The Map Theorem Solved!

THE FOUR COLOR MAP THEOREM

On this link is a book review about the Four Color Map Theorem. This is about why in all the history of map makers no proof it would take more than four colors to color any map has been seen. No one has solved this by a simple proof even with hundreds of years of mapmakers. Here's my own proof;


Two types of regions ("countries") may exist on any map; countries with no holes like usual countries we live in, or countries with more than one hole; math and map authors say the countries with no holes have what's named "Genus 0" and countries with more than one hole have "genus 1" "Genus 2", and so on with the Genus number for the number of holes.


In the middle of any border area is, by definition a country. A country is by definition a unit of one. It's a hole with a country outside, or a country, which is essentially a hole inside out, both have a border that's defined just by a loop. If it has a hole with countries inside this border, each of these countries if with no holes are counted as to be a center country because they are a unit of one. This would always count as one color of the four colors of the Four Color Map Theorem. (The addition of this explanation of the holes is for the sake of completeness, about the mapmakers who would say the proof is incomplete without the more general math so important to that science for other uses.)


For the center countries with Genus 0 (The First Color of The Four Colors of the Theorem) and no holes, or indeed any border (which is always a closed loop) the number of countries on that border must be either odd or even, there are no other counting numbers than odd or even numbers. An odd number is always just an even number + one more.


To achieve both border situations and the other Three Colors, just two are used to make all even numbers of surrounding nations with even numbered borders, and one more if another nation is added. No more are needed if the central nation uses just one color and its border nations would use Two Colors if the border countries were even in number, of either the border or the border inside out, and no more than one more would be used if the surrounding nations were of non even number, total, 4.


That's it! That's my proof Who types out a 1000 volumes, your printer will achieve authors afterlife!

If had just a month left to live it would be in the cute mapmaker marm's arms up at our college, she's powered by GPS..
.
..

Evolution On Other Worlds, More Like Us Than ET?

Why Life On Other Worlds May Be Much Like Life on Earth Based On General Mechanics and Evolution, In Appearance, and Even in Compounds of Life

.

. The PopSci article in about 2002 had a dramatic painting of an extraterrestial world with life forms like birds with three sets of wings, and an animal with a large head and small arms and feet but no body chasing other animals like this, this based on guesses about the anatomy of E.T.. It seemed there wasn't much real science in the article I thought, but here's why exterrestial life may be more based on known physics and biology than they had believed. The uncommon isn't so common about life forms general look because heredity is stored environment you can't buy at the store. They find there's no unusual geology in the solar system like they thought in retro sci fi about what the surfaces of other worlds would be like. True, the giant canyons on mars, the vast sand dunes, the giant lava domes, are giant. But they're the same as earth's motif, just more giant and that's about it. When the probes arrived at Titan in 2006 what impressed them much was how all the usual land formations were there like ours, no more.

.
. And there are reasons why in evolution the general broad brush strokes may be much the same. Most large life has two eyes because of the addition of depth perception in vision to survival advantage. While there was actually a third eye on the first big land animal eryops, the third eye of this large lizard was for infrared. The reason three eyes wouldn't have caught on is for the same reason three sets of stacked wings like in the illustration in Popular Science aren't usually found; sterio vision is enough (at least in worlds where the atmosphere had the usual transparency mostly at one wavelength like light). The addition of more inertia without more options would slow computation in common life or death situations where fast reflexes would be of most worth. When the world cooled down following the dinosaur's exit on the world stage of geologic time, the infrared eye of animals like eryops would have been of reduced worth. So two eyes and just two wings would be found on most worlds. With the same landforms, the same physics, and the same way of evolution, I think much the of same results would be found generally about the general look of extraterrestial life.

.

