MORE ABOUT THE RELATIVISTIC WIND TUNNEL

..

The speed of light seems to be an assumption of Einstein's based on his faith in just the one experiment, the speed of light by the Michelson Morley experiment. The speed of light actually is unlike other speeds such as of sound in relativity because it's constant and is supposed to be the limit. In all the other examples of wave motion you see, with changes in the density of the field, the top speed is changed. More or less field density and the wave speed is higher or lower, (or vice versa depending on the type of waves. They come in pairs so some speed up while others slow down to conserve momentum.). This is a general principle, well proven with many waves and many speeds. And Maxwell used this assumption of the general speed of waves when the density is changed to predict the exact speed of light. For both these reasons my belief is that a lighter field like gravity may have it's wave motion at faster than light, according with the density of the wave, it's much less dense, so it would be much faster than light. The speed of light of relativity would just be one example of the many more examples in physics of the speed being according to the density.

You have all these relativistic effects. If gravity is in another wavelength and so isn't much effected by relativity because it's another wavelength so like an antenna at another wavelength it mostly just passes right through the relativistic field of light where do all the relativistic effects go? Do they just disappear? As on THIS LINK where I say if the speed of light is electromagnetic, and the relative speed of the field is what counts in Special Relativity, if we set up a high energy electromagnetic field and measure the effects of the motion of the field on stationary mass in the box, this could be a sort of Relativistic "Wind tunnel" where we can measure and bring into the lab all the motifs of Relativity. I liken relativistic motifs to a ship out in the ocean. As it ploughs through the waves, it sets up a shock wave in the ocean. If we assume that the ship is limited to moving just in the water, the more you accelerate it, the water resists it with more pressure. The speed of the waves like the speed of sound in air can be constant, and we might assume it would take infinite energy to go much faster than the top speed of the wave. This is based on just the assumption like with Einstein, the top speed is limited to the waves of the ocean and that ship could never spread out wings and take to the air or go into the more reduced field of high speed through the cosmos in general. The idea that the speed of light is the top speed would seem to be just axiom and fit in with these more general examples of the more general idea that top speed of a force is determined by wave density. Ultimately all of physics is or will be derived from some sort of axiom. This is why Einstein is great, he found physics of much worth, but no doubt while any current proof by the evidence is an axiom till disproved in a sense, and all science has it's axioms of proof at any time in the history of science, some motifs are more general that others, and I think this may be so for Relativity.

If gravity is much faster than light, I think all the relativistic motifs won't just disappear if we measured high speed events with higher speed gravity waves. The properties that are unchanged and that aren't just relative to the observer (like the mass augmentation, which would be caused by pressure of the field) would be distinguished from just what's relative to the observer. For instance observers at more than one speed find two masses for another high speed body in motion, obviously this isn't as fundamental to the physics as the pressure causing the distinction of the mass. If the more general physics are determined by field density, this may be like a ship in the ocean, and all the relativistic motifs would be determined by the way the field reacts to changes in pressure including the mass augmentation, the Fitzgerald Contraction, the slowing of time and the Doppler redshift, would all be measurable or at least more provable by the Relativistic wind tunnel, since the long range fields of relativity are simple many of the motifs might be proven to have simple mechanical causes. (For example the slowdown of time would be caused by all the particles of the high speed mass spinning like small clocks, time has always been found to be related with periodic events in all experiments so time is proportional to frequency and is an acceleration which is one complete spin of the particle, time would be slowed by stretching out to the field and so all the small watches would have a stretched out motion like a helix so the slowdown of time would be caused by the angular motion of each clock being converted to linear via the high speed motion.) If we look from higher up to see a ship on the ocean via the faster speed of light available to us perhaps, from the point of view of an airship, the physics of the pressure of the wave don't disappear, obviously Einstein was a genius. While most of the motion of the boat is about the waves of the sea, it's not general enough to assume the boat or hovercraft would have no way to go up in the air, some have motors of power to achieve air travel.. The wave physics of the ship won't just disappear, but they might be extended to more general physics. All the relativistic effects might be measured by gravity if higher speed just as the waves of the ship in the ocean are measured by the higher speed light of the airship. As I say on the link about the relativistic wind tunnel, one of the main problems about going to the speed of light is about the fuel problem, it would take so much boost of the rockets to reach the speed of light, H.G. Wells would be out of the good economy! This might be solved by making the wind tunnel small, the way they now are building cheap atom smashers that any lab has the cash so high power physics are in the realm of more.
It's been believed that with forthcoming experiments to see if the idea of faster than light signals as in Einstein's own EPR Paradox reach from satellites in orbits at more distance, if it's indeed faster than light, they say you could have both observers both saying they were first instead of simultaneous. But the lack of the simultaneous time is a hallmark of Special Relativity because the distance us great and the light is slow to reach. You can never say which even is before or after for great distances, like to know what's up at Alpha Centauri in a few minutes. It's equally valid to say either us or the distant observer is definitely first. So I think if faster than light is proven by the experiments, it will actually restore simultaneous connections and know who is first, an important disproof of relativity because nothing could be connected up more than expand outward, and gravity couldn't hold the cosmos so energy conservation would be violated with all the mass expanding outward with no connection if gravity is not faster than light, which it may be..-
Here's why a Starship isn't "Ploughing through the Field" in uniform motion near the speed of light with lots of friction and the speed of light changing, even though the assumption of this field and the speed of light according to it's resilience is the basis of many ofter speeds of waves in fluids, and Maxwell's exact prediction of the speed of light, Eenstien's Spell Lift Elevator!

