How To Cleanse Food; Smart Radiance
..
The Cure For Hearthburn is Fighting Fire With Cheeze!

You may see about how they're adding radiation to food like the equivalent of billions of chest X rays for some foods to stop food catastrophes like salmonella. There are 76 million cases of food borne illness mild to life threatening in the US. Advocates of food radiation-among them the CDC, The American Medical Association (AMA) and the World Health Association (WHO) say prevention of illness is enough risk to outweigh with the lesser risk of radiation. According to this month's issue of Energy Times 11 08 there are many safety flags about radiation, radiation also kills the good organisms in food that are good for us, takes out vitamins, and causes other serious problems. And irradiation doesn't stop prions (that cause mad cow disease) or other pathogens like viruses of foot and mouth disease and hepatitis. Massive radiation may hardly be called the best imaginable way to solve problems caused by food borne illness. The future may hold a real answer by first adding compounds to the food that combines with the genes of just the harmful organisms quite selectively also perhaps with other selective compounds to find what's unsafe in the chow; a low power beam shines on the food, and just the harmful bacillus would be seen, then a beam guided by this would zap just the harmful life, while leaving all the good life in good health. (the beam could also destroy the compounds to ID the bacillus if they were also perhaps a bit toxic.). You may have seen the operations opthamologists and other surgeons use with lasers that like a light you see at a rock concert is of lower power till the beams meet or the 3d TVs that use a foot round crystal where beams meet to make the image, you can't see the beams before they meet because they're lower power. And in the operation room the lower power beam has no real effect on the eye till it meets inside the eye, but where they meet the beams heat up enough to do surgery without cutting the eye at all. This is also used in what's called the gamma knife in brain surgery. 257 lasers go through the hat of the wearer (the aurora has a great power bost!) and don't damage the tissue where they meet to take out tumors even with no anesthesia, and it removes the cancer down to cellular size. While it would take a good bit of effort to find all the right compounds that would light up the harmful germs and chromosomes, this is within the realm of the science of 2008 and once it was well established this motif would rarely need improvement. So radiation may worth watching what hot dish you munch on while you read in your opthamologists zoom room!
...

Gravity and Centrifugal Force In Higher Resolution

Gravity and inertia are much alike (Einstein)

Even so gravity takes a huge mass to cause the same force as in a centrifuge and there are other problems like how inertia in the frame of motion can be cancelled by linear motion while radial acceleration inward cancels gravity, so they aren't the same since an acceleration is not linear motion. Another reason to believe gravity and inertia are not equivalent is because mass causes gravity while inertia causes linear motion, so the more inertia, the emptier the space and this is not the same as a plenum. And this wouldn't be just be an exact cancellation, the opposition is nonlinear because if mass is like a solid and inertia being lightweight is more like a fluid, solids are more complex and fluids are more simple. Thus it seems Einstein's way of physics here is incomplete.

Two components of the field would explain both Einstein's Equivalence Causeology and distinction between both types of force; A higher energy low speed component common to both gravity and inertia may unify them. This component would not be attractive and would operate by inert impact of it's constuituents on masses since gravity if as strong as the force in a centrifuge with the same mass of the spinning wheel would be much stronger and

A second lower energy high speed component would just be in fields with mass and gravity and not much in power via centrifugal force.

To explain Einstein's Equivalence of Mass and Inertia (like that in a centrifuge) the higher powered near electromagnetic component would be used with both, and the distinction of the two would be caused by the lower energy field, this is not how Einstein conceived General Relativity with just empty space and time, and with no use of the flow of the field like this that would cause both what's common and uncommon about gravitation and inertia.

How these components act may explain the motifs of spacelike and timelike virtual photons. (Einstein's idea of the intervals was that they were faster and slower than light.)

J P I U T R

The high energy field when being accelerated by the lower power component would add force to mass by pressure causing the force of gravity. This low energy component is lightweight, so it may both move much faster than light and not shield by lightening up to travel light (see my Physics Synopses link for evidence for Faster Than Light and experiments). The higher speed low density component is absent mostly in a centrifuge, and since inertia is much like gravity, both inertia and gravity would share the second, higher density, lower speed, component, this would explain Einstein's belief about how gravity and inertia are alike.

...Centrifugal force can't act by attraction like gravity because no attraction of a centrifuge is found and as is well known, inertia has no source so the pressure of the outward flow of a more dense field would explain a spinning bucket of water like a trampoline when stretched has an outward or downward arched surface, this would be caused by an outward flow of a nonadhesive dense field. Even so the low energy component would interact by adhesion with the motive high speed low energy component of the field. The dense component (by this adhesion with gravity) would cause gravity and both inertia and gravity would operate by way of the pressure of the dense component of the field. So inertia like centrifugal force would be like a sort of gravity without motive power. Both gravity and centrifugal force would have generally equivalent pressure being exerted by the more dense but more inert component of the field. (If gravity operates like inertia essentially by the pressure of this higher power component of the field, this predicts that heavy atoms with another ratio of surface area to mass than lighter atoms may have small changes in wavelength and mass not otherwise seen. And there would be changes in the centrifugal force on masses in a centrifuge by way of how changes in the speed of the outward flow of the field would change with the speed of the field and it's presumed somewhat more complex interaction with the surfaces of the masses, with changes in both pressure, speed and area via centrifugal force. Centrifugal force would be pressure of the higher energy particles, being more dense and grainy so they might be somewhat more complex in flow than the field of gravity which would be more smoothed out by the continual overlapping waves of the higher speed lower energy component of the field.) While inertia and gravity would be the same because of the result of the force, the higher speed flexing component would explain the cause (why gravity has a source and inertia doesn't and so on like with the force of uniform motion). Thus Einstein's vision of gravity as having no source or cause is merely of kinematics (motion without cause) and my causology of GWD is more general and about dynamics (motion and cause both). If gravity had no source, and the earth were moved, the moon held in orbit by no source of gravity would go on spinning merrily in orbit around the space where the Earth was if both General AND Special Relativity were valid. Only if the "inertial low energy electromagnetic" field common to both gravity and inertia is just made of low energy particles that would replace the high energy Higgs now being sought with the high energy physics "atom smashing" machines would gravity be explained by way of the pressure of a moderately dense field. For more evidence in support of my belief in a moderate lower energy field Click Here. If it were of high density like the Higgs it would be made of so much density gravity would shield, even (or especially) if the huge mass of each particle were "renormalized". If the wall formed by the balance of two huge mass densities, the inward and outward flow, were balanced so no gravity goes out, none would go in so all fields made of a high energy Higgs would shield or have huge density. A lower energy field would be more flexible because it would have to be able to change rapidly from a particle to a wave if it were the foundation field all the mass and energy were made of. For the light's wavelength to change with changes in the high speed observer's speed in special relativity, I use the assumption of the field that is lower in energy than the light but not so much lower it can't shape and mold what Einstein called "spacetime" well. And a lighter field could travel faster than light to shape the field in Special Relativity because it's somewhat lighter than light, and as I say in my synopses page you lighten up to travel faster with most common mass around us in the world, only a faster than light signal from the high speed starship could change the wavelength of the light before it reaches the ship since by special relativity, no signal can reach between the high speed ship and the light to change it.

...

You may say, how can we find proof of these two field components with real machines?

...

Einstein himself believed in what he called the spacelike and timelike intervals, of faster and slower than light, these intervals were proven with the discovery of spacelike and timelike virtual photons in the 1970's. The photons are found to have mass and no inertia, or inertia but no mass respectively. These two components of the gravitational field seem to explain how this is so. The low energy component of the field has mass since it's attractive and mass always attracts. The high energy field would exert pressure to cause inertia and has no mass because inertia would be caused by the viscosity of the more massive field. So unlike with Einstein's causology, there is a definite distinction between inertia and gravity in my physics of GWD. General Wave Dynamics. If there is a flow of the field and not just empty space time, a spinning bucket of water or other fluid if in smooth motion away from gravity would have changes in the rate of flow of the dense component of the field outward, so it would not have a completely smooth surface of the water or other fluid in the bucket. There could be concentric bands in the surface of the water where this component of the field would change speed a bit, and Einstein's physics wouldn't have a reason why this would be so.

.......

So by way of the virtual photons we are measuring the higher density component of the field, and the low energy field has already been measured just by way of the Torsion Balance lab machine in use for about 200 years to prove Sir Issac's gravity. An important part of GWD is that this is faster than light, so by use of the Balance Machine say 5 minutes from a solar event, the speed compared to light may be measured, CLICK HERE For My (High Speed, faster and sight site!) Physics Synopses.

...

One use of this idea might be about inertia. Why does the low density field component adhere to the high density component and attract just somewhat? If it adheres somewhat, it seems fair to ask, why not more or with reduced force? If we find the answers it may be of real worth to reduce or increase centrifugal force or even gravity by way of these considerations. Only if Einstein was in error about gravity as in my causeology of GWD (not the well proven Special Relativity) would this be possible.

...

Copyright 2008 by Charles Frederick Lawson

.....

-......

Footwear of The Stars In the 4th of July Mom's Day Celebration
..
Feetwear that pump air to the foot have been devised, I tried a pair, and they didn't pump near enough air to cool my feet in the heat, like the state lottery where I live that has ads saying the lottery helps colleges, and they have the gambling overuse number on the same, I bet it may make a lot of the gamblers stop, if they just paid them a lot, this would cause good behavour! So the lottery is like August and without the Hoosier Millions. Even so shoes have been planned that have a zip around liner that fits around the side in hot weather, and it's worn like a flip flop, and when it rains it zips up so it converts from a sandal to rain. Another way to cool the feet is footwear that stores the water in pads higher up for protection in summer like how holiday shoppers around November wear pads and hats with shields to be able to shop in the savings mob. The pads are good protection for the legs and the air is pumped up from the feet and cooled by flow in the water and back down to the feet. The pad also stores water in the heat if other water has been depleted. (Disregard this if you live in Holland, below sea level! -The most Oxygen in the world is near the Aral Sea, ozone lives on!) You may see footwear that exercises the shoe while you walk, a motif that's been devised is a more adaptive exercise shoe actuated by computer, like with computerized electromagnets that change the feet in more complex and worthwhile ways than just unchanging magnets (like in reflexology, devised by the ancient and modern Chinese). It be a hoot if they had footwear in the heat with small shields above for shade and a computerized mist above the foot powered mostly by walking. Like the rain forest where it stays moist even in the heat, most of the water is in a loop (the water in the rain forest just rises a few hundred feet or vamps, and then is rain.). Actually the deserts are N and S of the tropics, so the US has more desert by far than Mexico, and the Sahara is actually N of the most heat. The main advantage the shield has over the pad cooled feetwear is the water, it's without closing the foot to seal it or leaving the foot completely open so the water is fizzed off, this is too hot if open and also it makes the foot too moist and would allow athletes foot ect if closed. There is an optimum level both of circulation with much higher cooling than air cooled, but the water is saved so less is used, and it's computerized so when you go in the store it keeps your feet comfy by stopping the pump from the foot.

.....

A HEAT FUNNEL
..
They have these solar panel briefcases that cost 600$ you can take to the park for 5 hours of charge to power your laptop for 2. As you who are savvy to the ways of subatomic physics may know, Cosmic Rays from the stars are much higher energy than anything even the largest particle smasher can boost up. These high energy rays from the cosmos (where do they think these names up?!) only hit the atmosphere about once in a half hour. A good motif to make giant collectors cheap that's been devised is to use a cone shaped electromagnetic field, that would funnel the radiation to a collector, this would be useful for the laptop battery with the solar collector, and if used to collect many more cosmic rays over a wider area, they might be seen more frequently (the main frame of the cosmos has good eyesight!) Most collectors in use are real small compared to a cone half the size of the earth, so more cosmic rays per unit time would be collected. And it would be useful like to make a streetlight that's solar powered and no land would be needed to put the fields of collectors on that it takes to power solar powered streetlights now. And by way of it's large collection power per weight it would be of worth for solar powered airplanes. The power to cause the funnel's field would be from the heat also.
-

A Super Sensor...
You read about these improvements in optics where they slow or even stop light, or entanglement, and about how neutrinos would go through a billion or more miles of lead without interacting with any of the lead atoms. Consider what might be achieved if we had a beam that was a combination or blend of light and a neutrino, it would conceivably be somewhere inbetween the light and the neutrino, it could go through more matter like the neutrino, but it would be sticky enough and more like the light to be controlled, in emission, combinations with the mass to be scanned, and also with enough substance to be received by sensors on the other side, but the machines to send and receive the beam wouldn't have to be so huge like in current physics machines.

This would be the sensor of all sensors. Because neutrinos go through all mass without much interaction, if the beam was made the right power for the focus (say to find people on the other side of the world for a census) all the information of the mass could be seen, even from one machine. This could have medical use and it would make a good 3d sensor for copies, and it would make exact census possible.

Another use would be for saving data. With a cyber crash the sensor would find all the information and use it to make a virtual machine that would simulate the complete machine, hard disk, wires, chips, "run" the machine and collect all the data, this would be good for old LP's and would completely solve hardware data saving problems. With no reader for a disc in 1000 years, if a virtual copy of the machine was saved the data would be saved. It may seem if the ray was of low power this would be a real IP and security problem; however for the beam to reach inside the machine to find the data from the outside would seem to always need a ray of about the same energy as the atoms and molecules of the machine in order to interact with it (an antenna of unlike wavelength to the source won't resonate with the beam) so this theoretical beam would be mostly shieldable and would only find atoms and molecules at close distance. It would find larger size masses of lower power without shielding, like a census.

This would also be like Einstein's low energy beam he conjured up to unify quantum foaminess, it was low in energy so it wouldn't change the observed matter much, but not so low no change would take place all would be unified so Conservation of Energy, the 1st Law, would be obeyed. For more about this, CLICK HERE.
..
Thus small changes by modifying light and neutrinos might be of much import.

There are four possible ways this might be achieved;

Neutrinos might be blended with the heavier light;

They might be blended with many neutrinos, say 20 or 30, to add the adhesion which must exist or they would expand out without limit.

SOLITONS, known since the 1830's. This is about how waves have two types of internal forces, forces that cause expansion, and forces to cause implosion, both must be present for the wave by balance not to expand continually by implosion or expansion. The soliton use of waves that move at the right wavelength perhaps might be used. With solitons the wave component that would otherwise cause it to expand is instead replaced by the timing of motion of the wave so the force of adhesion wins out, using the same motif that's made calls to foreign lands low cost for long distance because the wave doesn't lose so much power over great distances, by this the neutrinos may perhaps be more adhesive, and so of worth to machines like sensors that could see the inside of say, the Earth or Mars.

If these methods were unfeasible, a fourth way to the machines like this could be via antilight. Light slows down through matter as it's heavier, anti light, being antimatter, speeds up as it's lighter and thus it would be a better beam for like medical use because it would be more like the neutrino, with lower and lower power it might go through more and more mass, with the interaction adjusted to more optimal energies, X rays without so much radiation and for other uses.
-