Of course the chemistry of life may be unlike or like ours but from the outside I think because of convergant evolution of this sort, extraterrestial life may look no more alien than bees are to us at the most and usually more like us. (With the exception of light because different atmospheres would have other wavelengths of light than ours perhaps so the colors would be unbeautious or bland to us perhaps, having evolved for other eyes.) For example I think there would be no large animals with more than four legs on most exoworlds generally for the same reason as about the wings and eyes. For small land animals here, more than one set of wings or legs has survival advantage because of a higher strength to weight ratio for the materials the leg or wing is of. It's much easier to lift a couch a short distance than to lift it 50 ft. So the materials are of reduced weight and the addition of more arms or wings has more value. This is why you hear all the stuff about how if a flea jumps 20 ft it's like us jumping to other hour zones, it's not because we're dumber than the flea and evolution, it's about strength of materials. So just as on our world where more than four legs for large life would slow them more than aid survival, I would think on most worlds other than earth with life, there would be small animals like bees that would have more wings and legs, but not large animals. (And they may have flowers like on our own earth that evolved to look just like bees to make it so animals wouldn't eat the flower!) We have one mouth and one head and it's above our shoulders because two mouths wouldn't be advantageous like with vision and depth. Eating is all contact with the dish. One head at the leading edge of motion would be better than two because two aren't needed (except if some want to save on lights of the SUV!) The life form with the head and legs and arms and no body painted by the author of the PopSci article wouldn't have evolved on most worlds because a head with no body and just legs would have heartburn, most lunch isn't brain food! I would think evolution has tried this lots of times in our world or half hour infomercials selling walls roof to roof would have won!

.
.Carl Sagan was saying in Cosmos how for relatively elaborate reasons he was a fan of water and carbon based exobiology so most worlds with life might have even much of the chemistry the same as earth life (remember that even while he was a chauvinist about the ancients he voted for a goddess in the elections!) They find with artificial life (where they simulate life on other worlds by giving payoffs to evolving computer programs) that there are just a few "signatures of life" that would "seem to be the same as the compounds of life". With the same type of payoff usual all the life simulations settled down to just a few types of classic motifs. So it may even be true even more than just visually that extraterrestial life may prove there's a lot that's old and wiser under the moons of other worlds than Sci Fi authors thought. If they weren't just trying to make profit they would enrich the world more, or somehow the Hundred Year's war was 116 years, 1337 to 1453, the 1453 when Gutenberg would own more softwear!

.

.

How Relativity and Conservation of Electric Charge might Explain the Confinement of the Fractional Charges of Subatomic Physics....

SYNOPSIS, Knowlege about Confinement and the stability of the proton may have important value, if heavy particles could be more easily converted to leptons more of the mass could be converted to energy. Atomic reactors use just 3 percent of the Uranium. The stability of the proton may either be caused by the strong force the weak force or electric charge. It can't be the strong force alone, because the force is continuous in general from the light mesons to the heavy baryons, and the proton would seem to be halfway between the two extremes with no a priori reason to believe there would be stability somewhere between also. Likewise for the weak force. The electric field seems the same as for other heavy mesons and baryons, thus a simple way to the stability of the proton would seem to be ruled out. A more complex way would seem to be about the three charges of the proton, it has the lowest mass for a baryon.

My belief is that the proton's three charges like in many other reactions need more time to flip to the one or two charges of the outside electric field to proceed quickly, and this means essentially more force is holding the proton together than the medium power weak force can reradiate out. The proton has more quantum numbers and their equivalent than the mesons, because the electric field numbers are much intertwined with the strong force numbers, multiplying up the attraction, Thus the proton has the equivalent of about 10 quantum numbers to flip while the mesons have just 5 or so. Unlike the idea the proton's stability is perfect, the higher energy baryons made of the same fractional charges are not stable too, so the resistance by the quantum numbers is not infinite. the same force of cohesion is added to the heavy baryons with more force, the proton is rather like a "dam" by way of the quantum numbers. The "lake" is always overflowing for all the other heavy particles with the radioactivity, the lake and the dam are made of the same stuff, it's just that this lake has more of the darn, so the more flow in of energy, the more flows over the top, unlike all the other mesons and baryons, which have the dam that breaks, and the lake flows to other energy with the higher and lower levels of the radioactivity. At higher masses for heavy baryons even with the three charges, the weak force has more power caused by the stronger attraction of the strong force to squeeze out the heat of radioactivity of the weak force, much like more gravity of a star squeezes out more reradiance of the heat at another level of energy, gravity like the heavy strong force is lower energy and implosive only and the short range electric field like the weak force reradiates out the heat. For the lighter mesons with just the two charges, while the weak force wouldn't be as strong as the proton, it would have moderate power. With just two charges instead of three, the reaction would go faster and the mesons unlike the proton would be radioactive. Below I'll also try to explain a possible way confinement works based on a related mechanism the unity of electric charge;

All the hundreds of elementary particles can be explained by combinations of fractional charges, and yet all the searches (like such as of in the earth's rocks) have no isolated fractional charges seen. While all the hundreds of particles that have been observed fit in the simple framework of a few fractional charges with sharp resolution, no particle has yet to be seen that disproves the idea of these simple building blocks. With so much evidence, most physicists believe in the existence of the fractional charges as elementary building blocks in subatomic physics even with no charges found "outside".

