start.

Perhaps the quasars are so radiant of dust they move all the dust away and though the mass is great, fewer new stars may form, unlike with spiral galaxies that continue to form new stars from the dust.

The problem of solid rotation is common to all types of galaxies and so is the problem that they all spin faster than the centrifugal force allows and they should explode.

It's been assumed there is the missing mass of dark matter that's holding the galaxies together or that perhaps gravity is just stronger at greater distances than usual. If you look at the spiral galaxies before they are old we see the wheel of solid light and around the outside are smaller streamers, these then accrue and got to more and more massive dust arms with regular spacing. These small arms seem to be what will be the larger arms by consolidation. The cause of the streamers and the consolidation of the arms I believe may be black holes and also why all the galaxies spin as a solid body and too fast.

A Possible Mechanism of the Creation of Black Hole Jets

We could well assume the jets are just a carryover from the same physics of dense stars and other superdense magnetic fields. There would be problems with standard relativistic physics here because the escape velocity is so high if nothing can move faster than light no jet can reradiate and the jets seen are often hugely energizing. A simple explanation of a barred spiral is just that the jet is so massive it makes the galaxy spin as a solid body because like a solid line of mass well unified the jet is so strong the rotation is faster. This is where the solid rotation of other galaxies might also arise; if you look at the dust lanes of spiral galaxies they might seem to be low energy bars by a rounder looser continuation of this method. Thus the spirals are connected more loosely but they still have enough inner attraction to spin both as a solid body and also faster than they would if not held together by the more massive cohesion of the smaller black holes. This would be how the spin is unified; the arms are ploughing through the field with stronger cohesion and the resistance to the somewhat less resilient solidity than the more massive jets of barred spirals makes the spiral, this is why the spiral arms always lead and never trail the motion of the spin. When the galaxies are older an odd number of lanes is allowed because there are an odd number of central black holes not yet merged, if there were just massive poles there would always be even numbers of lanes. Ultimately this idea predicts that later in the evolution there would tend to be more even poles.

HOW Do THE JETS MOVE FASTER THAN LIGHT, And What Other Physics Might Be Involved?

Stephen Hawking used the idea of the field being so dense near the event horizon of black holes that virtual particle antiparticle pairs are created, some fall in because of more mass, others radiate out because of more energy leaving the black hole with an ever dwindling mass. Somehow with time this causes more and more evaporation leading to the explosion of these small black holes, e.g. left over from the big bang. I think if a black hole was losing mass by this it would have less and less gravity to make more radiation and so there would be no exploding black holes, Hawking Radiation has already been well proven with strong fields in the lab. If Hawking had looked at supermassive bodies then known he would see no radiation out of the event horizon and the jets would of be disproof of his other idea that all the matter and information that falls into a black hole is lost.

The mechanism he used, though not his own discovery and though not a quantum theory of gravity as hailed by the press in those days, can still be useful to physics perhaps. After all while knowledge of how common matter interacts with gravity is not a quantum theory of gravity either this was the basis of Newton's improvements in physics and perhaps I think some of relativity and gravity. I think of super massive fields as ionizing machines perhaps by a method like Hawking's. Inside the event horizon there would be great tidal forces and this could lead to creation of particle and antiparticles pairs like via Hawking's idea. This not only creates lots of particles, it also seperates them fast and thus perhaps causes lots of charge seperation, then unified to the poles. This could be much the same as the physics of more common stars like pulsars but with the twist that the gravity is almost strong enough to completely overcome the quanta, that is, for a lower power star there's a certain delay that takes time to connect, a real measure of inefficiency. Thus gravity beyond a certain point might have more ions created. There would be many more leptons than heavy particles at inside the event horizon because having less mass more can be more easily caused via creation. Deeper in heavier particles would also be created, these however have lots of inward radiation pressure keeping the tidal force from causing separation unlike the lepton in free fall with acceleration at a richer worth above. This heavier area of compression can't stand up to the gravity by any known force yet here. T'Hooft and I agree there is no proof of destruction of mass energy and I believe there is here a fifth and reaction sixth force by Newton's Third Law inside massive fields, this would explain why the jets have unusual spectra not seen in the accelerators and also of course the source of the jets, cannot be fusion. One important thing to look for in the particle accelerators might be the fifth and sixth force to explain these anomalies and unify the earth and heaven as in old Christmas celebrations, old celebrations all month! Perhaps the results from the LHC are involved. Though there are no long range forces to be seen other than gravity and electromagnetism, more force at close range might have something like the unexplained bonding of the heavy particles recently seen by the LHC. By the energy of the jets we may then find these elusive particles though presumably not stable. (As we go from lower higher mass in common physics beyond the leptons all the particles have generally shorter and shorter life times for more mass, so more massive forces may not be stable except under extreme gravity. They would mostly radiate out with super power only via gravity, and probably not be useful for bombs because if there is no stability except for short times there is no fuel like U238 nearby.).

As I believe, perhaps the jets need faster than light relative motion to reradiate out of the black hole's speed of light inward motion of the field. Feynman believed faster than light signals were the only way to explain black hole cause by unifying the outside with the inside or indeed energy conservation would have the energy be destroyed falling in. I agree with Van Flandern and no doubt Einstein's own idea of the EPR, a faster than light connection. See upper left of my page Physics Synopsis for my reasons why I believe gravity and the EPR may be Faster Than Light.

Note that the polar gravity of a star is stronger than elsewhere so the inward acceleration is even greater at the polar outflow even than inward at the disc and if it's already at the speed of light there, just using something like the "antigravity" of the polar magnetic field is not enough to make the inward acceleration less than the speed of light inward since the gravity is stronger there no weaker. thus the jets have no way out without faster than light.

If we have a bucket and try to lift it in the Earth's field we don't need to lift it faster than 32 feet per second to escape the earth. So too it might seem that we wouldn't even need to have the field of the jets move at near the speed of light to exit the black hole. A less dense field of gravity would perhaps give way to more pressure of the leptons. We do need a way to lift the bucket and this would be a wire of faster than the speed of the earth's field however. Thus the only way for the jet to connect I believe would not be the common electromagnetic field, rather the familiar matter wave field Feynmann, the Quantum Man, found in the foundation, he seemed to realize well that there was a need for the field connection of massive fields via Faster than Light. Thus there would be the basic tidal force to create lots of leptons, then separated by the magnetic jets an outlet for the field. After separation the particles would be drawn apart and inward to the poles by the magnetic force that causes cohesion of most, and beyond a certain point as the charges rise they would perhaps start to repel mostly and also attract and this would draw more charges up by a sort of induction. It wouldn't just be the gravity that powers black holes rather this upward attraction from the poles would allow radiance to rise. If there were no outlet there would be nowhere for the leptons to go and the process would stop. If there were mostly leptons in the main motion of the jets, they being lighter for this too to rise even in strong fields more heavy particles would stay nearer the center. None of this would violate lepton number or baryon number, or ect. At lower energy like common black holes of i.e. 10 solar mass no superfusion would take place, while at high enough densities, as in barred spirals the lights would turn on and higher power for more density. The source of much of the power other than the process of the lepton reradiance of the jets would be just the gravity converting the field to leptons by this mechanism somewhat like Hawking Radiation inside the event horizon. This would be why the huge jets of some realms are seen without any disc to fuel the machine. Indeed the implosion of the field could be a sort of dark matter as I say in the two posts below. The dark matter particles would flow in at lower power and then become the leptons. The question of why the implosion of gravitons here would only give half the increase of mass over time as astronomers observed compared to predictions of the way of this motif I believe may be refined to merely say that the gravity has to always win and thus that the electric reradiance of the poles in only half the gravitational implosion is mostly coincidence, there are few numbers that aren't vast or huge in any kind of connection between forces in subatomic physics like this. It seems there always has to be inward radiance by gravity and then reradiance, but the gravity will always win or there would be stuff like gravity shielding. Sooner or later with increases in astronomy power and the field, there would be nearer levels of gravity with the electromagnetism. (This is what's interesting about the LHC finding of the anamalous union of the higher energy force. It might be near enough the density of the field of a neutron star or a black hole to be near the 5th and 6th force.) Even so if we add more mass like for more massive black holes, like Hawking who agrees with Einstein I believe, more mass would increase more with time. E.g. the older galaxies are thousands of times more massive than young galaxies with no visible way often seen to increase the mass if the field itself was the cause of ion power, this could then unify the spiral arms of the galaxies. The outflow would be highly ionized and attraction the would make the galaxies solid and make them spin fast, and so on. We might expect to see zones of North and South leptons, in the center of each zone is the black hole. The ion outflow attracts the stars. You might ask if the electric charge is so much stronger than gravity in ions, why don't the black holes move together, actually they do to form the larger arms later, even so the interstellar distances may be so large it takes a long time, and most of the ions may combine outside with other ions to neutralize much of the attraction. Most star systems are binaries and so most black holes bound to the star would have twice as much force to move it nearer to other black holes.

The same process of cohesion would be in elliptical galaxies, except they would have more random angles as jumbled up by the quasar, this would be why they're round while other massive systems are not, i.e. superclusters ould be more oval because they have more random angles of the jets of each member of the system.
..

2011-10-03T09:09:00.000-07:00

Mass If Shieldable By "Renormalization" Why No Eclipse Shielding?

Renormalization, the most accurate physical theory ever devised (until recently when the pulsar slowing rate predicted by General Relativity was proven by eclipses) is not complete. Initially there was the problem that the loops of the field by the Uncertainty Principle seem to get stronger with reduced distance, to zero distance when the mass would be infinite. This was then solved by finding the opposite component of the field and subtraction allows a finite residue, with the right mass and charge of the electron, not infinite. While this is no problem for the electric charge since it shields anyway, The mass itself would otherwise be infinite, so renorm works by assuming mass can be cancelled. The problem here is this is also a form of shielding and gravity doesn't shield. (The inertia of the electron seems no problem because inertia as in GR has no source and is internal.) The mass however would be huge and if it could be subtracted and it would seem to shield like in eclipses. I think of the friction as a sort of antigravity, the tides of the moon are a short range result of the mass of the electron or other particles, and this makes the moon slowly spiral out. Or more exactly the shielding of the electric charges by the renorm. If we can shield gravity by way of the electric charges why not gravity itself? Something otherwise is with gravity. In the next post I consider the evidence for an intermediate energy field aurora around each mass neither as dense as the electric field or as strong as the mass field of gravity. This would be important to dark matter, ect. Here may be the solution to the problem of gravity and renorm. If gravity would interact directly with the mass of most subatomic motes it would have to be at their wavelength and so a particle and so it would not only be not gravity and much more massive, it would also already shield. However if each particle and mass has an aurora it has higher volume and the volume itself would be lower energy more like gravity, gravity lite. Only locally is the mass huge and only the subtacted value is seen. Even so some of the gravity waves would hit the actual masses even if just the small actual zone of the electron and so at super high densitys like the eclipses of black holes we might see some slowdown via the shielding. Though possible this would be tough to find because a singularity is not great and the distances are vast somewhat.

The mechanism of the field would seem to need reversed entropy so gravity winds up the cosmos so it would seem to have wound down over infinite time of energy neither being created or destroyed, you might say entropy is not a change in the energy of the cosmos just a rearrangement of it. But high energy physics like quanta is mostly conservation of information and if all the matter was rerraranged into a cosmic fizz this would essentially violate energy conservation. If the low energy interaction of the gravity waves with the more nonwaved but still mosly wavelike components of each halo, the entropy would be easier to generally overpower, gravity imploding not reradiant so much (except at the lower energy as Einstein thought to conserve field momentum. If the earth was imploding only, it would gain two earth masses a second. The lower energy reradiant field wouldn't exert as much force as the higher energy fields so we don't fall of the earth.). Thus gravity unlike the other forces seems to be a sort of one way valve for force and the force it would exert is by overpowering the entropy. Particles alone couldn't acheive this because the are disconnected so the field would be mostly wavelike and this would be continuous attraction. In order to directly impact a renormalized zone gravity would need to be a dense particle so it would be by definition non implosive, a contradiction, so the halo would explain the low energy modus of operation. Each mass has the field, which would interact with the lower energy waves and the waves don't mostly have to be particles for the field to find out each zone of mass and unify it. The entropy reversing is easier to achieve via waves than particles because they are continuous, even though some particle force is needed for general discontuity like the heavier particles and to explain why when you fall there's no force in your rest frame. The particles flowing along with you are in mostly discontinuous connection and exert pressure once you are at rest on the roof by their motion of just 32 feet/second.

I believe no doubt experiments are being done to find the Higgs'even so Hawking's idea that there is no unified field probable I disagree with. Imagine a city where we have all these roads and steps and bridges and other definite ways to reach the other side by travel, taxicab geometry lives! The city and ways to reach are set and we might say each special road and zone is basically disconnected from the other side; we can't ever reach the other side without obeying all the signs and no faster than light travel is allowed as far as trains and stations and old old watches are involved. If the connections are not obvious we might say the street is unchangable and so all we will find is not a unified field ect.; rather we find just a set of mosaics that are disconected, loosely connected and not unified. Imagine a low energy Higgs' like Einstein's low energy particle he used to get around the Uncertainty Principle. If this is a fundamental particle with which to build the city, you have a new block and new streets, a whole new world of states of matter and perhaps the constants are changed and explained. All the fundamental reality is proven or controlled. I truly believe in one field because energy conservation is well proven for all physics, this is a good reason to believe Hawking is wrong here. He's good to popularize science though I think he's wrong in this event.

Some believe in many Higgs' and I believe the two main things the Higgs' are predicted to be used for are in contradiction. A higher energy Higgs' may be used to unify electromagnetism well as is needed to "make the muon weigh" but the claim that it can also be used to be the fundamental source of mass seems contradictory. High mass and low mass are not the same. Thus the prediction of the high energy Higgs' like the LHC may not itself be the low energy mass particle. There are many masses of subatomic particles and it would take a lower energy wavelike Higgs' to not cause a huge quantum jump of the masses as measured, in other words, the graviton, the particle who be Higgs'.

It could be argued that renorm could be used to make the Higgs' have low mass externally while the higher mass just for the heavier fields but if there were a much huger number of the heavy particles, each small bit of shielding by the gravity could cause delay in eclipses not seen. A smaller number of noneclipsing particles would be easier to explain no eclipsing yet found compared to more with more huge surface area, ect.

More about The Low Energy Particle; Recent Experiments

(Link to site about the twisting light experiment).

2011-09-26T09:25:00.000-07:00

Evidence for Dark Matter In Common Physics

Recent astronomy has found that dark mattr not only exists, it also helps explain why the milky way has a warp caused by smaller dwarf galaxies. These dwarf galaxies act as much stronger sources of gravity than the visible mass, and it's inferred the otherwise unexplained missing dwarf galaxies the milky way should have like other galaxies. The milky way is much larger than most galaxies (I didn't know till I found out!"). The visable light from the missing dwarf galaxies is much smaller than the mass seen.

Dark matter seems common, and calculations with particles like gravitons account for most of the extra gravity, but not all. In my belief, the rest of the extra strength of the gravity if from the almost completely wavelike nature of the lower energy field. Although particles can explain why we feel no force when in free fall in the Earth's gravity because the particles are moving along with us and they are particles, when we are at rest after the fall the particles also then exert the pressure of gravity. I hold that the lightness of gravity would mean it was much faster, explaining such features as the two sides the universe has as found by the recent low energy maps of the universe, if there are large scale regular structures of the cosmos, there are just the two long range forces known gravity and electromagnetism, and light is too slow. Other problems as Van Flandern believed like no displacement of gravity of the Earth toward the sun like light has, as if gravity is much faster than light could be because gravity is lighter than light so faster than light. Click the link on the upper left for my Synopsis.

I believe dark matter (gravity) has two components a wavelike much faster field that unifies the other physics because waves are in union, not particles, that only radiate, not being in connection by waves otherwise!

But as we might expect if gravity is universal and all the other forces are waves and particles too, gravity must have a particulate component, or at least somewhat particulate to be the cause of the other particles it might energise up to.

About The Clepsydra

The clepsydra is an ancient device that has worth in our knowlege of gravity. The word is from grab or "clamp" water "hydra", and other uses of the clamp word are like in French where if you eat spinach, they say, "Ah la cledwah! Ah lah cledwah!" Eat with your hands! Without this method is thought bad in France! Not via your spoon. The clepsydra was used in ancient times to move water from the barrel to the jug. It has two parts, a hollow sphere at the bottom with small holes there and the sphere connected at the top to a narrow hollow tube by welding. To move the water the user only had to grab the tube which was welded brass to the sphere without his thumb over the top, then insert the sphere into the water. the water flows in the sphere. The user puts his thumb over the tube sealing the connection, and then lifts the water from the barrel to the cup or jug. But what's holding the water up when you lift it from the barrel to the cup? Einstein believed there was nothing there. But nothing has no ability to exert attractive force. And strong attractive force is needed here to lift the heavy mass of the water! Nothing has nothing. If there is a somewhat massive field here we can conclude in order to exert the force it must be mostly wavelike to exert the continuous attraction. Another observation here is that if you remove your hand from the top the water flows down. There must be a signal sent through the field. If you don't move your hand there is no change, if you do there is. Third, this isn't gravity, because the flow of gravity is inward to the earth. The field connecting the water and your hand isn't flowing downward like the gravity, if so the water would fall at the usual 32 feet per second.

If we take two masses say 2lb and 5 and balance them on a boom either l shaped or linear, we notice the usual point of the center of rotation if we spin them up and around in the air is also by science like Archimedes principles of the lever, more mass has the distance to the center of spin moved to it according to the distance, mass times distance to the center of both masses is the same. This seems to imply a field that is compressed by the mass is present also in attraction. Here too it can't be gravity because if the boom is removed, the masses don't spin around each other when we toss them up, gravity is just for like the Earth and moon, ect.

I believe this means that although gravity is an attraction there is also a higher energy "aurora" around all masses and this may be important to how gravity operates. A single particle has a weak field of gravity. If gravity was compressed to the size of the particle to act it would have the same or near wavelength and thus the same mass and energy and there would be no gravity. But the aurora would be an intermediate field. I had wondered how gravity seems to have reversed entropy from the other forces. It winds up continuously in implosion and the other forces radiate out in disconnection. I was wondering if gravity might do this by aligning its particles so fast it would overcome the radiant tendencies of its own particles, aligning them and winding them up before they had time to radiate, even though the particles as above are needed to explain part of how gravity might cause no force in your rest frame as your fall, and to explain particles in general.

There are those who hope to save relativity from the inconvenient observation of the galaxies moving away from us on both sides by the expansion of the cosmos. They are moving faster than light and this is saved by the use of empty space. To "create more space" for storage rooms and other business we presume, or for good intent to physics perhaps by those who say this, this superluminary motion is believed to be explained by the empty space being created out of nothing and being nothing. There is nothing there so nothing relative to which to move so there is no relative motion of the galaxys we see at faster than light. I certainly would hold that there is no way the light can move faster than light. My question is about gravity. Where there is gravity strong enough to influence like superclusters are the galaxys on both sides under the influence of faster than light gravity. Observations may sooner or later prove or disprove this, my ideas about what I call General Wave Dynamics, GWD.

If we have the particles around each mass and they are so low energy they more easly resonate with the waves to overcome the entropy, they also may solve the problem of the gravitational sling. If there are all these particles around the Earth and gravity operates by implosion of the particles to the sun, calculations show that by the friction of the particles the earth would fall into the sun in just a few million years. A mostly wavelike aura around the Earth could change phase more easily to overpower the entropy. The atmosphere of particles was invoked by Galileo to explain why if you throw a stone upward it falls radially inward to the earth. The atmosphere is at rest relative our motion with it.

Another problem with the particles is about motion through the field in special relativity, why no friction as we plough through the field slowing us down? The ability to overcome most of the friction by the same kind of entropy reversing reaction allows for all but the inertia for which I follow Maxwell's method of the balance of the two forces of the electric charges being proportional to the speed of light. The speed of light here is constant because in GWD the quanta of the charges are creating the density of the resilient media that's frozen in for constant frames of motion but that is always present and seen in acceleration when pressure on the field is exerted by rocket motors, ect. Note that the two forces in balance of the charges can be any two forces in general, and if the force is much smaller like gravity, the force might be much faster than light. If there are all these virtual particles, not mostly waves as some have believed there would be huge resistance to motion and no way to overcome the entropy by the more wavelike though still somewhat particulate lower energy physics of GWD.
..

2011-09-16T07:46:00.000-07:00

POSSIBLE METHODS OF STEERING HURRICANES...

Away from land we presume...saving lives, because they now say the risk of hurricanes hitting cities like New York where more people have moved would cause four times the damage of a hurricane like Katrina and New Orleans. Other cities are also at risk. Experts say it's not a question of if but when this type of disaster will happen.

It's well known that friction by the land changes the paths of hurricanes. Often as the hurricanes spin near the shore they "bounce off" or other changes in the general motion takes place. Bill Gates has tried to develop boats that have giant refrigerators on the deck to hope to cool the water on the side and thus perhaps move the hurricane reliably.

In the N hemisphere in the Atlantic the amount of dust in the air changes the number and intensity of hurricanes, so I had considered the possibility of dropping or adding dust to one side of the hurricane, or even finding a source of cheap aimable dust by using a laser, ect to move a small asteroid then using it's gravity as it whizzes by a larger one or ect. to move the asteroid into the path of where we might want the dust as it would burn up by way of the asteroid entering the air. Even though this is creative of me there are several problems; it would take a long time to move the asteroids, we might have to move a lot of them, other nations might object to possible military use of this method, and it would be polluting. Even so the more basic plan of just adding dust might be cheaper than refrigerator ships, it's already proven to work the question is how much dust could we afford or need to add, and how would we add it, to what side of the storm, what type, ect.

