POSSIBLE METHODS OF STEERING HURRICANES...

Away from land we presume...saving lives, because they now say the risk of hurricanes hitting cities like New York where more people have moved would cause four times the damage of a hurricane like Katrina and New Orleans. Other cities are also at risk. Experts say it's not a question of if but when this type of disaster will happen.


It's well known that friction by the land changes the paths of hurricanes. Often as the hurricanes spin near the shore they "bounce off" or other changes in the general motion takes place. Bill Gates has tried to develop boats that have giant refrigerators on the deck to hope to cool the water on the side and thus perhaps move the hurricane reliably.

In the N hemisphere in the Atlantic the amount of dust in the air changes the number and intensity of hurricanes, so I had considered the possibility of dropping or adding dust to one side of the hurricane, or even finding a source of cheap aimable dust by using a laser, ect to move a small asteroid then using it's gravity as it whizzes by a larger one or ect. to move the asteroid into the path of where we might want the dust as it would burn up by way of the asteroid entering the air. Even though this is creative of me there are several problems; it would take a long time to move the asteroids, we might have to move a lot of them, other nations might object to possible military use of this method, and it would be polluting. Even so the more basic plan of just adding dust might be cheaper than refrigerator ships, it's already proven to work the question is how much dust could we afford or need to add, and how would we add it, to what side of the storm, what type, ect.

A third method that I may be the original author of (though I'm not sure, I may have arrived at this independently by confluence of evolution and invention) is to use an iceberg from the arctic after breaking off a piece with explosives or saws for more stability perhaps and then moving the iceberg to the hurricane or perhaps storing it in insulation nearer the tropics in a harbor or offshore somehow, collecting the freshwater like for the desert while waiting to the storms to start. Once the storm was near, the iceberg could be moved toward the storm and the reaction force as the iceberg would implode to the center might be used to steer the storm (the air implodes to the center and then rises; tropical storms are a sort of heat engine they cleanse and cool the tropic by about 30 degrees. For some reason I don't know tropical storms occur in all the tropical oceans of the world except the S Atlantic, perhaps heat rises "up" North.) Once the iceberg is in the center it will plug up the eye of the storm, theoretically having some or no effect. Did you know the burner on a stove is also called the eye? I found out when I got a new one for 50! Ouch, burns real good though! The iceberg might cool the storm and also stop the flow of the air perhaps "throwing a wrench" in the way the storm acts, as a heat engine.


A problem might be the high cost of bringing an iceberg from the N (but where would we find the giant jug of Coca Cola Orange ?). Another problem is about the relatively small kick the implosion of the iceberg for just a few hours would give, then it would stay in the center, thus the "wrench" would perhaps be the main value here because this method would have more stopping advantage than steering, although the advantage of both might be much better than nothing. The winds might be changed but because the zone of high winds often reaches out for 150 miles. Some of the largest icebergs ever calved in Antarctica are about the size of RI, the ocean state, or about 100 miles narrow. Moving them might take giant barges, and the slow travel would have more melting, at higher price yet. Strong wind might actually eat up the iceberg and this part of the plan might be off.

All the hurricane steering plans could be practiced in places like the S pacific with cyclones, with few people nearby.

There is a patent on a machine that uses ships that they describe in the IP as using a giant water spray to the side of the eye once inside in hopes of "side steering" the hurricane. The amount of water needed would be voluminous. I thought of using nuclear powered submarines to also generate pressure on the water with propellers in hopes of steering the storm by both the spray and pressure from the more solid water below (this is why your pipes squeak, water is considered to an incompressible solid by physicists a room temperature). The physics of wave motion are rather like a wave, a 10 foot wave reaches about 10 feet above and below the surface of the water and there's not much wave motion below that. Thus a submarine might be in easier reach of the center of the storm without risk to the crew. (The top speeds near the center of storm are not well known since not even most anerometers can be strong enough to withstand the winds. Huger machines like ships are more at risk per se.).

These methods have both advantages and disadvantages, but the disadvantages seem considerable, not so inconsiderable when the scale of the machines and methods and cost needed to achieve control with. Small disadvantages in large engineering have larger cost, an important consideration here too.

Another method has been devised, two submarines robot or manned, are used instead of one, both with large propellers or propulsion to exert large pressure on the water. The twin machines are connected by a large line or hawser. Both machines are between a large turbine that spins about the center of the line which is held tight by the two machines. The top of the turbine is above the water held up by a machine with bouyancy. The two submarines or boats that hold the hawser are moving the line at right angles to the general rotation of the winds, exerting friction and force to hopefully steer the storm. The advantage perhaps here is the greater leverage a longer lever arm has over just central force like the ships with jets. As with new pliers they have that take less grip to do more power, an easier lever arm exerts more force with the same input, more control for less.

The turbine generates power in this idea by its friction with the storm to power the propellers of the submarines, saving cost, and adding control. In the center are strong forces in balance, but balance is not always easy to change without more leverage.

