COMICS II

.When Einstein was asked what the greatest power in the world was, he said, "Compound Interest." He got much appreciation!

They say morticians are the last one to let you down,It's safer to go on a plane than recieve medical care, but up here where I live health improves at three times the speed of sound!

I'm on the dish diet-it's where I eat what I watch!

I was asked when my favorite time to be alive in history was, "Ancient Greece? 1600?" I said "Always, I'd be real old, but I'd be alive more often!"

I go for optimal bus trips in London to see my opthomologist- On a bus where both the lower and upper level both zoom up the superhighway!

I once had this marm who was a sweetheart. She would say on the exam, "All the questions on this exam have solutions, pick them all and you'll always bee mine."
-

.I was in a marathon and I won! How many laps are in a marathon?

-
The MOON And Its ORIGINS

Small Impactor Causology or,

"What if life had evolved in 20,000 billion B.C., was its influence on Health Science in the 12oo's substantial?"

The current theory about the moon is that it was captured when the proto moon, a mars sized mass, hit the earth, nearly blowing the earth apart via the force of the impact. This is the Giant Impactor Theory, used to explain much of the info of the Apollo moon landings of the 70's. For instance the Earth and moon have identical isotopic composition, this is well accounted for because they would have blended well in the capture of the moon. On this site authored by the originators of the Giant Impact causology (Click Here) it says the proto moon would have been created out of one of many small planets like large asteroids or the size of Mars at the time of the later formation of the solar system. A problem with this is, with many of these large proto moons around where did the rest of them go? There are three ways this would take place; the Impactors would be either captured, impacted and melded with the nearby planet, or removed to elsewhere in the solar system by the gravity of the planet as they would wheel past it. About this, there would be a high probability that a major fraction of these protoplanets would be removed and roam around the solar system to be captured by planets like Jupiter or Saturn without impact. And the larger moons of these worlds are more ice and water based, not burnt and dry like the moon. Thus if the source of the moon was by way of many large impactors we would expect to see many Mars sized moons of the gas giants. Since these are not seen, the whole idea of the later formation of the solar system by large impactors must be revised. Many smaller impactors no doubt are of worth because the outer moons of the giant planets are of this type. Another problem is about the regular increase of mass and decrease in density with distance both the planets and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn have with increasing distance outward from either the sun or a massive planet. This would be explained by a common way of formation so the giant planets with their large moons, and the solar system and the planets would have been formed by the same forces. But large protolanets the size of Mars in many motions around the solar system would disrupt this regular motif of formation for the moons of the giant planets and with their large mass the Giant Impactors would double or triple the mass of Mars or Venus at random and by moving around the solar system they would have disrupted both the mass and density of the Earth, Venus and Mars which show no signs of this. Venus in it's history has been impacted with something large so that the slowed down rotation always keeps the same face toward the earth as is known, and it's known the reason Mars has a lower altitude in it's N hemisphere is because of an impactor that sheared off some of the N hemisphere of Mars. While these are evidence of impactors, they aren't necessarily proof of the formation of the solar system by this motif, as in the Giant impactor causology. The Venus and Mars Impactors may have been of higher speed and lower mass from outside the solar system. So a prediction of this Small Impactor causology as necessary to explain the formation of the giant planets satellites and the planets themselves may be that the N hemisphere of Mars is of a different type of rock left over from outside the solar system. And since these Venus and Mars impactors would neither have been caused by the formation of the solar system or associated with the moon capture with it's breakup of the asteroid planet and my explanation of it's Late Heavy Bombardment with large asteroids around the solar system millions of years after the solar system's formation, the timing of the Venus and Mars impactors could be at any time in the history of the solar system, or at least somewhat after the Late Heavy Bombardment if the timing was caused by just luck

....

If the origin on the moon is not from the Giant Impactors near the Earth another source for the moon would be of worth to explain it's origin.

....