A third method that I may be the original author of (though I'm not sure, I may have arrived at this independently by confluence of evolution and invention) is to use an iceberg from the arctic after breaking off a piece with explosives or saws for more stability perhaps and then moving the iceberg to the hurricane or perhaps storing it in insulation nearer the tropics in a harbor or offshore somehow, collecting the freshwater like for the desert while waiting to the storms to start. Once the storm was near, the iceberg could be moved toward the storm and the reaction force as the iceberg would implode to the center might be used to steer the storm (the air implodes to the center and then rises; tropical storms are a sort of heat engine they cleanse and cool the tropic by about 30 degrees. For some reason I don't know tropical storms occur in all the tropical oceans of the world except the S Atlantic, perhaps heat rises "up" North.) Once the iceberg is in the center it will plug up the eye of the storm, theoretically having some or no effect. Did you know the burner on a stove is also called the eye? I found out when I got a new one for 50! Ouch, burns real good though! The iceberg might cool the storm and also stop the flow of the air perhaps "throwing a wrench" in the way the storm acts, as a heat engine.

A problem might be the high cost of bringing an iceberg from the N (but where would we find the giant jug of Coca Cola Orange ?). Another problem is about the relatively small kick the implosion of the iceberg for just a few hours would give, then it would stay in the center, thus the "wrench" would perhaps be the main value here because this method would have more stopping advantage than steering, although the advantage of both might be much better than nothing. The winds might be changed but because the zone of high winds often reaches out for 150 miles. Some of the largest icebergs ever calved in Antarctica are about the size of RI, the ocean state, or about 100 miles narrow. Moving them might take giant barges, and the slow travel would have more melting, at higher price yet. Strong wind might actually eat up the iceberg and this part of the plan might be off.

All the hurricane steering plans could be practiced in places like the S pacific with cyclones, with few people nearby.

There is a patent on a machine that uses ships that they describe in the IP as using a giant water spray to the side of the eye once inside in hopes of "side steering" the hurricane. The amount of water needed would be voluminous. I thought of using nuclear powered submarines to also generate pressure on the water with propellers in hopes of steering the storm by both the spray and pressure from the more solid water below (this is why your pipes squeak, water is considered to an incompressible solid by physicists a room temperature). The physics of wave motion are rather like a wave, a 10 foot wave reaches about 10 feet above and below the surface of the water and there's not much wave motion below that. Thus a submarine might be in easier reach of the center of the storm without risk to the crew. (The top speeds near the center of storm are not well known since not even most anerometers can be strong enough to withstand the winds. Huger machines like ships are more at risk per se.).

These methods have both advantages and disadvantages, but the disadvantages seem considerable, not so inconsiderable when the scale of the machines and methods and cost needed to achieve control with. Small disadvantages in large engineering have larger cost, an important consideration here too.

Another method has been devised, two submarines robot or manned, are used instead of one, both with large propellers or propulsion to exert large pressure on the water. The twin machines are connected by a large line or hawser. Both machines are between a large turbine that spins about the center of the line which is held tight by the two machines. The top of the turbine is above the water held up by a machine with bouyancy. The two submarines or boats that hold the hawser are moving the line at right angles to the general rotation of the winds, exerting friction and force to hopefully steer the storm. The advantage perhaps here is the greater leverage a longer lever arm has over just central force like the ships with jets. As with new pliers they have that take less grip to do more power, an easier lever arm exerts more force with the same input, more control for less.

The turbine generates power in this idea by its friction with the storm to power the propellers of the submarines, saving cost, and adding control. In the center are strong forces in balance, but balance is not always easy to change without more leverage.

Another method that's been devised recently is to use a large "sailboat" that has a long and low profile. The wind by the sail causes a reaction force, the sailboat has a weighted keel for stability is held up by bouyancy via two floats on either side. Motors below exert pressure on the sail by the water. Due to high wind speeds the sail might not have to be of height, reducing risk of wind damage. Even so the surface area of the long sail would be enough to steer the storm by air pressure.

Initially my plan was to use the known evidence that friction with the land changes the paths of hurricanes to make large fins near the shore to hope to steer the storm. The problem is there's no way to know where the storm will hit so large numbers of the giant fins would have to be built at large price and it would not be beautious even so the fins nearer shore might be good for wind power all the rest of the time when not used for control of the storms. I'm a painter and I once dreamed of a cool retro fan with streamers as you look up the E coast, the storm is to the lower right, and the upper right has all the cool airships and two winged planes sailing between the layers of blue air and precise clouds blended in with like NY, ect. Perhaps someday like the musicians typewriter, the dream of just blowing the storms back out to sea with fans might one day come true. Even so to build high enough fans to withstand the wind might be unfeasible, and this isn't using the leverage of the two submarine turbine method which would also allow more portable control so the storm is never near the land.
..

2011-09-07T10:59:00.000-07:00

Methods of Stopping Pirates, And Inventors Hopes for Higher Values

The pirates in Somalia have limits because of low tech methods the ships in travel use like lookouts and faster travel through the gulf. No doubt in the long term the solving more of the problems of the people involved would be a better solution, because they are desperate due to overcrowding leading to reduction of resources like water. For more about overcrowding and solutions possible, click here for my site Evolution Overpopulation and its Historic Influence. The Russians are promoting the possibility of a NE passage to bypass the pirates and I think this could be improved with a high speed bridge in the N hemisphere by new science, a possible sort of super NE and NW passage at once for the future. Another plan is to use lasers that can sense the pirate ships from a distance, and if they are too close, the beam blinds the pirates for two or three hours. I wonder if this plan won't work because they could just wear reflective sunglasses.

Another plan devised for on the ship is large pepper jugs on the sides of the ship, to spray the pirates if they attempt to board the ship, sort of like mace. I think this also is incomplete because the pirates could still shoot at the people on the ship and board the ship. They have like 500 hostages, and a two for one sail on hostages!

Another invention is a shield system, using sensors on the ship to find bullets and so "skeets" are launched almost parallel with the ship high and low to stop bullets in the side. Each bullet even from machine guns would be stopped. A more advanced system might use skeets that return under power so fewer of them are used, or even skeets with exploding or electric armor in each skeet if reusable so cheaper. These could use also use gyroscopes to shield and for guidance.

Why Hi Rises Don't Have to Be a Fortress To Stop Risk of Airliner Collision

The Empire State Building was hit by an airplane in the 1920's but was adamant because in those days the hi rise buildings like the Empire State Building were built with brick and stronger materials than the WTC towers. Even so the WTC tower builders weren't dumb and they built the towers to withstand the then common 707 but not the larger 747s. Current planes are 80% larger than this. Now it seems as more supertalls are being built just this year than in all the times before the need for a relatively cheap method to defend these towers may be better. Though we can't build them of superstronger materials than they already are or rebuild them of piles of money, an inventor has devised a system that uses the ancient gladiator trick of nets. The net or nets are stored in a motorized ring a few stories above the ground. Sensors sense when a possible collision is at risk, and if the plane is too close, the nets are launched, held stable as they travel by rockets, Hopefully the nets slow and stop the plane, or more exactly they would move the plane to the side to always miss all the buildings, and then the computer actuated rockets at the top lift and move the plane to land. This system might be used to stop any type of plane including accidental colission like the Empire.

NEWS And Comments

Reader's Digest Health says they have a band-aid in a bottle. You spray blue goop in a cut. And it dries transparent and peels off after it's healed. I say great! Great!! When the spray on umbrella..

Cheese has fat salt and cholesterol. Milk has none of this stuff. You might say milk is the best "whey" to get your cheese.

The new invention is the bite counter, you wear like a wrist watch and it counts each bite as you lift your arm, ect. This is like ladyfingers! Or KFC in china has the slogan, "Eat Your Fingers Off" instead of Finger Lick'n Good.

Why is it of worth to tap your bottle of water? Because tap water is cleaner than bottled water!

I like to drink reservoir brand bottled water, it's 10,000 percent more luxurious. The value is just the same.

Americans now spend only more on Christmas than on haloween. My favorite haloween presents cost so much I must yell a lot!

Did you know there's actually an American Sanitary Plumbing Museum in Worchester Mass? With this they're never in the outhouse!

And there's the Beercan Museum in Boston, an actual museum. You go and stare at all the booze while unaware.
..

2011-08-29T08:58:00.000-07:00

Slowing Supergerms; Why Evolution Is Worth Respect..

Or Why Teaching New Dogs Old, More Soothing Ways To Rest May Be Our Best Defence

Although supergerms have been with us for billions of years, we are breeding resistance with new drugs, so each time we kill most of the germs a few are left that can resist, returning in stronger power the next time around. Including sharing and swapping chromosomes in a truly woeful way. The supergerms may soon knock out hospitals and be in our food since the last of our antibiotics are failing. This may be worse than the plague, indeed plague germs are being held at bay by antibiotics.Those who say knowlege of evolution has no value may be influenced soon by this drama as it plays out. Some say this is only evidence of artificial selection and not evidence for mutation, but the examples of artifical selection like this are what led Darwin to believe the same general forces of mutation and selection could explain the evolution of life on earth over geologic time. There is mutation with each generation at "high speed" or there would be no new changes to select out. Our knowledge of evolution is important to the equations used to calculate the rate of mutations of viruses to know exactly how much power we need to outcompute them with drugs that either overpower them or to know our best defence. Details..

I had thought of this in a sort of like the wild at first, I thought, you know, if you're out in the wild for millions of years and there are these "wolves", wolves are the germs. If we build a fire of immunity or drugs, to keep the wolves at bay we also may burn ourselves, the fire has to burn the germs inside us, while not burning us. To simply build the fire of our immune system up often isn't an option because often the immune system in patients we want to help is not initially strong to save lives and health ect. We can train our own dogs of immune boost to be stronger than the wolves, and the outer dogs of the wolves get smarter and smarter with time, but I wonder it this used wholesale as people tend to do would cause the same type of problem, the wolves learn and get stronger and stronger. A third possiblity is to build a large fence, the problem here is it's too complex, the complex surface is huge and the food is too complex, just shaking hands is complex, there are more than 100,000 germs on our hands alone. The bacillus on your computer keyboard are far more common than in faucet or even the restroom. But there's something missing here. The genome of the bacillus is a giant computer. It seems to be a much larger computer than ours because the bacteria will always win, their computation is faster and knows more than ours. An interesting question arises. Why didn't we get totally wiped out by the computer, why didn't life just totally perish because of the bacteria? If the germs are superferocious why didn't we perish and the rest of evolution too? And the answer is simple, like other "predators" they couldn't lose their "prey" and with no food, the "predators perish along with the prey". Say in real evolution, the bacteria kill a few individuals. The individuals then build up resistance, and on the other hand if they aren't able to, a few may perish, if some die, the bacteria lose their food and the life like us rebounds, both sides of evolution are resilient and rebound, in a sort of resilient tension in cycles over millions of years. This is how your body is, for each extensor there's a reflexor, and body systems are in action reaction pairs. If your heart has problems, your kidneys have to do more by stress, and vice versa and ect. So there's a balance established sort of as if the giant computer is agreeing to make moderate amounts of peace. We hear about these people who fight in primitive tribes like in Malaysia where we read in magazines like Reader's Digest, they actually have a sign up that says, "12:00 is Time to Rest From the Battle", so they take time each day to rest even if in battle, because they believe rest is almost as valuable as fighting. Indeed other research shows there was no war among the American Indians before AD 1000, so perhaps peace not just war was of worth in evolution. Our heart's resting 5/6th of the time, the most active muscle of the body. As Darwin thought, love is a lot more important in evolution than survival of the fittest, In his book "The Descent of Man" Darwin used the word Love 87 times and Survival of the Fittest just once.

If you think about it it's generally not wise to attack a system much larger and powerful than oneself. This is how evolution was for millions of years. Although evolution wasn't perfect, if you attack a much larger complex system that's evolved and able to evolve, in the short run you might seems to win, but there would be resistance and in the long run there would be a crash.

Sort of like the sleeping dog, there's the old Hee Haw joke with a sing in the country general store, "Beware of Dog!" They say "Why beware of the dog? He's just a slow flop eared hound dawg?" "Because what if someone trips over him?" New research after all what else proves you can teach an old dog new tricks, if you have a hound dawg who fetches you the paper, he will read it to you, though in a thousand woofs!

The world will have to live with the genome of the bacillus indefinitely as is.. It's real improbable we could go and kill all the bacteria in the world (other than perhaps with the boost to the machines of fusion) in the buildings, under the buildings on top of the water, in the air, you could do that, though it would cost too much. The bacteria have a biomass the size of England, they have huge weight. This is not like reducing our other predators like the wolf and the jaguar, which we've also reduced in a simple manner though this is causing problems too as I say on my site about Evolution and Overpopulation . (See opsin solution at bottom of page in solutions list, I believe opsins are perhaps the best solution we have in the early 21st century we haven't had before with other science.). We are going to have to live with the bacterial genome perhaps indefinitely and it's much larger than us. I think of it as our evolutionary heritage. If we try to treat the genome bad, we'll have to live with it. If it's obvious the ecosystem is going to kill us if we continue to kill it, it's a good time to make peace not war. To pacify means not to kill, although you might think death is a way to be pacified, like the ancient Greek philosopher who's saying death is not to be feared because it's only unconsciousness or the other philosopher who's saying, "increase your income or decrease your wants." Dying is not so much the problem as not living! I've decreased all my wants but one! I believe in respect with the bacteria the wisest thing for us to do is stop the killing.

Or as I believe, we should Let These Sleeping Dogs Lie. We have too complex a problem here, though just as the bacteria weren't ending all the life in evolution, the killing has been a sort of artificial buildup and then the letdown. I believe in the perspective of the super bacilli as we now know, the solution is to "slow down" and "freeze" the evolution of the germs as they are now. For our general course of action, this wouldn't be the same as killing them, rather, like the "Beware of Dog Sign" of the flop eared hound in the general store there may be truth in jest we need not fear evolution if we pay respect..

I had thought of cleansing food by first injecting antibodies into the food and using sensors to find out where all the bacteria are if there are any there, and then to inject laser beams that are on the outside but at lower energy and then combine together at the point where the germs are, with a much lower dose of radiation, because when they cleanse herbs like cooking herbs they use like a billion chest X rays worth of radiation, is that what we really want for our food? So I was thinking this might be a good solution for cleansing food. I read this month that another person has thought of this, a scientist in France several years ago, but my idea is the addition of the antibody method and the sensor was to make it viable sooner, he lists it as perhaps useful for food in 100 years, and I think this might be sooner via the antibodies. And an improvement in cleansing the body in real time including e.g cleansing the blood of small tumors even while in circulation, ect.

Even so about the general genome, it's too complex to kill or defend by trying to kill, which I didn't actually realize like most until more recently, so recently I've tended to have another belief. That is as I say the best option may not be to kill the dogs rather to slow them down.

Here's my proposal, we use small cellular pumps, the bacteria don't notice them they seem to be like food. The bacteria gobble them up. These small cellular pumps inside the bacteria are cooling pumps, these take some natural substance inside the germ, and basically slow them down, cool them down from the inside gradually like the dawg in the general store, (he's calm being out in the country!) This slows them down they do not harm to us and they leave the body and wake up with outdoorsy type weather, with change in temperature. Notice that the genome of the bacteria hasn't changed. If the ecosystem hasn't gotten any better overall, at least it hasn't gotten any worse.

This seems to be a better method than others I'd thought of. I thought of e.g. a personal fan that blows the germs away from you when you're in the doctor's office, or perhaps a magnetic field shield that uses sensors and efficiently moves the germs away from you. Hot tub sensors to sense germs might be of worth, these methods like others may be of worth in a limited way because most hot tubs have a large level of pathogens, or when walking in the door a super futuristic scanner might one day find if any germs are entering the house and an alarm would sound. And I thought of laser hand cleaners to automatically sense and wash your hands sort of like the laser food cleanser with antibodies to sense but lower energy and non professional use, and so on and so fifth, (while no Beethoven for me I have my own sounds). Some sensors (of all types some may say!) have gotten a lot cheaper. For the anthrax scare of the postal office I thought of a use of the cheap 2 dollar sensors that use just two wires of the right metal of different type to bend just so to sense a given chemical. These would sense the anthrax in the post office as it zips past and throw a cosmic cyber wrench in the machine with big stamps. Another use of the sensors would be throughout a blanket, easy to wash. The only way to completely stop germs would be by sensors that could go through walls, when you walk through doors you walk through walls twice. This is why killing germs with the guidance of sensors won't win for us, once is enough.

No doubt methods like these are just somewhat of value and the problem still remains that each time you would use the antibacterial like soap, you're still programming them. So I think the idea of using small cooling sort of nano pumps may be best, so the bacillus just think we're nice delicious food, that they harmlessly gobble up may be our best bet. This may not be the exact method, but this and other methods along the same lines may be best. At any rate something that keeps the genes the same of the germs before and after their interaction with us. One possibility might be to use sensors to monitor all the germs entering and leaving the body and edit their genes so they are more identical to the rest of the germs around by some method before releasing them into the "wild". Another possiblity is to try to "tame the dogs" by constantly inserting tame genes in the DNA of the bacillus. Plans like this are being tried with mosquitoes in the tropics. Insert genes that seem the same but stop reproduction, though perhaps the wiser way here might be to make the genes more benign to both them and us.

Another way other than as food to get the cooling pumps inside the germs might be to use the immune system, though the persons needing improvement like in the ER often are just the ones who are lacking in immune defence. So I believe eventually we may have an entire artificial immune system or mostly so we can inject into a patient, much as tissues are being engineered, perhaps this would last just for a few days or months for life defense while most needed. Or an artificial system engineered to deliver just the type of cells you would want, so it would recognize just those types of cells by genetic engineering or whatever. The germs would just cool down and not know it, and not get smarter, and the "battle for peace" here would be over, not an imprecise sort of name..

What about breeding our own dogs from the wolves to fight or just replace the other dogs? I hadn't realized this hasn't been much tried so I didn't consider it before on this site. My own experience with almost a complete cure of gingivitis with good bacilli is indeed the most positive I've found. Click Here. I likened this to the fire above with the wolves. And fire inside like good dogs might burn us as much as the bad germs. Another problem is that many types of defending germs would have to be engineered and like the fire these would have to not interact or damage the body. The cure for toothache may be uncommon because often like the CNS drugs all possible risks would have to be controlled, this is why most drug companies are not researching CNS drugs because they have to be completely safe long term. In essence we are in with antibiotics long term. Some sites say the supergerms seem like a sort of false delimma, like where the ancient greek goddess offers the sailors form the cliff the options of tragedy or doom, whatever happened to two out of three I asked my biology professor as we all failed bio on the first week due to her great two out of three exams! On one site the author notes that cows of many traits like heat resistance or drought resistance or super milk aren't super, they are merely artificial creations of civilization. If we tore down all the fences and they moove on to evolution for say 7 generations, all the super genes would be blended in and the cows influenced for humans wouldn't be able to compete. So too the author laughs, what super germs? Without antibiotics they would also soon fade into evolution, here too the super germs wouldn't be able to compete with stronger life more well adapted for general fitness. This is not a false delimma. On the one hand we can't stop using antibiotics because so many people would die now, and on the other hand if we use more antibiotics, the super germs will win sooner or later. The author of the site merely says super germs are an artifice, and offers no solution other than the use of germs of our own to defend. This seems like a moderately good idea because it seems we aren't crowding the germs but we may be programming them, leading us back to the same question, why in evolution, wasn't most life dying of the much larger computer of the germ or other biome? And here again I offer the basic answer, because why would the world want to hurt life much? Most healthy civilizations make marriage cheap and a celebration of life. It's more of worth and more powerful to live than to try top down methods of control. In research survivors of disasters aren't sad mostly even though earlier belief was they were sad. It's been said life is a terminal illness, and being good and a comic about life is evolution's health plan. No doubt optimism alone is not the best because other research finds too much optimism to lead to downturn by way of too much complacency. But if evolution is kind in balance perhaps it's much the same to believe the world is unkind if treated as less of value. If we try to crowd out the germs with more and more probiotics, they will have stronger and stronger need to find defence unlike in evolution by evolutionary pressure. This is why the solution of the idea of calming evolution, and love more than war may be wiser. Bees are calmed by smoke, better than breeding super bees to return if we calm the germs.

A possible type of nano cooling pump might be my idea of an atomic motor. This involves protons spinning sidewise held by their poles to spin and a continuius beam say of photons or electrons intersects the limb of the proton. The spin of the proton deeper in changes the wavelength of the ray, doing work. The electron is collected on the other side and connected back by a "wire" to the source of the ray. This completes the circuit, and may be a simple way to convert the strong force to useful electric power. Of course it's not that simple, but that's the basic idea. CLICK HERE for details. This pump would be super small, converting mass to energy. I think it may make a super cooling pump. This might be achieved by using the proton to stretch out the beam, which is cooler on one side. The other side has a nano cup with a one way valve into which the heat of the light flow in and could be trapped. Eventually a large amount of heat is stored here as the conversion of the light's eventual conversion of the energy of lots of light to just the mass of one heavy particle like a proton, a super cooling pump. This could also be used for general cooling and the by product would be protons that could combine with electrons from anywhere or in other words hydrogen the fuel of the future.

..