Another method that's been devised recently is to use a large "sailboat" that has a long and low profile. The wind by the sail causes a reaction force, the sailboat has a weighted keel for stability is held up by bouyancy via two floats on either side. Motors below exert pressure on the sail by the water. Due to high wind speeds the sail might not have to be of height, reducing risk of wind damage. Even so the surface area of the long sail would be enough to steer the storm by air pressure.

Initially my plan was to use the known evidence that friction with the land changes the paths of hurricanes to make large fins near the shore to hope to steer the storm. The problem is there's no way to know where the storm will hit so large numbers of the giant fins would have to be built at large price and it would not be beautious even so the fins nearer shore might be good for wind power all the rest of the time when not used for control of the storms. I'm a painter and I once dreamed of a cool retro fan with streamers as you look up the E coast, the storm is to the lower right, and the upper right has all the cool airships and two winged planes sailing between the layers of blue air and precise clouds blended in with like NY, ect. Perhaps someday like the musicians typewriter, the dream of just blowing the storms back out to sea with fans might one day come true. Even so to build high enough fans to withstand the wind might be unfeasible, and this isn't using the leverage of the two submarine turbine method which would also allow more portable control so the storm is never near the land.
..

Methods of Stopping Pirates, And Inventors Hopes for Higher Values

The pirates in Somalia have limits because of low tech methods the ships in travel use like lookouts and faster travel through the gulf. No doubt in the long term the solving more of the problems of the people involved would be a better solution, because they are desperate due to overcrowding leading to reduction of resources like water. For more about overcrowding and solutions possible, click here for my site Evolution Overpopulation and its Historic Influence. The Russians are promoting the possibility of a NE passage to bypass the pirates and I think this could be improved with a high speed bridge in the N hemisphere by new science, a possible sort of super NE and NW passage at once for the future. Another plan is to use lasers that can sense the pirate ships from a distance, and if they are too close, the beam blinds the pirates for two or three hours. I wonder if this plan won't work because they could just wear reflective sunglasses.

Another plan devised for on the ship is large pepper jugs on the sides of the ship, to spray the pirates if they attempt to board the ship, sort of like mace. I think this also is incomplete because the pirates could still shoot at the people on the ship and board the ship. They have like 500 hostages, and a two for one sail on hostages!

Another invention is a shield system, using sensors on the ship to find bullets and so "skeets" are launched almost parallel with the ship high and low to stop bullets in the side. Each bullet even from machine guns would be stopped. A more advanced system might use skeets that return under power so fewer of them are used, or even skeets with exploding or electric armor in each skeet if reusable so cheaper. These could use also use gyroscopes to shield and for guidance.


Hi Rises To Reduce Risk of Airliner Collision


The Empire State Building was hit by an airplane in the 1920's but was adamant because in those days the hi rise buildings like the Empire State Building were built with brick and stronger materials than the WTC towers. Even so the WTC tower builders weren't dumb and they built the towers to withstand the then common 707 but not the larger 747s. Current planes are 80% larger than this. Now it seems as more supertalls are being built just this year than in all the times before the need for a relatively cheap method to defend these towers may be better. Though we can't build them of superstronger materials than they already are or rebuild them with piles of money, an inventor has devised a system that uses the ancient gladiator trick of nets. The net or nets are stored in a motorized ring a few stories above the ground. Sensors sense when a possible collision is at risk, and if the plane is too close, the nets are launched, held stable as they travel by rockets, Hopefully the nets slow and stop the plane, or more exactly they would move the plane to the side to always miss all the buildings, and then the computer actuated rockets at the top lift and move the plane to land. This system might be used to stop any type of plane including accidental colission like the Empire.

Click here for More Hi Rise Defences Being devised


NEWS And Comments

Reader's Digest Health says they have a band-aid in a bottle. You spray blue goop in a cut. And it dries transparent and peels off after it's healed. I say great! Great!! When the spray on umbrella..

Cheese has fat salt and cholesterol. Milk has none of this stuff. You might say milk is the best "whey" to get your cheese.

The new invention is the bite counter, you wear like a wrist watch and it counts each bite as you lift your arm, ect. This is like ladyfingers! Or KFC in china has the slogan, "Eat Your Fingers Off" instead of Finger Lick'n Good.

Why is it of worth to tap your bottle of water? Because tap water is cleaner than bottled water!

I like to drink reservoir brand bottled water, it's 10,000 percent more luxurious. The value is just the same.

And there's the Beercan Museum in Boston, an actual museum. You go and stare at all the booze while you dream of fizzology.
..

Slowing Supergerms Up; Considering Evolution and Truth..

Or Why Teaching New Dogs Old, More Soothing Ways To Rest May Be Our Best Defence
Although supergerms have been with us for billions of years, we are breeding resistance with new drugs, so each time we kill most of the germs a few are left that can resist, returning in stronger power the next time around. Including sharing and swapping chromosomes in a truly woeful way. The supergerms may soon knock out hospitals and be in our food since the last of our antibiotics are failing. This may be worse than the plague, indeed plague germs are being held at bay by antibiotics.Those who say knowlege of evolution has no value may be influenced soon by this drama as it plays out. Some say this is only evidence of artificial selection and not evidence for mutation, but the examples of artifical selection like this are what led Darwin to believe the same general forces of mutation and selection could explain the evolution of life on earth over geologic time. There is mutation with each generation at "high speed" or there would be no new changes to select out. Our knowledge of evolution is important to the equations used to calculate the rate of mutations of viruses to know exactly how much power we need to outcompute them with drugs that either overpower them or to know our best defence. Details..