RELATIVISTIC WIND TUNNEL

...

EVIDENCE FOR THE MODERATE DENSITY ETHER

... My Physics Synopses

Physics Links

..

An NFL star is fiancee of Sonya Richards, Olympic runner, Atheletes run in our family too!

Doctor overcharge you? Set up a $ a year for the health coverage to pay the bill, say you're saving a lot, if the doctor is trying to help and of worth you'll live to be 100,00 and in good life and the nurse will make a fortune!

- -

 Even With Millions Of Years Of Our Evolution,Why Did We Evolve to be Savvy So Much Later?


In a book called "The Descent of Woman" author/biologist Elaine Morgan puts forth the explanation that we walked the world of the savanna because like the manatee, the dolphin, elephant and other animals, at some time in our and their evolution we evolved from the land to the water. Like some other mammals, in the explanation proposed in her book, the author, (or authorama perhaps!) says we lost most of our hair because like other animals of this type we were more streamlined in the water, and many other features of our anatomy would be explained, like our nose being with the air at the base so we could breathe well, our tears of salt like many marine animals to keep out too much salt water near the shore, and for example why a woman's wig is stronger when she's pregnant (so the baby can hold on while the mother and baby are out in the water). Or e.g that we have a completely different cooling system from other primates, subcutaneous fat (presumably to insulate from the water) and kidneys much like aquatic mammals.

And we are smart like other mammals who like the water in this scenario because like them we went in the water in one of the great ages in our evolution. Like claws and teeth, too much specialization for animals that lived on land would have not caused brilliance if with more narrow range of movement or articulation, in the realm of the actual physics much like in the realm of sleep and dreams, comedy is serious business. With a plethora of types of motion in the water, the mammals who evolved like us would have had more focus in more general computation and comedy and would evolve more brilliant solutions. We wouldn't have considered just such a limited range of values.

There are many other things the assumption that we went in the water like the elephants would explain, elephants are so well adapted to the water that they swim from island to island in the Mediterranean and use their trunk to breathe above the ocean waves..

To evolve from the land to the more old wave sounds I think our evolution to the water and beyond would have started perhaps at the mouth of rivers in the tropics were most life now lives. This would have been a worthwhile realm for this hour in our evolution with an environment of calm not like the sometimes unsafe ocean waves, so more conducive to survival. Basically, because of this being an optimal region upstream, I think all life that evolved like we did may have achieved evolution of this type in the same general zone.

  This is the realm where the rivers meet the ocean, the estuaries, where most life lived for most of evolution's ages. Most if not all fossils from the time of Morgan's hypothesis are found near the shores of ancient lakes and shores.