If the moon was in orbit around a planet comparable in mass to the earth at the start it would have had the right speed from that source to be captured by the Earth. And the giant planet origin of the moon is also ruled out because it would take a strong impact to dislodge the moon if in orbit around a world of great mass by another high speed moon or comet, this would have blown our moon to bits so this would probably not be where the moon was born. Optimally the planet the moon would have originally been around would have been from a mass like the Earth because if it were of this mass and the central planetary mass were impacted and disintegrated, the outgoing proto moon from the planet of origin would be the best with a comparable speed to its speed of orbit around the earth after the capture. The origin of a Giant Mars sized proto moon Impactor would neither be outside the solar system or the satellite of a large planet for these reasons. The only other source for a Giant Impactor would be as a planet itself or in orbit around a planet. By Bode's law or it's equivalent distance percent law of planetary distance, each planet is about 65% farther away from the sun than the one before it. By these two laws, whatever their cause, all the locations for planets are taken up. No planets are vacant other than where the asteroid planet was. Two planets can't occupy the same spot, because they would impact and combine. The only place where a Mars sized Impactor would originate might thus be narrowed down to that of the Asteroid Planet. But if it were dislodged from it's orbit this would take another Mars sized impactor, but there seems to be no other source than where the Asteroid Planet itself was in Bode's Law for the origin of this outside Impactor to move the Great Impactor if we assume this the Asteroid Planet was indeed the proto moon. On the other hand it's much easier to believe in an outside much higher speed small impactor to blow up the Asteroid Planet with a smaller proto moon in orbit around it. The relative speed of outside destroyers of worlds like this would be much higher than just orbital speed of satelites or other orbs. Computer simulations about the paths of the asteroids in their orbit in retro mode by retracing their paths back in time have been in evidence that the asteroids may have originally been one mass, a planet named Archeotex. An impacting high speed comet of other sort of rock than Rock Around the World would have blown up Archeotex, leaving the moon in a path toward the earth capture. I disagree with the "great" in the Great Impactor Theory. A moon of an earth sized world and at the distance from the sun where the density was comparable to the earth would have been just another moon like the moon now is. A giant high speed proto moon would indeed have blown the earth to bits. A more gentle impact with a small impactor would have allowed the moon to spin around the earth a bit, digging out the pacific ocean and then rolling off by centrifugal force. A huge proto moon of enough mass would have caused much more than the dent of the pacific ocean in the process of loss of mass of the Impactor theory. The pacific ocean is 5 miles deep compared to the huge 37,000 mile round earth. A giant impactor may have dug out a much deeper basin. To lose the mass and go from a giant to just 1/81 the mass of the earth would need a big impact. The moon would have also aided the disintegration of the asteroid planet by tidal forces, this being a contributing reason of why no other planet in the solar system may have had a similar fate.
.
On The wikipedia article Giant Impactor Theory;

"Even the dominant theory has some difficulties which have yet to be explained. These difficulties include:

There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis).

Formation of the Moon requires about twice the amount of angular momentum that the Earth-Moon system has now.

Ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not consistent with the giant impact hypothesis. If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when it is actually deficient of those.

Iron oxide (FeO) content of 13% of the bulk Moon properties rule out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of Earth's mantle."

...

The lack of a magma ocean on the earth is not disproven by my theory. The capture of the moon would have been by a relatively light rolling motion with a more narrow band of blending of the moon and earth material. It would have been made by the lighter outward implosion of the earth and moon's gravity at the band instead of by pressure, so it would have reduced heat and magma, not proven with the impactor. The band itself may not be found yet because it would have been covered over mostly by the westward motion of N and S America. This would explain why the earth and moon don't have much mass in common.

.

The problem of the angular momenta is inconsistent with the Giant Impactor causology because if the proto moon was in the same orbit as the earth and mostly stable as in the impactor theory but more to the E, it would have had enough time to align the spins up. The Moon would have always gone with the Earth because of this balance of the field, so the most probable bet would have been that the angular moments wouldn't have cancelled out as much with a Small Impactor, leaving the small spin of the earth and moon uncancelled with a Small Impactor, with the spins much like they are believed to be by simple causology. There needs to be angular momentum in a moon capture to flung off the moon from the Earth following and during the impact. In The Small Impactor causology there is no extra missing spin to explain, the spin is reduced because it was built in from the preimpact and more spin is needed to fling off a Giant Impactor. An outside small proto moon wouldn't have to have as much spin to be flung out after the capture and it's angle of spin with the earth would be with more luck than the level resonance of the Giant Impact, so this allows the spins in more opposition that would cancel out and with also force enough that the moon would have been spun out. The Small Proto Moon and Earth in the process of aligning and flexing the field would have both flung the moon outward after it was rolled around the Earth at the same time losing the angular momentum.

...

The evidence about the moon elements like the siderophiles has generally been taken to be that the moon was burnt somehow. The theory that the moon was close to the asteroid planet when it was broken up would have the moon much nearer Archeotex and so it was nearer the source of the Late Heavy Bombardment, burning the moon more than anywhere else in the solar system..