I had thought of this in a sort of like the wild at first, I thought, you know, if you're out in the wild for millions of years and there are these "wolves", wolves are the germs. If we build a fire of immunity or drugs, to keep the wolves at bay we also may burn ourselves, the fire has to burn the germs inside us, while not burning us. To simply build the fire of our immune system up often isn't an option because often the immune system in patients we want to help is not initially strong to save lives and health ect. We can train our own dogs of immune boost to be stronger than the wolves, and the wolves get smarter and smarter with time, but I wonder it this used wholesale as people tend to do would cause the same type of problem, the wolves learn and get stronger and stronger. A third possiblity is to build a large fence, the problem here is it's too complex, the complex surface is huge and the food is too complex, just shaking hands is complex, there are more than 100,000 germs on our hands alone. The bacillus on your computer keyboard are far more common than in faucet or even the restroom. But there's something missing here. The genome of the bacillus is a giant computer. It seems to be a much larger computer than ours because the bacteria will always win, their computation is faster and knows more than ours. An interesting question arises. Why didn't we get totally wiped out by the computer, why didn't life just totally perish because of the bacteria? If the germs are superferocious why didn't we perish and the rest of evolution too? And the answer is simple, like other "predators" they couldn't lose their "prey" and with no food, the "predators perish along with the prey". Say in real evolution, the bacteria kill a few individuals. The individuals then build up resistance, and on the other hand if they aren't able to, a few may perish, if some die, the bacteria lose their food and the life like us rebounds, both sides of evolution are resilient and rebound, in a sort of resilient tension in cycles over millions of years. This is how your body is, for each extensor there's a reflexor, and body systems are in action reaction pairs. If your heart has problems, your kidneys have to do more by stress, and vice versa and ect. So there's a balance established sort of as if the giant computer is agreeing to make moderate amounts of peace. We hear about these people who fight in primitive tribes like in Malaysia where we read in magazines like Reader's Digest, they actually have a sign up that says, "12:00 is Time to Rest From the Battle", so they take time each day to rest even if in battle, because they believe rest is almost as valuable as fighting. Indeed other research shows there was no war among the American Indians before AD 1000, so perhaps peace not just war was of worth in evolution. Our heart's resting 5/6th of the time, the most active muscle of the body. As Darwin thought, love is a lot more important in evolution than survival of the fittest, In his book "The Descent of Man" Darwin used the word Love 87 times and Survival of the Fittest just once.

If you think about it it's generally not wise to attack a system much larger and powerful than oneself. This is how evolution was for millions of years. Although evolution wasn't perfect, if you attack a much larger complex system that's evolved and able to evolve, in the short run you might seem to win, but there would be resistance and in the long run there would be a crash.

Sort of like the sleeping dog, there's the old Hee Haw joke with a sing in the country general store, "Beware of Dog!" They say "Why beware of the dog? He's just a slow flop eared hound dawg?" "Because what if someone trips over him?" New research after all what else proves you can teach an old dog new tricks, if you have a hound dawg who fetches you the paper, he will read it to you, though in a thousand woofs!

The world will have to live with the genome of the bacillus indefinitely as is.. It's real improbable we could go and kill all the bacteria in the world (other than perhaps with the boost to the machines of fusion) in the buildings, under the buildings on top of the water, in the air, you could do that, though it would cost too much. The bacteria have a biomass the size of England, they have huge weight. This is not like reducing our other predators like the wolf and the jaguar, which we've also reduced in a simple manner though this is causing problems too as I say on my site about Evolution and Overpopulation . (See opsin solution at bottom of page in solutions list, I believe opsins are perhaps the best solution to gradually peacfully reduce overpopulation we have in the early 21st century we haven't had before with other science.). We are going to have to live with the bacterial genome perhaps indefinitely and it's much larger than us. I think of it as our evolutionary heritage. If we try to treat the genome bad, we'll have to live with it. If it's obvious the ecosystem is going to kill us if we continue to kill it, it's a good time to make peace not war. To pacify means not to kill, although you might think death is a way to be pacified, like the ancient Greek philosopher who's saying death is not to be feared because it's only unconsciousness or the other philosopher who's saying, "increase your income or decrease your wants." Dying is not so much the problem as not living! I've decreased all my wants but one! I believe in respect so with the bacteria the wisest thing for us to do is stop the killing.

Or as I believe, we should Let These Sleeping Dogs Lie. We have too complex a problem here, though just as the bacteria weren't ending all the life in evolution, the killing has been a sort of artificial buildup and then the letdown. I believe in the perspective of the super bacilli as we now know, the solution is to "slow down" and "freeze" the evolution of the germs as they are now. For our general course of action, this wouldn't be the same as killing them, rather, like the "Beware of Dog Sign" of the flop eared hound in the general store there may be truth in jest we need not fear evolution if we pay respect..