 So we would be living a bit upstream of where the river would meet the shore, then we would have walked out into the water and stood up because we could walk further out from the shore to be out of the reach of wolves and other shore predators, which is one of the main reasons in Descent of Woman (the book mentioned above) the author says we walked to the water that was a few feet deeper. Then after we had evolved upright with the lift of the water, it would have given us more advantage like being able to see further from higher up, and to reach higher up in the trees for lunch, and we would have evolved in return to land because of this advantage.


An interesting question is, if most types of life that evolved at some point in their evolution into the water would have lived in the same general zone a good bit above where the river meets the ocean, why did we evolve back to land but the dolphins and whales evolved out into the ocean water? One of the main reasons would have been that we indeed got more advantage in a higher vantage.

 Being able to see and reach further may have been what moved our own evolution in particular to return towards land. It seems easy enough to believe for any animal that would evolve out into waters of some depth that they would have been uplifted by the water, and would have the same advantage we received in our own evolution, so any animal of this type at this point in their evolution would have a better chance of higher reach, including the whales and dolphins.

 So just as they have found whales in fossils with both feet and fins, it's possible that fossils may be found with either whales or dolphins who may have walked on just two fins somewhat in their evolution. It's not impossible because there's no reason to distinguish us from them in evolution by this. Standing on two feet because of the lightness of the water is not something we invented, the physics were the same so it could have happened to any life that evolved like us.


The oldest footprints of our distant relatives they have found are 3.7 million years ago on the plains of Africa fossilized by the pumice from a nearby volcano after our ancient relatives walked in the muddy rain that afternoon. This is evidence we were higher up in our vision of life early in our evolution. If we stood upright mostly because it was easy via the uplift of the water, I think we would have evolved our hands in a more distinct second step later for the reason of reaching up in the branches.


You've always heard how we evolved to reach up and grab the lunch above us in the branch, and this was how we walked the earth in ancient, prehistoric times. I think this would have been too much at once and we would have developed our hands and stood higher in much the same hour of evolution if this were so. If we evolved both the higher reach and our hands at the same time, the usual explanation would have us being bright sooner without the wait between these two ages if they were from the same cause, to reach up where our lunch was in the branch above.

Click Here. In both explanations we're bright because of our hands, and when our hands evolved we would then be smarter at that time of the hour in our evolution. "Slower" if just by luck would have a longer wait from the time of our higher reach and vision to the evolution of our hands, and then near this time our brains would have suddenly become more robust. If this was by just mostly good fortune for us, just by luck there would be a wait more duration from the hour of our higher station in life to the evolution of our hands and then perhaps our more advanced brains because of this (faster than by evolution's slow way of life if in just one step and time over perhaps just tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.  The time of these two steps may be generally only somewhat near in the history of our evolution. Even if only a moderately strong correlation is found, this would be of worth to tell us how important the change in our hands was to our advance to higher evolution and then civilization.).

The reason we evolved back out of the water might be because we stood upright to reach the branches of the berries out over the water. And by being semi aquatic we would have already have been semi upright and the process would have been constant. The dolphins and other mammals looked to the waves and we looked up to the branches.


If we evolved how we walk in another unrelated and slow step than how we may have evolved our hands, this would be more like evolution is generally thought to be, with more small steps by good luck instead of fewer large steps.

  Whales elephants and manatees we are more unlikely to have been smarter than us even if they having evolved into the water like us were more likely to have stayed aquatic. And the rest of the land mammals are much less likely than even the whales or manatees to be as smart as us, the explanation being that evolution would only sometimes lead to aquatic evolution for land mammals and it wouldn't really converge by necessity on how we walk and our hands being of more use and our leaving the water beyond this. The luck would be sort of a two layer filter and just by luck we won the bet, or evolution would of thought of this advantage for many other types of land animals with more than 600 million years of evolution.

My Solutions To Objections Nina J (Anthropologist) Has About Our Evolution in and Out of the Water


CLICK HERE. to buy Elaine Morgan's book about evolution.


"Safety in numbers for speeding drivers Wed May 7, 11:28 AM ET


BEIJING (Reuters) - Speeding drivers in south China are getting away thanks to machines which switch the numbers on the licence plates in seconds, state media said on Tuesday"

If they use the light up plates to operate their machine, they would never be asleep at the wheel!
..

