Bio Power/Jet Stream Boost Via Heliballoons
..
A good use of amobea they've achieved is a jug filled with life that generates power! It's believed this may be improved by using the way plants common potting plants like airplane plants are that need no food or water, actually most plants get perhaps 97% of the power and "food" to thrive from the air! Pizza is just for Mamma V or marms, I know a marm who's gone commercial. She often says how our county has 30 shhss to eat a Pizza! And there are some power plants that generate more power per unit weight than animals higher up in evolution like the lion. If these plants that generate power or heat were bred or engineered so they would be of the type that would need no food or water like the airplane plant, it would boost power in each house that would cleanse the air of CO2 and indoor pollution and generate heat and electricity, without input of food or water. This would not be impossible. Power plants would be power generated right up your road where you live. I got some "Cheap Luxury" brand Bottled Water "Pumped From the Source" They use the same storage resevoir as the town!
Stream Fans Aloft Via Helicopter Balloons
They have the plan to tame the winds of the upper atmoshpere,one idea is to use fans on wires that would be held aloft like a kite by the continous wind, I don't know it they have heard of helicopter balloons, invented in the 70's, they look like a balloon with helicopter rotors that go all the way through the axis of the spin and out the sides for lift and control. It has the lift of an airship and the stability and speed of a helicopter. A use of the helicopter balloons would be to support the fans in the jet stream for stability, so much stability the power could be reversed and some months of the year the jet stream might be moved north or south in hopes of controlling the paths of say the worst storms, we all talk about the weather and we might get power out of it and control it eventually.
It's said by the inventor the heliballons may be powered by both the tugging and spin itself, sort of like the wave machines which oscillate up and down with the waves and the weight below the buoy except with air, it's believed this would be a renewable power source. The helicopter balloons will be stationed by the shore where the land and sea breezes are constant and both spin in the breeze and also with the tugging motion to add a lot more power to collect. It's thought if bad weather approached they could be lowered down automatically in to housing at on the ground or it could be above the weather. Since many sail collectors are considered bad for the beautious beach vistas it could be made to look just like balloons you see at the festival in August. This is uplifting like a vitamin jug that lifts me. It's good to know I've absorbed 50% RDA of BHT and Riboflavin!
--
Thursday, July 19, 2007
A Cyclone Machine
(Used to Simulate And Control Real Storms..)
They now have this machine that makes a synthesized dust devil that's 150 feet in diameter and the cyclone will go miles high, once it's started it will implode more air generating more power inhaling more air indefinitely so it may be a complete power source powered by low pressure (Pop Sci July 2008 pg 46 Harnessing Energy From Tornadoes). A feasable machine 15 feet wide has been built and a 150 foot wide machine is under construction. (It's like The Wheel as Elevator. They have a great show on Wheel of Fortune. 25 years and I've never seen no contestant who didn't win!) In my comments on THIS LINK about the machines to control these whirlwinds in real life, I note that the simulated weather experiments to prove if it would work could be achieved by using perhaps air or water and so on of more than one density to generate a small synthesized storm that could then be used to see if the small machines like an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle could go to the small storm or and stop the flow of the air perhaps by cutting off the flow with fins, propellers or laser or by heat changes, steam jets, water jets, explosions, and so on sort of like how you stop a cyclone in the tub by putting your hand over the flow. A problem with the power generation whirlwind they now have in the works they say may be if the storm goes off the the machine's track and causes devastation. The author of the machine says he thinks it would be safe because he could just turn off the motor, however it seems not impossible if the conditions were ready, more probable than the real storms perhaps because the air would flow more to the storm, like how lightning is drawn to a higher hill. A solution may be use to use this synth to actually test the weather control of the more real storms. The tornado machine would go online and the machines that could control the real whirlwind would be deployed and well exercised and researched in use to make real weather control of the more wild storms achievable, and no doubt the same machines would be of worth to stop the synthesized giant storm. So all the power would safely be achieved of both the cyber storm and real storms would be controlled well. This would be at least a good as what people in prime time pharma infomercials achieve, it seems like they stand around and are just alive for a living!