I had thought of cleansing food by first injecting antibodies into the food and using sensors to find out where all the bacteria are if there are any there, and then to inject laser beams that are on the outside but at lower energy and then combine together at the point where the germs are, with a much lower dose of radiation, because when they cleanse herbs like cooking herbs they use like a billion chest X rays worth of radiation, is that what we really want for our food? So I was thinking this might be a good solution for cleansing food. I read this month that another person has thought of this, a scientist in France several years ago, but my idea is the addition of the antibody method and the sensor was to make it viable sooner, he lists it as perhaps useful for food in 100 years, and I think this might be sooner via the antibodies. And an improvement in cleansing the body in real time including e.g cleansing the blood of small tumors even while in circulation, ect.

Even so about the general genome, it's too complex to kill or defend by trying to kill, which I didn't actually realize like most until more recently, so recently I've tended to have another belief. That is as I say the best option may not be to kill the dogs rather to slow them down.

Here's my proposal, we use small cellular pumps, the bacteria don't notice them they seem to be like food. The bacteria gobble them up. These small cellular pumps or nanobots inside the bacterial nucleus are cooling pumps, these take some natural substance inside the germ for power, and basically slow them down, cool them down from the inside gradually like the dawg in the general store, (he's calm being out in the country!) This slows them down they do not harm to us and they leave the body and wake up with outdoorsy type weather, with change in temperature. Notice that the genome of the bacteria hasn't changed. If the ecosystem hasn't gotten any better overall, at least it hasn't gotten any worse.

This seems to be a better method than others I'd thought of. I thought of e.g. a personal fan that blows the germs away from you when you're in the doctor's office, or perhaps a magnetic field shield that uses sensors and efficiently moves the germs away from you. Hot tub sensors to sense germs might be of worth, these methods like others may be of worth in a limited way because most hot tubs have a large level of pathogens, or when walking in the door a super futuristic scanner might one day find if any germs are entering the house and an alarm would sound. And I thought of laser hand cleaners to automatically sense and wash your hands sort of like the laser food cleanser with antibodies to sense but lower energy and non professional use, and so on and so forth. Some sensors (of all types some may say!) have gotten a lot cheaper. For the anthrax scare of the postal office I thought of a use of the cheap 2 dollar sensors that use just two wires of the right metal of different type to bend just so to sense a given chemical. These would sense the anthrax in the post office as it zips past and throw a cosmic cyber wrench in the machine with big stamps. Another use of the sensors would be throughout a blanket, easy to wash. The only way to completely stop germs would be by sensors that could go through walls, when you walk through doors you walk through walls twice. This is why killing germs with the guidance of sensors won't win for us, once is not enough.

No doubt methods like these are just somewhat of value and the problem still remains that each time you would use the antibacterial like soap, you're still programming them. So I think the idea of using small cooling sort of nano pumps may be best, so the bacillus just think we're nice delicious food, that they harmlessly gobble up may be our best bet. This may not be the exact method, but this and other methods along the same lines may be best. At any rate something that keeps the genes the same of the germs before and after their interaction with us perhaps by editing the DNA of the germs with each go round of interaction. One possibility might be to use sensors to monitor all the germs entering and leaving the body and edit their genes so they are more identical to the rest of the germs around by some method before releasing them into the "wild".  Plans like this are being tried with mosquitoes in the tropics. Insert genes that seem the same but stop reproduction, though perhaps the wiser way here might be to make the genes more benign to both them and us.

Another way other than as food to get the cooling pumps inside the germs might be to use the immune system, though the persons needing improvement like in the ER often are just the ones who are lacking in immune defence. Eventually we may have an entire artificial immune system or mostly so we can inject into a patient, much as tissues are being engineered, perhaps this would last just for a few days or months for life defense while most needed. Or an artificial system engineered to deliver just the type of cells you would want, so it would recognize just those types of cells by genetic engineering or whatever. The germs would just cool down and not know it, and not get smarter, and the "battle for peace" here would be over, not an imprecise sort of name..