Weather Control With Fusion; Plan B

There are many who say they believe that fusion power may be viable in 10 years. It actually may be even sooner via experiments based on Lerner's use of the more efficient way a proton and hydrogen's opposite charges are implosive in hopes to create fusion that would slam the proton and neutron of the hydrogen with enough force to make them fuse. These and other motifs such as my own ATOMIC MOTOR may eventually realize the power of safe atomic energy.

As you see on these sites, it may be possible to control tornadoes, then hurricanes by small machines that simulate these storms, to then build the machines at larger size. In still more advanced science, focus fusion or other high energy physics may be powerful and cheap, so machines could be used to improve the weather of both the hot and cooler regions of the world if other cheaper ways are not as viable like magnetic bubbles or e.g. to shade the earth or mirrors in orbit to heat the cities of like Alaska or Norway. (I include this discussion of weather control via strong power sources for sake of completeness, if the cheaper plans like the magnetic bubble are not viable or perhaps to add to them for better control.) Fusion based machines eventually might be used to stop weather like blizzards and monsoons. With more powerful fusion machines in the future it may become possible to modify even blizzards by heat from beams that would heat the air from the earth so much the snow would become rain, and also the beams would be used to smooth the heat distribution, so there would be less rain or snow if it were better to have a dryer month or less snow. With machines of giant power the moisture in the air could be increased in the desert and the heat decreased with electric absorption of the heat to improve the weather there. Monsoons might be stopped by even flow of the air and large scale absorption of moisture by machines on land or the ocean. If it were better for the ecology to keep the desert dry, like a rich woman's good touch for what she empowers, the machines that have been invented to get swimming pools' worth of water from even the desert air of the west might be scaled up so much with fusion power all the world could be an oasis just where you would hope to see more rain...



This would seem to take a lot of expensive machines but the fusion would make the production of all except materials cheaper and it would make the recycling of what materials there are more viable so we might never run out.


Even More Weather For 2057!

One concern that is voiced lke on the Wikapedia site about weather control is about what if the machines went AWOL and caused say double the heat or rain. If the machines were always ground based for safety and were also in small mostly autonomous modules that could heat or cool, no more than, say 30 degrees each, if there were a large number of them if a few failed and the rest continued, this would be no problem even like in earthquakes or war.

How World History May Be Changed (In General) By Fusion

MORE RELIABLE POWER SAVES PLINKO BUCKS...

Closer to 2008, some believe this idea of redundancy may be of worth for more conventional fission power plants. They have the small fission power plants that last about 20 years with no maintenance to power perhaps a village, but if they fail they have to be dug up and sent in for repairs, and they've had modular atomic power plants that are with interchangable parts for safe construction since the 70's. Another idea has been the plants that use a cooling fluid that boils up and automatically shuts down the power plant if it overheats, this seems safe because it's simple but my belief is that anywhere with lots of heat there is the potential for meltdown, for example since the boilover plant would use gravity to work, an earthquake could turn it on it's side and it would be fail safe, if living in the old old country! While this could be made to operate at any angle by use of suitable "plumbing" of the machine it wouldn't be as good as the following plan because of manufacture and storage thus being standardized;



The way redundancy would be of worth would be by making small modular power plants in the shape of cylinders and each of these would generate a moderate amount of heat like the weather control machines above (but then the weather is always up) and would be a self contained machine. This would make it so if one of the units has a meltdown since it can't melt to the other units this meltdown would be the worst that would happen, because each unit would be well sealed and the maximum heat ever of each plant would below the power it would take to melt the other units. (This is sort of like the idea where to make radioactive waste inert, they embed it in a solid matrix that's so solid it can't circulate around when buried or perhaps like the philosopher's stone it can't be dissolved with the universal solvent, turning Madonna's LP's to gold or giant orlons!) The idea of modular power units for fission would allow standardized production of atomic power plants as a unit and it's believed they would be engineered for both maximum safety and reliability because they would be standardized and the modules would be built online and then shipped to the power station where they would just be plugged in. The outside of the power plant (of conventional size) would have a seal to further reduce any risk of catostrophe. This could be used to make any sized power plant from just one module to many, offering room for easy conversion to optimal size of the power plant. After 20 years they would be plugged out and sent in a standard unit without convrsion to other form for storage.