2011-08-23T10:35:00.000-07:00

Could a Supertrain be Built Around the Northern Hemisphere?

We hear much about the largest bridge ever being built proposed for the Bering strait, larger than even the bridge that may be built out West off the coast. This new bridge would have a new look sort of like me who's been writing since the 20th century! This might not be like the giant harp of the older bridges, they reported seeing a giant angel in the space shuttle with wings the size of a 747 and you know ya know, the angels would get a real good Xray on each go round. What angel would go in 747, much safer than travel by elevator! Travel by elevator, safest per mile. If you go to Hawaii in an elevator, or if they lit a cigarette in Hawaii and could see it by lens in New York by great astronomy lenses, why go such distance to light a smoke! If you lined up all the cigarettes smoked each day you still couldn't take a puff, thank goodness!

The new way for a car to drive over water is not land as some realtors would say but actually, the bridge, (the realtor commutes to work in an RV.) The half circle of the arch of The Bering Bridge reaches with the feet of the arch down to the sea floor, and also the arch reaches above the water to support the road platform suspended from the wires attached to the arches above and to the side at other angles. The wires stretch out to reach and support the road so if there's an earthquake it's earthquake proof, by damping. The Bridge being built across the Bering Strait will use the same method. Interestingly the Bering strait has the most tidal friction anywhere in the world as the water sloshes in and out, while the bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia has the highest tides anywhere, like 90 feet plus a reversing river, when the river flows out it's in one direction and then later in the day the tide comes in. This is rather like the reversing river in India that flows one direction for six months and then reverses for 6 more. This is like the water where I live, the water runs 6 months cold and six months hot. Palmer Lake on the continental divide of the Rockies actually empties both East and West, (we assume the mountains that empty into it are not just to the E or W either).

If you have this small road platform with the wires and larger arches making it earthquake proof, it could be used conceivably for more extreme transits, as in even over higher mountains or reasonably close distances of open sea. For even the open sea the science of offshore platforms is well established, this would seem to be much simpler to build than a complex machine of no more mass. Some have proposed to build a super train from NY to Los Angeles, super high speed because there would be no air in the tunnel. And right through the mountains so the train is level and fast, like 6,000 mph. But I think this idea could be carried farther, and much faster too perhaps! The same arches may be used to make a global connection where we would make a super long train tunnel where instead of a platform for the road we have instead the train tube,
that is also earthquake proof of course to continually go all the way around the N hemisphere. If we started say in NY city we would then go over the open sea to some extent off the Nova Scotia, then to Greenland, then the arches being even able to go over open sea, to Iceland and S to Scotland, the E through Europe to S Russia and back N of N China if China won't let us build the train there (though china might want to buy into the train for business) up around to Alaska also across the Bering strait. No doubt the train platform and the train would then travel back to down to central N America in a complete loop around the northern hemisphere, a giant merry go round the world... Not only would the train be super high speed, it would also not even have to stop, one continuous train that would never have to stop so it would be super high speed. it's true now that the cost of moving a ton a mile by train is 90% reduced over what it was in the early 20th century. It's also true that today's high speed trains in the US are no faster than they were in the Hoover administration.

There's no need to believe we wouldn't perhaps find stronger power sources for the train in the future to power the train, e.g small shelf size particle accelerators are being devised that are as powerful as giant machines like the LHC, sooner or later even small cheap fusion machines might be built, as e.g. in my own idea of IFF, Inertial Focus fusion.

The train might be a way to unify world culture. In spite of dreamer's dreams that per se the web or other improvements would unify the world (more about this in 1989!) only 5% of mail is international mail, and speaking a common language with another country increases commerce 47% or so. If you don't know the same language it reduces business. And so on and so fourth, to venture fifth and sally fifth, there are limits caused I would believe more by lack of proximity than by culture. Mexico speaks another language, but the US Mexico border is the most traveled in the world. Even so only 70% or so of internet exchange is between countries that have common languages. If travel were much more cheap, we might be able to unify the world culture more. It's been said that only community is real, all else is metaphor, but if there's no word for metaphor in the language of business, the world might be richer. High speed supercheap travel might be more than metaphor because by reducing distance community would be increased more. Conventional power for the train as with the E to W coast train would already be viable, but fusion would make it cheaper, ect. because although it costs 200$ to fly to Europe if you stand out on the wing and pedal the turbines most airlines are above! My neighbor looked up at a plane the other day and says, Wow! There's someone on the wing I think I see up there of that airplane! I was reading in how this beautious lady was a wing walker, not just in OH, she walked in 5 states per hour! She was a concert pianist, there was no grand up on the wings of the airplane she would play, even so she would go upside down on the airplane at 375 mph, and she said it was like having a typhoon for a hair dryer!

If the super train was powered by fusion or more conventional sources it would be a way to unify the world culture, reaching also to Africa and SA, because those arches could go over even the open sea or high mountains. If you started, say in Peru and go N really fast up to Missouri and then connect to the train going E. as with the high speed trains in China that never stop, so too this train might never stop for travel and transport for business, ect. at low cost. It would reduce the intermodal freight traffic so they spill fewer of the intermodal freight containers. (For the near term I've believed a good solution to be cheap wave power and GPS onboard each container back to port in a week or two, reducing pollution and saving lots of goods.)

If we start the train down at the tip of SA it would always have to start and stop instead of like the continuous ones in the N causing large inertial forces not so common in a train like the one that might unite the N hemisphere. If you have the train in South America and it's starting from a stop (which is what I'm always trying to achieve!) it would go N really fast; perhaps you would need some way to shield from it's inertia, thus I propose we use the machines that use the oscillating slice of wheel, with a more common wheel you have the inertia sending out the force all the way around like the coach who says we're going to turn this team around 360 degrees! But if we say turn around just say 90 degrees at Christmas or 45 degrees in summer, we could stay real cozy in Alaska or like Canada where they say global warming isn't so bad. (I think global warming may be because of the dust, perhaps making it where like where I live each August it gets cooler each year, like a month earlier than before when I was like 17. Why would global warming cause this? The new agricultural dust may be shielding the earth from the heat even though the sun is burning hotter in general as is known by our records of the solar storms ect. And as I say the greenhouse warming theory predicts that underneath the clouds on a hot day it will be the warmest, if it's actually dust shielding from the heat, the hotter might be at the top and the cooler temperatures near to us. Click here for more about My idea about Global Warming. Or as they say at Christmas when it's 30 below, global warming Ha! Or like Ho! Ho! Ho! Why No when you're with Winona, if she's an anesthesiologist a knockout with pleasure!

About the train, if they actually used inertial shields as in the IP, in each person's wall of the train, and also other shields to reduce stress on the train with acceleration, starting and stopping would not be so extreme, or perhaps one large N circular train in both N America and one in Asia could be used to connect with the N train to Eurasia and this N train arch could reach a central SA and a central path from N Asia could also reach a smaller central path in SA to solve the problem of starting and stopping, by always going fast in a continuous loop, rather like the particle accelerators have a loop for reaching the main accelerator. This would increase the length of the main train paths increasing business for the cities along the path of the train, this would be an alternate way to solve the problem of starting and stopping for the African and SA trains. another option may be to make them slower, so not so expensive too, reaching the top speed after reaching either the N America or the Eurasian tracks.

To reduce vibration of the train, high speed magnetic actuators would make it so the train would actually never contact the tube, perhaps magnets above would be more stable since like for wind tunnels that use reduced pressure being more stable than tunnels that use positive pressure, ect.

Another problem might seem to be about seeing this vision of seeing a sort of tangled web, a giant spider's web for 50 miles away, you know. Of course in places like the central US, they could just make it on the ground or below ground, or like the St. Louis Arch, they could say, look there's something here, Here's What We Can See! We have our own tourist destination, not planes for miles! I think the new invisibility cloaking machines that are being developed might be used for all sorts of large machines like this, e.g. onshore wind generation machines, if an airplane was about to hit it, they could become visible in time to save them, or just turn on warning lights or whatever..

2011-07-08T10:01:00.000-07:00

Does Information Reside in More Than One Place?

Some believe that as we say with the Uncertainty Principle you can measure the position and momentum of the particle, but not at the same time. Susskind also has another idea he calls "black hole complementarity" where we can make two measurements of the events of a massive massif star depending on where the observers watch is well rewound. The observer on the outside seeing a mass fall into the black hole will say "Wow!" You know it's being shredded up at the surface, it resides on the surface. But an observer inside the black hole would say, well it plummets to the center and then burns up in the center. Thus Susskind as well as T'Hooft have this idea that either observer is equally valid and so the same information resides in two places. This is also like the Uncertainty Principle and like relativity basically the same kind of idea because you have two different observers and they measure different mass and energy of the other high speed mass (or with the supermassive massif they have distinct vantage points to see other events..).

This isn't the same as saying there's no high speed connection between the observers. The problem here is if you have the observers agree to different results of the same experiment, essentially the speed of light is slow in Special Relativity for example. And if there is no causal connection between the events they're loosely connected, but because the speed of light is slow the connection between like say here and alpha centuari is 4.3 light years or so and if we measure an event from here we have to wait four years or so so if there's influence seen by the "slow" speed of light. And by that time alpha centauri has changed and moved a lot no doubt, (the ancient astrologers have more unchanged ways of measuring time than measuring astronomy these days). And so we have no or little connection between them so alpha centauri and all other mass in the universe would be radiating outward. It's not connected so it moves in it's linear motion, not linear A Sumerian, it's changed more than astronomy somewhat no doubt! Special relativity measures much, uniform motion is what relativity does best. The speed of light is constant, the motion is uniform, the speed of light doesn't change.

The problem is that relativity doesn't explain acceleration well because the mass energy equivalence of relativity is rather a more superficial energy energy equivalence in GWD in the sense that it's derived it's derived from the motion of the high speed mass. More more motion more mass, more energy in SR. And mass is like an acceleration, it spins around and around under its own attraction. And you really can't measure mass like an energy equivalence because mass is where there's a connection holding it together like gravity. The connection problem is the same as with the wave particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle and relativity. If you have a coin and you flip it and it spins around if by your limited vantage as an observer for some reason you could only measure one side of the coin at a time. First of all, you'd say what guarantee is this, an 1950 coin worth 20 thou? Couldn't you just move around to the other side of the coin? What comic physics is this, right? We know there is a real connection.

The Uncertainty Principle and quantum unfamiliarity are closely related to Planck's Constant and the constant itself is much or mostly related to the speed of light being the speed of the constant of action. There's always a certain amount of motion of the field per unit time whether it's linear or angular. Since Planck's constant is the foundation in all of subatomic physics we conclude that since relativity itself has that problem of connectivity only if gravity is faster than light to connect up the points would it not fizzle out to 0 density in infinite time. So too for the Uncertainty Principle we might conclude that if there really is no connection between the two sides of the coin the coin would radiate outward, and so the same kind of problem. Different observers in relativity get different results, they're different so they're not connected, they're radiating out in their own inertial frame not concerned with the connection between them. Even so the idea that information resides in more than one place is both true and not true. At short range like for electric charges the same field can shield and not know itself, while at lower energy for forces like gravity or the EPR, the field may be at higher speed (because it's lighter than light so much faster) so much it's almost in one place (though perhaps not quite to not be infinite and not violate causality, ultimately cause not energy conservation may turn out to be the foundation of the cosmos because there seems to be evidence that gravity is like a superfluid and winds up the cosmos, otherwise if heat always flows from hot to cold, how was it hot?). There is no doubt for these opposites where there is also a connection binding them, the connection must be faster than the tendancy of the opposites to disconnect. Thus for Plancks constant and the speed of light, the speed of light may not be the limit.

The problem of the Uncertainty Principle and the lack of connection and relativity too is the tendency to radiate outward locally and this is one reason why I believe gravity may have a faster than light connection and also why the Uncertainty principle may fail by way of Einstein's idea of a low energy particle to reduce the subatomic equality of the measure and measured, if it too is lighter than light it may be faster than light. If only at the speed of light there would be no connection between position and momentum and the particles would explode. In GWD with gravity at the speed of light via relativity the moon would have the slow light and disconnect, soon spinning outward. Recent experiments seem to uphold Einstein's idea about the low energy particles.

If you don't have a faster than light connecting the position and momentum, a 50 cent coin has 2 sides one 50 cent not two 25s! I liken the connection between the phases above, this connection would seem to be indeed be like a gravitational field and not coincidence. To say there's no gravitational field there at that energy like of subatomic particles, I disagree. If you have two masses like common lower energy masses around us at room temperature even in the luxury with heat around us and you adhere them to a beam. If you toss the masses up in the air so they spin around the com around which the masses spin is in "empty space" the same as the earth and moon rather on a smaller scale. We might say gravity isn't there and it's not important if the beam is the main adhesion, but the center is not in the beam.

If mass and energy were completely the same it would be as easy to convert mass to energy as energy to mass, and there would be no way to tell them apart, like the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, there are perhaps 10 distinctions between mass and inertia, e.g. mass is where a plenum, energy less matter, inertia or energy radiates out, mass attracts and implodes, ect. the many and the one. This also seems like the wave particle duality, the Uncertainty Principle and other problems of complementarity. Thus the mass energy equivalence combined with the complementarity problem would mean mass and energy would have nothing to do with each other. They have something to do with each other but it's not exact, this is why the equivalence of mass and energy is somewhat sound in GWD yet it has these other problems without solution by way of relativity alone.

Though I have agreed with t'Hooft in general, another idea he has edited with Susskind is where they're saying all the information in an object resides on it's surface. Though t'Hoft seems to be good more with the type of physics I agree with, and I tend to not believe in Hawking's physics much I tend to disagree with this. No doubt Hawking was the highest in his physics score when he entered college, he is a best seller and was head of the math department Newton once also was leader of, and t'Hooft has won the Nobel prize and improved our knowledge of the weak force. I think of t'Hooft as the best of the three, and the idea that all the information resides on the surface of a mass seems to me like at first glance to relate to someone as great as Gauss whose pioneering work in surface geometry in the early 1800's was a great contribution to math that made him one of the three great math geniuses in time and all of physics, ect. I think this idea even if t'Hooft was coauthor has shortcomings. When you devise a general idea like Gauss did, or Einstein with relativity, for it to hold water there have to be no general disproofs in just common sense around us. If it's a classic, there's no easy disproof, and the disproof of this "all boundary theorem" seems to be about the Earth. The surface doesn't somehow control all the information because we can expect inner events like of lava flows and magma to change the Earth in time without outside intervention and without flow in or out. If we believe in the Uncertainty Principle and the speed of light as the limit in subatomic physics and all the rest, the speed of all the surfaces spin at the speed of light to uphold relativity well but here too like with this "earth problem" if all the particles spin at the speed of light inside and outside and mass is indeed spinning energy, the electron is already at the speed of light, spinning at the top speed so no more mass can be added on, thus all particles heavier than an electron have no explanation and so the idea that the surface controls the rest isn't so, certainly it's partially so and to do work means the surface is changed, but if all is in the universal boundary, than if no information by definition is sent in or out, there can be no change anywhere inside it and all the change here and there nearby is a nondum (same great Latin, 21st century Greek.) Click here for more, my elaboration of this idea, about the stability of the proton, ect..

You may say about relativity, the invariance of the speed of light, aha, it's a symmetry, like Noether's symmetry, we all know these are well proven in subatomic physics and elsewhere no doubt! To which I say, while symmetries abound, some are deeper than others. I believe the absolute space time of Newton isn't in for a revival soon and that relativity is true about the speed of light so much of relativity isn't going to be disproven either. I hold that Special Relativity is about what's seen from a distance like light and not what we feel as a force of pull or push like gravity. Relativity seems to be about "vain appearances" about the looks of the light, but the deeper symmetry seems about the lower energy F=ma (nonquanta) not Emc2 where you have acceleration not just linear motion. F=ma is more fundamental and deep because gravity holds the cosmos together and this is the first of my Three Foundation Principles of the Universe.

Relativity has seemed to me like a blind alley blinded of light and the speed of light that leads us to conclude that information is not all in one place. In truth no doubt it's both connected and not connected, our arm is in one place and out leg is in another place if we put our arm in the range and our leg in the ice box, in general as a percentage we're both hot and cool, with connection and lack of connection both, so relativity isn't going anywhere but still there may be deeper truth that may help us know more than otherwise, click here for my synopsis site, about gravity and Faster Than Light..

If we had a large ship that could only send or receive waves at it's own ship wavelength and the waves were slow, the problem that the waves were influenced by the observer would be solved if we suddenly found a higher speed wave, even so the physics of the waves and ships wouldn't be gone, and presumably there would be more uses of relativity than FTL waves, even so if they are proven by the experiments I propose they may find use in communications, computers, the EPR, and other information rich technology.

That different observers in SR get results leads to contradictions; an observer on one slow ship will see another set of events on the high speed ship than an observer on the medium speed ship and the contradiction the two observers will find in the histories they record can't be reconciled when both are at medium speed. The wife you see on her high speed starship won't both bake and burn the dish with different thermal history, due to changes in the wavelength of the (thermodynamic) light. Click here for more about contradictions in relativity..

Physics Synopsis.
..

2011-06-27T07:55:00.000-07:00

More Solutions For CMEs

A CME is a solar flare that reaches the Earth in about 18 hours. If a CME actually hits the earth, it may have disastrous (bad star) consequences. Not only will the transformers, which take years to rebuild be damaged, the power loss will be to gas stations, hospitals, and nuclear power plants that also rely on the power of the grid . There are backup systems diesel powered, these last only about a month however. There may be no diesel to reach the power plants, ergo, because the diesel is moved in trucks, and the gas stations if without power to power the gas pumps, will have no transportation flow, no food, or water, or heat in winter. Other problems are about no internet if the power is out, and hospitals without the life support machines and so on. The last major flare hit in 1859 and it shocked and burned telegraph operators as they worked. There was another CME in the 1920's that stopped phone lines and one more recently in Quebec that left millions without power.

Short Term Solutions

The government is working on portable transformers that can be rapidly deployed in the event of a CME, and others have devised machines to simply cut off the power to the transformers if they overload via the CME, though it will take thousands of these machines. I propose two other methods. First for the nuclear power plants a more robust solution is needed since the power grid alone isn't the only problem as in the Fukushima earthquake in Japan. The connection might be cut by an earthquake or a terrorist plane bombing and just solving via transformers isn't enough. My sister's had a roomate in college whose father sold atomic power plant kits, even 30 years ago. There are also small all in one atomic power plants that can be used to power just a small town, with reduced risk of meltdown, and cheaper too. Since most of the big power plants are not going out right away, a good solution for nowsville might be to simply plant a plant of this type beside the big machine for emergency power after the diesel has run awhile and in the event of a disaster.

Second many smaller machines like the gas stations might use geothermal piping down into the earth where the temperature is constant, the heat above being moreso in summer is more than the cool below powering the pumps, and in winter the cool above and the heat relative below would also. There could be a lot more of these small geothermal power plants so even if some fail, most others would not in a disaster, and no doubt owners of businesses would have more cheap energy for business.

Medium Range Solutions

I've believed there may be advantage in wire towers to orbit from the surface of the earth. As I say elsewhere, the land in the N and the water in the S may create uneven torque via the moons attraction, leading to heat loss, that may cause perhaps 50% of earthquakes and volcanoes. It's been known from the early 1900's that there are 2/3 of the earthquakes within the first 10 days of the month, not the more prosaic 1/3 we might expect if the tides were not stronger then. On my page I note that what's called diastrophism, in geology where there has been unusual altitude and depth of ocean deeps since the time of dinosaur extinction, this has been continuous since then and at no other time in earth history has this been so. My belief is that this motif started then and before the dinosaur extinction by the submergence of the land bridge between Antarctica and Patagonia about 20 million years before the dinosaurs demise, this would have created a continuous S band of water around the earth that would have generated torque for mountain building and tilted the earth by precession, causing the seasons, and the dinosaurs to move more and more into the tropics, and the bad luck of the dinosaurs being hit by the asteroid in the tropics while the birds and mammals survived, being further N and S because they were and are endotherms, ect.

Thus the small wires to orbit might be of worth to reduce earthquakes and volcanoes, while also being of worth as small towers to orbit to cheaply launch small payloads that might then self assemble in orbit much cheaper and more safely than a small tower and generating much electric power as they spin through the earths field via the spin of the earth. For CME's the wires might be a shield by storing enough power to then be released when the CME hits, the power being sent at right angles between the tops of the towers to form a shield. In addition, since the onset of "ice ages" is well correlated with the 25,000 year cycles of the earth's precession, and the wires could stop the precession by changing the torque, the wires may have the advantage of also stopping a future ice age.

Another medium range defence against CME's might be a sort of net with weights on the outside set spinning at 90 degrees, like an ancient gladiator throwing a net to stop an orb of flame tossed by the sun god. Some have devised a shield to reduce global warming, 600 miles wide between the earth and the sun, so a net might be possible for e.g. severe CME's.

Long Term Solutions

Any way to solve the ice age riddle is complete if the sun was burning at lower power. Even so the ice ages correlate well with the astronomical cycles too in onset and duration. For this reason I've tended to believe in a combination sun cooler and astronomical way to the answer here. If astronomy alone were the cause, the earth would have been cycling in and out indefinitely, and if the solar heat alone were the cause, there would be no cycles. The astronomical cycles are just cycles, and the cooling of the sun I would explain by way of Jupiter. Note that Jupiter has an 11 year orbit just like the sunspot cycles, the periods of heating and cooling, and Jupiter has a much stronger magnetic field about 100 gauss, while the sun has just .5. As I say on my other site there is evidence that the great red spot of Jupiter might be a semi permanent crater floating around in the slush caused by ancient impact just before the ice ages on earth, not a giant hurricane as Sagan and others have thought, after all a hurricane might disperse rapidly in the 300 mph winds causing rapid destabilization if it were like a tropical storm here where the heat bubble rises to cool the tropics.