What about breeding our own dogs from the wolves to fight or just replace the other dogs? I hadn't realized this hasn't been much tried so I didn't consider it before on this site. My own experience with almost a complete cure of gingivitis with good bacilli is indeed the most positive I've found. Click Here. I likened this to the fire above with the wolves. And fire inside like good dogs might burn us as much as the bad germs. Another problem is that many types of defending germs would have to be engineered and like the fire these would have to not interact or damage the body. The cure for toothache may be uncommon because often like the CNS drugs all possible risks would have to be controlled, this is why most drug companies are not researching CNS drugs because they have to be completely safe long term. In essence we are in with antibiotics long term. Some sites say the supergerms seem like a sort of false delimma, like where the ancient greek goddess offers the sailors form the cliff the options of tragedy or doom, whatever happened to two out of three I asked my biology professor as we all failed bio on the first week due to her great two out of three exams! On one site the author notes that cows of many traits like heat resistance or drought resistance or super milk aren't super, they are merely artificial creations of civilization. If we tore down all the fences and they moove on to evolution for say 7 generations, all the super genes would be blended in and the cows influenced for humans wouldn't be able to compete. So too the author laughs, what super germs? Without antibiotics they would also soon fade into evolution, here too the super germs wouldn't be able to compete with stronger life more well adapted for general fitness. This is not a false delimma. On the one hand we can't stop using antibiotics because so many people would die now, and on the other hand if we use more antibiotics, the super germs will win sooner or later. The author of the site merely says super germs are an artifice, and offers no solution other than the use of germs of our own to defend. This seems like a moderately good idea because it seems we aren't crowding the germs but we may be programming them, leading us back to the same question, why in evolution, wasn't most life dying of the much larger computer of the germ or other biome? And here again I offer the basic answer, because why would the world want to hurt life much? Most healthy civilizations make marriage cheap and a celebration of life. It's more of worth and more powerful to live than to try top down methods of control. In research survivors of disasters aren't sad mostly even though earlier belief was they were sad. It's been said life is a terminal illness, and being good and a comic about life is evolution's health plan. No doubt optimism alone is not the best because other research finds too much optimism to lead to downturn by way of too much complacency. But if evolution is kind in balance perhaps it's much the same to believe the world is unkind if treated as less of value. If we try to crowd out the germs with more and more probiotics, they will have stronger and stronger need to find defence unlike in evolution by evolutionary pressure. This is why the solution of the idea of calming evolution, and love more than war may be wiser. Bees are calmed by smoke, better than breeding super bees to return if we calm the germs.

A possible type of nano cooling pump might be my idea of an atomic motor. This involves protons spinning sidewise held by their poles to spin and a continuius beam say of photons or electrons intersects the limb of the proton. The spin of the proton deeper in changes the wavelength of the ray, doing work. The electron is collected on the other side and connected back by a "wire" to the source of the ray. This completes the circuit, and may be a simple way to convert the strong force to useful electric power. Of course it's not that simple, but that's the basic idea. CLICK HERE for details. This pump would be super small, converting mass to energy. I think it may make a super cooling pump. This might be achieved by using the proton to stretch out the beam, which is cooler on one side. The other side has a nano cup with a one way valve into which the heat of the light flow in and could be trapped. Eventually a large amount of heat is stored here as the conversion of the light's eventual conversion of the energy of lots of light to just the mass of one heavy particle like a proton, a super cooling pump. This could also be used for general cooling and the by product would be protons that could combine with electrons from anywhere or in other words hydrogen the fuel of the future.


..

Could a Supertrain be Built Around the Northern Hemisphere?


We hear much about the largest bridge ever being built proposed for the Bering strait, larger than even the bridge that may be built out West off the coast. This new bridge would have a new look sort of like me who's been writing since the 20th century! This might not be like the giant harp of the older bridges, they reported seeing a giant angel in the space shuttle with wings the size of a 747 and you know ya know, the angels would get a real good Xray on each go round. What angel would go in 747, much safer than travel by elevator! Travel by elevator, safest per mile. If you go to Hawaii in an elevator, or if they lit a cigarette in Hawaii and could see it by lens in New York by great astronomy lenses, why go such distance to light a smoke! If you lined up all the cigarettes smoked each day you still couldn't take a puff, thank goodness!

The new way for a car to drive over water is not land as some realtors would say but actually, the bridge, (the realtor commutes to work in an RV.) The half circle of the arch of The Bering Bridge reaches with the feet of the arch down to the sea floor, and also the arch reaches above the water to support the road platform suspended from the wires attached to the arches above and to the side at other angles. The wires stretch out to reach and support the road so if there's an earthquake it's earthquake proof, by damping. The Bridge being built across the Bering Strait will use the same method. Interestingly the Bering strait has the most tidal friction anywhere in the world as the water sloshes in and out, while the bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia has the highest tides anywhere, like 90 feet plus a reversing river, when the river flows out it's in one direction and then later in the day the tide comes in. This is rather like the reversing river in India that flows one direction for six months and then reverses for 6 more. This is like the water where I live, the water runs 6 months cold and six months hot. Palmer Lake on the continental divide of the Rockies actually empties both East and West, (we assume the mountains that empty into it are not just to the E or W either).