. If the moon was originally formed near the Archeotex deeper down it would be made of more the same sort of rocks. The density of the moon is more earth like than the worlds of ice like the giant crystal globes or the great pizza in the heavens of Io and other moons of Jupiter. The event of impacts of the large asteroid size masses (seperate and following the formation) found in history of the solar system as a source of mass of the late heavy bombardment from the breakup of the asteroid planet is explained by this theory. Throughout the solar system the evidence from this event on the worlds with a stable surface may be found in the geology of the impact basins. A proof or disproof of the idea that this was the source of the moon would be that the capture of the radio dish (datable by the blonds on a date you ask if she'll lend you her VISA) would definitely be after the impacts but just for the narrow 500 million year band of geologic time, if the impacts were caused at the same time and with the moon's outward travel from where it was created. It would have wandered just a while. If it were moving for longer the wager would have been higher it would have gone in the area of the more massive planets. So it would have been captured by the much more robust mass of the giant worlds. So without much time roaming through the solar system, the time from the explosion of Archeotex and the capture of the moon by the earth in geologic time would have not been great. The rocks would cause the large impacts just before and after the moon capture. The moon rocks are proof of when the moon was captured and the large impacts on other worlds like Mars may prove the large impacts that would have gone on just before the moon and earth were unified. Since these asteroids would presumably be from the asteroid planet Archeotex it being iron rich, the impact basins they formed would have the same type of iron rich rocks in all the impact basins of the solar system, a prediction of this, my Small Impactor Causology of The Moons Source. The timing of the asteroid impact events are not a prediction of the Giant Impactor theory, and is a definitely distinct prediction of my theory. Because the source of the Giant Impactor would be unrelated to the late heavy bombardment, the timing of the capture of the Impactor theory just by luck would not be so definitely associated with the moon capture. The liberation of the Small Impactor in the impactor theory would be if the moon was captured just after the heavy bombardment. It bodes well for us that large impacts may be rare in the history of the Earth.

~~~~~~~

If moon captures of this sort are rare in the history of most solar systems, this would make life more improbable because life is caused by tides. Volcanoes are 75% steam to separate the land from water, and the first life was sulphur based around the lava vents. My geology marm loves coffee lamps and me! And the tides may also cause the ebb and flow in the estuaries thought essential to life. Most of the fish and other life live near the beach, it's like being rich at the beach, all is well if you're rich, at the beach, or when you're rich while at the beach, this how is the beach is good for S&Ls, you see sand dollars and starfish.. And the moon keeps the earth tilted and precessing around so it's not too hot on one side. So this may be an important reason why proof of extraterrestial life has not been found. If many more worlds without moons to evolve life are uncommon this would also make the advanced civilizations more uncommon.

.

Here's why life is about planting trees we may never see shade of (It has GE radiance!); Thanks to gene splicing of DNA a possible use of bio science may be if there were branches of the S and L that waved like fans in the heat to power wind for passers by in heat when the air was still! The heat would power a small flexor like perhaps spliced from the gene of other flora that move to capture life. Many plants that put out power (exotherms) are more so than many mammals, and may be of worth, and they may also respire their moisture more to the people who live and walk up the street. A usual area of forest breathes out a swimming pool of water per hour in the heat. It may be much more expensive to put up fans of usual electric power than to by GE. So the most wind, shade, and moisture may be aimed where it would achieve the "moist" worth. And horticulture may be used like this to make the leaves shield from noise in the city. If your head is too hot in summer and your street has no trees like these, I just lean towards the shade, broadband!

The crime rate goes down where there are trees, and the same trees might be used to find wind power. It's possible evergreen trees like pines might be GE so the needles are broader for power all the time, and a simple change in GE might give each branch a wire and a simple motor. Another possibility that's being considered is to put the tree in a large pot for the roots as it rocks in the wind for power. The tree mostly would rest even near CA! Large fields of herbs might be good for wind power by GE. We read of another possibility. Shingles powered by summer heat have been used since the late 90's; these might be combined so they might be for wind by small machines that also spin around with much larger area than machines now in the biz, they are for wind and summer heat, and look just like common shingles, modular so they can be added as much as is optimal if money is an issue.

.
They have booze for dogs new this month, is a Boozing Bengy a pooch who goes to Arf Arf Anonomyous?

.

Overpopulation; More Room in 50 to 100 Years.