If an asteroid or comet or moon hit Jupiter and created the red spot this could damp the magnetic field and cool the sun, causing the ice ages. The complete cycle of solar activity is actually 22 years not 11, and this would be caused by modulation of Jupiter's field by Jupiter's satellite Io which spews out lots of sulphur in a torus around its orbit. The two moons on either side of Io cause strong tides that create the eruptions of the sulphur magma. In my belief Io's complete precession in 22 years would explain the reversal of the poles of the sunspots with each 11 year period, first the magnetic field is N above the ecliptic, then S. It would seem much more probable that a simple orb like the sun would have no internal structure or timing like a complex 22 year cycle, but the precession of Io might easily be the cause.

If Io thus modulates the solar field causing the CME at the peak, in the future we might be able to change Io to somehow at least take the peak out of the 22 year cycle reducing the risk of a harmful CME, e.g we might explode rocks in Io's orbit absorbing up the sulphur, or we might one day explode one of the moons on either side of Io with explosives. If we may have evolved with the sunspot cycles it may be wise for those future stellar engineers to not take the complete 22 year cycle out, just the peaks. Tree rings show an 11 year cycle and there is a theory of the stock market that it has fluctuations caused by the sunspots, getting cozy wait 22 years? There are other theories that link the sunspots with necktie width (wider, more bullish market) hemlines rise with higher Dow Jones, aspirin sales go up, and an NFL team always wins the Super Bowl! All these seem to be a link, even so sunspots may be the real cause since if we go back to say the 1900's there was not a boom, then the 20's were the roaring 20's, the 30's were the depression, the 40's the roaring 40's, the Dow was up, the fifties calm again, the 60's more elevated, the 70's down again and the 80's up again in seemingly 11 year cycles, how would neckties or aspirin have this much power?

If we are sensitive to the 22 year cycles, evolution may like us to only moderate not stop the cycle.

Finally there may be a great new power source that could power all the pumps including the service station. A new type of cooling has been devised that uses the power of the air. When a body cools in the air near the earth, it has some wavelengths that radiate and don't bounce back, acting as an insulator. The problem with most wavelengths is they are opaque to the heat, acting as an insulator by bouncing in back into what you want to cool. Now they have a surface that radiates out more of the heat at the transparent wavelength, cooling the fizz jug by auto cool. I think a great use would be to generate power anywhere by the power distinction of hot and cool anywhere. No doubt a lot of heat would reach the air, but it would be good for heat on the outside of the machine in winter, and perhaps more insulative inner radiance could make mass hold more heat by non radiance at the non opaque wavelength.

There may be another problem as severe as CME's, malicious use of software to damage the power grid. The stuxnet virus that brought down Iran's atomic power plan used a virus perhaps generated by the CIA. This wouldn't have been believed possible by most a few years ago because the machines it damaged weren't connected to the Internet. Stuxnet was loaded to the machines by a USP chip by accident handed to an unaware technician that then roamed the software for months undetected till it found its target, a highly specific virus that destroyed the centrifugal machines used to refine the uranium. This leads to the possibility many consider that hackers may damage the much larger and more complex power grid, the largest machine controlled by computers. We read where this might be solvable by tricks like software auditors, hash functions (giant codes) software patches, and so on, but because they can't take down power stations to edit the software while "online!" these seem weak compared to the risk. Due to problems like wifi connections, old pathways and codes the enemy could sneak in I believe there will be only one solution to wean the power business off the computer habit, use of real genuine electronics, not computers, at least for a major part of our powerbase like the electric power we would have problems without. The power industry lived for all the 20th century without computers, and with risk like this of 20 more Chernobyls in addition to the CME risk. Many of us lived for years without computers and risks of crashes. You may say, I'm using a computer right now, right? I was once genuinely enthused by computers but as I got more aware of them, I've been much less. They are causing lots of problems, overuse, leading to eye and wrist damage to millions, the fastest rising cause of divorce is internet chat rooms, the web seems to multiply up both the bad and good, often unpredictably, and e.g. 2/3rds of computer gamblers are addicted. I'm now typing from my local college library, and I solved my own computer problem by just letting mine crash and burn (thanks Mr. virus) and I've vowed to never go back to using my machine too much, Click Here for More Tricks when it's time to stop is good to start life more often! I was offered a plan with an internet cellphone about when my PC crashed and was turned down, then I realized this was great, my great disgust with the web was more a celebration. No web phone, no PC except in the much more limited realm of here at the college. Thanks to global warming like Santa you may, Laugh at summer, Ho ho ho!"

I think there are two possibilities about electric malfeasants and the power business, no computers now, and no crash caused by bad people, or the "shock" of having to later, like Three Mile Island was to the nuclear power industry in the 80's and beyond. Real books, real paper, and real power is great. Rather like a diet of too much sugar leading to diabetes, or a real life, with old fashioned machines, not to be ashamed of, for millions of years we had no machines like this, some computers but not with 20 meltdowns too.
..

2011-06-20T12:43:00.000-07:00

Other Comments About CMEs

One major problem with CME's as forecast is about how the flare from the sun is both overdue by solar weather research and known frequency and that the power wires as now up will lose power by damage to the transformers, the last major CME in 1859 caused the so called Carrington Event, telegraph operators were shocked and burned, and in the 1920's phone calls in Europe were stopped by another smaller CME. A CME in the 1980's caused power loss to millions in Quebec.

The transformers that may be damaged are expensve and take several years to make. The internet and "cell wires" would be down, and no electric power to pump gas at the station may lead to no transportation, no food. Worse yet, atomic power plants are powered to cool by the electric power and backup generators last just 30 days, leading to 30 Chernobyls in the US. Other problems like hospital machines without electricity and sanitation problems, no potable water also may be involved. As I've said on other posts, I think we might solve the worst about the atomic machines by the small all in one atomic power plants already well proven and cheap and also geothermal connections for installations like service stations, essentially connecting to a more reliable source of power, for the atomic power plants a more powerful connection and for other uses the geothermal would power the small machines without risk of volitility, for the same reason we don't have atomic planes and cars, boats maybe, where's my atomic boat?

I also discuss the possibility of two longer term solutions, small wires to high altitude from the surface of the earth to collect power from the spin of the earth for common power use and lots of it; in the event of a storm, the wires migth radiate out some of the power at the tops, forming a radiant shield. In addition to lots of power from the spin of the Earth, the wires may have other uses, in addition to stopping the CME's. I believe they may reduce earthquakes by draining off the uneven torque of the land and water in the N and S of the Earth becuawe there's more water than land there and this may be causing uneven tidal flexing. There are actually 2/3ds of the earthquakes and volcanoes near the first 10 days of the month due to the higher tides then, not the more prosaic 1/3 we might expect (or expect since the early 1900's since this was first found then.). Thus earthquakes and volcanoes may be caused by the tides, and the torque might be evened out by the wires, leading perhaps to a 50% reduction in their occurence. the wires might also make good small safe cheap towers to cheaply or at no cost launch small payloads into orbit that would then reassemble, or even to stop precession and the start of future ice ages since they're well known to be associated with 25,000 year cycles of the precession in onset. Another idea of mine was a sort of thin net like the giant shield some have proposed to counteract global warming. Like gladiators of old, throw the net in the path of the fire orb thrown by the sun god.

The first methods the power palnts and geothermal, are short range, the wires and or the nets may take more time. I think there may even be a way to completely stop CME's for the more advanced defence. As I say here

I believe Jupiter's 11 year orbit may be the cause of the CME's. Jupiter has a far stronger magnetic field than the sun and the precession of the Jupiter's sulphur erupting moon Io may cause the modulation of the 22 year cycles, not 11 years as we would expect if Jupiter's orbit alone was the cause, ect. The strong field and gravity of Jupiter may pull the CME's out of the side of the sun and if the earth is in it's path we have the events. Thus since the cog of the Solar Jupiter system is also outside the solar surface, we might be better able to predict when the solar flares would hit the earth since the most probable time when they would reach the earth if caused by Jupiter could be when the earth is in the line of travel between the sun and Jupiter, where the line of the path of force carrying the CME would be most common, ect.
..

2011-05-23T09:10:00.001-07:00

Why Do Opposite Charges Attract If Derived From A Basic Unified Gravitational Field?

As I say here I believe in the possible way of a modern version of La Sage's particle physics to be the cause of gravity.

Particles not waves could explain many low energy phenomenon. What a rocket ship exhaust presses against to move and zoom ahead would be a field with resilience. This would be the cause of friction. The lower energy field wouldn't seem to be only wavelike because only a basic field with some friction would create the higher energy fields with resilience here too if all the math is unified of all the forces. Gravity and centrifugal force seem to fit well with a particle causology. A flow of the particles at near 32 ft near the Earth would lose pressure and have near 0 force on the mass as they fall in the rest frame; the particles flowing beside you as you fall are almost at your speed, they have "sides" because they're particles thus you feel no force by way of the somewhat discontinuous component of the basic field, and at rest you are being pressed on by the same. So too, centrifugal force and inertia would be caused by radiance outward of the discontinuous particles, particles like of a gas radiate outward because they are discontinuous.

I imagine the basic field to have a fundamentally asymmetrical nature. Gravity seems to implode without balance to the center and yet the higher energy forces are in balance because of energy conservation. This seems like the many and the one in philosophy, or the fundamental symmetries of Noether's; all is a balance between balance and imbalance, change and motion. I ask a simple question; if all is in balance, like Newton's third law/energy conservation why hasn't all there is come to a stop long ago, gravity being imbalanced would be the "prime mover". Alone, energy conservation is more circular. If all motion comes from other motion, where does the other motion come from? This seems unscientific since science is derived from change by new experiments and new ideas, and if all the change is constant, itself the change is resistant to reasoning by science.

If gravity seems unbalanced, how does a force like electricity in balance arise from it? I believe the basic field has resilience to some extent and that Einstein was also true when he predicted the field has low energy reradiance, now proven by the research with pulsars and the rate of slowing, by radiance not just gravitational implosion. This would also be the cause of the cosmic acceleration found recently as Einstein also wondered about and then redoubted. Einstein Maxwell and Newton considered a particle foundation but the physics to prove this may now be in reach, see below.

If the basic field is both attractive and somewhat particulate and reradiant, note that all the basic components of the higher energy fields are present, with the notable exception of energy conservation. The basic field is imbalanced by the Noether's definition. There is a balance between energy conservation and balance and the lack of balance or gravity, and imbalance is needed for the cosmos to have extra energy to hold it together or it would have fizzed out to 0 density ages ago. The higher energy fields are balanced and obey energy conservation by way of conservation of linear and angular momentum, the quanta are always in an exact ratio of the mass to energy; more mass always spins faster for the higher energy fields.

This is why Emc2 holds so well, quantum wells "by looks" or distant light holds the momentum in the wells. With the quanta, if there is more mass there is exactly that much more spin, an exact transformation of mass to energy, mass and energy are not the same e.g one is linear and the other is angular, one is more about the plenum and the other more about realms where there is lower mass density, like gravity and special relativity, I think of them as opposite, ect. At lower energy for the more basic field there's no need for an exact conversion of mass to energy by the same type of formula F=ma except the a unlike the c2 of the equivalent high energy equation isn't a constant, that is it has some discontinuity to cause friction and the 32 ft acceleration of gravity, even so it's not quantised, so gravity may flow more like a superfluid. The looseness of the "low energy quanta" allow almost complete reduction of friction, indeed because of gravity's necessity to wind up the higher energy fields, I believe gravity may actually have negative entropy.

Instead of asking the common question of how gravity with "like charges" attracts, when the other higher energy forces, with opposite charges attract, I would ask the opposite. Why do opposite charges attract, when all the field is indeed unified by energy conservation? The more mass you have with gravity, the more it attracts, if it's mostly a wave because of flowing energy both the idea that opposite higher energy charges attract and that gravity is mostly of implosion would be from the basic field having both reradiance and implosion with resilience, and something extra the low fields lack, quantum wells.

If we have two opposite electric charges, by an old fashioned definition we see in the textbooks the positive charge radiates out and the - has implosive field. By energy conservation this is too simple because the outflow of the field would soon lose all its charge, and the imploding field would win all the mass of the outward flowing radiance. This isn't actually so because there is the magnetic field to consider that completes the loop mostly in the opposite direction, neither particle loses or gains much mass with time. So too with magnetic poles we see that opposite poles attract by the same method without loss of energy. The problem might seem to be about why though two outflowing like poles repel, so too do two inflowing like poles. If they inflow like two implosive air pumps on either side, it would seem they would move nearer, not farther. This problem is also solved by here the electric fields completing the loop. When two N magnetic poles radiate magnetically the electric loop that completes the loop is not as strong as the magnetic component and the magnets repel, but when two S poles meet the magnetic field isn't the cause of the reradiance, the electric field is the cause here. Note that the magnetic and electric are mostly equivalent, NN and SS are reradiant the same. Einstein used the idea of the equivalent motion of either a magnet or a wire to cause the change in the electric current, it didn't matter which was at rest, either motion was equivalent. I think of this much like the equivalence of mass and energy too, since the relativity of motion itself is closely related to it in SR.

If mass and energy are equivalent electric and magnetic fields would be too. If gravity has a low energy precursor to these fields and it's mostly unbalanced, I believe its particles may have a "magnetic" component that would be somewhat like the higher energy fields but because of the opposition of mass and energy, gravity pulls us down to one and the electric and other balanced fields radiate out to many. Thus there may be important distinctions. Usual higher energy magnetic fields are caused by motion. If gravity is the opposite and the more at rest you are the slower in your average motion (not exact like Emc2 because of the looser connection of F=ma) this possible magnetic way of gravity by updating La Sage's method would be the opposite. Unlike higher energy magnetic fields, they would operate by greater rest not motion.

Second the electric and magnetic are not equivalent so at lower energy the poles of these magneto gravity particles may have attraction one one side by way of implosion as we might expect because of them being like two imploding pumps on either side, and on the other side, they might have just some mere resistance to the implosion due to the resilience. The resilience is much lower here so it would merely slow the speed of the imploding particles flow that would cause the gravity, even so there would be some resilience to explain the cause of the quantum at higher energy and friction and so on as I say above. I believe there would be no electric equivalent to gravity only more magnetic, because in truth only higher energy electric fields are quanta, not magnetic charges as are well known by way of the problems about union of relativity with QM as Dirac believed. Why no magnetic monopoles if both relativity and QM are true? Because either relativity or QM is wrong and I believe it may be relativity in general, even the foundation of special relativity itself. Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go.

Thus as I say on my link about La Sage's belief, I offer my more elaborate way to gravity. The particles are there it seems, but they may not be the same as the higher energy balanced particles of electric and magnetic realms, and they may violate energy conservation and have other special attributes. The galaxies are all seen to be spinning too fast in violation of either gravity or centrifugal force, so gravity may be violating energy conservation. It's been said that with these higher speed spinning masses we may be seeing "massive violations of relativity" and I believe this is possible. Mass and energy or gravity and inertia may not be equivalent at lower energy because mass is heavy and energy is light, and all mass energy conversions would be much faster than 8 billion years for the sun, there would be as much matter as antimatter as Dirac believed, mass would be as easy to convert to energy as energy to mass and so on.

About how opposite particles attract from a basic field of attraction only, the basic field may operate by implosion and then reradiation of the gravitons in cycles. This is why the Earth's gravity is stronger near the surface than the center, the particles might be assymmetrical, exerting pressure on on the inside and attraction more on the way up to the surface. At the lower energy of gravity though the basic field has resilience it's not enough to make the higher energy quantum wells, when the field implodes to enough density, the wells are formed and the field reradiates here too in cycles, but the well has shielding because even if made of the basic field it's more dense. When the shielding is reached the charges are in electric quanta and for other higher energy forces where energy is conserved, and attraction and reradiance are balanced. The component of the high energy field that's quantased is the electric charge. This would be absent in low energy mostly non quantased gravity. The higher energy fields are balanced but the lower energy fields being with extra energy to wind up the other fields essentially may have more implosion than reradiance. In E=mc2 there's a balance of like charges with inflow equal to outflow to make the electric and magnetic equal by Einstein's evidence for special relativity. There would be essentialy extra inflow by way of gravity that other fields lack solving problems like why all the older galaxies have 1000 times more mass than young systems, astronomers have otherwise unsolved. Actually there is more ease of flow and though the Earth isn't gaining much weight, almost all or more of the efficiency of the field may be in reach of the information by its own action. Inertia is a sort of ineffiency of the field, and the "slow speed of light with higher energy fields" might cause disconnection so locally the field here would both shield and reverse sign to repel as much as attract where the low energy field would mostly attract. At high energy the field is as particulate as wavelike or more because the slower speed of light would mean e.g. the moon is disconnected from the earth somewhat by the 1 light second delay, with gravity faster to over power it so it doesn't sail away so there is a mostly balanced particulate/wave disconnection of relativity for higher energy forces gravity is without. In order that the field of higher energy opposites attract, they would be shielding and not efficient and attract because the want to "know more" like a cash hero winning more. If the distinction of the high and low energy fields is indeed that entropy is reversed, where in the lower energy field likes mostly attract, at higher energy the waves and particles are in balance so likes repel as much or more at any rate and by reversal of sign for higher energy, unlikes attract here more also. Mostly the basic field would have no unlikes like electric charge because there are no quanta here there would just be some semi quantum resilience of the field. The likes are rearadiant because of the resilience it shares with all the fields including the foundation field, at higher energy there is balance. And the higher energy fields actually have more discontinuity than implosion due to thermodynamic entropy so mostly it's reradiant after the implosion of the lower energy implosive fields reach the level of the photon or electron, this is why the idea that opposites at higher energy attract wouldn't fit the attraction of one more unified field. Gravity may have mostly waves that attract somewhat or repel somewhat but more attraction than reradiance. Particles being the opposite of waves have more resilient short range expansion, entropy though they have much in common with the basic field. The waves build up to the quanta, the quanta have nearly equal wave and particle resilience, the likes repel likes, and by equal reversal (or almost) of sign at high energy, the unlikes attract. Unlikes in the basic field would be mostly not found so all is unified by energy conservation and the other conservation laws of physics.

Recent experiments with "low energy quantum experiments" of the type Einstein might have praised have finally found a way around the Uncertainty Principle! Much smaller amounts of interaction energy are being measured than a single photon by clever tricks like twisting the polarization of the light to "wring out" a smaller bit of energy that reacts with the other particles in a much more resolute way as far as sharpness of resolution is concerned. Einstein believed if we had a low energy particle we would get around the Uncertainty Principle by reducing the energy of the particle, he boldly believed "all is not all relative to the observer" in physics of his more 1920's vintage after all, why would he? This would be the end of quantum cryptography as I predicted a few years ago, no matter and energy are as powerful as the number line and prime numbers to make super codes since no other operations than the four basic math paradigms are likely to be seen. Mass is too simple to not find a way to change it in other simple methods that the quantum of light may "not know" of. More important to my belief, we may be able to measure down to the level of La Sage's fundamental discontinuity. The machines they use might show a bit of resonance that would be the sign of a new type of matter. If the light and all the other fields are of enough power to influence common mass and energy all around us, I think it's possible these new experiments may be more enlightening than relativity, and if we divide the energy smaller than the photon it may be worth more experiments to see if the speed starts out at c for the entire photon say when it's one quantum and then as we divide up the light and the mass is smaller, if you lighten up to go faster, the speed of the wave or other signal might go faster and faster than light (for evidence and comment, click here for my Synopsis of Faster Than Light based on my hopeful improvement Maxwell's idea). While this may not be so if the quantum well not the inner flow of the well is the limit of the speed, I think this is worth more research however. (To measure the speed the electric fields of the two start and stop points of the signal themselves wouldn't go faster than light by way of the "electromagnetic" speed of light of relativity, but the signal sent and received itself would be by the changes of the two points, like parallel processing of computers. The seperate machines compute, then combine the measure, more than seperately. If you have two stars and the signal between them was faster than light measured by electromagnetic machines with electromagnetic components, no part of the machine would be faster than light by relativity. Even though the signal was lower in energy, with enough sensitivity of the machine we might find if it's faster than light.)

If the particles of gravity are flowing down at the usual acceleration of 32 feet around us they may be of considerable mass, though not as massive as a photon or other particles known or we would have already found them. They may have lower/moderate mass because the force of gravity is strong enough to hold us tight to the earth though the might particles move at this speed. As I say on the link about Lasage's idea, the field would perhaps isotropic with a regularizing tendancy needed to overcome the random radiance of the entropy's outward flow of more common heat. Therefore it would be isotropic in a sort of lattice of cubes that would have a slightly more narrow inner side of the box for each lattice. This would be how gravity would know in from out because of the asymmetry of each particle's N and S poles as if tiny wedges to make the world and other radiant laws of physics like Couloumb's law also round. The difference of the N and S poles would be because by the distinction ofmass and energy. If they were completely equivalent, all in the cosmos would be one and there wouldn't be much going round.

Let's suppose the particles are indeed isotropic, and they are vibrating with a constant frequency at any given point of the field like the 32 feet of the earth near the surface. I propose an experiment like the one above using polarized light with motion. If the particles are indeed there and have low/moderate mass, the mass may be near to the level of the experiment. If we make the apparatus of the machine movable, like on a track and if we move it down at the usual 32 feet per second there is little interaction with the particles moving along with the machine. Here we might find no vibration of the small particle created by the poalrization of the light. If we stop the machine in the field and the vibration starts because the particles are about the same as the gravitons, the acceleration of 32 feet would be a direct measure of the number of particles flowing past the machine's particle at this speed, and if we accelerate the machine up, perhaps there would be a boost to the frequency like this too.

I believe this particle might be the particle that has all the value of the Higgs except of lower mass. If the Higgs' has huge mass, where's all the huge mass in all experiments? It may be of low and intermediate energy to unify gravity with the fields of subatomic physics, by way of the matter waves. The problem of quantum uncertainty and entanglement might be explained by a large number of small particles making up each particle like light particles. When two particles are entangled, my explanation of how one particle "knows if the other has been changed" is that each particle has to have some unique signal, to continue in resonance after seperation of the two fields if they're first blended in at short range. If the photon is just a wave with no internal substructure it can't have any code, a blob is just a blob. If there are a large number of complex subparticles like these low energy Higgs' not only do they change in unique ways with the interaction, they also maintain the harmony after the interaction, to keep the connection as unified by resonance. Waves can resonate but they need a structured particle basis. Particles control the general flow of waves better than waves control particles, here again the mass energy inequivalence.

Another problem the low energy particles would solve is about causal connections. If one incoming particle always has the same output of the interaction, no substructure is implied. If there are many outputs of the same experiment we might either hold as some do that Einstein's idea of realism must be wrong, information is in more than one place, there can be no simple pictures to explain all of physics. If we assume a complex realm of low energy subparticles, there is underlying simplicity. The reason we get a different result each time isn't because logic fails, it's just that the foundation is not seen. Lest say there are 20 types of these gravitons or Higgs' what have we's for the photon. the incoming probe hits the outer quantum shell. There there are say 5 types of the "gravitons". Because each particles makeup by way of previous interactions is complex and unique by way of the idea about entanglement above, most interactions may have a random element, leading to what may seem random output. Einstein was a determinist, he believed that if we know all the states of all the particles in the cosmos we could know all there was that could be beyond in time and reruns of boss Hogg of the 90's.. Lets say we find some way to find the subparticles like by polarized light or by other methods, not impossible, e.g. there are 95 proofs that right triangles are with x x and z being Pythagorean. if we could find all these subparticles we might control much of the flow of the waves they channel. The time diagram of particle interaction might show all the known small subparticles of both particles like larger light particles in the interaction. If we change the initial particles in a known way we change the flow of the waves they channel downstream also predictably.
..

2011-05-20T10:47:00.001-07:00

Why We May Have Nothing to Fear By Contact with Distant Advanced Civilizations if Possible by Way of Light, And Why There May Be Reason for Caution If so by Other Science.

There are some who believe that if we find a signal from an advanced civilization we might have need to fear, Hawking holds this and this was Sagan's view. In his chapter of his great book Cosmos, Traveller's Tales, Sagan speaks of the possibility of more benign encounters and the history of contacts between civilizations and between the Tlingit Indians of Alaska and Europeans in the late 18th century. I believe this is not actually representative because the Europeans in this actually didn't have the motivation of land like other settlers had. The Tlingit were living in a cooler realm than the Europeans so they may not have found it the most of value. The history of Hawaii was one of kindness by Europeans like Cook to the Hawaiians, here too the distance to reach Hawaii and the small amount of land involved may have been the cause, not good hopes by the English.

If we consider the light we might receive from an advanced civilization with current technology, it's ancient. Any civilization sending the signal if advanced enough to have sent that powerful a signal would have had atomic bombs for thousands of years, seemingly a contradiction in terms. Though some consider the idea of a light signal from a distant civilization "contact", because of the ancient age of the light, it would no more be contact than reading ancient Egyptian was contact, though no doubt as interesting, or moreso.

I believe atomic war itself may not be an insurmountable problem for many advanced civilizations because of the real possibility of fusion, great fusion powered lasers might stop atomic warheads much sooner than they could reach their targets, quench the radiation by moving it away from the blast via laser cooling beam, and reaching a stalemate by mirrors being always cheaper than lasers to reflect the beam away, and so on.

Another problem advanced civilizations have to solve is overcrowding. Any advanced civilization will have a brain highly attuned to the right amount of territory. If there isn't an amount of territory like in evolution, there will be unnaturally high levels of competition for the reduced resources, causing illness so the overcrowding is reduced in unhealthy ways. More. If we believe advanced civilizations are so wise to reduce overcrowding in awareness of this simple economic observation of competition and resources, there is the evidence that no nation on earth with higher civilization has achieved reduction of the numbers. Sooner or later without reduction this will be a tragedy for any advanced civilization, not enough room to move or breathe. As I say with the cost of starship travel and other real estate not being so cheap to say the least, this may combine with the overcrowding to stop most advanced civilizations more than any bomb. For us at any rate I believe there may be an answer to overcrowding, opsins, small cellular electrodes that may turn on or off behaviour. This may not only cure problems about brain stress, addictions, overeating, debt, ect. it may be our answer to this problem. Carl Sagan also says that any advanced civilization to survive would have to limit their numbers, because they would always consume all the resources. If we move to any distant world for real estate we still will have such a rapid rise of the numbers, the stress of overpopulation would also soon follow, even if we or they could find it other than by reducing overpopulation with opsins. Thus real estate may limit advanced civilizations and the times of them being advanced may be short and we may have the blessing of opsins because of the unique biology of Earth, they were found in rural lakes and bogs that most other advanced civilizations may lack, or may that may not realize of their worth. More about opsins...

In the Sciamer Skeptic column, author Mike Shermer offers a view of real optimism;

"The Myth of the Evil Aliens"

"Although we can only represent the subject of an N of 1 trial and our species does have an unenviable track record of first contact between civilizations, the data trends of the past half millennium are encouraging; colonialism is dead, the percentage of populations that perish in wars has decreased, crime and violence are down, civil liberties are up, and so on... These trends have made our civilization more inclusive and less exploitative. If we extrapolate that 500 year trend out for 5,000 or 500,000 years, we get a sense of what an Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) would be like.

In fact, any civilization capable of extensive space travel will have moved far beyond exploitative colonialism and unsustainable energy sources and offers hope that, when we do make contact it will mean that at least one other civilization reached our level of intelligence. Ad astra!"

I'm a Great typer also, how so! In the old days Roosevelt won the Nobel peace prize not Wilson with all his treaties that were reduced to other levels in World War I, because Theodore Roosevelt took practical steps to achieve peace, while Wilson's plans were not as viable for peace. To me, unbridled optimism is not as worthwhile as being a realist. Shermer is brilliant, I often read his page first when I receive the magazine. Shermer's site seems good enough to be of worth to read, yet sometimes not comprehensive as I try to be here on this page for you, he often lists fascinating research, though I find other research even more of worth. Here I think of optimism as a privilege some can earn by legitimate behaviour like treating evolution with respect, even so I myself am not a pessimist or an optimist necessarily, rather I'm a realist who hopes to earn optimism. Optimism without realism seems more inefficient, a more wasteful way of Wilson compared to Roosevelt's way. It's been said that patience isn't the lack of action, it's waiting for the opportunity to act, in the most aware and well planned way, good sense, good character, and good intent, are my belief. Shermer has good intent, and good character, here though Shermer describes some of the evidence for how the world is improving and thus why an advanced civilization might be so, but not the ongoing risk of war, the huge damage to the ecosystem, and the crippling debt for most now, not to mention the overcrowding, these would seem to all be problems an advanced civilization would have. One of the problems is about the technology of death (war) and the other is about life. I think the first could be solved as I say above with fusion and related machines. And the other two are closely involved with overcrowding. Some believe overpopulation works merely by making resources in reduced supply, thus reducing overpopulation by economic forces, "this would be why birth rates are falling worldwide". In other words, it's not so bad because after all people lived for millions of years where overpopulation wasn't increasing. It's another way of life however to say that most people being real uncomfortable in poverty is the same as them being in evolution in what was a sort of tropical paradise (before the invention of fire). Mental illness is higher in the city, and research has even found that cats and dogs are more overweight, and this correlates with how near the urban centers they are. A limit caused by illness is unnatural because in living evolution, disease is almost absent. In unnatural illness people do desperate things often unreversable not found in evolution. It's been said wisdom is what a person does to not have to use it so much and I think this is true of how we treat the ecosystem, or at least in the respect we pay to it by reducing overpopulation so we are kind to civilization.

You may say, if there are no advanced civilizations we can see above lighting up the stars at night, is this a good omen for us? The Chinese word for "danger" also means "opportunity". Though these problems are presumably a danger for other advanced civilizations, perhaps no other advanced civilization has authors as wise and readers as wise as you and me! If you listen to my message about how fusion may solve the problem of atomic war and, opsins may disarm the other bomb of too many numbers of people, we may have a much better chance than most advanced civilizations, as they may not have opsins. We were kind enough to the ecology to save the opsins, other worlds with advanced civilizations may either have harmed the ecology there or not actually have them.

There's the problem of real estate, or moreso, the combination of limited Earthlike worlds relative to overpopulation for any advanced civilization. As I say the main motivation of conflict between cultures like the Europeans and the new world was mostly about land. Though there have been perhaps 20 or so more Earthlike worlds recently seen by the space telescopes, they may not be good real estate for us because, 99% of the atmosphere was created by life, oxygen. Most advanced civilizations couldn't reach us in starships as Hawking believes is possible except at slower than light at least cheaply, this seems probable by way of the observation that not a single galaxy is lit up by the lights of advanced civilizations. If there were any easy way to travel far and fast it would have been found for most galaxies. Even if the real estate is there there may be no way for the majority of advanced civilizations to reach it. Because of cost the civilizations that could afford stellar travel (see below for problems solved) would want to find the easy to colonize Earthlike worlds nearby their own, and if this were truly viable we would see the lights ect.

Mars is the best real estate we have other than the Earth, and needless to say reclaiming the land of Mars so it's easy to live will not be cheap. This may be typical of other advanced civilizations.

There is another possibility I also consider, that gravity is faster than light. I believe this is possible because gravity is low energy, if you lighten up you can travel faster, and, e.g. the universe has been found to have "sides" as in a signal connecting the sides that's far too distant for the light to have reached, and the earth is more at rest than the moon with more authority for who's at rest than with no gravity in SR. Click here for my physics synopsis.

Let's say that gravity is faster than light by the experiments I say about on the link, based on the evidence, and we build the gravity wave antenna that can build up information of all the billions of advanced civilizations that may be in distant realms at any one time even if losses by way of the advanced technology of these civilizations are taken into account. The civilizations may be generally volatile but there are so many Earthlike worlds conducive to life, a great number of advanced civilizations could find gravity wave astronomy for a certain amount of time. The Wikipedia says those who are improving teleportation science believe there is no reason to believe teleportation is not possible. Regular improvements are being made on schedule, and the idea seems simple, merely a good sensor, a good storage medium, and a good 3d printer, actually a glorified copy machine. Lets say Einstein's belief about gravity waves is proven and that they are also faster than light and in 25 years we use the gravity waves and start looking for an advanced civilization. If they wanted more real estate they would realize there was no way to reach us with fast starships, as we see by the lights of the galaxies. If they still wanted real estate and theirs was an Earthlike world too, if this scenario of the future turns out to be so, here's where I think we might be better to use caution if obeying any message if instructing us how to build an advanced teleportation machine that actually works because if the motivation was there they might consider this to be the one method of colonizing worlds like the Earth. I think in future times if gravity actually does turn out to be FTL, this would be the one main caution. By light alone there may be no need to fear, this is why I think it wasteful of governments worldwide to be spending much on the possibility of the danger of actual contact with advanced civilizations more than just by a signal. If it's light we read, it's ancient and no advanced civilizations could reach us, only with FTL gravity would there be this to consider as caution. We get information via old light but no other contact than old (one way) information. James Trefil, author of many science volumes says that if faster than light waves are possible, advanced civilizations might not think of using light for sending information any more than we would think of using smoke signals. The advantage of FTL signals might be about a two way signal, they send us a message and are around to receive the answer not 1000's or millions of years later. (Recent IP involves using nucleons of rapid acceleration with more density than a neutron star to hopefully make a gravity wave for research and communications or perhaps sensors, the density of the particle is known to be enough to make the signal by the observations of neutron stars that have proven Einstein's idea about the waves, thus we may soon be able to send gravity waves and receive them by resonance of the same or like machines.)

The Drake equation seems to predict that at any given time there are four advanced civilizations in the Milky Way. Carl Sagan also allows the possibility that the greeks were close enough to having invented science, that we might have traveled to the stars by the time of BC to AD. If like Shermer, we allow that most advanced civilizations might last 1000 years at least, this is, say a billion years we might have been visited by advanced civilizations in the history of our world, or in 4 billion years, 4,000 divided into 4 billion or 1 million times we might have been visited. Sagan also notes that there is no evidence for any kind of contact with ancient astronauts, only the author of the ancient astronauts volume has the photos that haven't been edited with the machine! Here is another reason to believe the governments are being frivolous spending money on the possibility of visits by starship of advanced civilizations, if even one in a million could have reached us, where were they or are they?

It's estimated that it will take a trillion dollars to put just a man on mars, and a million dollars per person to live in space stations, due to risk of explosions, air leaks and so on. I'm not pessimistic about travel to Mars as I say because there are several problems that may all be solved by technology. Radiation has seemed to be formidable for the long trip there, but NASA has recently solved this by a much smaller but strong magnetic field that will shield well. Another problem is the 9 month wait to reach even Mars, this might be solved by what are called momentum transfer systems, where the ship is "thrown a weight" it "catches" and then throws in return exchanging much more force with each exchange than by heating the great outdoors with fuel weight carried and fizzed out. As they say in the IP this may make the trip in just weeks, not nine months. They were thinking of a lottery to mars or a trip paid by advertising like a Burger King logo on the ship, my father says he would be the first to go! For more distance to travel another trick perhaps better than momentum transfer may be the new IP where oscillation of a slice of a circle sends centrifugal force in just one direction not in radiance, thus by more internal containment of the force, fuel is saved. Another new trick that's been imagined possible is to hitch the starship to a comet, no cost for the fuel, the main price of the trip. As for fuel itself, travel at near the speed of light for us or an advanced civilization is limited with present tech by the price of fuel, a huge price, and this might be improved no doubt if fusion is viable, as we see in recent machines where fusion is definitely taking place, just not more than is input. It's an old 20th century physics joke that fusion is just 20 years ahead, no matter when, but that's a hundred years ago!

All these improvements, would much lower the cost including the behavioural risk found in research where they stay in a spaceship mockup without leaving for the nine months all cooped up, and they got on each others nerves so much they had to discontinue the research, which could be solved by virtual reality outfits, you're in the ship and think you're in the country, ect. Even so any advanced civilization in another galaxy would probably have almost 0 chance of reaching us by these high tech adaptations, and so for the majority of advanced civilizations if gravity is indeed Faster than Light, teleportation and investment perhaps of most of the wager they would make would be the main bet. There are some like Sagan in Cosmos who say that all those soap commercials, I Love Lucy shows, and other shows from the 50's onward are mostly what an advanced civilization would have to think of us, no matter what we do, there's no bringing the signal from those back. Even so others more recently have noted that the convergance of our signal technology is to low power signals and wires like cables, so the time an advanced civilization might be have radio in of this type use may be small, say just 50 years, not 1000s. Others say advanced civilizations might use so many digital codes for communications all the signals we would find would be indistinguishable from noise. Even so there may be many other machines than communications that generate unnatural machine noise they may have not thought to shield anymore than we have. We may find sounds from small electric motors or more giant machines, just as in the city there's much noise than may only need to be shielded for the individual dweller.

Another problem for interstellar travel is about small rocks, if even one hits the starship it would have the power of an atom bomb, I believe this could easily be solved could be solved just by a sensor and a laser that would sweep out the path of the rock before it hit and just move it aside slightly.

We see the site (listed in an issue of pop Science about 10 years ago) where the observations of pulsars seems to show unexplained regularity in distance that might indicate intelligent life. The site says pulsars seem to be in neat isosceles triangle with the earth, except 50,000 light years on the side with us at the apex of the line of sight. The problem here is, if the civilization was advanced enough to move great power beacons this distance to light our imagination of the stars, just for us, they could have easily already reached us, and the technology to colonize galaxies would be common for the other advanced civilizations and the galaxies or all or more also would be ablaze with the lights.

LIFE 111

The army is considering what will be "the most advanced behavioural intervention in history", in what's called resilience training a sort of massive plan to train soldiers to be more strong in thought in defence as like those who are survivors of catastrophes. This is part of what's called positive psychology to put on a smile and face your music with power. Those who disagree say army life is like a football player who will have the same number of injuries and just thinking positive is no better. I think this isn't all there is to it because they will train soldiers to win wars more than just defend in war, or at least this is not worth overlooking. I once had a college professor who would say there should be Life 111 a way to know what to buy when when you're older in life and common sense in life. I think this would be a good idea, first you would take a test, and the machine would list your entire situation with monitoring software. The software then devises exercises like comedy for your brain that builds up your reflexes like a real good life teacher, in the optimum ratio, a sort of more general life training. Algebra/math scores went up by 40% in some colleges with graded brain exercises like this by software. The definition of the software would be what has always been called genius. Studies with genius shows them not to be bookish shy introverts, rather they are high powered, healthy and thriving. The software could be of religious inspiration in a way, and it could adapt fast with changing conditions. Imagine the power of those cyber ads or a great machine of Life 111...

If you like the most fish oil, what's blessed with BC powder, Ahh no headache, old gold more often! If you sing while you dream, your song will reach the star charts in June.

They arrested that lady teller at the bank the other day, because she was not guilty of listening to western music, she had 20,000, zen she had 10,000, and zen she had 5,000!

2011-05-20T09:16:00.000-07:00

Megafauna, Why Were they Mega and not Smaller?

This has been an unsolved mystery. Why were the dinosaurs so tremendous, far gianter than any land fauna since. Why are the whales the largest living in time? Why were the icea ge megafauna somewhat large but not so as the dinosaurs? Why were there great dinosaurs yet no giant cold blooded whales in the Mesozoic?

The answer seems to be, the amount of territory available to the fauna and the amount of food in this realm, what makes food available is good weather! The dinosaurs and the whales have one thing in common, good weather for them. The land was unified in the time of the dinos and the weather was good. The earth was spinning faster so the dinosaurs if cold blooded as I believe they were would have had neither too much overheating in the daytime and more important, no shock of PM cooldown as reptiles have now. The sun was in an interglacial age for much longer so it may have been burning hotter. The dinosaurs wouldn't have been warm blooded because they wouldn't have needed or wanted to overheat. They were far too great to have been able to function in the heat, even if more constant. The warmer generally constant temperatures would have been good for endothermic life. Even so the earth is slowing down because to the tides and reptiles today are much smaller even if they live in the tropics because of the nightime stress of the cool, it's often below freezing at night in the desert.

So too, too much constant temperature may have been the limit to the size of the earlier cold blooded fish in the time of the dinosaurs. If the fish arose sooner in evolution, they might have been larger even before the dinosaurs. Life thrives on not change or the lack of change. It thrives on optimi-zing, when the whale zings! This is why science shows living in the suburbs is healthier than the city or the country or why the bourgeois are healthier than rich and the poor, same hour, life is real! For a cold blooded fish in more constant warmer waters like in the mesozoic life they would have improved if more optimum change was there, the lack of change of temperature like now may have limited their size the. Later the whales being warm blooded had the more extreme temperatures each AM and PM above the surface enough to create the better levels of temperature that helped them thrive. Like the dinosaurs they had a vast realm to explore and search for a vast amount of healthy food, even more than they. Business tends to become giant only if there is a large stable economic base, in history the cities North of the alps in Europe were smaller and not so old while the cities in the South were large and of enormous antiquity, for much the same reason, whales and dinosaurs were giant because of the giant stable temperatures in their domain over great ages of time.

The whales were even larger than the dinosaurs because they have an advantage of buoyancy, even today, shipping by water is by far the cheapest per pound shipped, land sea or air.

That the dinosaurs were endotherms would also fit my picture of how they went extinct and the rise the birds and mammals; the land bridge submerged about 87 million years before the cretaceous dinosaur impactor between Patagonia and Antarctica; the land bridge would have made the S with a continuous belt of water different from the land of the N and this would have caused torque and the tilting of the earth (seasons). The dinosaurs if endotherms, would be in an ever nearer zone of the tropics, and the comet would have caused their demise, essentially just by luck. Some say they were showing "signs of old age" in their evolution, but species like corporations in business are theoretically immortal. The stress seen would be because of the worsening weather. If the dinosaurs were killed just by luck, it seems more possible they could have one day evolved to higher levels of intelligence. Some dinosaurs had both hands almost like more evolved life, large brains, and upright locomotion. The birds and mammals being warm blooded went N and S with the new weather, occupying the large areas left by the dinosaurs, so they were saved from the comet, ect.

The smaller large power base would explain why the ice age fauna were giant but not so giant as the dinosaurs. The megafauna had a great source of nourishment from the glacial lakes that dug up the soil by the glaciers so a large supply of healthy nutrition was in reach. Since the climate was cool, they weren't inclined to overheat and if it was cool at night they were warm by being warm blooded. The reason they were not more giant yet was because of the limits of the food power base, after the breakup of the more unified dinosaur continent the East and West hemispheres were a smaller food and power base for the ice age megafauna than the dinosaurs or whales. It's been estimated at any one time there were just 6 T Rexes in N America, even as giant as they were, there were no more or less because they were integrally based on the land, no more land no more size beyond a certain level. More good land more size no doubt, but there was a limit even here.

