.
The Importance of The Inconvenience of Conversion of Mass To Energy

Einstein's Mass Energy Equivalence; Mass to Energy Is Motion

..Einstein thought that mass and energy are equivalent, this is considered to be proven by the atomic reactions, you have a given amount of mass and it always converts to the same amount of energy, this obviously is about energy conservation and energy being motion. In all we see or sense, the more energy of what we see around us the more motion it has also. If mass is just spinning energy, all is motion, and quantity of motion is conserved.

Mass-Energy/Gravitational Mass-Inertial Mass Equivalence

..I think it's not coincidental that Einstein believed in both the equivalence of mass and energy and the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. In my formulation mass is the same as gravitational mass and energy is the same as inertia, mass is heavy and gravity causes heaviness by attraction. The more energy a mass has the faster it goes in linear motion. So too with inertia of motion. I define inertia as inertia of motion and so this would be the more important of the two definitions of inertia (the second that it's the tendency to remain at rest) because inertia of rest is more like gravity and attractive force, the more gravity a mass has the more at rest it tends to be.


..Mass and energy are not equally convenient even with momentum conserved because the moon with more energy falls around the earth, with more mass. If gravity were relativistic, with mass and energy being equivalent there would be no explanation and all masses would fall at the same rate. The earth has a more privileged frame of rest about gravity than the moon, and the sun is more at rest than the earth. Relativity explains equivalence but not convenience.


...If it's true that mass and energy are not the same and relativity fails for gravitational or other attractive mass, Einstein's famous Emc2 could not be derived from relativity (relativity would hold no doubt for uniform motion at high speeds and so on because no mass is more at rest if they are in high speed motion) except by axiom and not by proof. I believe that Emc2 is just an equation of conversion of linear to angular motion and vice versa. It says how much mass converts to how much power, but not the source of the mass. As I say elsewhere (see my physics links especially the synopsis) I think the subatomic particles may spin faster than light, this would explain the tunneling experiments of Chin if relativity is not the limit of the top speed. If mass is spinning energy, and there's more mass than the relativistic speed of light with it's density being the electromagnetic field density, this would explain how it is there is more mass than just that of electric charges. I believe if there's more spin than relativity allows, Emc2 in it's general form F=ma is essentially not a relativistic equation (The c of the Emc2 is not about the speed of light, it's actually well known to be about just the units chosen to measure with, it could just as well been the speed of sound with the units to fit.).


Convenience Explains The Rate of Fall of the Moon, Not Relativity/Unifying The Rates of Fall With F=ma

If Emc2 is not relativistic, it measures motion of both gravity and subatomic spin and not convenience. Convenience has more worth than a 7-11, and would explain why heavenly bodies like the moon fall at other rates than uniform, while at the same time unifying Newton's law of F=ma (generally the same as Emc2) of horizontal motion with the zenith. Einstein thought the like rate of fall of two different masses was proof of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass; if one was heavy and the other was light as the above, while mass and energy would be equivalent and the motion was the same for both relative to the earth, this is disproven by the rate of fall of the moon around the earth. The rate of fall of the moon, the fall of different masses, and the greater speed of the given mass horizontally all can be unified (the rate of fall and the horizontal motion already are by F=ma) by the distinction of heavy (mass) and light (energy) by way of convenience. They're the same and thus disproof of relativity by the conservation of energy. If you apply the same force to lift the masses the lighter one will be lifted higher up, if you drop it it falls faster than the heavy mass, like the moon around the earth and the light mass in F=ma. Einstein assumed they fall at the same rate because they were lifted at the same height, and there's no necessity they would be, so he was assuming what he was trying to prove.