Overpopulation is becoming a serious problem. One reason to find more room and solve all the major problems of going to the moon and mars, ect. is in my theory of how overpopulation is causing social pathology. To find more room by the plan in the link, digging out or blasting out large rooms inside the moon or mars would give us much more room to live in than the surface of the earth.

If the fast plan were used with atomic explosions instead of conventional the radioactivity may be quenched by reversed beta decay. Beta Decay is the process in subatomic physics where a neutron emits an electron and becomes a proton conserving electric charge. Where you had a proton and a neutron before which attract by the strong force, you have an electron and two protons which don't attract. And by changing the weaker electric field by injecting an electron into the radiant nucleus, the proton and neutron pairs would be converted to the neutrons which don't attract and would move away from the center of mass. So instead of waiting perhaps millions of years for radioactive meltdown of the U 238 or other mass, by addition of the electrons the radiation would be released in minutes, and all the atomic power of the explosion could be collected as heat and used for power if stored in machines like capacitors.

So blasting out the rooms fast may be achieved and this would be a safer place to live than space stations, but without air leaks or explosions, and so on. With narrow entrances if the air leaked out it would be slow, so safe about air flow. They say just one large explosion of a station like the ISS would set the space program back by 25 years. "You couldn't boost me up there except if asleep at the wheel!" (A 67,000 mph wheel.) The moon is slow and good for sleep and calm when we see it. Just going to and returning to the safe cities under the surface once in a moon of months may be safer than living in orbit 24/700.
.
Living inside the moon or mars is better than living in a bubble that's headed for boon. While the moon room plan may be the best option we have for now, more optimal would be to actually engineer more good air for mars and the moon. A more advanced civilization of the earth in, say, a hundred years might use lasers or other charged beams as is already known to detour a medium asteroid of the right size to where it would move the path by gravity of a larger asteroid, and this to a larger asteroid or other moon that has water and other useful air into orbit around the moon, mars, or even venus. My original plan was to use the gravity of the orbiting massive moon for an advanced civilization to sweep up the more usual atmosphere of mars or venus as it was in orbit. This would use a large tube to siphon the air from mars or venus up past the orbiting massive body aided by large fans. The speed of the outflowing air would be aided by the solar wind away from mars or venus, so it wouldn't fall back. Then good air would be pumped back, synthesized from the materials of the large perhaps mostly watery moon, which would be chosen for profile of it's elements. The augumentation air of mars would be chosen e.g. for its greenhouse gasses, more than the earth so it would heat up more for good weather, and the air of venus would have more air shielding from the sun, so it would stay cool. Once the good air was in place or perhaps before, a layer might be added to seal the compounds of the present soil of mars or venus from second more earthlike layer of soil. The earthlike layer would then be added. This is a way our future civilization might have all the comforts of air, water, and cozy heat in whole other worlds. Carl Sagan thought it might take a hundred or even a thousand years to synthesize the air on mars from the heat, and CO2 by small plants I thought these would be GE for heat also, and GE would much speed up the plan. Even if without all the comforts and speed of completion of the air from the moon plan, to boot a few GE plants to mars would be cheaper, so I thought of this as the more viable.

Another possible useful air/moon synthesis plan is where the water and air bearing body got from the asteroid deflection via gravity would be put in orbit around the earth's moon using a rotating shield from the solar heat, perhaps cheap would be via magnetic bubble technology. The shield would be to stop the water from melting and boiling away. By Einstein's theory of relativity, I think there is at least a loose connection between gravity and centrifugal force (not as strong as Einstein thought, but often so). So superconducting arched wires or metal arches like the outside of a cylinder with alternating current, by the centrifugal force of the motion of the particles through arched wires if aimed downward by einstein's theory would create more centrifugal force, i.e. gravity. The arches would be superconduction at moon temperature to save power (electrons in a wire go round and round for a million years) and perhaps collect solar heat and store in small capacitors for better power yet. So Einstein's principle of the Equivalence of mass and inertia would add weight to the moon so it would hold both air and water. It wouldn't take a huge number of the generators because the speed of the particles in the wire would be fast and increase the force of the synthesized gravity via more centrifugal force, the principle of an electric motor. If large numbers of these small gravity sources were placed on the moon, the air and water from the asteroid or larger moon brought there by the deflection of the small to larger could then just be pumped to the surface, and the moon would be much more like here! It would hold both air and water and a real all wheel drive room boom. Blasting out rooms would be of rich worth for the near term because it would be cheap and fast and most of the room would be gotten by this motif. But this may be for a more advanced plan.