(Used to Simulate And Control Real Storms..)
They now have this machine that makes a synthesized dust devil that's 150 feet in diameter and the cyclone will go miles high, once it's started it will implode more air generating more power inhaling more air indefinitely so it may be a complete power source powered by low pressure (Pop Sci July 2008 pg 46 Harnessing Energy From Tornadoes). A feasable machine 15 feet wide has been built and a 150 foot wide machine is under construction. (It's like The Wheel as Elevator. They have a great show on Wheel of Fortune. 25 years and I've never seen no contestant who didn't win!) In my comments on THIS LINK about the machines to control these whirlwinds in real life, I note that the simulated weather experiments to prove if it would work could be achieved by using perhaps air or water and so on of more than one density to generate a small synthesized storm that could then be used to see if the small machines like an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle could go to the small storm or and stop the flow of the air perhaps by cutting off the flow with fins, propellers or laser or by heat changes, steam jets, water jets, explosions, and so on sort of like how you stop a cyclone in the tub by putting your hand over the flow. A problem with the power generation whirlwind they now have in the works they say may be if the storm goes off the the machine's track and causes devastation. The author of the machine says he thinks it would be safe because he could just turn off the motor, however it seems not impossible if the conditions were ready, more probable than the real storms perhaps because the air would flow more to the storm, like how lightning is drawn to a higher hill. A solution may be use to use this synth to actually test the weather control of the more real storms. The tornado machine would go online and the machines that could control the real whirlwind would be deployed and well exercised and researched in use to make real weather control of the more wild storms achievable, and no doubt the same machines would be of worth to stop the synthesized giant storm. So all the power would safely be achieved of both the cyber storm and real storms would be controlled well. This would be at least a good as what people in prime time pharma infomercials achieve, it seems like they stand around and are just alive for a living!
(To $ave A Lot On The co$t of Big Machine$!!)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
3 Ways To Reach Mars Cheaper
Momentum Builds Higher than 93 Million Mph
There are currently plans to go to Mars and beyond using what's called Momentum Transfer and Way Stations. The idea of Momentum Transfer is about and vis a vis how you can create more force on a body by impact on the outside by another high-speed mass. The starship has another mass after it's been launched that's boosted up to reach it, and when the two masses meet the speed from the faster one adds a lot of speed to the starship. They then move with a moderate (combined) speed till the starship rejects the mass and it then speeds up the ship by reaction when the momentum is moved outward from it, they say this would make time of transit to go to Mars or other distant realms just a few months not years. Even if you had a constant comfortable speed of 32 ft/sec it would only take a year to reach the speed of light, so boost is more of a problem than resistance to motion.
-
Way Ahead Of Our Time While We Save And Save
Another plan is about using Way Stations around the sun permanently or semi permanently in orbit between Earth and Mars, these would boost the speed of the starship and aid in fueling the Martians (they would be green if they ate a lot of cheeze chips!). I had the same idea but I considered it more and viable for Ma Bell because the cost would be so much higher to maintain the Way Stations. With the trip already costing trillions, the Way Stations are for the more distant years and months ahead (the remote with a big tube TV is big enough for 2010.)
-
A Storage Room With Round Sides
A third idea that could be used with the Momentem boost however might be to first send a sort of javelin boom that would spear into the side of one Mar's small moons Phobos or Diemos, these are presumably captured asteroids, miles wide, so they weigh a lot. Once they were speared in the side the boom would be extended out so that when a high-speed starship arrives (Arriba! Arriba!) on the wave of the momentum (The starships are up!) the boom would catch the starship and the linear motion would be converted to angular storing up much of the energy used to make the trip in the spin of the asteroid, this would be used to essentially keep the starship at almost the speed it was when it got there with linear to angular momentum, so the energy would not be wasted and stored. A major cost of the trip to Mars no doubt is cost of fuel and by storing lots of the motion almost half the trips power costs would be saved, so it would be even cheaper than by momentum when the boom and moment plans would be combined. To go back to Earth in the month of March (or the big Ides of blue I would see when I got here if my opthamologist had her say) the astronauts would blast off from Mars up to the center of the spinning asteroid with boom, land in the center of the moon and then gradually move outward on the boom were the starship with the speed increasing when in the starship. The starship would be released at high-speed and most of the speed would already be reached needed to return to Earth.