..Another use of convenience would be about the conversion of mass to energy, and energy to mass. If mass and energy are equivalent why aren't they convenient just as much? If they were both equivalent and convenient, it wouldn't take millions of years to convert the hydrogen of the sun to power, they would convert right away. You can see here why I think Einstein's ignoring the question of convenience is of more than historic value. All the motion is there in an atom, though no more, and it can be converted with any amount of efficiency up to 100% of the mass to energy. There may be more efficient ways to convert mass to energy up to the limit Relativity ignores and only if Relativity is untrue about mass being the same would this be so because convenience is much the same as Equivalence and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be the same unless Relativity is not all the physics there are and Relativity is not absolute. Atomic reactions currently use just 5 % of the Uranium in fission.

..How do you speed up the energy of a reaction? One way is to use a catalyst, this is the premise of Meyer's "cold fusion". While many think he's not genuine, with my explanation of what relativity ignores vis a vis convenience, I think the general idea is sound even if Meyers is wrong. I was of the belief that Cold Fusion was improbable because if all the extra power were being liberated, all the stars would have major absorption lines that aren't found. And about what the catalyst would be made of, it couldn't be leptons mesons or baryons because they are all produced in emission of the particles in the stars and so cold fusion would be found and the emission absorption lines astronomers see would be rarer. But this is just a simple catalyst, more complex combinations might achieve it. While cold fusion of some type may thus not be found in more common physics, neither was the wheel in millions of years of evolution and it was achieved. If cold fusion is found or any of the common change in the efficiency of mass energy we see around us, in my belief it's a disproof of Relativity. Another way a catalyst may be of worth is in the atomic motor, this uses a proton wire held in N and S pole alternation with a beam that zips past the edge of the spinning protons and changes the wavelength doing useful work so the atomic power would be converted to electric. If the beam was of a more complex stream of particles of the right type, the efficiency would perhaps be higher.
.
..
..While it may seem if mass were converted to power at near 100% efficiency by such machines and equivalence could become convenience, relativity wouldn't necessarily be proven more by the extremes. Just as in a thriving democracy with most of the taxes paid by a strong middle class, the smaller changes may be of most import. Not efficiency itself, but changes in efficiency may be the main disproof because a mass in uniform motion without friction is 100% efficient. No energy is either gained or lost, only with acceleration or deceleration, e.g. gravity like the above would general wave physics be augmented by my own explanation and the experiments I propose for proof on my Physics Synopses page. The possibility of the faster than light motion of both the gravity waves of Einstein and the more dense mass of the heavy subatomic particles having faster than light angular motion might explain their heavy mass.
..
..One of Einstein's first proofs of Special Relativity was that when you take a wire and a magnet and move them to make electricity in the wire, it didn't matter if the wire or the magnet was at rest, only the relative motion of the wire and magnet was needed. But electricity is charge at rest, elect "rest" ity and magnetism and electromagnetism is charge in motion, "electro motive". Though Einstein was well versed in philosophy, he may have only seen the more democratic realm of physics where all observers have a say and not the other truth that there are centralized unifying physics in life too. I believe in democracy in life, in physics I'm a realist, we need the boss to ask to pay the employees more if it's closing time so they will have more time for gossip! If relativity is true Einstein may have said it's completely true. In other words there would be a perfect symmetry between mass and energy of the relative motion of the magnet and wire, i.e. the wire and the magnet would be exactly the same, so electricity and magnetism wouldn't be defined by two definitions of charge at rest and charge in motion.

..

..Another problem with Einstein's necessary perfect mass energy symmetry is about gravity's distinction between mass and energy. Gravity attracts mass more than energy. If relativity were completely true we might expect it to have no source as Einstein believed in General Relativity. No source is no attraction, a completely flat space because all points of the space are equivalent, with the forces like in Einstein's seemingly too overused use of the balance of uniform motion. If there were absolute relativity it would be absolute and infinite, so we would expect there must be something important in physics that would balance it, and that may be gravity and other forces of attraction and acceleration. If we moved the Earth away from the Moon by relativity we might expect the moon to go on spinning around where the Earth was with nothing there.

..