If you have this small road platform with the wires and larger arches making it earthquake proof, it could be used conceivably for more extreme transits, as in even over higher mountains or reasonably close distances of open sea. For even the open sea the science of offshore platforms is well established, this would seem to be much simpler to build than a complex machine of no more mass. Some have proposed to build a super train from NY to Los Angeles, super high speed because there would be no air in the tunnel. And right through the mountains so the train is level and fast, like 6,000 mph. But I think this idea could be carried farther, and much faster too perhaps! The same arches may be used to make a global connection where we would make a super long train tunnel where instead of a platform for the road we have instead the train tube,
that is also earthquake proof of course to continually go all the way around the N hemisphere. If we started say in NY city we would then go over the open sea to some extent off the Nova Scotia, then to Greenland, then the arches being even able to go over open sea, to Iceland and S to Scotland, the E through Europe to S Russia and back N of N China if China won't let us build the train there (though china might want to buy into the train for business) up around to Alaska also across the Bering strait. No doubt the train platform and the train would then travel back to down to central N America in a complete loop around the northern hemisphere, a giant merry go round the world... Not only would the train be super high speed, it would also not even have to stop, one continuous train that would never have to stop so it would be super high speed. it's true now that the cost of moving a ton a mile by train is 90% reduced over what it was in the early 20th century. It's also true that today's high speed trains in the US are no faster than they were in the Hoover administration.


There's no need to believe we wouldn't perhaps find stronger power sources for the train in the future to power the train, e.g small shelf size particle accelerators are being devised that are as powerful as giant machines like the LHC, sooner or later even small cheap fusion machines might be built, as e.g. in my own idea of IFF, Inertial Focus fusion.

The train might be a way to unify world culture. In spite of dreamer's dreams that per se the web or other improvements would unify the world (more about this in 1989!) only 5% of mail is international mail, and speaking a common language with another country increases commerce 47% or so. If you don't know the same language it reduces business. And so on and so fourth, to venture fifth and sally fifth, there are limits caused I would believe more by lack of proximity than by culture. Mexico speaks another language, but the US Mexico border is the most traveled in the world. Even so only 70% or so of internet exchange is between countries that have common languages. If travel were much more cheap, we might be able to unify the world culture more. It's been said that only community is real, all else is metaphor, but if there's no word for metaphor in the language of business, the world might be richer. High speed supercheap travel might be more than metaphor because by reducing distance community would be increased more. Conventional power for the train as with the E to W coast train would already be viable, but fusion would make it cheaper, ect. because although it costs 200$ to fly to Europe if you stand out on the wing and pedal the turbines most airlines are above! My neighbor looked up at a plane the other day and says, Wow! There's someone on the wing I think I see up there of that airplane! I was reading in how this beautious lady was a wing walker, not just in OH, she walked in 5 states per hour! She was a concert pianist, there was no grand up on the wings of the airplane she would play, even so she would go upside down on the airplane at 375 mph, and she said it was like having a typhoon for a hair dryer!

If the super train was powered by fusion or more conventional sources it would be a way to unify the world culture, reaching also to Africa and SA, because those arches could go over even the open sea or high mountains. If you started, say in Peru and go N really fast up to Missouri and then connect to the train going E. as with the high speed trains in China that never stop, so too this train might never stop for travel and transport for business, ect. at low cost. It would reduce the intermodal freight traffic so they spill fewer of the intermodal freight containers. (For the near term I've believed a good solution to be cheap wave power and GPS onboard each container back to port in a week or two, reducing pollution and saving lots of goods.)


If we start the train down at the tip of SA it would always have to start and stop instead of like the continuous ones in the N causing large inertial forces not so common in a train like the one that might unite the N hemisphere. If you have the train in South America and it's starting from a stop (which is what I'm always trying to achieve!) it would go N really fast; perhaps you would need some way to shield from it's inertia, thus I propose we use the machines that use the oscillating slice of wheel, with a more common wheel you have the inertia sending out the force all the way around like the coach who says we're going to turn this team around 360 degrees! But if we say turn around just say 90 degrees at Christmas or 45 degrees in summer, we could stay real cozy in Alaska or like Canada where they say global warming isn't so bad. (I think global warming may be because of the dust, perhaps making it where like where I live each August it gets cooler each year, like a month earlier than before when I was like 17. Why would global warming cause this? The new agricultural dust may be shielding the earth from the heat even though the sun is burning hotter in general as is known by our records of the solar storms ect. And as I say the greenhouse warming theory predicts that underneath the clouds on a hot day it will be the warmest, if it's actually dust shielding from the heat, the hotter might be at the top and the cooler temperatures near to us. Click here for more about My idea about Global Warming. Or as they say at Christmas when it's 30 below, global warming Ha! Or like Ho! Ho! Ho! Why No when you're with Winona, if she's an anesthesiologist a knockout with pleasure!

About the train, if they actually used inertial shields as in the IP, in each person's wall of the train, and also other shields to reduce stress on the train with acceleration, starting and stopping would not be so extreme, or perhaps one large N circular train in both N America and one in Asia could be used to connect with the N train to Eurasia and this N train arch could reach a central SA and a central path from N Asia could also reach a smaller central path in SA to solve the problem of starting and stopping, by always going fast in a continuous loop, rather like the particle accelerators have a loop for reaching the main accelerator. This would increase the length of the main train paths increasing business for the cities along the path of the train, this would be an alternate way to solve the problem of starting and stopping for the African and SA trains. another option may be to make them slower, so not so expensive too, reaching the top speed after reaching either the N America or the Eurasian tracks.