You may have read of perusaurus, the giant alligator like reptile that was even more giant than the dinosaurs. This behemoth lived in Peru about 37 million years ago long after the dinosaurs, one you may not have heard of because Perusaurus wasn't a major trend in evolution like the dinosaurs. Giant size evolution has thought of often, in truth we are larger than the ancients like in Pompeii. Unlike the dinosaurs Perusaurus had only the small power base of the amazon basin so like the Maya civilization compared to Eurasian civilizations which historians think got the advantage in history and colonization because of a larger power base of good weather East to West with other land with a N to S weather pattern. Historians believe history was like this because all the advantages like in science were conferred to all involved in the weather band, so the W built up power like naval power or the compass to colonize the New world. Thus perusaurus even if great for some time, even more than the dinosaurs wasn't able to maintain its power base if fickle since "smaller businesses" are often more prone to failure than a giant business, like the dinosaurs.

It's believed by others that bees and other insects have been limited in their evolution by the breathing tubes they use from the outside of their skeleton to their inner respiration. Supposedly the physics of the air are a limit to the available oxygen insects can use and this would limit their evolution to giant size. That there were giant bees and other related life in the Paleozoic seems to need better explanation, so my belief is that the other limit of the common diurnal 24 hour temperature stress is a major cause of the limit of the size of bees. This may be proven or disproved by experiments with large bees and better "indoor weather" over generations. If the bees are larger than than the physics of the air might allow, the temperature here too may have been one of the main influences on size in evolution.
..

2011-05-20T08:43:00.001-07:00

A Rescue System May Uplift And Save us From Math at 20 Stories

We read of the patent on the spiral loaded on trucks to save those in high rise emergencies. This "slide" would be hauled through the roads to the building and then raised to the roof and the people above would slide down to safety, "whee!" sounds like celebration!

This seems to have the problem of the size of the slide, tough to move under lights and overpasses to reach where the fire is. Another possiblity is permanent towers on the outside of each building and though this would be as expensive as ladders it would at least fit in with the look of many hi rise luxury constructions. They might say stairs outside, so old fashioned, so the elevators might be in more plans and safety codes. Even so this would still cost a lot.

The new rescue winch for people stranded on the top of high rise buildings as in fire or rain uses a seat the person unwinds the winch down to the ground and safety. There are those who believe these need to be improved for rescuing more people at once. By using a larger box and lowering it from the roof after tossing the wire with another safety module on the other side more people can be saved from the roof. The box to reach the top of the roof the box would be mostly vertical and have a rail at the top so the person would climb in the box without fear of falling. On the base of this vertical box would be wheels to keep it somewaht distance from the building if needed. At the base of the box a special safety system on the outside might be used perhaps with airbags to land reasonably well if the box actually would fall in some percentage of the time since no machine is perfect, inertial stabilizers inside might be used to make it land correctly.

The box is believed to be also T or cross shaped since it could reach people in windows too as it rises and lowers for more safety sooner so there could be more floors reached to save people sooner. A horizontal box could be used to reach more of the floors below the roof via windows sooner. This would also be a useful way for firefighters and other safety personel to reach much higher up the building sooner.
..

2011-04-15T10:59:00.000-07:00

Can Alaska Be Settled With a Lower Mortality Rate? Two Ways to Improve Alaskan Transport And Other Frontier Travel.

.. ...Alaska is believed to be the only state to be planned before it's settled, a sort of giant urban land with volume up in the months ahead. Alaska has a much higher accident rate in air travel than other states. Alaska senator Ted Stevens, a strong proponent of plane safety in Alaska died in a plane crash in 2010. Alaska needs planes to keep in business, to deliver food and supplies to remote villages, hunters to the outer realms of woods and giant streams and massifs, and like around here a way to travel from A to Z is always of Woolworth.

...

To solve this problem and for other remote areas two systems might be used. First to deliver supplies much faster and more reliably, rockets can go much faster than small planes and with minimal risk of loss of life, they would land like a helicopter and be resuable to save money too. Talk about unfrozen cheeze that won't go rancid, with g forces the lunch will always be a power lunch..

...

... Second, a system of redundancy could be used to make the planes safer for travel. Flying over realms like water and wasteland with just the reliability of the motor on the line, or between two cliffs to reach the goal for pilots in Alaska is common. The system could be retrofit to existing planes, using airships. In this plan, on sensing danger, the pilot is warned and or asked if the emergency system should be used. If so a leader balloon is filled with air, rising up to a higher height with a wire. The wire then serves as the path for a larger balloon to rise around the wire with a seal at the top, being rapidly inflated. North is how the airship would elevate! Next an anchor-rich would be dropped or fired into the ground. The plane now slowed or stopped by the balloons would safely lower down, perhaps holding the airplane a few feet above the ground till the storm is past, this could also be used to anchor above water if a torpedo is used to anchor the airship. A ladder on the anchor wire leads to the ground or pontoon in the water. This method solves the old problem for air travel, how to park the plane in an emergency, "Stop the plane It's an emergency! I'm a tourist and I wanna see the cute stewardesses!" There's often no place to land. The anchor would be a sort of narrow landing field. Unlike present emergencies, the supplies, food, and heated inflatable shelters could then be delivered by the rockets in just minutes not days or weeks. The smaller pilot balloon could be the right size for the speed so it would gradually slow it enough for the large balloon to slow it further, Higher speed would use a smaller inflation and take more time to slow to safer mph, common with higher speeds. Once the storm is past and after seeing if the plane is safe via computer sensors, the airship might rise, let go of the plane, and it would sail then start from high altitude to the destination. If the plane wasn't safe, at least a regular supply of food heat and first aid supplies could be sent till the others arrive.

There is no echo in the marm room where I'm typing now, AHHH! Foam is Worth Volumes.

One problem of the old idea of beaming power from solar collectors in orbit (where it's sunshine often and optimists celebrate!) is about the risk of beaming the radiation sideways by accident and frying a nearby village. I think this could be solved by using a mirror on the ground and beaming the beam in phase. If it reaches the mirror in phase, the change of phase generates power while if the beam is to the side away from the mirror, the energy is always low enough to be safe, it's out of phase.

2011-04-14T11:59:00.000-07:00

.. How to Improve Earthquake Survival Rates

The people of Japan are strong to have nimbly built their nation, and we hope for their salvation. I believe in the future we or they may build shields that could damp the waves of the earthquake itself, by first digging cheap tunnels around and perhaps underneath the cities to have defence. The tunnels could use pendulums of poured concrete with a plate above, so the incoming earthquake's ground changes would first try to move the plate creating reaction in the pendulum below by connection to the weight below, that would stay more stationary and so damp waves both ways. I had believed waves like tsunamis might be canceled by an opposite explosion or implosion, and this could be tried out before use by using the new small wave tanks with special waves that have been found to simulate the deep waves of real tsunamis. The Chernobyl power plant was reduced in intensity by tons of green clay from France. Green clay has long been known to have great absorption power, most people will get lead and mercury from their computer and like all the heavy metals in the parking lot and rug traffic, green clay absorbs out all kinds of toxins. It even turns on an anticancer gene, and animals commonly eat green clay to detoxify, it's dirt cheap! They say all we consume was once alive, a new food would be green clay and magnesium! A good use of green clay might be to spray a foam with green clay inside on power plants that are radioactive, forming a permanent radiation proof shield. It's believed the prediction of earthquakes will always be limited by the low resolution of sonar, however those who say this may not realize gravity telescopes are now so sensitive they can pick up a supernova in the next galaxy and the gravity of a person walking by outside the lab. We may be able to actually image the earth if we start with the nearby stuff in the room and image them with 3d reliably and then extend our reach to further realms. It may be important like with sonar to send out a signal like an explosion or a gravity explosion to one side not through the center of the earth, this would stretch the beam to lose resolution. In addition there are two other advances we could make. First, sea walls have been found to have real value in research, as in the 2004 earthquake in Thailand where images show the walls somewhat damaged and buildings beyond mostly intact. An improvement on sea walls may be to use sensors ands also explosives inside the walls to generate a counter wave when the tsunami approaches. Not only may this stop much more of the damage onshore, it would also cost less because a much smaller wall and cheap explosives could be used, allowing a much larger area of shore to be shielded, and allowing a second wall in case the first line fails by redundancy.

Second it's been known that a batch of small self contained nuclear power plants are much cheaper to build for the same amount of power as a few larger plants. The problem with many power plants is the power to cool the reactor in emergencies is from the power grid, and the backup system is powered by diesel than only lasts for 30 days if the electric and diesel run out as in the prediction made by some that if a CME a solar plasma arch hits the Earth it may be far worse than Chernobyl because in 1837 or so the telegraph operaters were shocked, telegraph was now higher speed! The field hits the Earth, knocking out the power transformers now unshielded, leading to no power to cool the reactors, and the gas pumps can't pump gas leading to no transportation to bring diesel to the backup coolers of the power plants leading to the possibility of 30 Chernobyls for the US, wow gosh and ow. This is overdue they say because it's been more than the usual time of the frequency after the 1800's CME. Other methods to power all the pumps are needed. For the reactors where reliability is if most import the smaller ones are of worth, and for most stations, the use of geothermal type power not only may be better in emergencies, also the electricity saved may be of general value to the stations. Reliability on geothermal may be smarter especially for risk of catastrophes and risk of 1000s of cash in celebration for energy saved.

....

What is a Signal? .. Einstein held in relativity that no mass or information carrying signal could travel at faster than light. Even so he never actually defined what a signal or information is! In complexity theory so too there are about 70 definitions of information, yet no agreement is reached anyone knows what is! Since relativity some take to be the limit of all physics and knowlege, even though I don't agree with the foundation via relativity as I say on my links (see upper left) in order to also have a useful definition of a signal and information for use perhaps in other physics I define a signal and information as The ability to create a measurable change between two points in space, if no change is measured, no signal has been sent. This is a definition that holds for all the definitions of information in complexity theory, a change is the essence, the change can be small and weak or like energy conservation, where the changes are one to one. ..If the change takes place sooner than relativity allows, it's faster than light. This is a distinction between Relativity and GWD, my own theory. The cosmos has been found to have two regular symmetrical "sides" by the Wilkenson observatory, but since we may not be exactly at the center between the sides, to measure the link by the light we can see and not yet with the gravity wave telescopes, the two sides can't be coordinated by the light by cause and effect if we are like a thousand light years from where "one lump or two" would show up by light, thus we need a nearer set of points to compare by light at any rate to see if gravity is indeed moving faster than light, as in perhaps CMEs as I say in my physics synopsis (above left) and atomic clocks to measure what might be first the gravity and then the light a half hour from the sun for the light and the gravity wave almost immediately if gravity is lighter than light and so might go faster than light according to the density by my hopeful use of Maxwell's method to calculate the speed of light based on the density of the field, ect..

2011-03-01T11:49:00.000-08:00

A Possible Mechanism for Gravity Seen Via a Comic Zoom, Outside the Wave; In More FM Stations... Can entropy be reversed for higher energy systems? Newton, Maxwell and many others were inventors of ways to try to describe gravity by way of particles. They may not have have had as much justification as in our latter day world of physics where many more experiments have been done and where the depth of physics is more with time in the range and breadth of it's reach. Here's my main idea, gravity seems to reduce entropy, that is it has entropy in the opposite direction of all other entropy, winding up the universe where otherwise heat flows from hot to cold, if it has only outward radiance, what wound it up? If we eventually find that gravity is made of both waves and particles the interaction between the two might be in a loop, first changing the speed then the wavelength and frequency, and more repeats, the acceleration of gravity. If we have a lattice of crystals and waves of low enough energy so they're almost pure waves are moving through them in opposite directions, the motion of one in the opposite direction could change the speed just so the tendency to reradiate is overpowered, "extra" implosion of the field, as in solitons (see below). In thermodynamics this is not found because the higher energy particles have sides, they are particulate. In general particles radiate outward because they are by definition disconnected, and reduced force connects them. I believe gravity being.lower energy may undergo a phase change like a superfluid as some have thought and if superfluids or a BEC are nearer to overpowering entropy, I would ask, why not more? Particles and antiparticles are found. Reversed entropy, like the wheel may not have been found for millions of years of evolution, and neither were antiparticles. The lattice of the waves and particles might have to be mostly wavelike, like photons of the right energy because it may be this low energy waviness and lack of sides that might overcome the reradiance. If an actual machine like this is built I believe it may be more important to our understanding of physics of gravity than as an energy source because other ideas like fusion may give lots of power cheap, as in focus fusion or my own idea of Inertial Focus Fusion, IFF. . Supposedly two Japanese physicists had found that a spinning gyroscope weighs less than a nonspinning gyroscope (how what so!). More experiments seemed to show no such change or the change was caused by the bearing vibrations. Even so the researchers agree that changes in the spin will change the mass by way of relativity, even though the changes are too small to be observed directly. I believe this may be so if gravity is the foundation field from which other fields are energized up to explain things like energy conservation and the other conservation laws being upheld from low energy like this to more and more conservation laws upheld for electromagnetism and the strong force. There may be fundamental things gravity causes the other forces are derived from, i.e. the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time may be derived from gravity's implosion. Gravity exists in the four dimensions and the other forces do too so it seems logical the dimensions are derived directly from gravity. Other forces reradiate, but they do so in three dimensions of space with more holding the field together than the reradiance here. The small particles that may have spin up or down may be fundamentally asymmetrical. Coulomb's law, like the law of gravity is based on radiant energy, the force between electric charges is inversely proportional to distance, and by Newton's observation that this is based on the geometry of radiant spheres (the area of a sphere is proportional to the second power of its radius, 4 pi r to the second power). Something fundamental may be caused by more implosion than reradiance, the ratio of the radius to the outside of a circle. If there were fundamental particles they could form a 2d circle, and because they have spin because all there is is time dependant like gravity, the particles might aim the wedges inward to the source of mass and have spin, extension outward to 3d at right angles by way of the centrifugal force being an outward force to form spheres. (Time is well known by some basic theorems to be about frequency of waves or particles, more frequency per second is more time. While stationary we are moving through time by the spin even if not in linear motion.) Time would also be derived from the spin of these small particles like small clocks, for a similar reason to the idea about space being derived from gravity and the other forces then derived in 3d from gravity, time also would be derived from gravity and then the other forces would exist in time from the basic foundation of the particles, if gravity obeys the conservation laws like rotational or mirror reflection and it's the most basic field and the other forces are in union with the same laws and if they are derived from gravity, the dimensions of all the fields would be caused by the most basic geometry of the foundation field. The small wedges by relativity we may have reason to believe in by the above, each like a slice of the pi in the cosmos. In relativity, gravity is not a force; it has no source like inertial forces if Einstein was trying to fit Special Relativity into gravity which isn't relativistic in my nonrelativistic way of what I call General Wave Dynamics GWD because the Earth is more at rest than the Moon and the Sun is more at rest than the Earth. GWD involves more than description of force or uniform motion, it also describes the causes of motion like the acceleration of gravity where force is acting. If we imagine space is uniform or empty, by relativity, the wedges don't exist and gravity is neither up or down, isotropic. If we assume there is a source, the earth has more of the source than the moon and the sun has more source than the earth and is more at rest, so I think relativity may be wrong about gravity, and thus the radiant law of both gravity and Coulomb are explained and unified. First I want to show you how this might operate by way of the particles, then I'll consider the objections to this possible mode of gravity based on this model and more. In GWD at the more fundamental lower energy mass and energy don't operate by way of Emc2, here they operate by the low energy equivalent F=ma; this is not a mostly an equation of quanta, c is replaced with the more fluid value of a which is not a constant. Thus with relativity more mass gives us more energy, but for ma the more mass has the slower it moves for the same force. In truth, by relativity the low energy law wouldn't be possible, more mass more energy works well for special relativity since the mass here is actually derived from motion so the mass energy equivalence of SR is actually more like an energy/energy equivalence, and this law of F=ma can't be derived from relativity but I believe relativity is derived from F=ma, gravity is much lighter than light so it may be much faster than light. The moon has more energy and less mass so it moves faster around the earth not slower. One of the first problems with a particle basis of the world is about discontinuity; particles radiate outward because they have "sides" this works fine for centrifugal force and is indeed how I explain inertia in GWD, but as expected in GWD is mass and energy are distinct and gravity isn't the same as inertia we can't use the exact equivalence principle to explain gravity, gravity implodes inward, in nonradiance. So as I say on this site I use particles to be the cause of centrifugal force and gravity has an extra component of much higher speed. The speed of the wave I derive by Maxwell's method he used to exactly predict the speed of light based on the force between the charges, more density higher or lower speed. Thus from F=ma, if the local force is measured and the more general mass is taken to be the intrinsic strength of the force, not the force itself, gravity's strength is quite small, so the speed would be much faster than light. In support of this on this page I offer both many lines of evidence and reasoning and some falsifiable proofs of GWD and faster than light, e. g. as I say the Wilkenson observatory shows that the universe has symmetric sides, my explanation here is that gravity being the only long range force here other than light is a signal so it would be much faster than light to unify the sides. The speed of the wave is important to gravity because it always adds more implosion than the particles might reradiate, outdistancing the particulate speed of light Einstein believed in for SR in relativity that's disconnected and so wouldn't cause the faster unifying waves of gravity, or there would only be radiation to zero density in time. The particles themselves are special to gravity. Because of the general opposition of mass and energy particles with mass would be made up of the mass type particles and the field would flow with the energy type particles under the influence of the more implosive waves. Gravity always has to have a source so it needs anisotropic alignment of the waves field and both types of particles. This alignment and the higher speed would be important because the N pole of each mass particle would be able to align with the general direction of the field, and a particle spinning around at the speed of light would always have to know the direction of the field to attract and if not it would be at merely the speed of light. The particles would have high alignment rates to the field, much faster than forces like electromagnetism, this would be how Einstein's space time would be so passive (yet it exerts force like induction or the pressure like the rocket's exaust, by Maxwells belief). The particle's alignment rates would always have to be faster than the amount lost by particulate radiance. The radiance of particles would be a problem for gravity and particles because unlike waves they are discontinuous and radiate out. Even so particles are all around us presumably from the basic field, so we can't do without them even in gravity, even if to a reduced degree. In truth to cause gravity in my belief the waves must always have more alignment here than the particles can cause. Gravity is real weak, as forces stay or don't go. The basic anisotropic field doesn't have a lot of power, but it could make up for this to overpower the particles by much higher speed, and this would explain Einstein's belief that the field is as if passive space time. In truth complete passivity would violate causal needs, as Aristotle believed a field of 0 density or vacuum would have infinite speed of propigation of the waves via no resistance, this may be reversed to say if gravity has finite strength it has finite speed and finite speed is not instant to align as Einsteion might have believed, just perhaps at such a rate that it seems instant by measuring with "slow" light of relativity. The operation method of gravity could be as follows; the wave aligns the implosive energy particles which being opposite of the mass particles are well aligned with the opposite polarity, N (flowing out) energy down, the opposite N (flowing out) mass up are opposites, this makes the massive real particles and is the cause of their mass. These particles are more wavelike than particulate and this is important because gravity doesn't shield. (Or certainly at least, the particulate component is always less than the attraction of the waves.) To create an implosive wave against entropy, after each impact of the N mass and N energy, between the next impact, the implosive wave nature of the field overpowers the energy otherwise lost to the particles here and adds a bit more, an acceleration, the acceleration of gravity. With mostly wave power of the particles, the N of the energy particles wouldn't have so much shielding. Even so there must be enough resilience to explain the cause of the particles in common physics around us to have a basic cause, and although Einstein believed in low energy particles his other belief in Relativity has no comment about this. La Sage's method needs a way to both resilience to exert the force and yet not have problems with shielding, so the collisions would be short range only, overall there must be more implosion than reradiation. When the N down energy particles reach the center of a massive body their speed is zero and there is actually no force of gravity there like being at the top of a mountain in the center of the world, lots of pressure, well somewhat like, you fall off to either side. The slowing of the energy particles is caused by the general higher speed wave speeding up towards the center of gravity to conserve momentum considerably, in GWD because gravity is the opposite of relativity, since light slows down in the field, the gravity wave speeds up "to conserve momentum" here also and also reduces wavelength, the compression of gravity, the opposite of the redshift of relativity (at another wavelength). The particles being opposite by the opposition of mass and energy in GWD move slower and slower near the center, then reradiate. Thus at the center of gravity Le Sage's problem of how the particles cancel at the center only by impact (and the problem of shielding) may be solved. In this explanation of gravity or reversed entropy the general wave actually only exerts force by first moving and in resonance with the particles. The waves alone don't interact directly, the force of acceleration and centrifugal force are measured by speed of the particles alone. This would be why, even though inertia and centrifugal force seem to be a sort of unpowered gravity without motive power, in GWD gravity mass and energy or inertia are alike in general though not exactly, and Einstein thought gravity and centrifugal force are alike, both are caused the the motion of resilient particles. We feel the effects of the waves acting on the particles and then on us to cause gravity and the roughly equivalent force of centrifugal force by the particles natural tendancy to radiance without the gravity wave overpowering the radiance. In either case being (almost, but not exactly Important! with mass energy inequivalence in GWD) almost the same force as in centrifugal force where the gravity wave is not felt or present. If it's not felt for either force, it may be there even so for gravity in order to be the way gravity overpowers the radiance of the particles, otherwise they would radiate both for gravity and centrifugal force.) This would also be why when you fall the waves being much faster would exert no force in your rest frame and at the center of mass of rotation of mass there is no force; the gravity wave is moving the fastest there past the falling mass, yet no force is felt there. In GWD gravity speeds up when by electromagnetism light slows down, due to the fundamental opposition of gravity and electromagnetism or the speed of light and relativity to conserve energy, or like the more fundamental opposition of mass and energy. If gravity is an implosion and the implosion to the center is from all sides otherwise we might expect the force to be stronger at the middle of the Earth actually it's much nearer the surface..) My explanation of attractive force was like a continuous line of twine between two points, the two sources would wave the wave and this would add attraction by moving them together, the faster wave attracts more by "crunching up". The problem with this for gravity seemed to me to be, what wave accelerates itself at the center more than outside, of it's own accord and why is it smaller at the center, the compression of the force to the center of the Earth? If the gravitational entropy is continually decreasing, and the wave is being with implosion by way of the particles, then both waves and particles and radiance and reradiance for particles would exist for gravity like all the other forces too. I believe mass is different from energy like the wave, so mass is needed for gravity, and gravity centers to mass, perhaps by this method of the lattice. Lattice Monte Carlo physics are the mainstream explanation for QCD and electromagnetism; at higher energy the edge of the larger lattice confines the tubes of force so it stays more constant with distance as measured, and with the smaller and smaller lattice at the prediced strength of the force, the electric field suddenly is radiant in the 3d field, at just the energy predicted. It seems logical to try to extend the lattice to the ultimate field of gravity, so the idea that gravity too might also be in a lattice is possible. The field seems to need to have some sort of wavelength and speed link of the lattice, in my explanation for gravity or entropy reversing systems of this type if possible to understand gravity or even to have more and more thermodynamic energy (if our fusion plans don't pan out with all the gold in the ocean to filter) the wavelength on a small scale and in larger entropy reversing machines would always have to change before the radiant force would outdistance the cohesive force. The lattice would be essential because random orientation of the particles wouldn't allow the waves to resonate and have more regular attraction than anisotropic physics. This way or a method like it may be nature's method of making gravity implode. It's perhaps mostly wavelike and simple. More complex entropy would't reverse as easily. Particles with weighted values of entropy in thermodynamics are complex, so they're more radiant than implosive. Even if gravity or other systems might reverse entropy, a system of this type would work best if simple. This may not be a problem with gravity because as we know it it's almost all a blend of the field of GR, or GWD, at low energy it's simple because it has the fewest conservation laws conserved.