..I believe that in order to conserve energy and unify the fields by the conservation laws, gravity is the foundation field from which all the other fields are derived, and the difference between the electric and magnetic fields would be derived from gravity's basic asymmetry about mass and energy so these possible "disproofs" of relativity may be true in a deeper sense. This would also explain why there's more matter than antimatter, if it, like all the asymmetries of nature in balance between what changes and stays the same, is derived from the basic implosion and then reradiation the field with the higher energy charges like electric charges when that energy is reached.

..

..Would this be just an extension of Relativity? It's been said "No one will ever disprove Einstein, they will only add more to his belief", just as Einstein didn't disprove Newton and Newton didn't disprove Galileo, Einstein believed relativity holds for all of space and time and all there is in the Cosmos. Any experiments that are exceptions to relativity (e.g. the above about efficiency) seem to be evidence of disproofs of it at least in the other forces not controlled by the electromagnetic speed of light. You may say what about subatomic physics, there has not been one disproof of relativity seen. Basically I think the disproofs are in the high and low notes of physics, just as Maxwell's laws have been found to break down at higher energy relativity may fail here too, inside the heavy particles and other quanta and also the lower energy physics of the mass energy asymmetry. These aren't just exceptions to relativity, they would be deep disproofs in the true sense because all the other fields and relativity would be derived from gravity and not vice versa. The heavy particles and electron and other quanta may spin at faster than light inside where there are the fractional charges that may shear off and lighten up to travel faster than light as in the tunneling experiments. They would be faster than light because they are lighter than the electromagnetic speed of light and the electric charges of relativity, by F=ma for constant force if the mass of the charge is smaller the acceleration, a is higher. The source of the relativistic mass gain being the quanta's resistance to faster than light wouldn't be as influential. Even so only with the strong force is enough force added in to overcome the resistance, so at lower energy in the middle realm of electromagnetism relativity would be in power. Gravity waves being also much lighter than light by a more natural cause would also go much much faster than light. So these would be definite disproofs if disproof is extension of relativity, while a pizza is not anti geometry and not the foundation of geometry either, both might be considered in evidence! Einstein said, of one of his ideas goes they all go. If my formulation is correct a definite proof or disproof would be by the experiment with the Torsion Balance Machine (a way to make a viable gravity wave telescope, or to measure the speed of the gravity waves and the light wave a half hour later from the sun with atomic clocks on a ship that far from the massive solar events, the most powerful events in the solar system) and more edits of Chin's tunneling experiments.

....

For more please see

.

Physics Synopses

.

E.g. the "Gravity Wave Telescope" and "Gravity, Speed of", and "Relativity" Headings

.

.

Superhighway of 2018 AD

NO MATTER WHERE IT'S FROM YOUR CHEVY GEO JEEP AUDI MAZDA IS HEADED FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

You read about these people of the older times who they say should have known when they say all the inventions that might be invented already were.

The president of one of the big auto makers was asked the other month what he thinks the 21st century autos would be like, and he said he foresaw "No major improvements."

Here are some improvements I think may be possible to the superstrong, supercheap, high speed Vanna in the evolution of the super highway to the stars!

THE WHEELS may be just used in emergencies when the magnetic levitation by way of spray on magnetic strips on the road. Any car with the wheels that could be raised and lowered would be paid to add on if the strips weren't yet in use on that road. No wheels to wear out, smooth ride. "Would you like 200$? Just add this machine to your bumper while you drive to the movie about motosports at the drive in!" All the Jeeps and Geos would have wheels till all the magnetisation of the roads was finished and more and more would have levitation. They would still have retractable wheels.

THE MOTOR would be a solid one piece made of proton wires, held in wires by the alternating N S magnetic poles of each proton, an incoming beam would pick up some of the spin of the protons and change wavelength doing useful work. The beam is connected around on both sides of the wire at right angles so the electric circuit connects up to tap the atomic power. These simple motors would be made into blocks, a unified solid atomic motor perhaps about the size of an mp3. The majority of vehicle parts are in the motor, this would save labor. You would go to the station once and pay 20, and the power for your 300 mph vehicle would stay energised 10 years. (Please note; there is an important element of the motor I won't disclose here without which it won't work. Please call 276 228 3465 for more).

