Why are Globular Star Clusters Round?

..

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, says it would be great to live in a world and look up in orbit around a star in a globular cluster, "The sky of these worlds would be ablaze with stars." And because they often orbit high above the plane of the cosmos, wow can you imagine what a zoom?!


HOW STELLAR BLACK HOLES ARE LIMITED BY THE MASS OF THE STARS ON THE MAIN SEQUENCE

As it says on this Science News link the first finding about middleweight black holes seems to disprove them, the galaxies have them in massive power and black holes are known 10 times the mass of our own star, both these are seen by the astronomy but no middleweight black holes. It's possible even subatomic particles like muons or baryons are essentially black holes of small size because of faster than light implosion of the strong force with waves of higher density than Einstein's speed of light, so higher speed. (Einstein predicted faster than light in his own EPR paradox and couldn't believe his own creativity, and now evidence for faster than light is becoming more evident (click here for my physics synopsis.) So if two sizes of black holes are known or knowable and gravity at all scales operate the same, mid size black holes are not impossible by any disproof of gravity itself. I think this great midweight diet of physics may be about how the creation and evolution of black holes takes place. If there are no giant stars of 2000 times the sun or 20 stars in orbit, to form a star the only adhesive force to hold the dust well is gravity. All the rest of the dust would evaporate of it's own random motion. Beyond the limit of the cloud stars would be no more massive with time because with the critical density reached inside the cloud, it ignites via fusion which would blow out the rest of the dust. The dust would always be seen to blow away from all the stars, otherwise no limit would be seen on the mass of the stars. Once the stars were formed this mass limit of the stars would also limit the size of the implosion of the black hole formed from the star in it's late evolution so medium weight black holes wouldn't be caused by stellar evolution.

To stop these small stars from adhering to larger and larger star clusters of say 20 stars in orbit and forming medium sized star clusters near us, the distances between the stars would be so great and the motion of the stars is high speed, so each time the star or other massive body would move near, the gravity would slingshot the stars even farther than their already near 0 general density. A black hole at a distance is the same as a more massive star about gravity and if there hasn't been enough time since the formation of the Milky Way this distance and slingshot effect would have stopped all the outer mass of the galaxy from having compacted to a giant massive black hole.


GLOBULAR CLUSTERS WHY NO MEDIUM WEIGHT BLACK HOLES?

Globular clusters themselves would have the massive ionizing power of fusion, much stronger than merely moderate gravity so they would be held outward by the field expansion. With all but the stars that aren't radiant there would always be more outward expansion than contraction, so if the stars move near, the outward force is more. The stars near the center would perhaps either have the most radiation and ionization of the globular cluster to out boost the implosion or at least they would be of higher radiance than the amount needed to achieve it. In essence with globular clusters the radiation would hold off the gravuty instead of the high speed gravitational rebound and combined with the radiation outward, the great distances between stars even in globular clusters would both be enough to make it so black holes would be held off with distance, speed, and radiance. This would be like a gas with more random motion of the stars bubbling outward by heat and outward radiance than the amount needed to cause implosion. Globular clusters would have low angular momentum in general because more spin would cause flattening and globular clusters are spherical, and the random motion of the stars would be of import because if the stars were at rest even with more gravity, the stars would "sieve" and more and more would fall to the center. In order for the cluster to not have spin because the stars are proven to be old, the stars themselves must not have much spin or they would all line up and the clusters would level out. The stars are Type II old stars and they were all formed at the same time, it's believed the cosmos itself is just a few hundred million years older.

Why are these stars so old?