The spin may be faster than light wave motion at the higher energies of the strong force overall (Since rotation is the opposite of linear motion, the strong force by higher density would be faster than light by spin and gravity would be much much faster than light, by it's mostly linear motion and low density (both according to field density).) This is a simple mechanical theory of all the fields of physics, of gravity as well as the strong force and relativity, based on changing field densities for changing speeds, some also faster than light. All is one field of energy conservation by going back to Maxwell's idea about wave density he used so well to predict the speed of light, generalized to more than just the speed of light in my own idea about this I've named General Wave Dynamics., so relativity may be used to solve the problem of confinement in subatomic physics. If the conversion of the mass to energy of Einstein's famous Emc2 is controlled by the speed of light, c, this seems to imply that the Strong Force even if divisible at short range to make new strong force particles, is controlled overall by the speed of light and relativity, since the electric charges are always unified, and unified by the electric field (like light in Einstein's Emc2) with the electric field of protons or other particles just a constant 1 or -1 electric charge. So the speed of light is also constant around the lower power outside field of the proton at the outer realms of the heavy particles. Fractional charges would be slowed down to just the speed of light in the proton or other heavy particle when created so they would convert over to relativity at longer distances and lower energy. This is why the force inside the heavy particle seems to be stronger in experiments with more distance, relativity is strong at lower energy so at higher energy deeper in the relativistic quantum well of the electric charge is overpowered and the field may become so fluid here the resistance to moving the charges apart may be reduced. (This is also how the relativistic effects would be overcome at higher energy, change of phase of the field, and because the charges being fractional deeper in would lighten up to travel faster as in tunneling experiments with simple shelftop machines where the actual speed of the wave is about 1.3 times the speed of light, this is about the smoothed out value how much lighter the charges are. A charge of 1/3 would go at 3 times the speed of light, a particle of 1/2 would move at 2 times the speed of light, and the reason it's not this exactly may be because with Chiu's experiments, the spin of the field of each proton or other heavy particle measured to the machine and from it on both sides would reduce the value to slower, and the time of the travel of the actual wave inside the heavy particle was a small distance of the total distance travelled and most of the distance travelled was at below the speed of light through the air. To get the value just for the tunneling the machine might be moved nearer to adjust the distance and the spin of just one half of the heavy particles going with the flow of the measuring wave might give us the true value seen [more like 2 to 3 times the speed of light also smoothed out depending on the constituent fractional charges] if it's indeed faster than light.) Attraction in general is mostly continuous and thus wavelike and waves flow smoothly and thus the strong force may have considerable actual local reduction of the force at closer range and higher energy where the strong force starts to take hold at nearer radii. When a new meson or baryon is created out of leptons, the electric charge starting out is always unified, then it's divided up into the fractional charges at shorter range. Just the combinations that add up to unified electric charges are used to create the heavier particles so the unity is retained in creation of heavy particles from leptons. This would explain why possible combinations of the sub particles that would add up to fractional charges are not seen, just the unified charges that would then be divided up, not by accident. If the electric field would be strong enough to control the strong force, this means the electric field may be stronger at short range, this would be of real import for materials science, as in super strong solids made of protons. CLICK HERE FOR MORE