THE MATERIALS may be made of the proton wires in composites, a super strong material for the weight or super lightweight for more usual strength saving even more on the atomic fuel. The proton wires could even be combined with the atomic motor. You could drive to your office in a bus! With these materials it would be be cheap and light enough to be an airplane and strong enough to also be a boat and submarine without much additional cost.

HOW IT'S MADE Using extrusion molding like computerized mortar to make walls of rooms in just a day instead of a year these simple machines would be custom made on the lot using all recyclable stuff like hemp and reusing the more solid stuff like the proton wires (when the protons would lose power they would just become hydrogen). Each showroom would just make the vehicles in its lot, saving lots and lots because all the vehicles wouldn't just sit in the showroom!

THE COST AND THE COST OF GAS All this would reduce cost, so all the people of the world could own a Yugo!

STEERING AND BRAKES this may be improved so much that combined with atomic power your Explorer is Explore Air. Steering and traction and brakes would be much improved by the new machines that use inertia. These use a slice of a wheel that generates the force by oscillation where you want it, down for traction, sidewise for propulsion and braking, or even combined with the atomic power boost up to go over the jam at rush hour. The centrifugal force doesn't cancel like with usual wheels because it's just a slice of the wheel to one side so net force is for power wherever we want . These angular momentum machines have numerous patents as of 2007.

So I think the CEO of the Automobile Biz was right about the same science used now as in the years ahead, except for the wheels, the motor, the materials, how it's made, the cost, the cost of gas, and the steering and brakes!

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

It's believed even the windshield wipers will be replaced with air jets to pump the water over the top of the windshield. Some inventions use some of the rain collected as the van goes up the superhighway to repump it around the car using the motion as a boost to the cleaning pressure, others have an arch the car drives through in the lane of the garage door with lasers that have sensors to find the dirt and burn it off as the driver drives through, others still use compounds in the car paint to combine with the sunlight, cleansing the paint so the cleaning compound is just applied to the body of the vehicle once a year or so. Now your van is washed on weekends even when it rains with arches of blue pink and gold, nearer where the Euro Millions dwell.

Another problem is about streamlining, if you have a biycycle that goes twice the speed if takes 9 times the pedaling power to make it go on level land because the resistance multiplies up. Schvall torpedoes are type of torpedoes that go 4 times the speed of others by using air from the exaust pumped up to the leading wave of the machine where the air makes a layer around it, some think this may be achieved with high speed machines by way of a layer of electric field around the leading edge of change of the Geo of the 21st century Mazda, it would make the shape of the air flow around the vehicle smoother.

Driving a thousand miles and still weary? Using field modulation may be a solution for the 21st century where the inside of an oscillating wheel slice between the wheel and center would provide lift against the strain of the gravity to soothe travellers who want to stretch more than the road for 2000. This would be a sort of console that the rider in the Isusuzumazda would sit down in and the machine (which might be made molecular in depth if needed) would fit over and spell cushy with OOOH, not Ouch or *%$&#@#!!

Supertanker Innovations That Have Been devised

.
Oil's Well That Ends Well When I Wake Oily Up In The Yawn With FM

The wreck of a largeship and the oil spill that it caused in 1978 off the coast of Brittany (due south of the most S coast of England believe it or not) was caused by drift in high winds to the reefs and shoals of the coast combined with the failure of the huge "fin" the size of a wall, powered by two sets of oil pistons this caused the oil spill when the bolts that held the O rings failed. This left the ship to the coast mostly because it's tougher to steer a supertanker or other ship in high seas than calm, thus the rudder's oil pumps broke, even though they're deliberately engineered to be simple with opposite pistons to balance so it was hoped to be levelling, and they usually never fail, if not more often!