To reduce vibration of the train, high speed magnetic actuators would make it so the train would actually never contact the tube, perhaps magnets above would be more stable since like for wind tunnels that use reduced pressure being more stable than tunnels that use positive pressure, ect.

Another problem might seem to be about seeing this vision of seeing a sort of tangled web, a giant spider's web for 50 miles away, you know. Of course in places like the central US, they could just make it on the ground or below ground, or like the St. Louis Arch, they could say, look there's something here, Here's What We Can See! We have our own tourist destination, not planes for miles! I think the new invisibility cloaking machines that are being developed might be used for all sorts of large machines like this, e.g. onshore wind generation machines, if an airplane was about to hit it, they could become visible in time to save them, or just turn on warning lights or whatever..

Does Information Reside in More Than One Place?

Some believe that as we say with the Uncertainty Principle you can measure the position and momentum of the particle, but not at the same time. Susskind also has another idea he calls "black hole complementarity" where we can make two measurements of the events of a massive massif star depending on where the observers watch is well rewound. The observer on the outside seeing a mass fall into the black hole will say "Wow!" You know it's being shredded up at the surface, it resides on the surface. But an observer inside the black hole would say, well it plummets to the center and then burns up in the center. Thus Susskind as well as T'Hooft have this idea that either observer is equally valid and so the same information resides in two places. This is also like the Uncertainty Principle and like relativity basically the same kind of idea because you have two different observers and they measure different mass and energy of the other high speed mass (or with the supermassive massif they have distinct vantage points to see other events..).

This isn't the same as saying there's no high speed connection between the observers. The problem here is if you have the observers agree to different results of the same experiment, essentially the speed of light is slow in Special Relativity for example. And if there is no causal connection between the events they're loosely connected, but because the speed of light is slow the connection between like say here and alpha centuari is 4.3 light years or so and if we measure an event from here we have to wait four years or so so if there's influence seen by the "slow" speed of light. And by that time alpha centauri has changed and moved a lot no doubt, (the ancient astrologers have more unchanged ways of measuring time than measuring astronomy these days). And so we have no or little connection between them so alpha centauri and all other mass in the universe would be radiating outward. It's not connected so it moves in it's linear motion, not linear A Sumerian, it's changed more than astronomy somewhat no doubt! Special relativity measures much, uniform motion is what relativity does best. The speed of light is constant, the motion is uniform, the speed of light doesn't change.

The problem is that relativity doesn't explain acceleration well because the mass energy equivalence of relativity is rather a more superficial energy energy equivalence in GWD in the sense that it's derived it's derived from the motion of the high speed mass. More more motion more mass, more energy in SR. And mass is like an acceleration, it spins around and around under its own attraction. And you really can't measure mass like an energy equivalence because mass is where there's a connection holding it together like gravity. The connection problem is the same as with the wave particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle and relativity. If you have a coin and you flip it and it spins around if by your limited vantage as an observer for some reason you could only measure one side of the coin at a time. First of all, you'd say what guarantee is this, an 1950 coin worth 20 thou? Couldn't you just move around to the other side of the coin? What comic physics is this, right? We know there is a real connection.

The Uncertainty Principle and quantum unfamiliarity are closely related to Planck's Constant and the constant itself is much or mostly related to the speed of light being the speed of the constant of action. There's always a certain amount of motion of the field per unit time whether it's linear or angular. Since Planck's constant is the foundation in all of subatomic physics we conclude that since relativity itself has that problem of connectivity only if gravity is faster than light to connect up the points would it not fizzle out to 0 density in infinite time. So too for the Uncertainty Principle we might conclude that if there really is no connection between the two sides of the coin the coin would radiate outward, and so the same kind of problem. Different observers in relativity get different results, they're different so they're not connected, they're radiating out in their own inertial frame not concerned with the connection between them. Even so the idea that information resides in more than one place is both true and not true. At short range like for electric charges the same field can shield and not know itself, while at lower energy for forces like gravity or the EPR, the field may be at higher speed (because it's lighter than light so much faster) so much it's almost in one place (though perhaps not quite to not be infinite and not violate causality, ultimately cause not energy conservation may turn out to be the foundation of the cosmos because there seems to be evidence that gravity is like a superfluid and winds up the cosmos, otherwise if heat always flows from hot to cold, how was it hot?). There is no doubt for these opposites where there is also a connection binding them, the connection must be faster than the tendancy of the opposites to disconnect. Thus for Plancks constant and the speed of light, the speed of light may not be the limit.

The problem of the Uncertainty Principle and the lack of connection and relativity too is the tendency to radiate outward locally and this is one reason why I believe gravity may have a faster than light connection and also why the Uncertainty principle may fail by way of Einstein's idea of a low energy particle to reduce the subatomic equality of the measure and measured, if it too is lighter than light it may be faster than light. If only at the speed of light there would be no connection between position and momentum and the particles would explode. In GWD with gravity at the speed of light via relativity the moon would have the slow light and disconnect, soon spinning outward. Recent experiments seem to uphold Einstein's idea about the low energy particles.