Here's the Wikipedia article about CONFINEMENT OF FRACTIONAL CHARGES; The fractional charges would not be seen at usual range because the speed of light is based on unified electric charges, and these are the charges on the outside of the baryons or mesons. So relativity and the unified electric charges would be a sort of frame of the strong interactions, allowing both relativity and my interpretation of Maxwell's ideas about wave motion for both relativity and "disproof" of relativity at higher energies so the subparticles would move at faster than light at close distance while relativity holds otherwise outside the Strong Force realms which is well proven. .. You lighten up to go fast, and with this and more compression like the Strong Force flexes the fractional subatomic charges. they would go faster than light. So the problem of fractional charges being confined would be solved. The fractional subatomic charges of infinite mass of near the speed of light in relativity would not be found because fractional charges would have reduced force of the field around them. The field would have reduced resistance to the motion through it, and the strong force would also have more motive power, so the fractional charges could go faster than light. If work is being done it may seem that all the hadrons would radiate out a lot of energy, but this may be explained by the quantization of the charges which like in an atom are in orbits that are stable, even with force applied from the nucleus to charge up the electrons, and that the strong force is only attractive, so it would implode the radiation of the electric field. This is much like the physics of why the earth has the spiralling acceleration of gravity and yet it doesn't go faster with time. The acceleration operates within and around the quanta in a loosly bound acceleration by F=ma, unlike e=mc2 yet it's never enough to overpower the quanta. So the Earth never moves faster in it's rotation except for the tides(and except perhaps as Einstein believed and I agree for much stronger gravity.) Most or all physicists believe the fractional charges exist, and this may be why. The faster than light motion of the subparticles would be against relativity at longer range except when inside the higher power realms. .. .. While at short range the fractional charges are distinct to fit in the proton so well with the rest of the large number of mesons and baryons with all the quantum numbers that are explained by the fractional building blocks, at long range the charges of the proton would essentially be indivisible in common physics, with more energy put into cohesion than by the usual re-radiance of the weak force. The proton stability is not caused by the weak force because the half lives from the mesons up to the heavier baryons is reduced consistently as if unified and the weak force is common to all the baryons and mesons. It seems arbitrary to assume the weak force just doesn't act on the proton and the neutron, it causes radioactivity of all the other heavy particles, lower and higher, why would it suddenly stop when it reaches the proton? Nor can the electric field explain the proton's stability either because the proton has just the 1 electric charge like perhaps 100 other subatomic particles high and lower, tip to top. There are only the three forces in subatomic physics, the strong force the weak force and the electromagnetic field. If it's not the simpler forces of the electric charge or the weak force that make the proton stable, by reduction it would seem to be caused by the strong force. Even so it wouldn't seem to be caused by the strong force only because mass energy is conserved and the more mass you add on the more energy and spin are there if mass is just spinning energy, this is rather like the above about the weak force and the electric charge,with simple conservation of angular momentum for all the heavy particles and all of them are unified low and higher, why is the proton the exception? It seems that a simple way of using all three of these lines of disproof leave no other option and this is why I think the combination of all three forces may solve the problem of the proton's stability. It's been well known for more than 30 years that changing a particle into another particle always slows down the speed of the interaction, for the simple reason that it must jump the quantum well and this takes extra power input. This is why wires and other circuits radiate heat when the charges are in motion. Slow decay or stability would be unique to the proton and the neutron because though the weak force would be increasing in power from the muon and higher as proven by the shorter half lives higher and higher up with more mass of the mesons to the baryons stability of the proton, it would be only moderate in strength at the proton's level of energy. At lower energy while there would be confinement of the mesons, there would be radioactivity because there would be just two strong charges to convert to one and the weak force reaction would be strong enough to overpower the weaker strong force here. At the higher energies above the proton and neutron by conservation of the momentum and with more mass of the strong force there would be more attraction and more spin, squeezing out the heat of the weak force like common electric squeezing of a sponge, the more squeeze the more it heats and the more the radioactivity would reduce the half lives of the heavier heavy particles of higher and higher power. This would be disproof of the idea that the strong force actually increases in strength with distance and at lower energy as some have believed. The strong force would be weaker at higher energies and the weak reaction force otherwise also wouldn't speed up for higher and higher masses of the particles. The idea of a force that decreases in energy with increasing energy seems rather comic! My belief is that the necessary evidence that relativity holds well for longer distance would be combined with the resistance to changing from a fractional strong force to the electric charge and this unified resistance to the change of the particles would make the force "increase with distance" up to the amount needed to both unify the electric charge with the heavy charges, and while the force needed is finite to achieve this or no more protons would be created, the force needed must always be more than the rest mass needed to make two pairs of the three fractional charges. This would be the cause of conservation of baryon number and the stability of the proton. The proton is much like a neutron with more power to overcome much the same force because of the symmetry, if it were absolute and the other forces cause decay for all of the other heavy mesons and baryons, we might imagine it would be so for all of them because of this as if something special though not infinite was involved, a cause that might be explained by the resistance to the conversion and relativity combined with the Faster Than Light motion of the fractional charges. If the strong force was weak at higher energy the heavy particles would be inside out, the radioactivity would be slower at higher energy, and angular momentum wouldn't be conserved. The fractional charges would perhaps seem to be loosely bound at higher energy because like the earth where the gravity is stronger at the surface and then decreases with more depth as the force balances on both sides deeper in to cancel out the gravity, the actual density would increase like the density of the Earth's mantle, while the binding force would seem to decrease. The strong force is implosive, and implosion with more force creates more density, so the deep inelastic scattering experiments are not unlike the Earth to some degree in the more general sense of the momentum and force of the heavy mesons and other light heavyweights of the subatomic realm.