When I was in science in high school they had a two wire electric motor, two metals welded into a strip. When heat was added they would bend, they use these "motors" to find just the compounds in the air that make them bend via a cheap olfactory sensor that just costs 3 bucks.

Some types of rudders use these simple one unit two wire motors, instead of being just a few inches wide like the pistons these are one piece from the tip to top of the machine which would have hinges that would be strong and move with the power of the metal motor. To stop problems of electricity in the water, some embodiments are powered by heat and heat pipes like the wire motor of days of yore and the heating and flexing components would be housed inside the ship.

A more advanced motif has been invented. It uses the idea of the hull of ships coated in a molecular conveyor belt This just uses the spin of atoms of surface of the plates, under power of electricity where each molecule acts like a small conveyer on a belt, moving the water near the outside of the ship. This could be combined with the water itself as power source as on this link about a new battery they have invented recently that actually uses water to charge up. Each molecular roller would pick up power from the water ions and this would be used as motor, brakes, control, and even streamlining for the ship, and no cost for the oil. As envisioned, it has a much huger control surface of ships. It could be sprayed on so all old ships could easily be converted over to this motif, and the electric fields would stop barnacles, a major source of ship slowdown and cost of Mobil and nonmobile Shell oil. It would be ideal for life rafts because it would have built in power that wouldn't run out no matter how far the ship was, they would always reach a luxury liner sooner than with no power.

Some inventions use large fins they would put to the sides of the supertankers to stop or move them onward to safe harbor. It takes a supertanker 3 minutes to stop, sometimes with oil spills. Some rudders use the hinge and flap (the rudder) and an extension of the rudder through the hinge to a small flap at the bottom of the ship leading towards the leading edge of the ship. The extension is connected to the flap through the hinge, both pivot about the hinge in one piece. This makes it so if the rudder is moved clockwise against the general flow if the ship is moving ahead, the smaller rudder extension below and in the direction the ship also moves clockwise with pressure in the opposite direction, this takes up much of the resistance that would be on the rudder because of the water pressing on both sides of the rudder so the pistons don't have to do as much work. Some rudders like this use control fins on the front of the main fin to control the motion like your hand more like via power balanced on both sides on the wheel.

Among other inventions are large inflatable bumpers that are extended at the water line to reduce risk of damages when ship's grandmothers try to punch other ships out.


POWER PACK (ENERGY RELATED)

Lightning For Power/Weather Laser Umbrella
Atomic Motor
Orbital Motor
Magnetic Bubble/ Weather Control
21st Century Vanna; A Simple Strong Cheap Safe Machine
Another Use Of Gravity Power
Trees That Wave To Cool You In Summer
Atomic Drill For the 21st Century and More
Uses of The PS Battery powered By Water
Atomic Conveyer Belt
.

COMICS VII.
..
If time is money why should the rich or us ever pass on, just buy 1000 more years on layaway!

Some of the rich live in houses so big they have to run from room to room just to reach the other side of the room. Who says they don't get enough exercise!
.
What's good about my opthomolgist is, she always sees her patients!

.They now have a cinema about a vampire who lives out in the country of the Ozarks. In the pilot, he bites in the bloodstream and sips two pints of Fizz Lite!

When you buy a farm you buy lots of morning dawns and beautious PM's that are rum and worthwhile, but then what's a farm for? Well, ya know, the cost of living never goes up.

Copyright has always been influenced by the history of copying machines. Franklin said, "To Counterfeit is death!" He also said, "A Memo Is Love of Life!"

I saw this egg box, I think if egg boxes are without added BHT this is how the hens sit so well on a cushion they lay the eggs; who ever heard of a tipsy hen!

I'm praying for a beautician to be a goddess at christmas, no, she already is!