In my way to improve La Sage's idea, when the energy particles reach the center, the S (implosion) of the mass is now attracting the S of the mass particles above, so the energy particles start to accelerate upward. As they move upward they encounter the mass particles inducing the field to implode more than reradiate. The mechanism is simple by way of the spacing between the particles, a change in the wavelength downward is more than offset by a change in the position of the particles as they move up or down, the loop of acceleration and changes in frequency would then cause another change in wavelength and so on, the acceleration. This might be somewhat like the use of solitons to make phone bills save more; the wavelength is set to change at just the right rate by the motion of the wave the force of the wave that would have caused it to disperse is set to the attractive component of the wave found in all waves or they would continually accelerate or decelerate. The actual force of gravity is strongest near the surface of the earth because the particles would go in and out and then reimplode in in cycles, Einstein's belief in empty fields (other than his belief in the reradiant field if used perhaps with the low energy particles) couldn't predict this. This would also be the mechanism of how the quantum wells are created, by optimization near the surface of the particle forming the well by in and out motion. If we have a globe like say a beach ball and it has a round geometry, it also has three dimentions of space, x, y and z, we know this because all the coordinates can be described by this and because there are smaller particles that also have the three coordinates. One reason I believe in smaller particles like Einstien's low energy particles he used to try to get around the Uncertainty Principle is because just like the larger globe, the smaller globe has a ratio of pi the same; all acceleration is measured in 2pi radians. If there was no fundamental limit yet seen to the physics and there were no smaller particles yet in subatomic physics we might expect to see changes in pi, because of the same division into more fundamental elements assumed. Otherwise the spiral in of the field and it's strong flux would seem to change pi. If the components are digital and in a lattice, pi is the same here as in Euclidean geometry based on the x y and z to fit the grid. As I say here I had been of the general belief that Maxwell was wrong about the his demon that could be smart enough to find the atoms of a gas and open a door and separate the hot from the cold air in violation of the second law of entropy. There is no guarantee with a finite amount of energy needed to solve a finite problem the demon couldn't win, but if he was a good elf more and more finite problems are being solved all the time. Now I read in Scientific American about how they've built a machine to cool gasses and other masses to supercool temperatures by using a laser "valve" so the "heat actually flows from cool to hot." I believe in truth instead of using random particles we might improve the reduction of entropy of the laser valve by the machines in the article by regularizing the field to copy this possible method used by gravity and learn more about it by way of isotropic orientation of the particles. The above or perhaps another entropy rewind method of the way to gravity would wind up the cosmos against entropy otherwise in cosmic wisdom the universe would have wound down to a haze of subatomic particles, gravity winds up the cosmos or we couldn't be here. You may say this is bad for entropy; all around us we see no disproof of entropy, why would just gravity be so? Couldn't we just engineer reversable systems to make all the heat we want to flow from cold to hot with other forces and systems to possibly learn more about gravity? As with Maxwell's Demon and gravity, I believe this is possible, like solitons used in a more complete sense, if gravity indeed has negative entropy.

A problem with La Sage's gravity method, which this is hopefully an improvement is about the great permeability of mass, in my way of looking at this the permeability is caused by the net gain of speed of the particles traveling through it by the entropy overpowed with each loop. This would also solve the shielding problem, if some resilience, there must be shielding. You may say why stop there, if some acceleration and it's self powered, why doesn't the Earth just keep on speeding up as it travels, this would be because the field spills over and reradiates, the quantum cups of stronger forces holds just so much field and gain no more mass than this with time. This would also solve the other problem of the particles that the earth would gain huge mass in a second. Einstein believed in a reradiant low energy component of the field, i.e. e.g. to explain cosmic acceleration, because of the one way valve of the particles being resilient NN as the energy particles would fall inward and implosive on the way up giving force more down than up even if the low energy field is there there is still no antigravity of the reradiant particles or we would fall off the earth, even though the reradiant field is needed to explain problems like the radiation outward of pulsars, and causal problems, as I say below.. the problem of the permeability may be related to another version of Einstein's idea of getting around the Uncertainty Principle by a low energy particle, recent experiments seem to prove him more right (than completely in woe!) this would be because like the wave particle duality there may seem to always be some particulate physics in all there is. By this I mean there may be lower energy particles than the Uncertainty Principle allows, so they have much lower mass and might align to the field with much more speed and reliability, less mass is easier to move at high speed.. Gravity implodes to a common cause, this seems to say the foundation of the laws of radiant energy might be caused by the basic implosion of gravity. ..

As on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation there are the following objections to La Sage's particle gravity; .. Porosity Permeability Problem of matter; The La Sage field has has to be extremely penetrating to go through common mass to exert the force. My solution is that the field may be of negative entropy so there is negative porosity (a net gain of energy) and this would also reduce the flux needed to exert the force and other problems like the following

In my belief the particles are moving slowly at just near 32 ft near the earth, you feel no force in your rest frame as you fall, the particles are moving along with you but not influencing you so much, they don't have to be so fast to penetrate because of the negative entropy, thus there needs to be no more energy in than that of the force of an air fan lifting you up at 350 mph in some machines like they travel around the country giving rides, this is not a huge flux like the permeability problem would need.

Speed of Gravity

According to Le Sage's theory, an isolated body is subjected to drag if it is in motion relative to the unique isotropic frame of the ultramundane flux (i.e., the frame in which the speed of the ultramundane corpuscles is the same in all directions). This is due to the fact that, if a body is in motion, the particles striking the body from the front have a higher speed (relative to the body) than those striking the body from behind - this effect will act to decrease the distance between the sun and the earth. The magnitude of this drag is proportional to vu, where v is the speed of the particles and u is the speed of the body, whereas the characteristic force of gravity is proportional to v², so the ratio of drag to gravitational force is proportional to u/v. Thus for a given characteristic strength of gravity, the amount of drag for a given speed u can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the speed v of the ultramundane corpuscles. However, in order to reduce the drag to an acceptable level (i.e., consistent with observation) in terms of classical mechanics, the speed v must be many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. This makes Le Sage theory fundamentally incompatible with the modern science of mechanics based on special relativity according to which no particle (or wave) can exceed the speed of light. In addition, even if superluminal particles were possible, the effective temperature of such a flux would be sufficient to incinerate all ordinary matter in a fraction of a second.

.. .. ...
Possible Solution. There is now evidence as I say for faster than light motion. Gravity being lighter than light may propigate faster than light, all the relativistic efects might be gotten around by a phase change to jump the quantum notch by way of a phase change to superfluid, ect. To say the observer is absolute would need complete control over the distant high speed observer's events, not just the speed of replay of the movie. Synopsis of Faster Than Light 4U.

As shown by Laplace, another possible Le Sage effect is orbital aberration due to finite speed of gravity. Unless the Le Sage particles are moving at speeds much greater than the speed of light, as Le Sage and Kelvin supposed, there is a time delay in the interactions between bodies (the transit time). In the case of orbital motion this results in each body reacting to a retarded position of the other, which creates a leading force component. Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.

Comment; Van Flandern and others have thought of this and calculations show that the actual value will fit just as well via the way of superluminary gravity due to the evidence showing no aberration; it's as well explained by high speed gravity because the displacement is low as observed for a much higher speed wave.

Range of Gravity

In many particle models, such as Kelvin's, the range of gravity is limited due to the nature of particle interactions amongst themselves. The range is effectively determined by the rate that the proposed internal modes of the particles can eliminate the momentum defects (shadows) that are created by passing through matter. Such predictions as to the effective range of gravity will vary and are dependent upon the specific aspects and assumptions as to the modes of interactions that are available during particle interactions. However, for this class of models the observed large scale structure of the cosmos constrains such dispersion to those that will allow for the aggregation of such immense gravitational structures.

A related objection some raise is about the range of a finite force, a finite quanta gives a finite range. If the gravitons are somewhat particulate why does it have infinite range?

But a force like electromagnetism has infinite range and it's quanta and particles are finite, light and electric charges.

Absorption

As noted in the historical section, a major problem for every Le Sage model is the energy and heat issue. As Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second and the suggested solutions were not convincing. For example, Aronson. gave a simple proof of Maxwell's assertion:

Likewise Isenkrahe's violation of the energy conservation law is unacceptable, and Kelvin's application of Clausius' theorem leads (as noted by Kelvin himself) to some sort of perpetual motion mechanism. The suggestion of a secondary re-radiation mechanism for wave models attracted the interest of JJ Thomson, but was not taken very seriously by either Maxwell or Poincaré, because it entails a gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics (huge amounts of energy spontaneously being converted from a colder to a hotter form), which is one of the most solidly established of all physical laws.

Comment; Something must be winding up the cosmos; if heat always flow from hot to cold, how did it ever get hot to begin with? Sooner or later some mechanism of reversing thermodynamic entropy might be found.

"According to the principle of mass-energy equivalence, if the Earth was absorbing the energy of the ultramundane flux at the rate necessary to produce the observed force of gravity (i.e. by using the values calculated by Poincaré), its mass would be doubling in each fraction of a second."
This would be explained by both the lower flux combined with Einstein's idea of a reradiant low energy field, explaining cosmic accelleration, as I say here, Einstein, Ghost Particles and Other Conundrums Solved by the reradiant field... .

Coupling to Energy

Based on observational evedence, it is now known that gravity interacts with all forms of energy, and not just with mass. The electrostatic binding energy of the nucleus, the energy of weak interactions in the nucleus, and the kinetic energy of electrons in atoms, all contribute to the gravitational mass of an atom, as has been confirmed to high precision in Eötvös type experiments.^[This means, for example, that when the atoms of a quantity of gas are moving more rapidly, the gravitation of that gas increases. Moreover, Lunar Laser Ranging experiments have shown that even gravitational binding energy itself also gravitates, with a strength consistent with the equivalence principle to high precision — which furthermore demonstrates that any successful theory of gravitation must be nonlinear and self-coupling.^[ Le Sage's theory does not predict any of these aforementioned effects, nor do any of the known variants of Le Sage's theory.

GWD has nonlinear, negative entropy (acceleration). that mass weighs less when hot in small degree with SR seems less important or general than an airship, add more heat and it lifts via power.

.
GRAVITATIONAL ATMOSPHERE PROBLEM

The problem of the particles hitting the outside of the field of bodies like the Earth and slowing the Earth in a few million years by way of friction as Feynmann showedwould be solved by the reduction of the entropy of each of the particles, the particles would not only impact they would also increase the force of gravity with each small reaction of the loop. (The particles don't slow down a starship in SR because research has been done to find if the ghostly particles double at the right rate to fit in SR, and they fit exactly; i.e. the doubling of speed gives 8 times the frequency of the particles, in GWD this is at the right rate because during acceleration the forces and the particles and "speed of light i.e. wavelength=momentum=speed, something about motion" are changing. In GWD they are frozen in with constant motion by the balance of the electric charges by Maxwell's method he used to predict the speed of light so well based on the density of the field from the force between the charges caused by the constant charges. This is how I reconcile Einstein's idea that there is no force, nothing there, and the light is unchanged from source to observer, particulate, yet Maxwell predicted the speed of light well based on wave mechanics. Like the weight and counterweight of elevators the constant internal cohesion of the electric charges for the wire of light in balance would maintain constant motion even with the particles just so there is more resilience in SR than needed to overpower the resistance of the particles).

I believe from the first principles above that gravity may be based on particles as Maxwell and others believed, small wedges with fundamental asymmetry to cause the laws of radiant energy. Spin up would weigh somewhat more than spin down. In this possible way of operation one side of each would exert shorter range inelastic collision and the other side would be a funnel. The cones and funnels of each particle would be the cause of the geometry and how gravity would distinguish up from down, relativity allows only for constant fields. Because in GWD mass and energy are generally the opposite so by the more general F=ma more mass moves slower than if it also had more energy where by relativity all mass would fall and move at the same rate with no acceleration seen anywhere and the constant speed of light with no change in it's wavelength and thus its internal momentum (or "speed") the opposition of mass and energy would make mass have the spin up, and the higher speed particles falling into the mass more at rest might have spin down. As above, the falling spin down particles would impact the spin up mass particles with resilient pressure on one side when the mass was more at rest when falling in.

Another problem about relativity is about the radiant energy deduced from the Nobel Prize winning work in recent years about the change in speed of the pulsars, if gravity implodes at the speed of light as Einstein believed, how can it reradiate at all? Einstein also believed elsewhere that there is a reradiant low energy field some call the cause of the accelerating cosmic expansion now observed, ect. The main problem is about causal implosion. If gravity is only implosive a pond with the waves around the outside would start the event and then we have the somewhat comic physics result that the stone in the middle of the pond would then rise up and be the cause after the ouside waves radiate in, this is why like Einstein I believe that gravity has a major reradiant component just like the other forces. The main question would be why gravity doesn't also have "antigravity" from this reradiant field, this would be because on implosion the N of energy (outflow) meets opposite N of mass (out) and there is some resilience to exert the force, and after the energy particles reach near the center and start to reradiate they would still have S (implosion) attracting the S (implosion) of the stationary mass particles and on the upward radiance during which much of the acceleration of gravity was caused by the resonance of the waves and particles in relative motion, the energy particles might move through the other particles with much reduced resistance, like a one way valve for force. The rocks weigh much by the particles in one direction but on the way up there is no force exerted even though the particles are there to explain the problem about reradiance and cause and effect. In other words funnels would attract and cones would have more resilience, even while funnels to cones, N S energy particles radiating upward would be mostly wavelike and thus the field would reradiate without causing antigravity. The idea unifies gravity with the other forces because they also reradiate, but gravity seems unusual in contrast to other forces in that it's not repulsive. This may be how gravity might operate, the important idea is there seems to need to be a way to reverse entropy, and we may be able to see if systems like the entropy reversing wave machine are of value (and if the more wavelike component of the machine acts as if it may converge toward negative entropy if the particlate component of the field is subtracted out) and perhaps learn more about gravity somewhat like experiments with Hawking Radiation in the lab to see if they act as if, except with more general worth. I believe this way or perhaps some other like it may be the actual modus operandi of the "prime mover". Gravity waves themselves may soon be in reach via new IP machines that will use a shock wave to hopefully generate a wave by nuclear density of enough known force as in neutron stars to finally make them reliably, ect.

The "particles of motion" not mass at rest would implode to the center of the Earth and then start to reradiate. The higher speed most external waves are needed to hold the mass to more implosion since waves are continuous and attract and are more fundamental. Particles are by definition discontinuous and reradiate like the centrifugal force or the particles of a gas. This is a fundamental problem of any particle or quantum method alone used to cause gravity, particles radiate, and gravity seems to be mostly implosive, for this reason I believe gravity has both much faster waves to attract, and particles at the usual 32 feet per second, except inertia would be a sort of gravity without motive power. The Equivalence Principle as I say there (on the click me site) unifies gravity and inertia; even so it fails to mention the important differences gravity and inertia have; e.g. gravity can't be transformed away by choosing the right frame of reference, it can't be turned off and on by stopping an elevator, it's of vast difference in strength, and so on.

The problem of gravity shielding would arise in GWD by way of how gravity "edits' the speed so it's faster than light by a phase change. At low enough energy gravity would have what I call "low energy quanta" that are more wavelike than usual Emc2 quanta, i.e. they obey F=ma for a looser connection, that also allows faster than light motion by way of changes in viscosity of the field. Angular momentum and thuis mass energy isn't connected so definitely at lower energy as with the higher energy E mc2, the sun has 97 % of the solar system's mass and just 3% of the spin due to the history of the solar system like the T Tauri. In reradiance the particles would be more completely wavelike in relation to each other than other fields passing through each other like neutrinos without loss of acceleration. Both the masses and the reradiant particles would accelerate because of the more wavelike attraction and the change of phase to the more general F=ma would thus be the cause of the acceleration of gravity.

The question of why no induction of the fields unlike other fields like the electric fields would be because of the asymmetrical foundation too. The field is mostly implosive, so you drive a car up the superhighway and there's no shock wave as it drives by even though it has easily measured inertia as you go around or slow down or speed up. The field only has inertia in line with axis of motion by relativity, more directly ahead of the car. Induction is established to be much like resistance to change in electrodynamics, that is a sort of friction or delay in changes in the field. There would be reduced induction with gravity because of both the phase change and the much higher speed of gravity being also more wavelike in general, so there would be reduced induction by way of faster reaction times and more speed to change the phase. I myself have tried experiments to see if I could find induction of fields like spinning gyroscopes, and this has indeed been tried by many in science, yet with no result. My conclusion of the experiment as I describe on the link was that either inertia and mass were not equivalent and relativity fails (as we would expect in my improvements via GWD, "if centrifugal force is gravity" there would be gravity upward around the inside of an oscillating wheel) and we might find faster than light waves for gravity or the strong force or we would have antigravity, either way physics may win. The implosion of F=ma makes the more mass more at rest by F=ma even though there's no wave of induction seen or felt.

That gravity doesn't shield would be seen by the mostly wavelike field, even if it would perhaps have enough definition to cause the radiance outward of centrifugal force and some of the inward force of gravity.

Where are the particles Einstein believed in that could be the cause of gravity here too? Einstein believed in low energy particles that were a way around Quantum Uncertainty as I say on my next post below. Einstein's idea here seems helpful in explaining the problem of the Lamb shift of hydrogen that Lamb won the Nobel prize for in the 1950's, this is described as due to the attraction of the low energy field in loops. By the Uncertainty Principle, the reduced distance has more mass; thus even a low energy field will have a huge mass of seething particles that would cause the measured change in the energy of the hydrogen atoms. But the particles are not seen directly, so I think it's possible they might be described just as well by lower energy waves and particles that act like they're more particulate and quantum than they actually are. Another problem is that if the radius of the loops goes to 0 size, the mass is more and more by the loops; thus at zero size there must be infinite mass, of an "empty field". This is another reason I agree with Einstein about the lower energy particles not obeying the Uncertainty Principle.

If indeed they exist we might expect the low energy particles to be much smaller than in common subatomic physics. Thus I think it's possible a wave like the common matter waves might be focused to smaller wavelengths than any quantum of common type, after all they are indeed continuous in all ways measured. (To keep them from "bunching up" into quanta I think we might lower the amplitude of the waves). If the frequency is much higher because the speed may be much faster than light in GWD, the frequency might be adjusted to fit and illuminate the small particles, and another machine of the reversed process might then pick up the field thus modulated by illumination to find out about these particles. More on this page...

Black Holes have been found to have increase in mass with time as Einstein believed for massive bodies, but the rate of increase is just half that predicted by the ghost particle believers in ghosts; EEEK. If the mass particles are indeed the opposite of the energy particles all of the mass particles would be retained and the energy particles could reradiate upward. Thus the missing mass of black holes may be evidence for the quantum of gravity. Click Here for the article in New Scientist. Mass and energy would be reversed at the most fundamental level, and this would also be how antiparticles of higher energy fields could arise from a basic seemingly non reradiant field (latin deep is fundamental). Only at the higher energy of massive bodies would the more exact opposition of mass and energy for gravity be more probable, ect.