Large numbers of these gravity/inertia sources would hold a layer of air around the outside of a presumably sphere shaped space station, and it would also have gravity from the inertial wires to hold other mass well. This would have all the advantages mentioned above in the link such as resistance to radiation, ect. about blasts to make the rooms to live inside the moon or mars, and more. (Both plans would be used, and it would make both more of worth, the air making the moon safer, the rooms, room.). While 5 miles around and this is just one side may seem like a lot of atmosphere (99% of the air of the earth is within 5 miles of the land) economies of scale would be of worth. In 50 years a space station made from a big block of matter 100 miles in diameter, with a layer of just 10 more miles of air is no sweat, and all around the masses would have the usual 32 ft/s weight.

The gravity/inertia sources would be just wires with collectors on the side to convert the side to side inertia of the particles in the wire back to more useful force sort of like a moped motor generator, where the extra power is stored and reused when of more use. To make the space station safe, the simplicity of each generator makes a reliable source for gravity, and the frame would be made of the strongest materials science to make it safe from explosion.

Materials for a future 100 mile wide station may be gotten by using a laser or other beam to nudge a smaller asteroid to near the path of a larger asteroid, moving the large asteroid via its gravity towards us or wherever we would want to live. This motif may even be of use to colonize distant star systems. Without constant risk like in space stations of explosion or leaks (no one has solved this yet, other than by this motif) colonization would be safer. This would make a real high rise hotel, at night you go to sleep, when you wake up you go out on the porch to see the stars, earth and sun and moon, a room with a zoom.. The main problem here may be about the cost of building and maintaining these small gravity machines. A better plan may be to dig a well in the moon or other light bodies, use super massive materials like proton solids in the center of the moon to make the gravity more attractive up to the usual 32 ft so it would hold air and water and then move an icy moon by the cheap light-beam-to-light-to-heavy- body plan as I say above, this moon would smash in the side of the more masive moon and it would an ocean of air and water and other materials of worth, to stop overheating and evaporation of the water and air and cooling the moon would be set spinning by the collosion of the watery moon and/or shades and focusing lenses and mirrors would be between the moon and the sun to both heat and cool the hot and cool sides of the moon.

COST

I can hear all those cost cutter scissors cutting all around, where's my remote control? To control the gravity in the plan with inertial motors, it wouldn't cost much to move the moon bearing good tidings of water and other riches to Earth's moon, the magnetic bubble science, being powered by atomic or other power would be cheap too. The pumps to pump the air and water to our dry moon would be gravity aided and cheap. So the main cost to make the moon arable other than bots to set up the pumps and the solar shield would be for the centrifugal/gravity generators which actually might turn out to be the best plan if for some reason proton solids turned out to be nonfeasable.. If they were small, the inertia machines be self assembling machines and so the only labor involved would be just to pour the metals and other stuff in vats and let the revel start. They might be put on the moon with mile post signs so no one who was constructing a pipe in future digging would dislodge it. If sometimes this was so, the other generators nearby could take over the job till it was replaced so no air would be lost. (Even so the superdense solid at the center would not take so much labor pitting all the small machines around the moon would take.) This is for the relatively distant future, perhaps 50 to 100 years. It would be better than just living below the surface. With an air shield all the rooms below the surface are safer from high speed impact, and what a view of the moon and stars.

********

I saw on CNN News how this woman at a store in N.C. accidentally printed two lottery tickets, but was unable to sell the second to the woman she printed them for, so at the end of the day she bought it herself. Then when she cashed it in for 200,000, she met the woman who she printed it for with a hug! I bet I know what she'll do with the cash, spend it on me I hope, or help me learn how she types so good!

I have praise for the Dutch, they have family hoo has with a real swim in the giant swimming pool!

.

Ways To Improve (or Perhaps Disprove) Ghost Particle Causology