To solve the storage problem eventually cheap ways to reach orbit may be achieved to boost all the radiant debris outward or to the sun (cost per payload pound has dropped a lot in recent months as the boosts go higher and higher) or the radioactivity might also be solved using fusion as power source by reversed beta decay. (This would be a reversal of the usual process of radioactivity by injecting electrons that would cut the field lines of the strong force using much reduced electric energy [the strong force quantum numbers are integrally combined with the electric charge numbers] to make the nucleus radiate out without waiting millions of years (and the power from this could also be collected and used as heat making the conversion of mass to energy of the Uranium or other heavy element more efficient). More about Reducing Radioactivity.


I like to drink milk, exercise, and eat right. I want to fit in all the zooms of my life at christmas!
-
.

Saving The Elephants With Cellular One

Have you heard about the Elephants in Kenya, They are close to Mt. Kenya, the second highest mountain in Africa. Cell phones attached to their collar combined with a sort of virtual fence make it so when the elephant goes out of the range, the call goes up to orbit to alert the officials who drive out in a truck with lots of lights to implolre the elephant to not harm the farmer's fields. (Some of the farmers have been killed by the elephants and many have lost half a years crops.) The farmers are breathing much in relief and no more elephants will be hurt in defense of the farmers, this is good for the elephants, a real EleBell yell!

Laser Implants; Safer, Cheap, & May Edit Well.

I was reading in Popular Mechanics where they conjure up this machine that would have data storage (memory) the wearer wears on their waist and an implant that would be wrapped around the optic fiber of the eye. "The bitstream from the implant would be beamed to the storage media, so we would remember all we see. Photographers would see otherwise impossable zooms, and people at the scene would be good eyewitnesses if the robber made off with 3,000 worth of Wow chips!" You may have heard of the laser knife, using about 257 lasers that combine to burn out muscle or other realms of physiolgy even at the cellular level without a cut, because the lasers are not powerful till they heat up in the intersection. So the knife has minimal blood loss, and stays in the hospital are just hours, not months, for surgery.
-
Some believe if instead of making a cut to add in the implant or other machine round the optic nerve with risk of damage to the nerve and the blood loss, it might be more of worth if the lasers were used to make the machine itself. They are now where they make chips of carbon, the stuff of life, so a method has been devised... The laser would melt out the tissue where the prosthetic would go and once the tissue was in a more liquified state for just a bit, using electrically charged beams and a sensor beam, the molecules could be moved around in a few minutes to make the prosthetic, building it up layer by layer, sort of like a 3d printer, escept by laser from a more distant realm. These machines may be minute or cellular or even more reduced in size without surgery so many could be implanted for the same cost and savings. Some think another related method to make the implants would use oral dosages of the compounds (these would be in combination with other compounds to make them inert). These would then go in circulation where the lasers would light up where they would stay and be made active, and the rest would be cleansed out by the body's metabolism, and so on. Another possibility would be assembly of the compounds onsite by self assembling machines.

-
Removal of the implant would perhaps be as easy as the operation if it were worthwhile to remove it later for some reason (tissue in the space where the machine was might even be rebuilt and blended so it would heal in with surrounding mass) and each implant might have rewritable software that would be beamed to the machines via the usual beam route to the implant. It's been said that the brain pacemakers like for depression or Parkinsons would always be for just the few people in the most extreme illness, but in the future this might eventually be achieved for anyone who would find this of worth in many types of illness like about unblocking arteries to the heart. It may eventually be as easy for them as just changing their audio headset to a hat!

-

A good use of the gamma knife itself may be for other types of surgery, e.g. prostate operations may be used to unblock the tubes that when blocked cause the prostate to swell with fluid. A sensor would see where the tubes were sealed and the lasers would combine at that point to unblock the pores. Prostate is a major problem of the developed countries costing billions. Current surgery that works costs 10s of thousands or is with much risk, and so on. This might be a cure just using a simple scanner and a cheap laser. The gamma may have many bright uses in the health science of the 21st century.

-