A possible cause may be about radiation. If radiation pressure is what holds the stars out and stablized at a distance, the inward and outward forces balance. In subatomic physics the neutron is stable in the atom because it's like a Mazda in the lot with other cars around it, so it can't make it out of the lot. Thus the rate of the radioactivity of atoms like hydrogen is essentially slowed to a stop even though the neutron is radioactive. If the stars of the globular cluster are balanced between the outward radiation and gravity, if the gravitational compression is strong enough the radiation wouldn't have as much room to expand and it could slow the rate of the evolution of the stars. With slower evolution of the stars fewer black holes of small size would be seen (a proof or disproof) and this would limit the medium weight black holes, because medium weight black holes wouldn't be created by star capture with great distance and random motion of the stars of globular clusters. Black holes of stellar mass would implode the light of stars and could thus become more massive, but if there were mostly stars in globular clusters and few black holes caused by stellar collapse, the radiation pressure of mostly stars would make all the stars stable between expansion and contraction. The idea that globular clusters are a good measure of the evolution of stars as is believed because they were all formed at the same time would be not a reliable way to know because stars nearby us or elsewhere outside the dense field would have a higher speed of evolution.

---

You may say, "There is more mass in the globular stars, and it would gravitate to cause more black holes." if there's more radiation pressure, they may be held off and not collapse to this density. If so, a prediction is that some of these systems will have higher density if the gravity is without so much outward flow of the ions.

Even if with enough time the medium mass black holes or the entire galaxies would be giant in mass, there hasn't been enough time for the force to cause this, because the forces of the outer stars and globular clusters would be limiting, the process of formation of medium weight black holes might be slowed down.


EVOLUTION OF GIANT BLACK HOLES

Black holes of giant power may also be explained by the evolution of galaxies. Unlike the stars of globular clusters, giant black holes like the center of mass believed to be in Saggitarius of the Milky Way would have more implosion via gravity than the amount need to hold off the expansion of the other forces like radiance, great room between stars and random motion. A central black hole of more massive type like the Milky Way wouldn't be formed by outward explosion/implosion like the small black holes caused by the late stage collapse of stellar evolution, the gravity would be too strong for the expansion to start. It would be formed by the same general force of gravitational implosion as the formation of the stars from the cloud of dust, but also with stars and small black holes also being in the implosion, and instead of lighting up with fusion at the fusion density it wouldn't light up, because the implosion is stronger than the outward radiation. It's been proven by astronomy that black holes are like super electromagnetic dynamos. I think a fifth and sixth force inside black holes are what may power the giant jets of these bodies, fusion isn't strong enough. [The usual particles of these two action reaction forces (because forces are always in pairs) aren't usually seen in experiments because they would always be unstable except under extreme pressure of the gravity, and fizz out to usual subatomic physics outside the jets.]

The implosion of the central giant black hole of like the Milky Way may be more like the formation of stars than later in their life cycle because beyond a certain density the jets of the galaxy would light up powered by these forces, by seeing just when they light up we can calculate the strength of the 5th and 6th force which I call superfusion. Because these super massive black holes are created by capture of the mass not expansion and implosion at the same time with the end of stellar evolution, the most probable stars to be captured into it would be old stars with reduced radiation so they wouldn't be able to hold off the implosion like with globular clusters. This would explain the otherwise unexplained conundrum of why the stars at the center of the milky way are older than they are at the center of the disc of the milky way, with more density usually the stars around us are not old stars. The stars that are falling in would be stars with lower radiation that would be more heavy than "light".


-

Wouldn't it be great to go out on a summer day and not hear the noise of a demolition team tearing up the road? There have been ways out of this devised including a jackhammer with a shield over the cutter at the road that seals out the noise, they even have a hammer that is a sort of clamp to reach over the window or wall top and improve the concrete silently by clamping it, and this has been applied to road machines to first use the weight of the truck which the hammer is well connected with. The mass of the machine presses down into the concrete and then the hammer clamps in to the road like the usual wall clamp using the pressure of the weight of the truck to achieve enough force to make a big enough dent in the road to then be able to quietly clamp the concrete. Another innovation to reach into the concrete for walls is to drill into the wall with two drill bits with counterrotation and then the bits themselves or parallel bits or other clamps in the holes drilled disentigrate the room or other stuff. Unlike the truck mounted clamp the inventor says this is portable and lightweight, and no doubt it could be used in place of the truck mounted machine. This is somewhat loud but much quieter than a conventional hammer of this sort and faster in labor so the overall sound is lower because it just takes 15 minutes to demolish what was a 2 hour labor before.