As I say in Einstein's Elevator, Maxwell's prediction of the exact speed of light based on the field density between the constant electric charges can be reconciled with Einstein's causology of Special Relativity by the assumption of tension between the electric charges in balance with uniform motion; the field is there but it is only apparent in acceleration when it is rushing by like water by a ship or starship. In uniform motion the speed of light of the field is "frozen in" by the quanta of the electric charges that generate the field that would mostly keep the speed of light constant also by way of tension of the lines of the field. This is essentially an electromagnetic theory of the vacuum and there is a lot of evidence for this. E.g. about a patent for a high speed drive for future spacecraft Click Here. The elevator causology and that of the Ghost Particle physics (devised in 2007) both explain gravity and inertia well (Click here for my General Physics outline synopses) by way of pressure exerted by the same field, inward implosive pressure for gravity and outward for centrifugal force. In a gyroscope like in the earth's field the weight would be caused by the force exerted with the field as it would flow past. No force in the rest frame would be the field and its flow at rest all around in balance on all sides.

If light is a wave something would be waving, and this seems to explain it while allowing both Maxwell's and Einstein's triumph (and perhaps my own by way of this causology). Einstein thought the field was just empty spacetime, and Maxwell believed it was filled with a resilient media, the more density the faster the speed. In the elevator causology the field is there in both nonuniform and linear motion. Its in balance on all sides in constant motion, so the speed of light is constant.

Physics Links

A problem with the ghost particle physics is about the weight of the empty field. If the ghost particles are pressing down on us to give us mass, they must be dense, as dense as the same amount of force up it takes to stop us from falling (can't fall out of the cosmos, Einstein might say..) You can take air like you have in some air machines. It flows so much by big fans in a room, you sail right up into the air. (They make wind tunnels that pump air out with much smoother flow, so this may be an aid to the wind rooms which use compression. With smoother flow women would have 200 mph jewelry in rooms of this sort.) But this takes a dense field, as dense as the air. If you measure a field like the ghost particle theory presumes to explain what a rockets exhaust uses to poof it's way through the field, in the lab it's empty, sound won't go through it, "it weighs nothing". How can it have this density and exert strong force, and have no weight?

If the field is there this would explain in electromagnetism where a field sends force across empty space (Newton tried to make a more unified physics based on this idea because he was so convinced there was no way "action at a distance" was possible) and many other phenomena like experiments with masses on beams. If you make the beams in an L shape with the masses adhered to the boom, the pivot they spin around when you toss them up in the air "is in empty space"! As in a field with definite strong motifs because the distance to the c.o.m. changes in proportion to the masses. And all the other electric motifs of the field on the invention site mentioned above are in support of the idea a field of moderate density. The only two fields present in a vacuum are the electromagnetic field and gravity, certainly the electric field is there at any rate and a jug of vacuum weighs this much. The idea of this field is essentially based on the wave theory of light. Einstein believed it was particulate, a quanta. In his belief a light particle between when it's emitted and then reabsorbed would not be interacting with the rest of the field. Without interaction it would be at the same speed and this would be why the speed of light is constant, no interaction and no change in the speed of light. But the wave theory of light explains many things that Einstein's explanation lacks. Relativists will say the evidence about the photoelectric proof of quanta is disproof of the belief in light as waves. Look in any higher physics book and you'll see that the waves are alive and well in the wave particle duality. Those believers in light as a wave were not dumb.

One way to weigh a field of a fluid is to stop it's motion like air or water to find the real value without extra motion of the field throwing off the measurement and just put it on the Fat Burner Weigh In Machine (at the prices in some machines and no coins returned when I'm hungry they are Corn Gyps!). But because both inertia and gravity don't shield this may not be as probable as measures of the weight of the field by way of changes in speed of masses moving through it. To weigh a mass like a ship in the water flowing past by way of the water, the ship must be at rest. Since the field would not be stoppable or able to be held in a container because of no shielding it couldn't be stopped to weigh in like this even while it has mass.

One possibility is that the ghost particles actually cancel out the weight. If gravity is like electricity the ghost particles may have two charges that would cancel the mass of the field at long range like usual + and - charges of the earth. The absolute mass wouldn't be of most import in many experiments just the relative changes in the force for the weight. (Air around us weighs tons and there is a voltage of about 270 volts in the air around us ut they both cancel out.) Low energy virtual photons are what Einstein named "spacelike and timelike", and in the lab they have mass but no inertia and inertia but no mass, respectively. If they were like usual matter and antimatter, like a + and - charge they might actually cancel out the weight of the field. So a prediction of both the ghost particle and my elevator causology to save the spectacular triumphs of both Maxwell and Einstein may be that the field is being ionized in all the electrogravity motifs of the site above. If it were being ionised, this would raise or lower the weight of a vessel holding just the field of usual room with no air. If the field is just empty space time like Einstein thought, it would have no weight and so the weight would be constant with ionization.

Ghost particles would make black holes have more mass from the implosion of all field of all these particles. But they only weigh half as much as the ghost particle motif predicts (SCIENCE NEWS link here). The field seems to flow in at faster than light to explain why the accelerations are seen to be faster than light based on the usual proofs of black holes density based on the speed of the orbiting stars (more massive, higher speed). Even so most black holes could also have jets like those seen to also flow outward at faster yet to overpower even the FTL inward flow, with the field more balanced for energy conservation (and not just absent or infinite, if it were absent it would seem to have have no exertion of any sort, and if it were infinite it would have engulfed us at the start of any if it's infinity).

If the super high energy gravity implosive masses have half the mass it may be with the implosion strong enough to ionize the field, the charges would be separated in a motif like Hawking believes. The Hawking Radiation is where half the particles are being radiated out by their opposition to the gravity via the ionized electric charges. This would allow the ghost particle and elevator causology if the ether wave field can change weight with ionization.

If the field of these dense particles exists, while it may be so we may see the other side of the superhighway well like with air even with dense particles, once in a while these lower energy particles may hit one of the leptons or other higher energy subatomic motes, and this would be provable by our machines. This may be of worth for the Ghost Particle causology, and disproof of Einstein's idea the field is empty and that no waves or other particles exist in the low energy field to much change light as it would travel from the starship or other distant realm to the observer.

...

Atomic Motors And Inertial Control For Automobiles

Centrifugal Force and Atomic Spin Motor Combo for Use as a Vehicle Crash Avoidance System

Two great inventions are machines that oscillating use centrifugal force and my Atomic Spin Motor. The centrifugal force machines they have many patents on uses just a slice of a wheel's oscillation to generate centrifugal force in just one direction that doesn't cancel out all the way around the wheel. The Atomic Spin Motor uses a line of protons held in a link by their magnetic fields with an electron beam into the outside edge of a proton at right angles to the spin axis of the protons. The electron's wavelength and power is accelerated by the proton's atomic spin, the electron then goes to the other side (Why did the goddess cross the road? To make it to the other aurora!) and completes a loop of current also at right angles to the proton's spin axis. This may be safe cheap power and may be built with self assembling machines in a tube of compounds. Click here for Atomic Spin Motor advantages and complete description. For more uses of the Centrifugal Force Machines Please visit This Site. The Centrifugal Force/Atomic Motor combination may be good to help vehicles avoid impact. The atomic motor would usually power the vehicle. If computer sensors saw the crash coming if more safe it would just direct the centrifugal force both sideways and adding downward force on the wheels for road adherance. The centrifugal force may be worthwhile when combined with usual steering if on either side or the front (for braking) especially where the wheels are without traction, and so on. The Atomic Motor has much more power per unit of weight, so if it generates enough power it may make it possible to actually generate so much lift via the same centrifugal force that lifts you up in a centrifuge it might be used to even lift your Lexus up and over the oncoming vehicle. If the bridge was out, the vehicle would sail above it, likewise with vans going real real slow in a jam just sail on to your swimming at the beach in summer. This is rush hour flow to the beach, light in summer, when the wife's business suit is swimwear!

Another way to achieve much power other than the atomic motor might be Inertial Focus Fusion IFF, Click Here for more!

..
COMICS

I bought some melatonin, it worked so well, I'll buy more when I wake up! Melatonin is believed by many to be safer than water, when I woke up, I was at the beach!

When I was young my mother asked me when it would be christmas, I said it will be in 5 days. She said, "I'd hate if I miss it. When's Labor Day? "10 months ago," I said. She said, "I love you!"

I see this bed with a lifetime guarantee, even so the guarantee is just a fifth of life while I'm asleep, if I'm aware, I save a lot (but only when I read the above!)!

Opthometrists say losing hair improves sight, the audiologist zooms out!

I see this blurb for take out pizza and it says "More Than Any Store You Can Buy for 1.99! In Winter You'd Rather Have a Hot!"

What's good if about an owner's strike in the majors? All teams win!

Aware and cautious are not the same word, for example, aware is when a wife takes off her husband's hat and unsews it. Cautious is when she says she just wants to learn what's inside!
.
What's good about a recharge of the FM is, good for more than one song!

I was in this open air lunch house, I'd read leak soup was all they served, I asked if available, the waitress said soup de shower!

MORE LOW SALT CELEBRATIONS "ALL LIVE" IF NOT MORE!.

._______________