If you don't have a faster than light connecting the position and momentum, a 50 cent coin has 2 sides one 50 cent not two 25s! I liken the connection between the phases above, this connection would seem to be indeed be like a gravitational field and not coincidence. To say there's no gravitational field there at that energy like of subatomic particles, I disagree. If you have two masses like common lower energy masses around us at room temperature even in the luxury with heat around us and you adhere them to a beam. If you toss the masses up in the air so they spin around the com around which the masses spin is in "empty space" the same as the earth and moon rather on a smaller scale. We might say gravity isn't there and it's not important if the beam is the main adhesion, but the center is not in the beam.

If mass and energy were completely the same it would be as easy to convert mass to energy as energy to mass, and there would be no way to tell them apart, like the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, there are perhaps 10 distinctions between mass and inertia, e.g. mass is where a plenum, energy less matter, inertia or energy radiates out, mass attracts and implodes, ect. the many and the one. This also seems like the wave particle duality, the Uncertainty Principle and other problems of complementarity. Thus the mass energy equivalence combined with the complementarity problem would mean mass and energy would have nothing to do with each other. They have something to do with each other but it's not exact, this is why the equivalence of mass and energy is somewhat sound in GWD yet it has these other problems without solution by way of relativity alone.

Though I have agreed with t'Hooft in general, another idea he has edited with Susskind is where they're saying all the information in an object resides on it's surface. Though t'Hoft seems to be good more with the type of physics I agree with, and I tend to not believe in Hawking's physics much I tend to disagree with this. No doubt Hawking was the highest in his physics score when he entered college, he is a best seller and was head of the math department Newton once also was leader of, and t'Hooft has won the Nobel prize and improved our knowledge of the weak force. I think of t'Hooft as the best of the three, and the idea that all the information resides on the surface of a mass seems to me like at first glance to relate to someone as great as Gauss whose pioneering work in surface geometry in the early 1800's was a great contribution to math that made him one of the three great math geniuses in time and all of physics, ect. I think this idea even if t'Hooft was coauthor has shortcomings. When you devise a general idea like Gauss did, or Einstein with relativity, for it to hold water there have to be no general disproofs in just common sense around us. If it's a classic, there's no easy disproof, and the disproof of this "all boundary theorem" seems to be about the Earth. The surface doesn't somehow control all the information because we can expect inner events like of lava flows and magma to change the Earth in time without outside intervention and without flow in or out. If we believe in the Uncertainty Principle and the speed of light as the limit in subatomic physics and all the rest, the speed of all the surfaces spin at the speed of light to uphold relativity well but here too like with this "earth problem" if all the particles spin at the speed of light inside and outside and mass is indeed spinning energy, the electron is already at the speed of light, spinning at the top speed so no more mass can be added on, thus all particles heavier than an electron have no explanation and so the idea that the surface controls the rest isn't so, certainly it's partially so and to do work means the surface is changed, but if all is in the universal boundary, than if no information by definition is sent in or out, there can be no change anywhere inside it and all the change here and there nearby is a nondum (same great Latin, 21st century Greek.) Click here for more, my elaboration of this idea, about the stability of the proton, ect..

You may say about relativity, the invariance of the speed of light, aha, it's a symmetry, like Noether's symmetry, we all know these are well proven in subatomic physics and elsewhere no doubt! To which I say, while symmetries abound, some are deeper than others. I believe the absolute space time of Newton isn't in for a revival soon and that relativity is true about the speed of light so much of relativity isn't going to be disproven either. I hold that Special Relativity is about what's seen from a distance like light and not what we feel as a force of pull or push like gravity. Relativity seems to be about "vain appearances" about the looks of the light, but the deeper symmetry seems about the lower energy F=ma (nonquanta) not Emc2 where you have acceleration not just linear motion. F=ma is more fundamental and deep because gravity holds the cosmos together and this is the first of my Three Foundation Principles of the Universe.

Relativity has seemed to me like a blind alley blinded of light and the speed of light that leads us to conclude that information is not all in one place. In truth no doubt it's both connected and not connected, our arm is in one place and out leg is in another place if we put our arm in the range and our leg in the ice box, in general as a percentage we're both hot and cool, with connection and lack of connection both, so relativity isn't going anywhere but still there may be deeper truth that may help us know more than otherwise, click here for my synopsis site, about gravity and Faster Than Light..

If we had a large ship that could only send or receive waves at it's own ship wavelength and the waves were slow, the problem that the waves were influenced by the observer would be solved if we suddenly found a higher speed wave, even so the physics of the waves and ships wouldn't be gone, and presumably there would be more uses of relativity than FTL waves, even so if they are proven by the experiments I propose they may find use in communications, computers, the EPR, and other information rich technology.

That different observers in SR get results leads to contradictions; an observer on one slow ship will see another set of events on the high speed ship than an observer on the medium speed ship and the contradiction the two observers will find in the histories they record can't be reconciled when both are at medium speed. The wife you see on her high speed starship won't both bake and burn the dish with different thermal history, due to changes in the wavelength of the (thermodynamic) light. Click here for more about contradictions in relativity..

Physics Synopsis.
..