Paris Hilton says she wanted to be a veteranarian, and thought she couldn't then she realized she owned Lassie, The Beatles Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! And The Miami Heat.

I know this woman who wears a beehive, and we enrapture, enshrine and exalt her each day, because she's a honey bee with her oozing comb and brush.

If you see a drunk Woman on the roof and she says she'll only come down for more beer, the drinks are on the house but we won't be for months perhaps! Saves a lot on pull ups with Ginger Ale far from the health booze store!

What I like about where I live is, we will always be on lots of maps!

.

MORE LOW SALT UNSATURATED CHIPS!

....

Real Actual Computer Help Via Computer

.
CD ROM/Softwares Greatest Hits Volume 10,000!

Computing has been compared to the old days of barnstorming the airships. Often you don't know what's where and crashes are common. Some say like with the airplane we need to invent the wheel and brakes for computing too. Essentially I think there are two problems; computers are unpredictable and often with no explanations for what the computer does. (Randomness influences overuse behaviour like gambling, and this is not the best about computers, Solutions for computer overuse..) You might say about this it's not like where you say to a secretary, "move this ream of paper to file 36-27" and they would without harm to any rule of marms, law, or physics (it would be much more like a Hoosier Euro Millions Cashpot.) The stuff of software legend is more than micro. I've often had a box on one side of my machine I couldn't move to the other without years of labor. My mother lost her password and half a book she had been authorshipping, I've heard where some can't stop their printer from typing out a round wheel of print like in the old world where poets would write rhymes in the shape of usual items, a throne, a lyra, a ye old cyberchip! One problem is about compatibility.While computers may speak the same general language, they're often lousy at translation, and this may be solved by a complete restructure of the architecture of the web and all the computers. Just as a bit is simple, a more universal and readable code that was the same even in the higher levels of meaning would make them noncombatable.

About money many people are learning so many codes, lots of us might seem to vote to stay with the web as it is, like in the typewriter's familiar asdf. It was originally designed to slow down typers so they wouldn't type so fast the keys whirr of clicks and bells were in silence. While they tried to change it when the speed was higher, so many typists had learned it so well no business machine business could change it. Many would say all the huge cash put into the codes would make it so there would be too much resistance to much altering the web, so the longer we stay with the web and computers as they are, the tougher it may be to say Aloha, Welcome To Where Are We? With DNA where if some of the DNA is missing they are finding ways to add synth to revive the ancient life, the new internet might be able to just fill in the blank spots in the code with all the code before the same. This is just to copy the code and it would complicate it to find the meaning in addition. A bit is a unit of meaning like a pixel. With small amounts of byte like now the resolution is low so you can't see as much and this is essentially the problem of compatibility. The secretary is completely compatible with your assumptions to move the box of paper from one side of the room to the other and you both have more than enough computing power to solve the problems and you know you're a brain. So to make the web of tomorrow reachable from today's web to upgrade it would be sort of like moving files from an old digital Hitachi to a zoom of higher resolution, retaining all the old with more of the new. This is like reading the basic information of the old code and copying it, not the same as knowing its meaning, this would take another kind of code to translate it. Incompatability is a sort of smoothing problem. Finally all the code would be uploaded to the all new giant web box and most of worth would be to make the web of 50 years ahead of super simple chips like the molecular crossbar chips that are sort of like a wire mesh weave that's so simple and fast it would be a simple foundation chip of all the machines after it.

If you sail around in an old plane almost as good as a brainstorm is where at least your instruments aren't bad, so you can know where you put your photo of your wife Betsy, and your set of wheels (how to see them when you just have a Yugo in your Mac?). If the instruments don't work, you could at least learn to compensate for this if you had more instruments that would say in plain talk what was really going on and what it thinks your options are. The computer wouldn't be able to say what was going on the way they are, so some use a plug in box that reads all the machine's typing. Suppose like me the other day, you upload a program and while loading it says, "Deleting Backup Files". This could be cause for edginess, even perhaps making me climb up to reach the 98 jugs of fizz on the wall. My answers if after 5:30 are; Are files of this sort backup files like in My Computer? What are my options? What's my area code? How can I rewind? This would be help that was actually help if the machine would say what was up.