..

.
..There is the new idea of the skyscraper used in the urban areas for agriculture and aquaculture. Some people may want fresh produce right away, if it's on sale from Brand Y at 49th floors and 87 cents. The problem here is if land is cheaper in the country, and it always will be, why not just build it there? This way more people will move to the country even if nobody lives in the country!
--

Should Historians Make Moral Judgments?

...Ponders author Henry Steele Commager In the book "A Sense of History"...
-
He first notes that many of the ancients and most of the 16th and 17th century historians thought it was good to make moral judgements, and they thought themselves just and great for having done so.

He then goes on with a list of four main arguments against the use of moral judgements by historians;

1 The persons of history are not able in the 21st century AD to have their say about their deeds and their day in court so it's not of worth to judge them since impartial and just is the way to be the best.

-
2.The historian is a professional like a teacher and evaluations are allowed, but if a teacher made the same judgements plus a moral judgement, their skill wouldn't be considered of worth and they would lose their job.

3.The historian is not a god so we can't be sure of his judgement.

4. The reader already is aware to read a great author (like the author they were reading no doubt!) so they already will have highly evolved enough opinions about history and enough information and savvy to decide on their own.

From these four conclusions Commager then deigns the goal of the historians is in essence to just list the evidence, plus comments about the events. More insubstantial, safe conclusions about the conduct of say Churchill on one day in his life, Phillip the II, or Edison the I are allowed. There is to be no large scale judgement in history-old fashioned.

While many would praise the great deeds and heros in history, Commager's main question seems to be about the judgements of the other "bad" times of old history. It's obvious about the episodes such as the Conquest of Mexico by Cortes, these are about weapons used badly by people against the less fortunate people. An imbalance in the social order caused by weapons the other side was lacking in caused injustice. You may say, what about the persecution of Christians by the Ancient Romans or the Jews in World War II and other events of this type in history? This doesn't seem to have been caused any more by weapons than just people choosing it who were in power, some say the oppressors chose it so they should be judged. It's true judgement is not all bad but it's better to solve the cause of a problem than to blame. It would be the boost of all boosts if there were less bad history, if we find ways to improve history, historians may have the most boost of anyone. It's true the misuse of weapons by man against man is the cause of much of the bad history, but a second much larger "unknown" bad use of weapons in history has been by man against evolution, this may also be used to explain all these second types of "bad" times in history (not just weapons used badly by relatively healthy individuals such as the conquistadors conquest of Peru) when the overpopulation was higher including the modern problems such as the economic depression of the 1930's. As in ancient times, and more recent times after the 1600's first the weapons were used against evolution, this caused a rise in the number of people like in ancient Rome and Greece. This at first would seem to be an excess advantage used against evolution. But "advantages" like this are not common in evolution, so the motif of first excess then deficit would take place. The increased population would have increased Competition for Decreased Resources, causing strain and reduction of the overcrowding by way of Supply and Demand. I believe if we reduce our numbers/unit land these days so we would buy enough relief by this method, we could actually reduce the overpopulation, not just change the density with more time. People aren't ready to reduce, it would be more burden yet, sort of like losing fat. They find this increases risk of death many times, and the young people are most able to diet, so if weight reduction wasn't much common in evolution because of no tempting lunch, and most were healthy so were never overweight, (because we didn't evolve overweight) evolution would consider diets to be stressful and the older people would have more risk thereof. So too overpopulation was absent in evolution, and for now just reducing the burden of too much competition for reduced resources would be the most strengthening. Once the world was made stronger by reduced density, then we could consider more active (peaceful) reduction of the overpopulation.

That what people have done to evolution is not moderate and so may cause more harm than good is why weapons whether used against people or evolution can be used to explain all the bad times of history (other than plagues and famines, and so on.). These would be the only two causes of the illness and this sort of problem wasn't found in evolution for millions of years, because life science shows disease to be virtually absent in living evolution. After all both types of use of weapons, against others and against evolution are the most extreme behavour in all of history. The same motif of evolution's balance would be involved in modern times causing problems like World War II. Click Here for my complete causology of OVERPOPULATION, EVOLUTION AND ITS HISTORIC INFLUENCE.

The Four reasons to undeign morality of Historians abridged are

1.Others In History Before Us Aren't Able to Say Their Side Of It
2. Non Professional
3.Not a God
and 4.The Reader is Already Smart

About 1st of the four reasons that the ancients or others should be allowed to have their day in the witness stand and thus Commager's conclusion that moral judgement would be bad, this may be unimportant because the ancients are asleep for the time being and we may think of them as a reflection and mirror of our life here and now to learn about us. Life insurance is not just for calm people, it's a boost for business!

The 2nd objection to historians making moral judgments is about the distinction between history and authorship. If it's just history and like a judge or coach without moral boosts why should history be science and art more than just science? One reason is because history is us in the highest realms, it's all the lives of millions of people will be, it isn't just a reflection, it's twice all the world. Unimportant to them in 100 BC perhaps, but of worth to us the living. I would think one good reason to think of history as both science and creativity is because the historians of the good times like ancient Rome or the 1600s have seemed to think it should be so and they were good about so much it would seem they were right about this too. The civilization was more healthy in those times so while this is just a based on probability, so is most of life. So the use of appeal to some authority is not always without worth. Who doesn't have a boss some time in their life, Mom would have fired me on March 35th if I stayed out late!

About whether historians should be moral, I liken this to asking if Shakespeare would have been better authorizing just the science of events, or should he also add on his own inspirational vision? Or to put it in another way, since life is competition, should teams like in sports have cheerleader squads? I separate this into two motifs; A, The health of the teams and B, the boosters, this would be the judgement or moralizing of the older historians. When are boosts of worth to the team?

-In the 3rd reason on the list (The Historian is not a god) to not be a moralist if a historian, Commager speaks of the "bad" historians who used their own opinions to justify nationalistic, chauvinist or militaristic motifs. Generally the type of rhetoric the historians sometimes have used to these type of aims like in communist nations is generally not of worth to most people as much as a more healthy sort of use of the good words. If the team is fighting against us and is unhealthy too, then the team boosts tend to be more against us than for us. This may be why Commager and other modern historians seem to be lowering their goals to the level of just reported history. If they can't rely on others generally because of increased demand with reduced supply of resources and room caused by unfair treatment of evolution, pep would be discouraged, even though in the time of the Elizabethans it was considered to be worth more. If the health of the teams are sound then so may be the boost. The general health of civilization seems as I say to usually be associated with the immoral use of weapons in history whether to people or evolution. If so the health of the teams is of worth to improve by stopping or phasing out use of weapons somehow, and reducing the levels of persons per unit room by more people moving to the suburbs. If enough people were living by evolution we would be like my old competitions where we had the force of Co Ed for us not against us. It would be like a dream or falling asleep, with each go round of the stimulus we go calmer and calmer, more and more asleep, till finally the world could be in triumph by way of real rest. We read about this musician in the 1600's who had this plan to convince the royals to use music well in order to stop war and save the country. He didn't achieve it, but we go to sleep often twice in 24 hours, and go asleep a minute early if we all dream, we could stop war. If this is not the way it is it's what I dream of. You may say, we can't go back, weapons and bad technology are here to stay. But we use technology all the time that causes no harm and makes us feel good, when you read this awesome site, you are! You may say, you know misuse of weapons is bad, I know weapons is bad, but to do They? What I'm saying here it's not bad to fight like a dog needs to bark, just that it's of worth for us now to fight so efficiently we win by reducing out weapons generally more with each go round, including convincing the enemy to reduce his weapons likewise because of the worth of the wisdom of doing so at this time in history, sort of like one Santa who asks another, "So what do you do for a living the other 364?" and the other says, "You may be unaware, I'm in biz for the most folk revel in the world!" While the ancient greeks were a high civilization in the history of the world, they had common sense too. The golden rule seems to make the best business sense, what's called patience is actually changing the real problem without blame while accentuating the positive about the look of what's going on. If we have enough cause and are smart we can solve a lot with all our tricks, I like what's up most. Goodness is not inaction. It's waiting for the hour to do what's the best, in the best way possible, as often as is of worth. The problem of the weapons are the why, and once we find the why, the how is easier to find in much of life, being good may be our salvation, it always was most for the ages. To not eat meat often is my way of life, no more than was in evolution and not to be a hunter, it seems like a good or great deed to the world to abstain to moderate levels. Other options to reduce harm to the ecology are by reducing consumption of most goods and I cherish what is of use more months to years to conserve the environment and reduce demand. Since the strain that's common in the cities these days may be caused by the overpopulation and urbanization, it may be far better for us and the world to move to the suburbs where research shows the civilization is most healthy. Dreams like the above for the world are easier to achieve if silence is golden, the truth abounds in quiet rooms. (If you must live in the noise, a good way to reduce the stress is to buy a set of the new digital antinoise audiophones, they cancel 99% of the noise this even causes high blood pressure while you're asleep even for hours after the noise takes place. Research shows if you're overweight or thin it links with the road you live on somewhat, hope you live near Lois Lane of superwoman fame and the road where you live is a line! The digital antinoise is of value to stop almost all the noise compared to most cheap headphones that try to just reverse the sound with a high speed chip. These cheap antinoise headphones aren't fast enough so they don't stop about a fourth of the sound. This is important because noise is defined in physics as changing sound, and cheap antinoise is mostly worthless except for like low frequency sound like in production plants or planes where they first started using antinoise, so if you can hear any of the sound no matter how loud, if it's changing, it's noise. The price of the digital antinoise is high (about 400$) but the price may come down rapidly in a year or two (this is 2008) for me, how about you?)

The idea that the historian is not a god or anjel is like being so much a perfectionist all worth of the good is shut out of the real world. Historians aren't gods, but who is? We don't say know to Edison because he was deaf, or Einstein because he wasn't a great math or music whiz too.

Commager's 4th conclusion about the reader already having savvy about the moral part of the history they read from the author seems like saying if the team has no boosters, the fans will be able to draw their own conclusions about the plays. While this is somewhat so, if the historian is proud of their labor brought to the reader with much diligence, why wouldn't they add a hoot like in ancient times when the civilization was in power, the word pride had a good meaning in those days. In the middle ages, the word shame became "good" with words more like humility, or patience. If belief in the labors of love was of worth in a healthier civilization, this would seem to be a good reason to believe in it in other times.

Perhaps there may be slings where you wear a liner like a sleeve that are cooled by electric heat, lots of heat pumps are!
-
A foot computer mouse may be good, more web sites in your hand!

-

A Floodproof House When You Live In A Floodplain
...
You hear a lot about these cyclone proof houses that are first on the computer and then moved to the storm to see if they are of worth or (more likely since not costing millions) concrete that has been proven to labor well in places like the Philippines, storm after storm they say. And you hear of earthquake proof houses. But what about flood proof houses? It costs millions of put up walls and sandbags are not so much fun. Actually there is already a type of flood proof house that's been in use for years, deluge after deluge, a house boat! (CLICK HERE for a bit of RV humor.) Actually, if the house could be made with large emergency pontoons and also anchored to not sail away in the flood it could be much cheaper than losing all the possessions in the Noah's arch! It might seem to be good just to make all the new houses houseboats and add lines to hold it steady in the flood, they would tug at the anchor and wouldn't be as stable. Better might be to dig pipes down into the earth that would be with the house just raised up in the flood so it wouldn't sail away but be well anchored by the pipes that would stop lateral motion even when the pontoons make the general motion higher. The force maximum could be easily calculated and known if safe before hand, the only thing that wouldn't save itself would be the family mouser or Lexus, varoom, you would return to the house later and off you both go up the superhighway to dry land, this might turn out where the people in the flood with proven houseboat science wouldn't even have to evacuate, the Lexus would go up as the ship would too, a rich blessing. The lines to the land below the house would be used as a second level safety plan to save the house if the main pontoons broke. With more experience about the flood risk of this type of architecture, it would be known how safe it was to actually ride out the storm of what type in the room. You wouldn't have to yell out for lunch, the fishing would be good this time of the month. Stilt houses were such a prevalent feature along the shores of Lake Maracaibo in S.A that Amerigo Vespucci was inspired to name the region "Venezuela" (like Venice).. Finally a realtor's promotion with a real swimming pool!

Another possibility is a sort of accordion type wall that fits in a 3 inch plate that's deep enough to hold the accordion and that goes 20 feet sideways on the wall of the house if a 20 feet continuous line exists of linear wall, if it's just 3 feet of the wall like around a sidewalk, the accordion wall that fits in the foundation of the house for a watertight fit is just 3 feet for a snug fit around the rooms here too. With any line of the wall an accordion wall container would be 3 inches and the breadth of the wall. This could be retrofit to any house in a floodplain, and it might be a real bestseller to any home or business owner after a flood without it. I used to live by a new mall, and it started to rain, the next day I paddled by a station and the mall had a lot to sail. I'm sure this was a sad day for about 30 of the businesses of the mall. The accordion would have strong reinforcing wires and could even be motorised on rails up the sides of the house. The walls would have to be made strong enough to withstand the weight of the water, but actually the strong wires of the flood wall would be a major reinforcement since most floods aren't so high, the inventor says height may be no limit because conceivably the reinforcing wires could be strong since they are geometrical. To go around like sidewalks in front of a porch, the sidewalk would have the same 3 inch breadth so the accordion type wall would fit in here and all the way around the rooms. This is the same as no leaks from your clothes machine by a water tight box around and below the machine so if it leaks the box fills and the holding company then flows to the water perhaps! They say this could be used for sofas and other most valuable possessions for flood plain dwellers, or all the cushions and treasures could be put on pontoons like the houseboat and world's most waterproof RV motif, above. This could at least save the most cherished stuff by just a watertight connection that is already under the sofa, if the flood is coming, these could be raised higher and zipped tight so watertight. These accordion boxes around the base of each sofa or TV in the room would be higher price per unit saved, but of higher worth than no protection, they might be good if automatic with floats on top as are already in the IP or for fireproofing combined. Part of the material expands on heating, and it's buoyant, so they say it's combined fire and flood protection for just a years insurance, and better than a safe because you always have access to your stuff, the room is much larger than a safe for the same value. It's thought that sofas and other stuff could be built with built in accordion walls around where the sofa reaches the floor that are beautious on the outside, especially for people who live or own businesses in floodplains.