The "particles who would be Higgs' if with huge mass by the Uncertainty Principle to explain their small size would have trouble being the cause of all the quantum continuity seen in subatomic physics; a massive particles attracts itself more and thus is much more discontinuous.
If my interpretation of the black holes observed mass being evidence for quantum gravitons is true, their mass may be something more like neutrinos, at higher energies neutrinos are seen to be so powerful they can ionize heavy particles. This density is comparable to that found in stars like pulsars. Neutrinos at high speed exert some pressure and the gravitons at 32 ft per second might exert more pressure; thus the mass of both types of gravitons may be somewhat similar to neutrinos and so it may be much easier to find them than has been believed, if gravitons are indeed near enough to the physics of particles like electrons and heavy particles indeed to essentially by the mediator of all the complex fields there instead of the Higgs' though it's energy may be lower than a minimum to explain why it hasn't been found yet, by the unity of the fields because of the conservation laws, it seems possible the La sage idea may not be far from us, not nearly as massive as the Higgs' but strong enough to cause the measured mass moments and the mass of subatomic physics ect. Neutrinos are eletromagnetically influenced so they are quanta and have sides and a small magnetic moment, thus they interact more strongly than the lower energy gravitons and may be easier to find.. The continuity of mass in subatomic physics puts a limit on the mass of this particle; it's mass can be no more than the amount that could create less resolution than observed. Like a film of pixels, if the resolution is higher than amount a, the mass of the pixel is also involved for films and life in pictures. On this page there is a discussion of recent "low energy quantum experiments". Einstein believed there might be a low energy particle to get around the Uncertainty Principle. These experiments use effects like the rotation of light to reduce the energy as low as needed to measure a feline like Scrodinger's Cat by e.g. putting a low energy quantum mouse to see what the mouse does to "see" the cat. I agree with Einstein that there is a low energy particle, by the necessity of the need for a somewhat discontinuous field at any rate to make the world around us have discontinuity too and to explain gravity, so my basic question here is if we could reduce the amount of the low energy interaction enough to find Einstein's basic low energy particle, a way to find a particle that would be Higgs and a particle as important as the electron or the proton no doubt. Another important question by my belief in the possibility of Faster Than Light is about the smallness of the experiment. By rotation of the light the photon is not a quantum limit to the mass; any degree of the energy is achieved. Thus the qunatum of light is divided and the limit of the quantum of light may no longer be the limit on the speed of light in relativity at short distances inside the photon. I've tended to believe this is true since the light reaching a starship at high speed has already changed it's information about the wavelength and it's a signal before it reaches the starship, that is as Einstein beleived about the EPR.

That the basic field is perhaps based on the "geometry of the wedges" would be why pi is unchanging for all the other forces; if the basic particles are indeed quanta, the ratio of pi would be unchanged "all around" because of the nature of the fundamental field, not to universal to any other field, e.g electromagnetic or the strong force, than gravity.

It's believed by many that pi may change for massive bodies like black holes or galaxies as they are all seen to be spinning faster than they should by conventional gravity, this arises readily in my particle theory of gravity because all masses would have a halo of the particles and it wouldn't reach beyond the outer limit so the mass is finite, for larger lower density bodies like galaxies the halo is retained but for higher levels of gravity like black holes, the aura might radiate out under the greater acceleration outward, at longer distance and lower energy density gravity holds on to the aurora, without so much resistance from the radiant halo, and like a hot mass the particles may boil off with higher local density, even though gravity always wins in general.. Inside the aurora, the usual ratio of the geometry would hold by the balance between the implosion and reradiance, at higher radii only the more implosive field would prevail, thus the galaxies, and the Pioneer would both have more acceleration due to gravity than if pi were not round.

Wealth and Riches to You!

Have you seen that ad where the dude is asking for fininancial advice; First he asks the lady in the restuarant who works there, then he asks the employee in the drive through at the fast food, then he asks his dog in another zoom. These financial advisors may have been unaware that research shows they are no more unreliable than throwing darts to pick the winning stocks or commodities. Sure enough just like in the ads, the weather is a good financial advisor! I'm not an advisor in the sense of risking thousands and thousands like in the ad, actually the risk is like 10 cents in some of my business plans, with a much higher payoff if you win, click here for more.
..

2011-02-22T09:55:00.001-08:00

Was Einstein Wrong About Reliable Connections?

..Einstein considered himself a Spinozan, Baruch Spinoza was one of the most well read determinist philosophers. Einstein believed the Uncertainty Principle and that the collapse of the wave function were only coincidence and some of the recent "low energy quantum experiments" seem in truth the support his conclusion. He believed the Uncertainty Principle was not just common but rather, uncommon sense; I agreed with Einstein in years before because it seemed random to assume the illuminating ray has to have a near energy to the measured particle influencing it to the degree that it was agreed by others than Einstein that "to measure was to observe". My belief was that it's just coincidence the forces in subatomic physics are not of great distinction is energy and mass. The fine structure constant (the ratio of the strong force to electricity) is just 1/137, there's no real reason it might be much larger or smaller because all the fields seem unified by the conservation laws less to more, so the given low energy field of gravity can have any degree of resilience or resonance and thus the forces derived by it that all obey energy conservation, ect, but I believed the actual value of the resonances of the higher forces could be of any relative strength. Thus like a cushion and a ray of red yellow and blue like my mom's shelf was scorched by, the ray of illumination could be of any value whatsoever it seems, the light ray is hugely smaller than the cushion and it doesn't have to be the same. Einstein asked, "Do you really think the moon isn't up there when you look up to see it?"

Einstein's idea was, what if we could find a low energy particle to "go around"the Uncertainty Principle, then I thought, the Uncertainty Principle wouldn't seem to violate common sense either, all ain't bad if VISA'S 100% save to dish! Einstein believed if the low energy particles were found the universe would be deterministic, a clockwork cosmos of the celestial musicians restored to sound bytes, physics not magic would once more win.

As I say I agreed with Einstein before. I've changed my mind more recently because of this, based on the experiments;

We can say a particulate cosmos is more predictable than a wave cosmos. If you have the particles of a gas you can time reverse them in a simple way, the movie looks the same in forward as reversed, in truth any movie you can do this with would by definition seem deterministic, this is an important test for cause and effect being well in union.

It may seem the lack of Spinozan determinism needs more complexity than we can control. This may seem to be a limit on building a time machine (Einstein actually considered time travel and he thought we couldn't go beyond when the time machine was built into the past, my own conclusion was that we could perhaps find a good record, but the machine would have to be giant to visit say 1982, because the past doesn't exist now, so we would have to "Rebuild it" atom by atom, and this would be woe to waits in the RN's room. Actually complexity if finite wouldn't be a limit, just more now than we may eventually reach via machines, no doubt Einstein's time machine won't be built real soon in 1995!)

Indeterminism needs a power source. Not much going on on Neptune. Fewer events means it's easier to measure them all.

It needs combinations of more unlike components to build up the creative power at higher speed. This is the form entropy has, branches which have weighted values, each with it's own worth, rather like the branches of the math from ancient to modern times. Even so while this might speed up the randomness so determinism couldn't reach by unpredictability, there is no guarantee from the foundation of physics determinism would win by this observation.

We imagine if there was a good enough resolution of our sensors to find all the particles there at any given time, "in the past" as Einstein considered (if Einstein's low energy particles actually existed) and we could actually find some way to actually even have a place to put the ancient world we might create somehow (without lots of people in the present losing a lot of money and stuff and without disagreeing if they would have no ancient place to go to the old world!) and so on,

When we reset the machine to another time, what would happen? We imagine that even if we had a perfect copy of the machine and all the chemical stuff was exactly the same as it was, all the world, it would still be not deterministic. If we let the world run forward from there history indeed wouldn't repeat itself, and history as taught in schools was bunk or will be. No two histories of the world would repeat.

To see why this is so, consider a horse race. By Einstein's determinist method we imagine all the particles of the horse, the air around the horse, the dirt, all the rest or more. In his wondrous way Einstein may have the world where each moment of time even of the waves that the mass is made of are themselves seen by the low energy way. At each instant of time each small wheel has one event and say five possible ways the wave may collapse. If we wonder how to know what the collapse would be, there's no guarantee Einstein was correct. The old problem has remained in subatomic physics, which is more fundamental waves or or particles? Einstein himself also came up with the original idea of waves and particle equivalence, one of his brilliant ideas, how so, if truth and false can't both be true, by this you can see why the wave particle duality has not been proven true just measured to exist in the near realm of the physics he realized.

I believe waves are indeed more fundamental because it seems impossible for a truly fundamental particle to emit and absorb waves.

If the wheel has five possible ways to roll why can't we know what they are? I think there are two reasons. First because waves are lower energy, matter waves, this makes the connection a loose connection. Second these waves are the low energy quanta I imagine the basic field including the mass is made of. Going from higher energy like light to the lower power field I believe there may be a phase change where the quanta are more like a saucer instead of a deep wall, and this may allow a sudden increase in speed, if faster than light. Here's my Physics Synopsis for you. Feynman himself believed the matter waves may move faster than light e.g. to cause the speed of light escape velocity of massive black holes, and Van Flandern and I also agree for reason of causality. The lower resistance would allow the field to act like a superfluid in a phase change so the problems of relativity, like infinite mass wouldn't be common. Like two antenna of different size, the electric field like via Einstein's speed of light and the lower power matter field wouldn't have direct influence like the higher energy fields, this would be how superfluidity and the statistics of bosons themselves would arise.

The main cause of the indeterminism would be not so much the loose connection, rather the faster than light speed of the waves, looseness is near in all the world, and there's no guarantee the particles can catch the waves because the waves are more fundamental. I consider the cosmos to be a set of concentric spheres of fields at least the longer range fields of gravity and electromagnetism, the outer sphere would be gravity because it has lower energy so longer wavelength, with electromagnetism at much nearer radius (even though more than 20 billion light years). Thus electromagnetism is ultimately out of reach of the gravitational field, electromagnetism and the other fields than gravity are based on Einstein's Emc2 and this is particulate, because Emc2 is fundamentally bound to quanta, change the radius and the mass and energy always adapt to fit this (derived from relativity because the more speed or energy there is the more mass there is). Quanta are particles by definition. If waves are more fundamental and gravity is perhaps mostly wavelike because it's more fundamental and has attraction (particles being more discontinuous would only account for the higher energy physics) we might believe there has to be a realm like the outer sphere and higher speed where particles may not have influence. Einstein's low energy particle might have the optimal energy to measure the waves, but there's no guarantee of this. The low energy experiments that prove Einstein more recently are not so numerous as the many examples of Schrodinger's. Ibelieve while Einstein was actually not completely wrong (no doubt!) even so waves may be more important.

The lower energy fields may seem to have a "life of their own". More recent improvements of Feynmann's famous method of finding all the possible options that would cancel out by real laborious slide rule and other ancient business machines, since we can't know them beforehand may seem to have been improved by the use of "twistors" where the calculation is simplified out of sleep and dumbness to a more certain real like Einstein might have liked, by finding symmetries to simplify their calculations as they have more recently. Insomnia has the worth of no worry about when to go to your business visit with your business! In my belief the particles don't know how they will collapse before they do, so the twistor method will always be general, and like the idea of number or complexity in math may never be made exact, in truth the wave foundation would be why. When the particles collapse they themselves wouldn't know beforehand because the particles can't keep up with the waves, only by following the lead of the waves which would be at FTL would they labor through the calculation.

I actually imagine this may be related to how gravity waves may attract by quantum entanglement. Recent experiments show that entanglement is common, particles are found to stay entwined in many complex ways long after they blend well. This would be how attraction works. As I puzzled over the problem of entanglement I realized it seems to need both a FTL signal and a unique entanglement for each particle in order for the other particle to see if the other particle has been changed as in quantum codes. When two particles are entwined they would have real internal structure, even an electron that may be extremely complex and the reason no structure has yet been found would be because of the low energy of the waves and the super high speed. To the electromagnetic field the matter wave would just be a blur, and look continuous, even so the waves may have extremely complex lower energy resonation for each particle to find the other masses. If Einstein's gravity waves are in nonlinear per se an acceleration, I wonder if they may first change wavelength, then speed, the wavelength, and so in a loop, causing the acceleration of gravity by entanglement (this may be soon in our reach by the IP machines that may use a shock wave as by protons to generate a known gravity wave as expected). If gravity is out of reach of quanta, then I wondered if at the extremes of gravity if it actually may be the prime improbable mover, winding the cosmos to never run out of power by the entropy. Gravity doesn't violate energy conservation, there's acceleration nearby often and it doesn't violate energy conservation.

Gravity would try to speed the quanta by acceleration but they have just so much they can hold of the field. Einstein proposed to see if electrons would gain mass with time in a field of gravity, old electrons are found to weigh the same as new ones however by the experiment and this makes sense if the earth isn't gaining huge mass of the electrons, Einstein might have known! The electron seems like a cup and it holds just so much field. I believe there may be more of the field left over that flows past just as in a usual cup in the stream and like Einstein I believe this may reradiate in a low energy field that may be the cause of 10 recent otherwise mysterious observations in physics (like the Pioneer anomalies, universal acceleration and so on as I say HERE.). The earth doesn't speed up or slow with the acceleration of the gravity because the quantum wells hold just so much force and the rest would reradiate, unused, gravity is a one way valve for force (I believe this itself may be explained by a particulate way to be the cause of the rest of gravity because there's no need to assume Einstein's low energy particles are completely gone at that realm with low energy quanta, somewhat discontinuous nonetheless to build up the higher energy particles out of the basic field, this has a cause here too. Particles would be the cause of the radiance of centrifugal force by their discontinuous radiance like particles of a gas, the equivalence principle shows gravity and inertia are much alike, thus gravity may have an important particulate component in it's mechanism. The flow of a particulate field at 32 ft per second would explain why no force is felt while you fall, by balance all around, but the force we feel at rest would be by way of the particles. Newton and Maxwell both tried to explain gravity by the way of particles, my more modern way to hope to explain the way gravity might work based on a foundation in later 20th century science I'll explain in another post. I'll try to explain how the leftover field might exert pressure on the way down but no force on the way up, so the Earth wouldn't be speeding up even though there's extra field because gravity is the cause of all change in the universe).

The acceleration and resistance also may be the reason why particles spin never stops, no matter how friction is added they never run out of spin. The interior field being an acceleration and the acceleration being fundamental, spin and time being derived from the spin being an acceleration like a small clock is eternal. I believe the universal duration is infinite because for quanta held by gravity energy here is neither created or destroyed, like Lerner, I believe the Big bang is not the entire universe, my own cosmology is a hoped for improvement of perhaps others ideas (not sure where I got the idea so I can't claim priority, though I think I've improved it much by predictions, ect to what I've named COSMIC JET Jet Cosmology.) about a circulating field like the earth's electromagnetic field that would have continuous loops from the poles powered by the gravity forever so energy is conserved via local radiance and implosion. Gravity really would be perpetual motion here in it's own special power to wind up the cosmos even while at higher energy it would fit in other fields, the ghost in the machine of the particles, the particles the machine, gravity the oil, but more cosmic because it also would be oil that would power the machine.

About entanglement, if the acceleration was continuous like gravity we might expect particles like protons or neutrons to oscillate and change indefinitely from emission to absorption, in truth in neutrino astronomy, they oscillate a bit then settle down in transit to a reliable measure of the events that made them with emission in the dense realm, say a gamma ray in a star, thus here the acceleration is limited, and in truth there must be both resilience and viscosity of all fields, even so beyond a certian point the latter may be the foundation, at the point where it overcomes all other radiant types of entropy, this would be the reversal of sign in GWD that may mark the opposition of gravity and relativity. Electromagnetism (like the speed of light) radiates to the many and gravity implodes to unity.

Why be good to evolution and move to the country? The answer may be of worth to you, Click Here.

For More click here..

2011-01-20T12:12:00.000-08:00

MORE ABOUT OPSINS

Opsins, small cellular pumps that can be used as cellular electrodes seem to have great potential. It's believed they may be a cure for brain illness like mental illness, retardation, or Parkinson's by making the neurons fire as might be most of worth, in a precise controllable way, not like the too general broadbrush way of drugs that are neither permanent or exact, with more risk of harm by side effects, ect. Already opsins have been used to turn Parkinson's on and off by just changing the frequency of the firing of the neutrons and have yielded an important insight about schizophrenia, the types of cells involved are the ones that were believed to be overactive, and changing the opsins have proven this to be true, proven by no other method before now.

There are those who have imagined there might come a day when nano dust from above might fall from the heavens, clothing the poor, healing the sick and feeding the hungry via the power of a supercomputer in a drop of mist like a sort of manna from above. These would be nano robots for many uses. The military is already believed to be using nano dust dropped from planes in Afghanistan to identify personnel and enemies more reliably.

One problem with the war in Afghanistan is about opium, the Talaban is getting most of it's money from the opium, and 85% of the people of Afghanistan are estimated to be addicted. It's generally thought that Afghanistan is an endless money pit for the Allies, because the opium being a cash crop will keep the Taliban in Power for the poor there. A military solution seems unviable or we would have already seen it. This may seem reminiscent of the American Revolution when the British were pouring endless money into a distant realm, with the Americans deeply entrenched. History doesn't always repeat itself with more new science, we wouldn't even be in Afghanistan if it weren't for the drone missile power we have. Perhaps life's an opsin if we are optimists. That is, if there may be no military or economic way to have a definite win, opsins may be our answer. Opsins may soon be used to cure addiction,
you may say, addiction, isn't this replacing natural receptors in the synapses with other receptors say for small cigarette receptors in your brain (what's a filter!). Newer science with cigarette addiction is using what's called cotinine, a totally non habit forming derivative of tobacco that's so powerful it's believed it will be used to not only cure tobacco addiction, but may be of use to lose weight (I drop my 10 and 15 lb weights, a fast method of math!). The idea here is that just increasing pleasure centers and making you feel wise like scientists and professors would always say smoking made them feel (later research has shown they were telling the truth, B vitamins like nicotine boost IQ 87%).

If counteracting pain in one part of the brain like to be thin (and save for a luxury machine of your own not the pizza van) with more activity via another is powerful, all addiction may soon be cured with opsins, just by stimulating the pleasure center of the brain more than the pain will allow otherwise. If it's strong enough to overpower food cravings and cigarettes, perhaps opsins will be strong enough to cure all or most addictions..

To win in Afghanistan instead of waiting perhaps indefinitely for a military solution and in finding no other economic solution like encouraging other cash crops and building schools and plants and other ways to boost resistance and so on perhaps the way to win the war may soon be to add opsin dust to the air, curing the addiction that keeps the Taliban in power. We think of the people in their misery being grateful for being cured (perhaps not, even so many believe a good deed is it's own reward) and they might help us win the war from there.

And about the future of opsins we imagine not just mental illness and addictions being cured. Another side of ospins is about control of behaviour. If an opsin pill was developed or was of worth for many uses, we think of the time when an ugly man who loves a woman to slip her the opsin, and suddenly she's in love for the rest of her life, and she knows why, "Why did I fall in love with him he knows math so!" Indeed opsins could be used in any competition where one person wants another to do their own bidding. We imagine societies like the communists who would give opsins to control the will of the proletariats, and our own method of dropping opsin nanobots to change the society to not so much revolt as for peace to break out. Conservatives thrive on discontent and poverty, if we "stimulate the pleasure centers of other brains" this may help solve communism. If most feel great and there's good health, most win more than lose, this was evolutions way for millions of years because research has shown disease is virtually absent in living evolution. A problem with this is it would be more a cheap solution than solving the increased competition for decreased resources that seems to be causing the worldwide deficits. I think there's no more basic than supply and demand, and the stress the deficits are about seems to be natures way of telling us the overcrowding caused by our excesses in the past few hundred or thousand years to evolution isn't nature, there is no more basic than supply and demand. The overcrowding may thus be what causes communism. If we find a way to think it's alright and we feel good about the pleasure centers of our brain this may be like cutting the wires to the oil lights of a car and feeling fine till the engine blows even though we are wiser to save ourselves from more severe problems about common sense to evolution. It's true that all the life of the earth isn't needed to live well, extinctions are common in evolution, and the ecosystem flowed around the hurt and healed the wound and continued computation at another level to higher evolution. Even so beyond a certain level of common science we would say there may be more to think of than short term oil lights.

In truth even if we feel fine about this problem via the opsins, sooner or later (not too soon if we use opsins for other use) say 50 years, people won't have enough room to move or breathe, I think evolution is trying to tell us something important by way of communism, but good news if we use opsins to stimulate other pleasure centers than for sex, so the crowding is reduced. Pleasure of other types might be increased so much it would overpower interest in sex after the two children that would not be "out of evolution's world" were concieved, like listening to songs, or exercise! I believe if the overcrowding was reduced to nearer evolutions golden level, the world could return to an age like in the 1500's right after the overcrowding was reduced to evolution's degree by the plague. So too the rise and fall of the ancient world and other civilizations seems to correlate with the general level of overpopulation, for example England in about 1800 and the ancient world had about 1 million in the more large urban realms when the decline of both was. Thus if we reduce overpopulation communism may be reduced and the societies who otherwise use opsins to the goals of communism may not tend to use them for overcontrol, so the problem of general misuse of opsins by societies could be solved by better use of opsins. There have been numerous examples where the society tried to reduce the overcrowding, most notably in Mexico where a program using soap operas reduced the rate of increase by 2/3. Almost no other method has won to reduce more, and so it may be of real worth in the future of the world to use opsins. Here's my First Opsin page.

Click Here for more about evolution, overcrowding, and its historic influence.
..
...