Antibodies For Exercise and Leisure. Hey! Your Brain likes Stretches most!
A vaccine solution for drug use has been developed. Addicted mice completely stop addictive behaviour without strain when given the antibodies that bind with heroin or cocaine and phase I human trials are underway for these brain healthy vaccines.. CLICK HERE for More.
This may have numerous uses. Many illnesses involve excess of one substance or another. Bind with it so our hopes might say and a safer cheaper way to solve illness or boost health might be achieved.
For example, a cholesterol vaccine, "to automatically reduce it", glucose vaccine for diabetes, ect. might be of value, Wilson's disease involving too much copper, schizophrenia involving too many endorphins 10 to 100 times in their circulation, might be solved, and so on. Scitzophrenia may be easier to solve with antibodies since general blood levels of the endorphins are higher. (The symptoms of those with the illness are completely stopped for several days after the endorphin dialysis is administered and when the dialysis is stopped the symptoms return. Dialysis isn't in common use, as for drug solutions being expensive, ect.)
Depression involves mostly common levels of endorphins found in what seems a somewhat suprising way. At first glance if schizophrenia is with fast metabolism, and so well controlled with reducing endorphins, depression being "slow" would seem to involve just low endorphins in a simple way. However depression is not just the opposite, schizophrenia tends to be more severe and have other symptoms, ect. Depression seems a deficiency, or more probably an excess of some substance, if it's endorphins or some other neurotransmitter I believe the reason for the near normal blood levels of endorphins found is because one part of the brain, the base may be deficient in this substance and the higher brain may have too much, balancing out the blood levels. As I say here GBN (or click link at the bottom of the page) it's been established that in severe depression, an area above the right eye called the Left DorsoLateral PreFrontal Cortex (LDLPFC) isd much more active, turning on and off repeatedly and this is not found in nondepressed people. In GBN my idea called General Behaviour Neurology this area may have too much activity like the overbranching of the top of a top heavy tree with the base of the brain underactive in the area found to be of much import to these problems, the hippocampus. (With GBN's explanation of schtzophrenia, the tree is also upside down, except moreso; the hippocampus has many random cells unlike normal brains, this would be the source of all the extra endorphins. The tree isn't just top heavy, it's upside down with both reduced branches above and a "branching" trunk, with neither branch or trunk in natural worth, thus it's more severe than depression and fits in with the general tree explanation of GBN as other brain health situations, like genius, retardation, and more. See the link below for more.)
In depression a top heavy tree is more prone to collapse and stress than normal brains especially if the trunk is not as stout. The balance of the LDLPFC and the hippocampus of too much and too little might be why the endorphins are seemingly like those without depression, while a true excess of endorphins and overclocking might be there the two could mostly cancel in general blood levels of the endorphins.
This leads me to wonder about antibodies of many uses. When you bruise your heel and a bit of Ohio antibodies rush to the scene of the hug zone to repair the problem and aunt Emma feels awesome. Immune cells are programmed to boost you in that area (where aunt Emma lives and always will). So we might use more site specific antibodies than as in general use (endorphins are complex and I suspect endorphins of depressed people may be unlike other people's endorphins, so antibodies could seek out the endorphins to find the site and bind only there, or perhaps bind the zones of the LDLPFC that emit endorphins.)
This method might have many uses like for example it might make anyone smarter by binding out resistant neurotransmitters that could lower brain efficiency rather like with the LDLPFC and depression except in a less severe sense. To "soup up" the brain or soupercharge it might improve depression or manic depression (by also even "being aware" of the cycles of the rise and falls of neurotransmitters common there by "time sensitive" or "time adaptive" antibodies). We might indeed envision it for most of these uses involved in tiny light sensitive neurons opsins, to change behaviour "at will" by turning light on and off. Opsins have problems and are considered future science here in 2013 but antibodies might be a much less invasive cheap method of improving brain and other types of health for millions. Programmable specific antibodies might have on the spot defense or energise physiology many ways as well as making aunt Emma feel so good you aren't fat!
Links
More about brain health General Behavioural Neurology GBN
"How genius, retardation, or other types of extreme brain illness or health may have just one underlying cause."
Mice and the Cocaine Vaccine
More Uses of Opsins
Friday, April 05, 2013
The Causes of Altruism
Darwin had trouble explaining altruism. If evolution is only survival of the fittest, why is there any cooperation? Our cells would seem to compete ruthlessly down to one cells or just atoms if there was no cooperation. I think evolution needs a good way to explain love.
Some say why believe in evolution, if we are just animals and an animal is uncaring, we would just not care about GMC God Mother and College. One of the main advantages could be because of realizing the advantage of treating the world in a considerate way, like common sense.
In the origin of life the problem was the life had a real time evolving to larger than the one cells. It took billions of years from the origin as believed to the Cambrian time of larger life. By measure of the computing time life took it must have been a real challenge to make the improvement to higher life, with a small fraction of time after then to now.
The age before life like fishes was with altruism. If the bacteria in a pond or lake needed a solution to a problem, A sort of early internet! All they had to do was swap chromosomes, and to all go the advantage. There was reduced competition and this would have increased cooperation.. This was not life competing with life rather life against nature. Life today lives just 5 miles from the shore... 99% of the fish and 3/4 of the people live there, they have since the dawn of the reruns of old AM/FM shows on the wave radio. The life wasn't mostly in competition since there was unlimited shore room. If there was room needed, the cells would have just radiated to the shore nearby, in a slow march of life around the shore for billions of years. Each day as wide as the ocean, as deep as the sea, the life was drained out. The ocean was a sort of life sponge (if the sponges were gone is the ocean any deeper?). No life lived then in the ocean much, like a wet marsh (from the Latin mare sea) and it wasn't bogged down since it was rebuilding up each day. "I've been looking for my dreams, a 100 times today.. I build them up, you knock them down, like they were made of clay.." so goes the old song (actually not billions of years old!).
The land was also barren since primitive life lacking in advanced defenses like O shielding by the ozone couldn't yet live there due to UV rays. Thus the life was trapped in the narrow zone between land and the vast ocean.
As time went on, the shore of life extended its reach, till finally all the shore was taken. Life was altruistic up to then because there was no competition and cooperation was better against the sea, a simple strategy of copying was the best by overpowering in numbers, like in creativity, the basic method that's been agreed by those who know for those without wisdom (yet at any rate ah youth!) is just like the celebration of good motifs, if no better, at least the boss won't fire you. This is still the power of life like amoebas in our age, they may not be vast in size, but they are numerous in computing. Even once the shore was closed, the competition would have taken much more time to build up more pressure since life then couldn't travel so far and so the pressure had to react around the shore and return to build up. Closing the shore wouldn't even much have accelerated evolution till later if the shore was thousands of miles around.
Mind and matter were more unified since life at was at near radius where mass and energy balance, unlike life like us was. This balancing point of mass and energy is why relativity is so great and the waves and particles are balanced at that distance. Where the cosmos balances is why also at larger distance the division of mind and matter would be increased. In quantum physics each particle has a wave as Einstein helped us know, yet at our common room temperature and radius, there can be solids of flow seperate, not always the same.This is why I believe neurons or genes are more permanent, mind controls matter not vice versa so much since mind is more like relativity, and relativity has won well. This was how the life had interchangeable software, there was as yet no specialization of the division of mind and body. The evolution of the division of mind and body wouldn't have been achieved by slower evolution by the bacteria, once the pressure increased, only then would higher speed evolution have evolved the more advanced systems. Often only more extreme events are the cause of genius.
Actually the first land life, plants called stromatolites are found in the record of fossils to be Australian.
In the sense of science, this idea of the shore as utopia would predict the coast of a large island would have closed ahead of what would have been a continent and this might seem to say larger life might have started more on an island or a lake than a continent. The problem with this is about how the life would have colonized the island over the vast sea, actually the life of the shore with shallow seas of the continents might have a higher evolution here and so the fish might have evolved here. This might help us predict where the fish first evolved via the fossils if this about altruism is true.
Altruism wasn't gone. The older life had abundance of resources, this is my simple definition of altruism, glorified sharing of an abundance of resources, and all the laws of people about this are an elaborate method of this (if also balance by competition). Shaw the author would say the great evil was always lack of money. A lot of us are in love with virtue, no doubt...
Some now believe altruism is not because of gene selfishness, rather it merely increases the chances of survival by increasing the ability to win by competition. The Malthusian problems people seem to be having after they have murdered much of evolution seems to tell us that gene selfishness alone isn't of higher value in evolution. The increased competition for decreased resources caused by overcrowding in turn by overhunting of evolution may cause people such stress that gene selfishness as has been used against evolution isn't of as much value as altruism.
So I agree that gene selfishness isn't the cause of altruism, rather it's caused by something more like common sense or efficiency. If you have a wonder herb and it's of worth for all your life, and you put it only on your hat, it would be common sense to spread the advantage around. So altruism would be a way of building up our life by efficiency.
Altruism would be sharing of abundance, this predicts where there is lack of abundance, sharing would be reduced. If there is less to share, there would be reduced sharing. My father would sometimes say would say life is about survival of the fittest, yet who would go to their luxury villa and, relax without stress if possible. For who? When some conservatives claim we were attacked in 9/11 because of our being kind to the poor, blacks, or women, this seems like saying, there's a famine with people's treatment of evolution, and sharing is not of value since if there were a drought or other reduction caused by increased competition for reduced resources, the value of kindness is reduced and this seems so in a way since maintenance of self is necessary to help others. This is being true to the self. However justifications like this are like saying, there's no better way about debt than how people have been. Yet there was in evolution for millions of years. When some say, there's no better way, this often means there is, they just haven't looked far enough to find it, and there would be more wisdom in this. I think the reduction of the "debt famine" may come from the wisdom of reducing the overpopulation, as in evolution. If we don't, the conservatives could say, most people have treated evolution or the world unkindly so most have no legitimate right to all the luxuries and advantages of civilization. This claim can be justified because it would essentially be true, but it would be untrue if we reduced the overcrowding, since the unnatural competition would be reduced. I believe ff we do what's most natural and reduce the overcrowding peacefully, then this "natural" conclusion (a rock is natural too but it's not life) would be revised to what's "most natural", the higher level of civilization.
A simple idea that altruism is sharing of abundance alone is not enough since abundance isn't a guarantee of value. The rich aren't guaranteed to be good because of wealth alone. There is the belief that heredity is stored environment, and a more recent idea based on other research that says the genes create the environment and a third idea is that it's not what is owned or realized but what we make of it. Other research finds that forgiveness can be synthesized on computer software using the math of evolution of behaviour devised by Von Neeman in the mid 1900's. At first the software has tit for tat, then it moderates to more advanced levels where if the other software makes an error, the competition forgives. Forgiveness seems to fit in with altruism as an abundance of resources as like benefit of the doubt, benefit being from the ancient word meaning good. Sort of like an operating expense of a business. "We have enough, and nobody's perfect, I understand."
If altruism is about abundance, it seems rather about the idea also of memory of surfeit, like charging the battery of business too. Business of any kind needs profit more than loss, of this I believe. And if genes create the environment, all would win always, and be absolute. Therefore I believe the older more established idea of heredity as stored environment to be truer.
Altruism would be about common sense and efficiency since though not perfect it would carry dreams of love from oasis to oasis in the desert. The idea of how the water and abundance would be used when the oasis is reached may be as important as the resources, since a resource is just a blob of energy without refinement! There is no doubt to a considerable level of worth, what we think of love will increase it most of the time somewhat more at any rate. Genes do create the environment, just not as much-as environment! One of the best ways to create a good environment would seem by sharing. History shows there have been bad people in the best of times, and good people in the worst of times. Life has to be for profit, but life has been made of energy.
Micheal Schermer the author says in the evolution of altruism, by way of selfishness, we were out to convince others of what was essentially the lie that we weren't it it for our own good. The show had to seem to be completely so or we would lose, so with evolution of the good lie repeated so many times, it became true and love evolved. To me love seems like a defense by efficiency, to conserve resources from the inside. It isn't a lie there are good people, they are efficient to achieve more than if they are guilty. To say there's no altruism would be to say there was no surplus for millions of years, there was life 24/7 and rest with conscience of evolution. Actually I think of altruism and survival of the fittest like life and death, and it was a constant balance in our life in evolution.
In the history of civilizations evidence shows that the abundance of resources correlates to 80 to 90% with what are taken as the value of that culture's ideas over other cultures. These 5 Foundations of History: Water travel, Moderate levels of Competition, Access to Salt, Good Weather, and so on seem to correlate well withl 5 other measures of greatness like Wars Won, