Ways To Prove if Hydrogen Boosts Cosmic Redshift
.
Paul Marmet on his site about the Hubble Constant says he believes the redshift and the missing mass to close the cosmos can both be explained by way of molecular hydrogen. One problem here is if we assume gravity is the same the galaxies wouldn't spin as solid bodies as they are observed by the observatories. Another problem is that a train's doppler shift is not of comparable magnitude to its doppler shift via the density of the air, otherwise the greater the distance like of radio waves through the air, the greater the redshift. If Marmet can prove the redshift via hydrogen in the lab or with other materials this would be of worth and I would think the hydrogen way to cosmology would be more plausable though not probable. Marmet's site;

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html. .

Here's another link about "tired light" http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tired-light-theory .

In cosmology, the motion of clouds of hydrogen in the time of Hubble in the 1920's to prove the motions of hydrogen near and far was measured by the doppler shift, the redshift. If the redshift was caused by hydrogen as is Marmet's belief, there would be a redshift on both sides of the Milky Way not both blue and redshift this is well proven to be augumented or reduced with the spin of the disk of a massive body to or away from us, if and hydrogen is still the cause there would be the added redshift with hydrogen component for all distant masses. If the redshift was caused by hydrogen alone, the observations wouldn't fit Marmet's use of hydrogen to make the redshift caused by the spin seen. If this is the cause of the redshift here, its a step up to believe it's of worth to be the cause of the redshift of the cosmos. This is what led Hubble and others to believe in the expansion of the cosmos. To prove if more hydrogen causes more redshift, there would be more redshift the more distance we look to other side of the Milky Way and it wouldn't be about motion to see the other side even if it's not moving much relative to us.

Another way to prove or disprove Marmet's belief in hydrogen may be about the rate of expansion of a sphere (or possibly via cosmic vortex cosmology). Since the expansion is mostly powered from the center, heavanly bodies at more distance like with higher redshift if under power longer would move faster farther away from us, thus the cosmic expansion is also proven or disproven relative to the hydrogen cause by way of the earth being with completely symmetrical redshifts outward on all sides. If Marmet's conclusion is proven, with more distance, more redshift. With a nonsymmetrical expansion of the Big Bang more redshift would be seen on the more outward realm.
...

Self Assembling Power Plants Power Up!

We hear a lot about self assembling machines, wonderous mighty mini marvels that may be used in the most important way of all; to generate power! "What about Energy Conservation", you may say, " What machines have power output where there was no input of the field?". No doubt there must be fuel for a fire. But to say there may be no large source of fuel for the self assembling machines would be like saying atomic power or the patents they have for gravity powered machines are of no value. The ultimate use of self assembling machines may be to take fuel and burn it, even down to the subatomic level with a more highly efficient fire than just the random thermal motion of heat. One possibility may be to find chemical power in the air by way of small electric fields to extract the oxygen or hydrogen for fuel. Another use would be to absorb water from the air, with more energy and water out than we put in, just as in an atomic implosion with conventional explosives inward, more power outward is then achieved. This would save much power otherwise spent on desalination or moving water inland.

Another use of self assembling machines would be waste and recycling. With a process like thermal depolymerization any carbon waste is converted to oil by heat (like polyester for polyester plants, great!). With some of the power used to power the machine more power is out than in powered by the fuel. Unlike thermal depolymerization, self assembling machines could be used for power or other uses on any scale, small to vast. All rooms of buildings could use a machine that would cost no more than installation, the power would be much cheaper, and no power wires. They would also be portable. With self assembling machines, because of higher efficiency many more types of waste could be used. Small self assembling machines to add electrons to the waste converting the protons and electrons to neutrons of the radiant atoms with then more neutrons than protons so the neutrons would remove from the radioactive atom and decay in just 20 minutes of radiance stored for power, not millions of years. (This process (which I name reversed b radioactivity) would first line up the spins of the radioactive atoms so the electrons moving inward to combine with the protons would have an easy inward motion compared to having to overpower the atoms unaligned field which would take more power.) Another type of atomic power source that could be self assembled may be the Atomic Motor, or other fusion machines with small cones that would combine protons and neutrons to fuse by way of the strong force implosion of the poles not resisted by the centrifugal force of most strong force interactions. Because the machines could be made small, the force they can exert would be large because pressure is force per unit area, making chemical or subatomic reactions more efficient.

The self assembling machines may be good for recycling. Because of the radiant power of mass, any waste could be recycled into it's constituent stuff, even rebuilt back up to other more useful materials. The machines might clean up their own waste after the labor is done, but why would we want them to, perhaps not enough room? This could be improved by making them multipurpose like 5 in one software they have. And these small machines may be selective to break down just some components of the waste not others (i.e. bioengineering) saving energy and time. This would be of use to replace irradiation of food which often uses the equivalent of 10 billion chest Xrays, destroying good cells with bad, in many types of (unlabled) food we eat, not to mention of worth to selectively change tissue even to the subatomic level in the body to cure or control diseases with these machines.

Self assembling machines have typically been considered viable in zones like desert or colonization of planets or the moon where access is not easy. The low efficiency is considered to make it more viable to use more conventional labor to build machines here like in plants. If more power were achieved, not just labor or construction of other machines, self assemblimg machines may make their way more to where we are already, and where we are is cozy for months and 20 years with adorations of Julia Lewis Dryfuss in power!
..

Conservation Laws And Energy...Those who believe energy can't be created because of Energy Conservation may be assuming what they're trying to prove. Indeed, if gravity is continually winding up the cosmos, so it doesn't wind down by entropy over infinite time with thermodynamic and other energy conserved by quanta it seems the field may be continually creating itself with outside influence to power the motion, otherwise there would be an infinite amount of motion over infinite time with no power source. (If there's a power source at any rate it's more of worth than no power source for the infinite amount of motion if most other power around us has a source and cause.)

On this page I'll offer up my belief that inertial and gravitational mass or mass and energy may not be the same as Einstein thought. With no distinction they would be the same and we would have no way of knowing which was which. Einstein believed that in regions of more massive gravity, inertial mass would increase. First I'd like to reiterate a bit; If they are often unalike there is a distinction between them by my definition;

Gravitational mass is the tendancy for a body to remain at rest and increase angular momentum, and inertial mass is the tendancy for mass to continue in motion and move more in a straight line.

Gravitational mass and inertial mass are like Einstein's mass energy, with the Equivalence of both being because energy and inertia are more like linear motion, and mass, both gravitational and prosaic are about unity of the field to hold the mass together. One or the other of these two is more important so you don't have two exactly equal but opposite truths. I think the more important of the two is mass and gravity for three reasons; because the cosmos must be held together by gravity or it would have expanded out over infinite time with energy (in quanta) mostly being neither created or destroyed; because in the history of science as with Galelio or Newton or even Einstein, improvements in gravity have been the most of worth to physics, not just other science like the physics of sound; and because all the field seems unified (attraction) by one lower energy field. Thus by this law the assumption that Newton and Einstein made about the most natural way for a body to move being in uniform motion unless acted on from the outside may be of worth to understand how energy conservation and gravity work. The most natural way for the cosmos to move in general by my definition would be by the greater imbalance of force, not balance, otherwise there would be no change of motion, or cause winding up the cosmos, and the cosmos would have wound down. The Earth has greater gravity and gravitational mass than the Moon, and the Sun more than the Earth, so the Sun and The Earth are more at rest. Relative to the Earth, the Moon has more inertial mass so it moves faster in its orbit and in more linear motion. Unlike Einstein's assumption that all masses fall at the same rate where the F=ma law only applies in radial acceleration, a lighter asteroid or comet moving past a star like the sun is usually seen by astronomers to move faster than a heavy one by conservation of linear and angular momentum. F=ma holds both for the more distant comet and for two masses dropped near the earth because what Galelio and Einstein assumed would be arbitrary that they must be raised to the same height. Otherwise with comets or horizontal masses you would always have to add just the right amount of the force to make the heavy mass move along with the lighter mass at the same speed. Einstein believed force wasn't important and that gravitational and inertial mass in balance would be the same. Many more proofs exist of conservation of linear and angular momentum than of the Equivalence principle, and all the known proofs of Energy Conservation are evidence that with Einstein's Equivalence Principle he was assuming what he was trying to prove. If you apply the same force you can lift the lighter mass higher and drop it farther and faster like with the monthly slosh of the moon and the earth, force is more important to distinguish between masses because the cosmos is more about force and mass than Einstein's empty passive space time. By this definition of gravitational and inertial mass, mass and energy are distinct. Einstein predicted increase in inertial mass with strong gravity. If mass and energy were the same with more gravitational mass and with pressure the inertial mass would also be greater. If inertial mass is by the definition resistance to stopping and tendancy to remain in more linear motion and gravity causes rest with more density of the mass, more compression would reduce the mass defined to be inertia by my causology. Thus this idea as it relates to Energy Conservation seems to predict that a mass moving through the more dense field would have more resistance and the inertial mass would not augument as Einstein believed.

To measure this, since centrifugal force is the tendancy to travel in more linear motion, in greater gravity, a particle or mass with reduced inertia may curve more downward under the influence of the field, not less as Einstein believed.

Mass and energy aren't the same. If they were exactly the same it would be a world without all of what's seen seen when the RN at the opthomatrists lights up for 300! Weight is reduced at the low latitudes because the inertial mass is more, so in my causology any ratio of gravitational to inertial mass is possible (and the same would be true for mass and energy because they are much the same.). Even if motion is what the universe is about and no doubt important, what the motion is made of is also of more worth in what may be my more encompassing physics, this part of my causology of General Wave Dynamics.

In GWD, Newton's Third Law in more general use is the foundation of the cosmos. Because it's based on balance like a scale, in general it's the same as energy conservation which is what conservation laws like conservation of electric charge are based on. The simplest and most general type of symmetry would just be the (all important and simple) linear balance of action and reaction pairs.

A problem with this unified law about balance. If all the cosmos is based on this unified law and it's balance would seem to stop motion, how is all the matter and energy in motion? This problem may be solved if the opposite forces of Newton's Third Law are actually not equal and there would always be left over force, even if just a bit. Newton's Third Law can be combined with Newton's First and Second Law because balance is more general so in this formulation the First Law of force would be combined with the Second Law of inertia into the Third Law of balance of the First and Second Law. And this is also the distinction between mass and inertia, if they were exactly the same in action reaction pairs e.g. like matter and antimatter, no overall change could take place.

Another reason in favor of this unified law is that its much the same as the symmetry laws that have been proven to be the foundations of math like in set theory (the more math shines the more she stays the same.). Sets are a collection of objects, based on what changes, the individual elements, and what stays the same, the oneness that they are in the same unified set. This is the same as Newton's First Law about force or more unifying forces like gravity, the Oneness of acceleration of F=ma, and Newton's The Second Law with the Many in the centrifugal force of more linear motion like the expansion outward of entropy. Like waves and particles, there is no more simple foundation by any science concieviable.

Inertia itself is based on balanced uniform motion. This might seem to be enough to create the balance of energy conservation, if no force is in the rest frame of inertia or uniform motion. Balance on all sides by definition is inertia. Even so if all motion were linear and uniform like the hot particles of the air in an airship, the overall linear motion of each atom of the air inside it would expand out farther and further without much adhesive force between the air molecules, so by inertia alone all the matter of the cosmos with infinite time of thermodynamic energy being neither created or destroyed would have expansion and no limit, and we would have no soap operas! The balance of inertia is not complete for energy conservation, and there must be attraction to hold the airship and centrifugal force without too much outward expansion via gravity or other forces of implosion. Without a more distinct definition of gravitational mass and inertia, gravity wouldn't uphold the law of inertia well because if it did as Einstein held all masses would fall at the same rate because all motion would be uniform with the constant speed of light. The speed of light changes with gravity, and masses fall at different rates when the mass is changed. All the proofs of General Relativity like the change in the orbit of Mercury (other than the same rate of masses dropped from the same height where Einstein held the opposite idea to be proven in contradiction), the Mossbauer effect, frame dragging, the bending of starlight, are about changes in acceleration, not just acceleration and are proofs of Einstein, not gravity. The changing speed of light around massive bodies is because more massive bodies are more of use to know what mass is about when it connects up with the rest of the cosmos. This would be why so many people at first believed Einstein's relativity was lacking in depth, like the man when he heard the proof of relativity on TV about the eclipse, stomped his foot on the earth and said, "I refute it thus!" Relativity is well proven but not about gravity. While General Relativity supposedly is of worth for uniform fields, gravity is an acceleration, and by definition there are no uniform fields, otherwise we would fall at the same rate on the Moon as the Earth.
If mass and energy are not Equivalent about motion, mass is somewhat unlike energy to keep the cosmos in motion. E=Mc2 with it's assumption of the Equivalence of mass and energy and of centrifugal to gravitational mass has seemed all encompassing because of the ubiquitious "all around" speed of light in relativity. Emc2 has the same general form as F=ma, F, force is much like the Energy, E. The mass is the same, and C2 is an acceleration. Thus F=ma is the same general law as E=mc2 and is the same as the unified law, above, and with it, there is also the same problem of no motion added in from the outside. All the forces convert to units of Emc2, and the speed of light is thermodynamic. Einstein's contributions via relativity and his other improvements about thermodynamics and electricity mediate the vast oceanlike middle realm of science between gravity and the strong force, and relativity seems to hold even with mass and energy not being the same to keep the cosmos in motion. It would do this by having all the particles of subatomic physics spin on the outside just at the speed of light in units of Plank's constant while deeper in the particle to have more mass and density than the electron and it's speed of light it would spin faster than light. This would also explain why Plank's constant is constant and not with some other value, because of relativity and the constant speed of light on the outside of each particle, but not why there are continous masses and wavelengths in subatomic physics, about which relativity and quantum theory have no comment. More mass, higher density, faster speed, may be faster than light. There would be no infinite relativistic mass augumentation in GWD because the charges of subatomic physics lighten up to travel light [fractional charges] and the strong force, being much like gravity may be inefficient because it's mostly a wave and fluid both being only attractive, so it would slide past the electric charges without too much friction even if Faster Than Light. Gravity could go faster than light in general because it's of much different wavelength than the speed of light and its electric field and like an antenna of much unlike power it wouldn't resonate. This is how it may disprove energy conservation because with no resistance or friction gravity could create extra energy with more power violating Energy Conservation at long range like galaxies are seen to spin too fast to stay compact without gravity being stronger, the Gravity Would Be More Efficient Here. Click Here. And if gravity is more efficient at greater than 2 Kpc and the increased force of spin of the galaxies was caused by the increased efficiency, more distance like of the orbits of more galaxies with lower energy, if caused by more efficient gravity would seem to have stronger gravity yet and faster spin than the galaxies if the cause of the higher speed spin is caused by the higher efficiency of gravity.

The wave density motif would be the same method Maxwell used to predict the speed of light well based on the force between electric charges to (hopefully) predict the speed of gravity, the speed of tunneling of the fractional charges, and the speed of the strong force and thus the predicted rate of radioactivity based on the assumption of Faster Than Light and other considerations. CLICK HERE. for this. More or less charge or field density changes the field density more or less so the wave like light is at another speed by way of the density as in my causology of General Wave Dynamics GWD. Even with Faster Than Light motion inside the particles to explain more mass density than via relativity, the speed of light on the outside would control the rate of transfer of momentum by way of E=mc2 because at lower energy and higher radii with relativistic drag, the field would slow to just the speed of light, and relativity is well proven in this realm. In higher energy physics mass and energy are "forced" to behave the same by the quanta. They're numerically alike by the proportional conversion of the mass to energy by Emc2 and this method of Combining Newton's Three Laws with The First Law of Thermodynamics into one Law. But they may not be exactly the same (even numerically) by way of the distinction between mass and energy. With Einstein's mass energy equivalence a hot iron having more energy would have more mass and weigh more even if the amount Einstein predicted was beyond the limit of resolution of 20th century experimental physics. If mass and energy are equivalent, Einstein offered no explanation about why they aren't the same in many respects in more general physics. I believe only if both balance and change are encompassed may the physics be more complete. An airship with more energy and heat wouldn't rise if it has more mass by mass energy equivalence.

Einstein's Mass Energy Equivalance is mostly true for thermodynamics and the First Law holds at moderate energy but I think they may not be so much the same at lower energy where quanta wouldn't not be so sharp in resolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the heat and entropy are always increasing, and gravity is continously flexing heat out of the Earth. Both of these motifs violate the First Law (of Thermodynamics) that energy is conserved. It may seem the First Law is not violated by Entropy because the thermodynamic expansion of entropy is where quantity of motion is conserved, but in general this may not be true at longer range and lower energy because of the problem of infinite expansion of the entropy over infinite time so there most be more implosion than expansion to hold the cosmos together. More motion is continually being created and the field is augumented and this would be disproof of Energy Conservation. Even if we believe the cosmos didn't have to be created and of infinite time because energy is neither created or destroyed, friction would rule, so there may still be continuous creation of the field to keep it in motion. Even with the gravity exactly balanced about the friction, the gravity would be overpowering it so the gravity is doing more work than just a balanced physics, to hold the cosmos and the field in a unified general physics. The possible distinction that would express the basic distinction between mass and energy, of gravitational and inertial mass in experiments in subatomic physics would be smaller and smaller at higher and higher energy. Einstein believed that in the massive gravity of the Earth the electron would have more mass and all electrons actually weigh almost the same. (If motion of the field was relative as Einstein thought, and it was the same to say the earth's field is moving through mass like electrons as to say they were accelerating upward at 32 ft it would be at the speed of light in less than a year and the electrons of the earth would have huge mass by way of relativity.) With gravitational and inertial mass unalike and the mass of the earth and the electron at rest "for real" without Equivalent relative motion of the field causing it, a smaller effect about the amount of extra change may be by way of the radioactive radiation of the Earth. If subtracted from the total heat output and divided into all the particles of the earth the heat output gives the amount of extra power added to each electron or other particle, and this is amount of motion of the field that disproves the absoluteness of the First Law of Thermodynamics. If all the field is unified by energy conservation and gravity achieves this, it seems possible the other forces would do the same at least somewhat. Because this would essentially be a Unified Field and shielding would also be a prediction of this idea, the extra power of mass would be much like that of shielding, to add in more power of the electron, there would be as much friction to cause the interaction. The Lamb Shift of Hydrogen may also be disproof of energy conservation. With the self adhesion of the field more mass exists than by just the First Law of Thermodynamics, actually with any self adhesion or expansion of the field, or the distinction of waves and particles, there is disproof of Einstein's absolute Equivalence of Mass and Energy.In subatomic physics because the quanta hold the electric charges so well to uphold relativity, the amount of distinction to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics would not be large. Like the quantum well of radioactivity, even in subatomic physics at higher energy with a small outflow in the side of the well there would be a small change in the conversion of mass to energy that would be proof the mass and energy aren't equal even if mostly equivalent, this would be reduced in more massive particle interactions where the quantum well is more solid. (The lower energy wells would have more change because the wall of the well is not so high or deep so it would be easier for more energy to flow in (and from itself like gravity it being of the same field and unified)). This amount would be common with the degree of the well, and the density of the field.

...

THE LOGIC OF ENERGY CONSERVATION

In math there is the use of disproof by contradiction. If energy conservation is based on Newton's Third Law unified with the other 5 Laws with opposite action reaction pairs causing most of the physics, it would seem by energy conservation and Relativity this can't be used as disproof of anything because it would be proof of all there is. Relativity has all observers equal so all truth and falshood are the same by the logic of relativity. Only if energy conservation was based on more of one than the other with each action reaction would there be no absolute energy conservation. Matter with more mass wouldn't be exactly the same as antimatter with more energy and would perhaps fall at another rate than via Einstein's causology. This would be why a particle in subatomic physics with no charge, even if made of a plus and minus that would cancel has a bit of leftover charge like the neutron which is made of a proton and electron. The mass is not quite the same as Einstien would have perhaps believed. Another reason Einstein's causology seemed so improbable to many people, with mass and energy the same, is like the exact equivalence of + and - electric charges of equivalent mass and energy (an electron has more energy and a positron more mass) true and false, bad and good would be the same, and a vast realm of logic from the egyptians and greeks down to our time and science would be disproven. If mass and energy were more exactly the same, opposite masses like the earth and moon would be exactly the same like electric charges, this in support of my conclusion that Einstein's belief about mass and energy is mostly derived from electric charges, and the speed of light alone, rather than the deeper truth about the distinction between mass and energy being what may be the ultimate cause of the motion of mass and energy in the cosmos. The idea that all motion comes from other motion and is circular reasoning, not the outside force of the lower power field energising up the rest of the field. There are no perfect deductive systems. Science shows in the real world there are no absolute proofs like Euclid with his geometry. There is always at least some possibility more complex outside influences will make any deductive argument invalid with it's perfect conclusions from the evidence and no more. Mathemeticians now believe Euclid's proofs are more like a philosopher king than a king with absolute rule, and there's evidence that the axioms of math are not perfect as they would be via Einstein's belief. The idea of proof of a theorem used in math by disproof of the opposite would be valid only if matter and energy were equivalent. With mass and energy not = there would always be a slight probability that proof by disproof of the opposite wouldn't work. The cosmos wouldn't uphold energy conservation by this definition about gravity at great distances because the universe is self powering. By definition there's nothing outside the cosmos. (The cosmos must be a contained unit of finite mass or the infinite mass would have already engulfed the world and Lite Booze Commercials!) The degree to which mass is unlike energy in the given problem to solve would determine how improbable it was that proof by disproof of the opposite wasn't absolute. This is why in the history of math, math with more deductive proof like Euclidean has mostly followed science with induction, not science following math because proof by exclusion without evidence would be like mass and energy being in perfect balance so much there would be no change, and causology by union would be circular reasoning without more experiments to prove or disprove a given conjecture.

It will be a boom to many pro sports to go computerized. Free radicals running around at colleges flood the circulation with exercise, and they have the same basketball conversation with each go round of the win, but I've never had a basketball say a curse or other oath like *(%^#@#$! The player wears the wear with cyber opponents between the player and the hoop, by action without them for 3 points and then making moves with the other players trying to win, and from greater and greater distance with assured wins with each improvement like a reflex arc, this will improve the scores in most pro basketball games, much like chess has improved by way of training with machines, the value of machines like this would be higher than osteoporosis! This would have auto cyber return of the power, for anyone to be with power click here OLIVE LEAF.. For more advanced moves like rebounds and other moves between players real training would be of worth, even though it may improve scores and more basic moves. Who wants to just type in and click a rebound? Here's How! (CYBER SPORTS).

...

How Cyber Chats On Soaps May Be Boozed!
..
And How To Reduce Web Overuse To Reduce Not Increase Like Some Sites That Pretend to Offer Bogus "Care". See Link Below For My Simple solution....

..

People say, "Why are Soap operas so boring?" With me like many it was just an intuition til the other day I hear this "meaningful conversation" on one soap opera, why is it so boring? Because the two women on the soap at a "time of woe" were speaking in cliches, like 20 of them... I'm a fan of the rock group The Moody Blues, I'm still singing their tunes years after I sat on my box by accident with a smash and spun around and round on the bed! The Moody Blues seem to be like the soap operas and more;


I don't know what I'm searching For
I never have opened the door
Tomorrow might find me at last
Turning my back on the past
You can never go home anymore

Oh'm I Flyin High
Never really knew me till today
Now I Know Who I'm
Just another step along the way

High above the forest
Lie the pastures of the sun
Where the journey we are making has begun

Don't deny the feeling that is stealing through your heart
All the cosmos needs a world to start

I don't know what I'm searching for
I never have opened the door
Tomorrow might find me at last
Turning my back on the past
You can never go home any more

What this song seems to say is that somehow, in some simple way, strings of common words, as far as I can say, are mostly non boring or maximost (even though not all their songs were so good, the good songs were great not good, or well, more of what). The above seems to just be strings of common words; there are no words a high school Phd like mom wouldn't know, she wrote the worlds fastest volume of Phd's for genuises and complete volumes of all software codes! It's a tough job being a soap author, they may be so boring because there just isn't enough money to pay 100 soap authors to type on one giant machine, college marms yes! It may be considered to be bad soap opera rules to write words that don't sound rich or dumb. If there is something that's good in the following hour in the show the authors have planned, they might just want filler so they make it through the other side to the soap opera dessert dish West of Hollywood. Filler may be one cause of boredom. Even so it's a well known truth in science that any cyber machine given enough time can solve any problem and soap operas may eventually be much improved, especially if as I hold here the link between the Moodys and soaps is a simple one.

...Somehow the Moody Blues would seem to be more creative and it's not just common words, they and the soaps both use common words. Whatever is the distinction, so the story and Hitachi might zoom, find it and you could much more often be great at creativity, this would be of worth for musicians, authors and others, and for cyber creativity. Creativity would then be more in reach of most and be more healthy and well learned. One thing about the Moody Blues is they had great music that went with all the songs I've long since forgotten the music to since the day I swapped my record store wealth for the Moody Albums to the cute marm I never got to return after that June in college because of my lack of teen transportation to reach her. If I know a teen, I'll try to be a good influence, because I'll remember that librarian for hundreds or thousands of years, just because she said to me one day, "Have you heard of the Moody Blues?" And it's like she changed my life in a deep way. I've long since lost the LP's but I sing the words more and with more celebration than any other band or powerbox I've heard since. The music was mysterious and extremely great too. But even if it wasn't just the great words, the words could stand alone.


You may listen to Mozart and he often is a cure for insomnia and unlike other more golden musicians before of the 15 and 1600's. You've heard the same exact notes in five other Mozart songs, how is it Mozart or soaps are dumb and the older musicians than Mozart are more rich in depth? What's seems so rich in IOU's and passed away about soaps and Mozart (other than old Wolfy himself?)? If out in the woods what would be the best way to thaw out? I think the real problem is though while in music where there are safe notes, and these can be played with other music without a bad sound, a soap opera is like being tickled with a feather in your ear for 20 hours. A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for. A modern way of real power creativity is to find something controversial and then argue your way back by brilliant tricks to the triumphant conclusion, sort of how they say the best zooms are with bad light, or to paint a great image of the shore like tres impressionant you start with a deep dark base coat for drama and then you add the light. This is the "tragic" or "drama" causology of creativity. The other way to great creativity, the more "comic" way has been believed to be the good events method, the more good events the better. This causology fails with the soap opera and they're slow in the ER because the essence of life would seem to be motion, so the way to good events seems to be the basic motif and more dramatic and random motifs are what great creativity is about. My writing marm in college would say to learn the rules before I learned how to be more creative!

...Another main distinction of the Moodies seems to be about randomness, a classic set of words is also old, how to "add life" and ad lib to it? By definition boring is nonrandom, and life is motion. So the Moodies as well as having chosen generally controversial drama and used it well, in essence may have taken random motifs picked the best of them and then added them in the song, picked the good or best side of this new motif and then found another random motif, and with repitition of this motif the whole tune was creativity. So while the words of the Moodys are old and good, the relationships between them are random.

A cyber poet wrote in 1987;

The book sails to gin
Will eggs run the fuel?
Press elephants to booze, she will raise you


This is obviously random, comparing this to another Moody Blues song


I have love enough for one
And I have dreams enough for three
I've got my hopes to comfort me
I have my new horizons out to to see me

Well I'm never gonna lose your precious gift
It will always be that way
But I know I'm gonna find my own
Peace of Mind
Someday


One of the main distinctions here is the cyber poet used nouns that didn't goes with the verbs, you look at the Moodies and most of the words are highly regular in this respect, the noun verb form is the foundation of all logic in sets in higher math, what changes and what stays the same. Like faces or the frame of the sweet women or the shade of the branches in painting which must be much the same to make a good picture, the basic building block around which the rest of the song often is built in poetry is the more standard noun and verb motif. The soaps use this also. With the Moodies the distinction seems to be not in the faces or noun verb units, rather in how they're combined in units of these units, often with contradiction of classic motifs but more or much more good than bad (the same form as comedy, a great suprise). This may not be as simple as the random cyber rhymes about elephants or a step up to the standard soaps with the norse goddess, and even if the final step up to the Moodies makes use of both unusual combinations and depth about the good side and bad side of words and music, both of these ways to them are simple, otherwise soaps wouldn't seem so much like the higher levels of conciousness. This means a golden age of cyber authorized soap operas may be what will be on TV in 20 years!

... These methods may be of use for any creativity, for example to make a song much more deep, and there are actual musicians I've seen who are real good who use improvisation formulas, they get more without so much practice. I've seen a lot by listening! But if you use this memo, you may be triumphant and with more MCI record company contracts in the afterlife!

Comedy Machine

...

Did you know the army says 75% of youth are unfit for the military and this is considered to be a threat to the security of the USA? If more and more people withdraw into the web and it becomes a business to try to take advantage of them with sites that offer bogus "help," a good way to reduce web overuse may be literally the best way for us all to triumph where we otherwise might not. Those Sites May Lose Some Money But We're All Better Off Winning In General Competition! Life Online May Sleep In Good Concience Tonight... See the link below for more...

A Simple Trick to Reduce Web Overuse, Use Your Heater, Air Machine, or Other Ways to Shake Awake As A Timer How and Why, More CLICK HERE.

More Cultural Links..

..
.

Comic Cosmic Paradoxes About Energy Conservation

...My conclusion has been that because of Energy Conservation all the forces are created out of the same basic field. The conservation laws in subatomic physics show that when going from a weaker to a stronger force like electromagnetism to the stronger forces, the number of conservation laws that are obeyed are increased. For example electromagnetism obeys charge conservation of electric charges and mass energy conservation, but the strong force obeys both these laws and more, as if piling on the mass from a simple to a more complex machine, like life. If the forces are all made of mass and energy and the same it's just that the lower energy force piles on the mass to make the higher energy force, this makes the higher energy force yet and so on from simple to complex like in the evolution of life or the evolution of science, all higher energy mass comes from lower energy mass sort of like how all life in biology comes from other life and all later science has come from earlier science. So you have the three forces of subatomic physics in a pile of energy, weaker to stronger, simpler to complex, much like evolution. Gravity would fit in at the base of the pile because it's the lowest energy field that would implode to a certain level to create the electromagnetism, the electromagnetism would become dense enough to create the strong force and so on. With what I have I have the power to never worry the world "What do you have?" "257 stations and an oil heater instead of a ceramic heater, even if it doesn't work my life is safer!"Gravity is the foundation field because all energy is one by energy conservation and gravity is the only universal force that all the other forces speak.


Thus gravity would be the prime mover winding up all the cosmos and is the foundation of physics, this would be why Newton and Einstein were so important to science, the basic science of gravity determines the rest. Newton wrote he was to "Demonstrate the frame of the universe."

The ancient greeks asked the question, how does the unity of the world and the disunity from this arise around us? Or if the foundation field of gravity doesn't shield, and yet all is created out of this field by the above, if gravity doesn't shield in any experiment yet seen, how can shielding arise? On the one hand if you believe gravity were the foundation field it seems because of energy conservation if both the shielding and the unity are by way of the basic field, the only way to allow the unity of all the forces by way of gravity would be to have at least some shielding, even if a bit.

Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible." Where did the first field come from if all is created by gravity to unify the physics for energy conservation? The cosmos had no beginning and will have no end in time because energy is neither created or destroyed. Actually it can exist forever if it was never created and not violate energy conservation. With no time of creation, creation wouldn't have taken place even with an ordered physics. All creation needs time. The field may not have been created because of energy conservation with infinite time by circulation of the field as in Double Vortex Cosmology (where the big bang is not cosmic but would rather be a limited outflow of a jet of the cosmos which would recycle the field at the disc with two radiant outflows and a disk with physics much like that of galaxies in infinite continuous loops in time, just like the field of the earth, and may be the cause of higher speed cosmic expansion under power with more distance from the source via ionization.). This would mostly just leave the problem of how shielding would then arise out of this field and where energy conservation perhaps would not actually hold. Even so if not created it's unexplained how the cosmos exists, and how so much regular order arises from it.
..
If energy is conserved the cosmos wasn't created, and if it wasn't created where has all the order come from? Can order arise out of nothing? If so energy isn't conserved!

..

Order seems to need creation because nothing is nothing and has no physics, while order is regular. Order and nothing seem to be incompatable.

..

There seems to be no way to go from nothing to order, thus the cosmos has always existed without cause. The problem is, all around us there seem to be a plethora of sources of our energy and mass..These contradictions, like St. Augustine's proof that most arguments for infinity can be reversed around to argue for finitude, by the same proof seem to say the cosmos (gravity perhaps without quanta so wavelike) is creating and winding up the cosmos so it doesn't run down, while the rest of higher energy physics may indeed obey energy conservation because the quanta of Emc2 always relate an exact amount of mass to energy..at longer range and lower energy, even if energy conservation is mostly conserved with thermdynamics, the gravity with it's lower friction waviness would have reduced resistance and flow like a superfluid as is believed by many in physics.

Gravity may be continually winding up the cosmos in more unbalanced creation of the field so it doesn't run down over infinite time,

Another possibility is about the simplicity of gravity. Beyond the 20th century physics has been reduced down to three elements to make all the cosmos, the three subatomic building blocks of the atom, protons neutrons and electrons. If gravity is the foundation it's even simpler; the gravity is almost complete with a bit of solid shielding to then make the implosion rebound and make the electrons with the speed of light between them by way of Maxwell's resilient medium, this would then implode to make the strong force, and so on. If the field is simple, all the order arises from this, like building a complex building from 3 simple blocks, the complexity and the order may be simpler than it seems even for the complex quantum numbers of the heavy particles. Instead of all the order having been caused by luck it would just have one simple element, motion of the field, which couldn't be predicted without the assumption in faster than light spin to create the mass and quantum numbers of all other physics than the electron, gravity and light, more mass more spin in ways that the speed of light just for electrons may not allow, otherwise the cosmos wouldn't be so unified by the law of energy conservation and the other conservation laws. Thus the cosmos would be almost without cause, the implosion of the basic field and a bit of shielding, that would be it, this is much more like the void beyond the most distant reach of the cosmic field, which is not created. It may seem about this about ease of cause to be almost as easy for the cosmos just to disappear. If nothing much definite created the cosmos, it would seem easy for us to eventually one day create other physics. This ease of collapse seems well disproven by energy conservation mostly, and there would have been a large number of advanced civilizations who would have tried this if so for whatever reason, like more advanced science, and if there were much possibility of this we wouldn't be here or we would see the physics of these star systems changing a lot, not impossible but there's no evidence for large scale changes in physics, at any rate (smaller scale changes are not ruled out). So the paradox would seem to still be possible disproof of (absolute) energy conservation. If there's no creation by Energy Conservation even with the order of the life of the world the ancients named Cosmos this is evidence that it was created or that it's continually being energised;

Because of these contradictions about energy conservation gravity may become more efficient at lower energy as the galaxies all spin faster than they should, the Pioneer anamolies, and so on (both "starships" are accelerating too fast around the sun at greater distance....

You may here some say that gravity is not perpetual motion because if you add pressure to the side of a van it doesn't move and no work is done. Consider that after an hour of weightlifting without moving the weight above you have more of a health boost and are more fit than the those who say this is so. While (gravitational) energy may not be conserved by this about all machines needing an outside power supply so gravity would add in more force continually, gravity does definitely interact with the other forces, so even while gravity may add in more motion of the field, it also must be unified to one field by what energy conservation there is, not an insubstantial realm of physics. This added in force also would solve the problem of all motion coming from other motion, which is a self evident truth like Aristotle who believed smoke rises because that's the most natural, and this natural way of proof is proof of all there is and of nothing as Carl Sagan would say.

With extra motion powered by the basic field this is no problem because all motion doesn't come from other motion. Although this is just one extra step up and doesn't explain where the extra motion comes from or what it is, it means at any rate all observers aren't equal like in relativity which allows only a democratic cosmos with all observers and thus all proofs equal, with extra force added in to distinguish between truth and false, the "boss" of gravity to some extent would have a way to determine who was laboring or not (in real physics, and we couldn't live without some weight lifting or a bit of discomfort to make us stronger, research shows we learn the best when we're somewhat uncomfortable, why do we go to labor Einstein may have wondered? In general we and the field need a reliable way to distinguish force from nonforce by way of the work being achieved.

In Einstein's physics the earth would go in a linear motion around the sun and the sun would also rotate around the earth, obviously if it doesn't this is evidence in favor more of the Heliocentric and other more gravitationally centered physics. The extra motion of higher gravitational efficiency at greater distance and lower energy could thus be a disproof of (absolutely) Special Relativity.

As I say, in recent astronomy it's been found that The Milky Way and other massive bodies are seen to spin so fast the centrifugal force would make them expand without limit in an explosion if gravity is in the law of radiant energy of more common physics around us. Some believe that gravity may actually have a more constant force with distance law, as "observed" a lower efficiency would fall off more rapidly with more distance, a higher efficiency would hold the mass with more force.

There is another possibility about the problem of where shielding of just one unified field of energy conservation might come from, this too from religion. Many religions of the world believe in not just one creator but two, like Yin and Yang, God and the Devil. If it's difficult to derive shielding from a perfect gravity or evil from a perfect god, some may say there wasn't just one creation, but two. To explain centrifugal force and shielding from the one basic field by this second "religious" explanation, we might believe there was another creation that coexists with the main creation, a sort of negative physics. There are three problems here, first we have to assume not just one creation as Einstein would debunk but two. As improbable as just one creation would seem, two would seem even more than Einstein's belief about it being incomprehensable. The second problem is about the "second creator" being about the same energy as the first but not quite. Gravity wins out over centrifugal force or the cosmos would have expanded out over infinite time via violation of energy conservation and entropy (what would otherwise be thermodynamics' violation of energy conservation, gravity to unify the field seems to violate energy consevation even more, or the universe would have fizzled out, so gravity has "extra" binding energy) this seems too coincidental. If the second creator was truly by another origin and random in its cause, why would it always be second and in moderation and also unchanging? The third problem of the "two creators" and Yin and Yang is about how the second creator is present in all the cosmos, if it really was a second creation why would it exist in all the physics around for billions of light years? If it were a truly seperate creation it would seem to be in just its own seperate realm of the cosmos, not continually and intricately interwound in with the main creator. It's been said by most in physics it's impossible to imagine centrifugal force without implosion to balance the field.

Thus there would be three problems with the causology of two creators in physics and just the problem of shielding if one creator. This would seem to be more in favor of one field in physics that just changes with changing conditions of the field.

Because of these three problems, like Einstein I believe in the unified foundation field which has just the one somewhat difficult problem of unity, not three more difficult problems, (twice as much creation as Einstein's uncomprehensable cosmos, it being almost the same energy, but not quite, just by coincidence, and especially it being so intricately interwound) with the proof of union by way of shielding and centrifugal force arising from a field that may only seem to be without this type of science.

Possible proof would be if gravity shielding is found by way of the observations of changes in the orbits of other higher density masses by way of eclipses.

The lower energy efficiency boost is only seen on the scale of 10s of thousands of light years (>2Kps) and this about gravity being more efficient at lower energy because of too much unity and less efficient at higher mass density and with shielding because of contradiction seems related, so it may be possible to expect that the shielding may be of the same general order of magnitude. Thus the only mass density that would be high enough to cause shielding and be observed might be comparable to that of the increase in efficiency at lower energy since the two would seem to be a sort of balanced set, the only shielding seen would be between the small centers of masses like the Milky Way and this wouldn't be seen in usual physics because of the mostly uncommon event of the small realm where the eclipse would have the change in the orbits of the eclipsing masses (the eclipses would have to line up over huge distances) and this might explain why shielding isn't seen more often. Even so the galaxies are spinning faster than they would otherwise and this is made quantitative by way of how strong gravity is in general. The extra energy input and efficiency which would be needed to make the cosmos never wind down or radiate out more than in so energy is not lost to the cosmos by radiation (thermodynamic energy is conserved) would by way of the balance of the two causologys, one by contradiction for shielding and reduced efficiency at high density, the other by too much unity as evidence for increased efficiency a low energy and the force falling off more slowly with greater distance. The observed increase of the efficiency at great distances and lower energy may offer us evidence about the mass density it would take to cause shielding that may go with the higher speed motion of masses with eclipse like the Milky Way.

Thus it's possible if there is more efficient radiation at lower energy and greater distance (which would be increased efficiency), there may be shielding to that degree at higher energy.

This isn't like Aristotle's belief that smoke rises because it's the most natural or other circular reasoning, because though they are in opposition, they may be rather like adding higher and lower notes to the song of physics, both of these conjectures may be provable by experiment. In a way the activities of someone like Sir Issac Newton who was the great unifier of physics in the 17th century, or Einstein with general relativity were circular because of this. Circular more definite, solid reasoning is not in error, just if without proof. And if gravity has more efficiency this would be of worth because it would be more change in our saavy as in the history of physics.

On the MetaResearch site about "Range Of Gravity" author Tom Van Flandern offers up his belief that high speed FTL particles may be the cause of how gravity works. "Particles of finite speed even if much faster than light would have a finite distance to travel before they would scatter, and beyond this distance, gravity would not be viable as a force." Thus by a causology of gravity as a particle and shielding alone (the scattering is a somewhat strong interaction like shielding) we would not believe gravity would be in operation in any sense at great distance. Flandern offers the possible way out that at higher distances each star or other unit of the mass would attract the star near it, like links in a chain, with no general field connecting them up. The problem with this is that while this based on the particle causology would possibly hold the Milky Way by the link of each massive cloud of dust, no dust or stars are between the superclusters so they would have no field to connect them, and this would be a problem with any particle causology. For this reason and others (see my synopses link.) I believe gravity may be caused both by a much higher speed, lower energy wave and the more prosaic FTL particles, also much Faster Than Light even if not nearly as fast as the wave. Waves attract and unify and this is what the basic field would be about. If the particles are resilient and scatter after a distance R, they could only radiate outward not in because particles unlike waves by definition are discontinuous and would radiate, and gravity is implosive only. So by the particle physics gravity would have reduced strength than the 1/d 2nd power law not more, like the 1/d force assumed to be proven by the spin of the Milky Way. My belief is that gravity would have the more dense and FTL particles, but only with the much FTL yet more wavelike field to implode the particles and overcome the scattering is an FTL particle component cause of gravity of worth. The FTL particle component would be used in General Wave Dynamics to explain why centrifugal force is so much like gravity, yet with no gravity in the centrifuge where the more dense particles would press outward on the mass. The much higher speed much FTL lower power field of the gravity would be gravity only (not gravity and centrifugal force both) and why gravity is unlike centrifugal force. For instance you can't cancel gravity by reversing the starship boosters or make it reverse, and a small gyroscope can cancel the huge gravity of the earth, if they were just the same as in relativity, they would be the same.) But the usual force of 32 ft of the earth is much like the centrifuge, so they would have the same dense field in common and the lower power field to mostly move the gravity.

Two other ways the Milky Way may operate and spin at high speed as a solid body without too much centrifugal force may be by plasma ionization where all the stars cause so much of this the fields between the stars make a giant sort of solid field, like matter in the room around us held together by the electromagnetic fields of the matter of the atoms of the sofas and other furniture of time around us, a force much stronger than gravity.. The core of the galaxy (I believe it may be made of a fifth and sixth force found only in supermassive bodies like black holes, the particles would be stable under pressure but would fizz out to cosmic rays to power the jets which can't be caused by fusion) being so dense would spin fast and the "solid" outside stars would be powered like a wheel with a motive power source. If this is the real cause of the motion, the gravity would be unchanged. The gravity would go through the ionized field with no problem so the gravity would make each star seen by the Hubble precess at a higher rate as is common in more earthly realms and this would be one proof of the way of ionization as the cause of the observed rate of spin. Since the more distant galaxies of a cluster have no plasma in the room that seperates them with no stars lit up the superclusters by definition will be spinning by the usual 1/d2 law.