A Bit of Another World (Soaps Return Savings Cupons!)
Another method that has been invented to use part of in going speed of a high-speed probe would be by a sort of lever on the tip of the high-speed machine. The machine of strong metal or other high strength stuff goes inward, the tip of the probe nips a sample of the surface of the world or other body to be returned to earth. The trick would be to use a lever on the tip of the machine that would rapidly reverse the high-speed motion of the ingoing probe with a sample from the surface so it sort of bounces right off the surface of the planet and much of the inward momentum would be converted to the outward saving a lot on the cost, this may be the only way missions to take samples of distant worlds may be affordable. This may be more of worth than going up the road -and instead of dashed lines, you see a zip map!
-
There are currently plans to go to Mars and beyond using what's called Momentum Transfer and Way Stations. The idea of Momentum Transfer is about and vis a vis how you can create more force on a body by impact on the outside by another high-speed mass. The starship has another mass after it's been launched that's boosted up to reach it, and when the two masses meet the speed from the faster one adds a lot of speed to the starship. They then move with a moderate (combined) speed till the starship rejects the mass and it then speeds up the ship by reaction when the momentum is moved outward from it, they say this would make time of transit to go to Mars or other distant realms just a few months not years. Even if you had a constant comfortable speed of 32 ft/sec it would only take a year to reach the speed of light, so boost is more of a problem than resistance to motion.
-
Way Ahead Of Our Time While We Save And Save
Another plan is about using Way Stations around the sun permanently or semi permanently in orbit between Earth and Mars, these would boost the speed of the starship and aid in fueling the Martians (they would be green if they ate a lot of cheeze chips!). I had the same idea but I considered it more and viable for Ma Bell because the cost would be so much higher to maintain the Way Stations. With the trip already costing trillions, the Way Stations are for the more distant years and months ahead (the remote with a big tube TV is big enough for 2010.)
-
A Storage Room With Round Sides
A third idea that could be used with the Momentem boost however might be to first send a sort of javelin boom that would spear into the side of one Mar's small moons Phobos or Diemos, these are presumably captured asteroids, miles wide, so they weigh a lot. Once they were speared in the side the boom would be extended out so that when a high-speed starship arrives (Arriba! Arriba!) on the wave of the momentum (The starships are up!) the boom would catch the starship and the linear motion would be converted to angular storing up much of the energy used to make the trip in the spin of the asteroid, this would be used to essentially keep the starship at almost the speed it was when it got there with linear to angular momentum, so the energy would not be wasted and stored. A major cost of the trip to Mars no doubt is cost of fuel and by storing lots of the motion almost half the trips power costs would be saved, so it would be even cheaper than by momentum when the boom and moment plans would be combined. To go back to Earth in the month of March (or the big Ides of blue I would see when I got here if my opthamologist had her say) the astronauts would blast off from Mars up to the center of the spinning asteroid with boom, land in the center of the moon and then gradually move outward on the boom were the starship with the speed increasing when in the starship. The starship would be released at high-speed and most of the speed would already be reached needed to return to Earth.
A Bit of Another World (Soaps Return Savings Cupons!)
Another method that has been invented to use part of in going speed of a high-speed probe would be by a sort of lever on the tip of the high-speed machine. The machine of strong metal or other high strength stuff goes inward, the tip of the probe nips a sample of the surface of the world or other body to be returned to earth. The trick would be to use a lever on the tip of the machine that would rapidly reverse the high-speed motion of the ingoing probe with a sample from the surface so it sort of bounces right off the surface of the planet and much of the inward momentum would be converted to the outward saving a lot on the cost, this may be the only way missions to take samples of distant worlds may be affordable. This may be more of worth than going up the road -and instead of dashed lines, you see a zip map!
-
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!
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!
...
..
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!
- -
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
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!
..
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!
..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)