The first of these plans for a houseboat or large retaining walls outside the house may seem expensive, but more and more houses are going to be built on floodplains and they may save all the dweller owns at a much cheaper rate than just watching the house sail away, so in the years ahead there may be more financial worth to those who hope to save their house before a flood.
-
-

High Speed Travel For The Country Without High Cost....As the roads become more conjested and the price of oil goes up they say it may be possible the American way of life in the suburbs may be reduced to more living nearer the urbs, and many people in the country would no longer live there because it's too crowded without cheaper oil. In the years ahead there may be more power by the new patented gravity powered machines (CLICK HERE.) and the machines in each dwelling or business may power each cheap 200$ vehicle via modular lightweight polymer battery packs (you'd just charge up a few packs and load them in your car at no cost for a 10,000 mile trip) and because electric motors are cheap and simple (a typical vehicle has 20,000 parts, an electric motor, about 10) this would make it so more people could live in the suburbs and the country too. Even so this leaves some problems for the car to solve. Cars have mostly replaced trains, but trains have at least three advantages, they are cheap, safe and no chauffeur is needed to go to the city up the road to the pizza shack. Drone delivery has problems as I say on my video, so I think the smaller machines on rails with wings for higher speed may be the most optimal solution. Click Here or see link below. Trains have some problems like having to drive to the station and slow speed. For the best of both, a lighter rail system made of rails supported by y shaped, or arched or upside down j pylons of the side of the roads already existing might be of worth. These cheap rails would carry modules that would just hold one occupant or a load of groceries, they would be computerized vehicles and you would pay for your food or other merchandise you would usually buy in a shopping splurge to the city and and it would be coming to you at 350 mph (talk about fast Mcdonalds) because the light rails would be cyber for high speed without actually having to drive to the city. The rails would be strong and lightweight to stop falls. The only way for the rail to fall would be if several of the pylons fell at once making it safer because all the pylons are connected by the rail. Much more rich than a chauffer driven VW! Because the rural RR train would be of low weight and much higher speed, they would be cheaper than cars or UPS. Even though the rails would reach out of cities they wouldn't replace UPS airplanes and ships. Even so they would reach out from the urban zones better, good for emergencies. There would be smaller rails like this with smaller lighter delivery modules that would be the improvement for UPS with larger rails and machines for packages like even intermodal freight containers, and offload areas to send to the smaller branch lines and machines.

 I had originally just envisioned this a cheap fast way to deliver groceries, and this may be the most important use. Even so it would also be of worth for many other types of business. While using the warehouse beside the store to actually box cabbage and each box of food is good for in town (CLICK HERE) this would be good for extending this idea of automated food transport of food and people to the country or urban areas (and even more!). Each main road in the country would have the rails above the road with the pylons more stable either by smart materials that would automatically adjust the more lightweight pylons by the pressure of the ongoing train or by weights to the outside of the pylons so the inward pressure of the train would be balanced by the outward weight of the stabilizing weights, and to reach the rails themselves the cheap car (powered by the gravity powered machines) itself would be used as I say above to just go to the nearby train station of the village with my life of Irish, in 20 other countrys! If possible, and cheap these trains could reach many rural roads. This is a sort of extension of the old pneumatic tubes in buildings in the city, which I envisioned in a more elaborate plan of light rails throughout the city for high speed urban parcels by cyber power. This could also be used for the main roads to the country. To make it viable economically a fee would be charged and since it wouldn't reach the most distant country first the light rail systems would start from the city and expand outward to the country as it paid for itself instead of just building out to untraveled roads first. No doubt you'd often want to use this to replace the commute, so each vehicle  would be just one unit with stuff they buy at the store. More substantial rails would be higher in price. Families could rent or buy their own vehicle cheaper than a car but much higher speed. To travel with other people all the vehicles would be linked in one unit in route. While mommy couldn't go spank the baby (good for mommy) perhaps the family in the train would be connected by audio or whatever. Most people would rent a vehicle at the city, so no parking problem. This probably wouldn't replace vehicles, but it would be especially useful for people who live far from the city. It would be faster safer cheaper and easier than cars, and faster than trains. And it would reduce the congestion while not only to reberb the suburbs, it would also make living out in the country cheaper not more expensive and thus it would be of real worth to reduce population densities. Evolution, Overpopulation, and It's Historic Influence. (Why overpopulation may be a real concern, using up resources. ).

Here's the Link To my Video Anjelfire and Drones, Problems and Possible Solutions
-
-