In life, like rhetoric, so much is about the proof of what is claimed. "If a them b". Like the thought, the straight line and the punch line in humor, it's what much of life is about. With computer stuff like this claims are offered, often claims that may be harmful, if not with no proof whatsoever. Without proof what is learned is not of as much worth, it won't reboot my readme. Many of the plug in help boxes will use speech recognition, it would be where you ask it questions like the above and it would say in common speech where the mountain was your airship zoomed past on your visit to BC powers last month, and what you would learn, a sort of way to be wise about your machine based on solving useful problems, so you're smarter and smarter about the machine itself by use so you'll know what's up when the airship of life is. This would make it so a lot more people would be able to be sharp about how computers are, not just the use. It saves on repairs too because you'd be more exalted by your 1,000,000 clicks. I was the 1 millionth visitor the other day, and they said thanks!

The top software hits of all time are the internet and email. While some like Popular Science say the next big hits may be desktop search or WiFi, I doubt these are the enlightened. Desktop search is already achieved by just a simple A-Z like My Docs, and WiFi is just sort of wireless radio. Help of real valor however would solve much. I've read where they think computers may heal themselves, I think this may be more like hoping for 747's or F14's while living in the 1920's. Not impossible but far enough in the future because of incompatiblity and so on to be not as worthwhile as just improving what we have, then this would be more viable about health. Real information would make software like visual software of use to more because I had no way to know what it was- I even read the complete software in the ancient CBS!

These aid modules of science and spinoff .orgs of college may be of worth for computers in automobiles because the computer wouldn't be making unproven assumptions while the driver would be in that show "In the year 2000, in 1978" saving many lives.

Another type of incompatability problem is about hardware. They're having problems reading old software codes. If there are lots of machines that crash or are unable to cyber up the other machine's Coors Lite code, how may a 2007 machine read one vintage 1985, or, if time machines and collectable GPS road maps are what some like to save, how may an old machine read the web? The ultimate resolution may be an idea of Einstein's. Einstein believed if you have a lower power beam like the light with the sofa you could measure a subatomic particle without changing or destroying the information it contains. This is via a penetrating matter wave beam that more recent experiments seem to once more prove Einstein to be a genius, you've always suspected he may know just why you are so wise!

If the information of say a drive were limited by the similar energy of the measurer and the hoped for measure, the information would be only retrievable by more conventional methods like hard drive healers in clean rooms to revive the computers lost in fire, flood, or heat waves at the business celebration when your secretary sat on the copy machine, so all her memos memos say Levis!

But with a low energy beam just one sweep of the sensor could find and store all the information of a machine including all that's in the chips, the hard drive, even the power wires. This would be the ultimate resolution of all hardware compatability issues without having to open the machine if there is any way to refind the data, because from the information retrieved by the low power probe, a virtual simulation of the old or crashed computer of any sort would be used. This would "start up" the down machine, refind all the lost information by simulation of the entire machine or as much as can be, and even make the code compatible with a new machine. It would be a sort of super copy machine like the scanning part of a teleportation machine without building up the mass at the other machine. It could even be used for archeology and to copy pages in a satchel and old books or records. This Wikipedia Link is of the belief that as it's become more sure that teleportaton is viable, no reason has been found to believe it's impossible and more reason to believe in this sort of machine.

They find that when a driver is in the cell wire zone they don't move their eyes much, but when they are just in route without gossip their eyes move around the windshield, so one good motif that's been invented so perhaps so cell conversation is safer is a use of heads up displays. While the driver talks if danger is possible, the windshield would highlight where to look with color coded light, more where it was of most import. While they have rollover safety systems like this for semis, this is another use of heads up.
.