Another way to explain the higher speed spin may be by way not of increased gravity or a solid body like the masses around us, rather centrifugal force may be reduced at great distance due to the "slow" speed of light. Centrifugal force is caused by linear motion, linear motion tends to be uniform and in uniform motion Special Relativity holds, so the slow speed of light is about disconnectivity and thus centrifugal force. With greater distance beyond a certain radius there is no more than no connection by way of the light so the centrifugal force would stay constant beyond this, since the ratio of centrifugal to centripital force is between gravity and the outward force of the centrifugal force, if one is changed so is the other. Even so like with the ionization and dense mass in the center of each giant massive wheel (of sound, the cosmos rings like a bell, saving on the internet rates however!) the field would be unchanged and so here too the stars would all precess at another rate than via the gravity being changed, and because 0 connection is 0, the superclusters would spin more like the galaxies, as a solid body. While the change in centrifugal force seems to be ruled out, at least for the cause of the galaxies motion, the plasma seems to possible because Actually superclusters, like galaxies spin faster. Click Here. No plasma for the superclusters would allow the faster spin, not as a solid body. It's to be noted that as Eric Lehrner says in his book The Big Bang Never Happened in plasma experiments in the lab when the forces are in balance a small exact replica of a galaxy complete with spirals is seen. Thus both the solid 1/d motion of the galaxies and more common 1/d2 motion would both be easy to explain by Alfven's plasma physics Lehrner promotes in his book. On the link the author concludes that the reason the superclusters spin so fast may be because of a lump of dark matter at the center of each mass. The problem with the dark matter is that if 97% of the cosmos was dark matter and it has all the gravity, there would be much implosion of it or plasma with any normal matter in contact with it, and almost all the matter would emit large amounts of radiation, not just in the center of superclusters, in all the dark matter that mixes with the more common mass, rather like antimatter in contact with matter. If this interaction is the cause of the cosmic rays and no light is seen in the center of the giant masses because the mass would have engulfed the light itself, the dark matter would seem to have a zone around the outside where the cosmic rays would still be caused and able to reach us. Thus the ionization of mass at edge zones is a definite prediction of the dark matter causology if dark matter is dense. Gravitational dark matter around the halo GDE may not be dense mostly, when matter is superdense in my belief, it may be GDM, Gravitational Dark Mass like in supermassive stars.. That dark matter is well used to explain gravitational lensing and the presence of which would speed up the outer rate of spin of galaxies, may be either for GDE or GDM, all unified in one field. Even so the border zones would be found for all supermassive bodies. If it's massive enough to bend light it will implode more massive particles more so. This wouldn't just be Hawking Radiation, with each implosion of mass like a star or moon there would be a large amount of noncontinuous radiation in flux emmitted from the zones that would change month by month or year by year on both sides. Plasma needs a connecting link between the supercluster galaxies which is not found in order to link them up so they are not expanding even with high centrifugal force. If the edge zones or other bridge of mass is not found this seems to imply that either gravity or centrifugal force with other efficiency is involved.

Another way to prove if the center of the superclusters is a black hole may be via the redshift of the light that moves through the field around it. Even if the massive black hole may be too large to see and even if the edge where the dark matter meets the more common mass is not seen because the dark matter is seperated from the light by the large centrifugal force, the dark mass would still be proven by the redshift of the disk around the giant mass. Even if the mass is small the field would be large and spin so the light from more distant realms could be redshifted and focused on one side and subtracted on the other. Dark matter in general would have a redshift if blended in with other matter, raising the general redshift seen from a distance, this would help add more proof of dark matter if it exists.


Van Flandern says atomic clocks are seen to synchronize with GPS even with the "slow" speed of light even though Special Relativity says this is impossible. Einstein mostly believed that light is a particle in Special Relativity (in contradiction with his conclusion that light is both a wave and particle in quantum physics) because a particle of light would have constant speed and wavelength only if it didn't interact between where it was emitted and absorbed with high speed or other observer, a wave is continuous, so it would "flex" and change speed. A constant speed of light is what observers see in uniform motion, so Einstein's improvements in subatomic physics are actually inconsistent with his belief about Special Relativity. In my causology of General Wave Dynamics, GWD, the light would be slow but the matter wave that makes it up may be much faster, even so because it's what makes up the wave like water makes an ocean wave, the GPS clocks would synchronize the most in disproof of Special Relativity if the wavelength of the light between the distant and near clocks is greater than or equal to the distance between them Any shorter wavelength than this distance would have reduced reliability of the clocks, because in essence the wave at shorter wavelengths is disconnected and particulate with no connection of the clock and the earth if measured just via light. (Matter waves in GWD if measured seperately themselves being lighter than light and causing the synchronization would be FTL. Atomic clocks so far in 2008 are synchronized by light only.) The disconnection of centrifugal force (making it stronger with increased radius and constant rpm and mass) may actually be caused by the slow (even if much FTL) speed of the matter wave. At close distance, more of the waves of short and long wavelength connect, at greater distance just the longer waves reach, then finally with no more than 0 connection if 0=0 the force would remain constant at greater distance, causing more constant force distance seen for the galaxies. The loss of connection seen with the atomic clock synchronization would be changing at a rate with increased distance from the earth that would be in accord with the change in wavelength, as less and less of the speed and wavelength of the low energy matter wave would reach. So if the slow connection of the field is the cause of centrifugal force and the higher than more common rate of spin of the galaxies, the synchronization of clocks would lose the connection at a rate that would approach the limit at 2Kpc, and with more distance the force in the dynamics of more massive bodies would be constant beyond that.

..

The rate of precession of the stars and the superclusters rate of spin and mass may be how to resolve this. With reduced centrifugal force we might expect both more mass than relativity and higher rate of spin. With the plasma, and reduced plasma density over greater distances we would expect a more common physics and no increased spin, and with stronger gravity we would ask why the speed of spin rises rapidly out to where the disc starts and then is constant.

Advantages and Disadvantages;

PLASMA No Plasma Is Seen For Superclusters, Can both explain both solid body and more common 1/d2 rotation; wouldn't explain gravitational lensing because we would see the plasma, it would gravitate to stars, DGE would not necessarily have this problem;

Reduced Centrifugal Force; Predicts The Superclusters Spin Faster, They Do; More Mass of Superclusters Allowed; Stars Precess Faster because of reduced centrifugal pressure with the same gravity, Fits in With "Slow" Speed of Light, May be The Cause Of Pioneer Anamolies

Stronger Gravity DGE DGM; More Mass, Higher Spin Allowed; No Explanation For Spin Faster At 2KPC; Stars Precess Faster, Possible Explanation of Pioneer anamolies

For whatever could bend light like DGM; Border zones of lots of light emmision and Red Shift Assymetry on Both sides of DGM, (though not DGE being less dense) plus general increase of gravitational redshift near the dark matter or DGE. The change in speed of rotation and the gravity too may be caused by DGE. Centrifugal Force wouldn't be the cause here either if dark matter also explains gravitational lensing well.

Plasma of the three possibilitys above seems to be ruled out because if it were heavy enough to bend the light we would see it and the plasma stars, therefore DGE or changes in gravity or centrifugal force seem the most probable explanation and the predictions like the speed of precession of the stars and more mass and higher rate of spin for the superclusters would be allowed, redshift asymmetry on both sides of the spinning mass in particular may illuminate us. This may only be true however for the smaller number of supermassive bodies we find that are with the disc aligned with us, not the poles.

..
PHYSICS SYNOPSES
..