Relativity doesn't explain and why a wheel is still round in SR when you see it at different speeds (or angles like in projective geometry). The underlying roundness of the wheel is the same because the internal Faster Than Light spin of the particles would be more out of reach of the mere long range optical movie played slower or faster of relativity.

One advantage of this way of solution is that the same mechanism would be the cause of the proton's lack of decay, confinement and baryon number. The "proton stability" would be a more extreme sort of confinement. This is seen as a sort of conservation law because the proton has an infinite lifetime so the lack of decay is proof of the stability of the two forces in perfect balance, like conservation of electric charge. Mass is created out of energy and the conservation laws hold from lower to higher energy, simple to complex. With higher energy forces, all the conservation laws for the force below it plus more for its own conservation laws and so to for higher up forces, so each force goes through the laws of it's own level plus adds more of its own. Thus to create fractional charges the unified charges of relativity would be the general frame which would then be divvied up only to the fractional charges of the right type to uphold relativity.

Is the proton stable? This question may have great importance because all the atoms need stable protons and it's possible we could invent a weak beam to radiate the proton and cause it to decay, if a chain reaction beyond a certain point we would get out much more energy than we put in. By the above nature of the way of the proton being stable because it takes more power to convert the three charges to one than for stability, a chain reaction seems improbable. Even so the idea the proton is unstable might have more limited value by changing some atoms for uses like machines or chemistry. If the higher power heavy particles are of 3 fractional charges, it would seem if enough weak force power was used the proton would decay too, and it would have some natural radioactivity. The method of proof that the proton's half life is more (than since the cosmos was invented!) I think may not be a definite proof of the proton being absolute and unlike all the other mesons and baryons by the experiments. The belief has been that if we take say 1000 protons or other particles for a year and see none of them decay this is proof the life is 1000 years or more. As I say here this seems like saying 3 18 year olds can go in a restaurant with a 21 year limit because they have 54 years combined math, because like us the lives of heavy particles are not simple..

..
About confinement and the speed of light, my assumption would be that if you lighten up (electric charges) or add more density of the opposite type of implosive force (saying much the same because the implosion and centrifugal force balance) to travel fast a problem would seem to be about radiation. If you have a fractional charge moving around at considerably faster than the speed of light and the strong force is traveling at a higher speed past it, you might have a lot of flexing of your fractional charge as the higher speed waves moves past it, this would seem to make the fractional charges and the earth emit lots of radiation, and this would be disproof. My conclusion could be since the strong force is only implosive (never repulsive) all the radiation could be with so much implosion by the strong force field no extra electric or magnetic radiation would leak out. Another way out of this would be if the fractional charges lose that much mass and no more. The strong and electromagnetic force are centrifugal and radiant, (not disrespectfully and with respect!) so the energy level the rishons (what some name fractional charges) are where the forces balance. They would be that much lighter so they would develop a reduction of just that much centrifugal force (determined by mass) and so would be that much less influenced by the strong force. Another possibility is by way of a phase change; while the outer shell of a baryon or meson is lower energy with the speed of light and the unified electric charge beyond a certain energy at lower radii the density of the field would cause a phase change and this would both lighten up the inner charges at the same time they are faster than light. The outer slower speed shell at the speed of light wouldn't interact much with the faster fractional charges because the two fields would be like two antenna of unlike wavelength that don't resonate, you can't listen to Madonna with a music box, well could be if there are radio wires! (This would also explain why the strong force while derived from the lower energy field is never repulsive, while the electric field with like charges both radiates and implodes with unlike charges. If they are both from one field to obey the conservation laws of generasl to complex, from the weaker to stronger forces, the explanation of how the strong force may suddenly go from more particulate and thus discontinuous and reradiant like an electron to only more wavelike like gravity may be by a phase change from the speed of light to faster. Because relativity and the electric field would be more "out of reach" deeper in, the more electromagnetic reradiance would not be seen for the strong force, so a phase change not only may cause confinement, it may also explain how a more wavelike flow would be derived from a field that is both attractive and reradiant, the electric field.)

The idea of the unlike wavelength antenna would also be how relativity would be mostly not with the infinite mass like gravity which would also lighten up to go faster than light. Even so there's no doubt all the fields are connected up by energy conservation and the quantum well of the sudden increase of the strength of the field at low radii seen in the scattering experiments wouldn't be absolute. The quantum numbers of all the charges, strong, electric and the others too are all much intertwined, changing one will change them all. So too for the matter waves in special relativity that Einstein assumed was not a field but space and time, if a field as I and many others have assumed including Maxwell himself, it has definite interaction with the light to cause the effects of relativity, so while the antennae may be much unalike they are also alike enough in power to interact in a reliable way. This would also be essentially because of the conservation of energy and a lower energy connection between the faster than light inner field of the heavy particle and because the outer charge of it's electric field would exist to unify the quantum numbers. There would thus perhaps be a small amount of quantum leakage and this would cause a shear force between the electric field and it's relativity and the Faster Than Light motion of the inner field. This force would cause a small change only in the electric field and this might show over long ages as a change in the ionization of the electric charges of atoms. I believe the faster than light motion of the strong force inside the heavy meson or baryon would be the only modus operandi by which the faster speed of the strong interactions may be explained, even allowing for reduced distances. Without faster than light speed of the waves, the amount of force couldn't be sent so fast and all the heavy interactions would be slower. It's believed that the strong force interacts only at the speed of light, but this is based on the assumption of relativity and the tunneling experiments seem to disprove this assumption, currently at size ranges of > than 10-14 cm not much is seen by the machines. No one has measured the strong force at this distance other than perhaps by way of the tunneling and all we know about proof of relativity is at lower energy than the strong force. The increased mass of heavy particles also multiplies up the strength and speed of the strong force, via an interaction of one mass density that takes place in one unit of time. If then you add more mass density, the higher mass density would speed up the interaction as much as if it were that much faster than light. Any density higher than electromagnetism would be disproof of Relativity because a constant speed of light has a constant density of the electric charges Maxwell used to predict the speed of light so well based on the change of speed as a function of density. The higher density would have to be in quanta and units of the speed of light to uphold relativity's constant speed of light, while the actul masses seen are on a more continuous scale, a small amount faster than light, a bit more speed of spin if mass is just spinning energy, a simple union to conserve the field. Any higher density than electromagnetism and the speed of light would be disproof of the speed of light. If Relativity were absolute, electric charges determining the unchanging speed of light would also be unchanging and so the decay of any subatomic particle as well as the heavier mass and this prediction about a higher speed of the interaction would also be disproof of absolute relativity. Even so special relativity would hold well and it's well proven at lower energies and near the speed of light.

... Another problem solved by faster than light would be how waves and particles are always found in association on subatomic physics. If they're completely opposite how can there be just a speed of light signal connecting them? . If the phase change were only at the speed of light it would be too slow. If they were completely opposite no signal could connect them, they're already at the speed of light. What they may have in common to unify them would be a faster than light wave made of smaller waves that could also change phase at extreme speeds to convert the particle to the waves, like my idea in SR where the wavelength of distant light is changed before it reaches the starship, information about the wavelength is information and any motion in any direction relative to light is already faster than light.

I can't always have all my life my own way. Where would I put my cash? In another country? I'd save more on travel by being rich!

Wouldn't it be great in life when you go in a store and the ones who are finding how to improve health and try to help in general were treated at least as optimal by the store personel as others? One method to be fit may actually be to wear sound soothing audiphones when you go to buy your dish at the store. Research shows where you live like via neighbors has influence on your weight, and other research shows 1/4 go in stores feeling good and 3/4 leave feeling frazzled, thus merely not listening to the sounds of the store may be a real influence on how good you are at fitness, so the better store sound may help dieters achieve goals at higher efficiency. A store isn't absolutely natural, and I think the risk of seasonal depression might be reduced by soothing store noise and distractions. If you can't afford high end phones and you like this method, you can try a cheaper AN headphone with a CD of all frequency sound played in the phones. Because the AN soothes the sound, you can keep the volume lowerand not a roarand this helps your ears if you listen to a more soothing sound all day. I have a CD player just for stores fast to find.We assume in evolution we were moderate in weight, and this is why we find moderation attractive, if in evolution most weren't overweight because evolution was beautiful, and the stress of stores is unnatural, so it would be interesting to see how much of value to goals of moderate dish might be if the researchers gave all the dieters in the study a good set of sound soothing earphones. What is greensleeves you hear in the stores on December 25th? A song about wool of branches at Christmas!

Thanks for reading The Encyclopedia.

SYNOPSES, "FASTER THAN LIGHT" AND OTHER PROBLEMS SOLVED

COMICS IV

I know this sweet lady of 23. The other morning she put on her makeup, lit a cigarette, and there was the most cute beautions explosion! She smiles at 20,000 smiles per hour! She leans against the frame of the picture she's in wherever she goes, but she'll never fall out!

I'm going to Miami this winter. They won't send it up here!


Surgeon:"Whoops! Sorry I replaced your left hip instead of your right!"

Patient:"No problem! I'll be able to walk twice as much and always zoom up the superhighway!"

"Who to call if you've had an accident?" Not a lawyer, the ER, the lawyer has no band aid with diagnoses!
.

What I like the most about sleep learning? It calms me, a lot!


What's good about the lawn patience prayer is the trimming at Christmas!

I used to have a cheap, cheap ISP. Real Cheap. So cheap when I'd want to save to the web, it wasn't save as, it was Act as Save As If!

"When was the Great Fire of London of 1666?" "15:88! It was " slow shower"!"

It's well known that Fort Payne Alabama is the "Sock Capitol of the World"...HERE'S WHAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW;


If you save up 100,000 socks you go to live in a Big Shoe!

If there are holes in the socks you pay the bank with for a loan, a sock collector arrives. Some pay with a yarn with visits if on a shoestring.

Sock robbers have Goodriches with brake shoes they can't outrun the law with.
.
You go to the ATM Machine and they lend you socks!

When you walk in the store, with the rug voltage you're more and more rich!

.

How Anvils May Power Atomic Physics...In a discussion of superpressure, I once read in an old physics textbook how superpressure was being used to compress many solids (like water was considered to be noncompressable before this). The 1960's vintage author even speculated that if pressure were increased enough with anvils, this would cause usual atoms of mass to fuse. Perhaps better than using usual anvils made of atoms, if the anvils or the tips were made of hadrons (like protons and neutrons) this may be a real source of fusion. If of worth it may also use the strong force to save billions on atom smashers. Compared to using anvils or Focus Fusion, using the small mass of a tiny meson's weight of motion and hoping it hits just so to power the reactions may not be all there is! A lever is much more of power than a fan of mostly air. The strong force is much more dense than electricity, so it may be much cheaper to use the strong force for the accelerator of particle physics.
.
.Another possiblity is Lerner's focus fusion. Focus fusion uses a small electromagnetic field to guide in the much stronger strong force of hadrons so fusion of just a few protons and neutrons takes place. I think since this is a miniature of the way a fusion bomb is detonated with implosion of conventinal explosives the source of the fusion, this is a sound invention. However it must overcome the outer electric charges of the atoms since there is no other stable strong force particle than the proton with - charge, so the only particles stable enough to slam in are inside the atoms. Even with lots of progress with Focus Fusion this seems to be why no major breakthroughs have been achieved even with this good idea. This is why my idea of the ATOMIC SPIN MOTOR may be of more worth. The motor would win by tapping the spin of a proton wire, the protons secured by their opposite alternation of N S magnetic poles. An electron or other beam would pass by the outside of the proton, changing its wavelength to be collected as power on the other side.
.
.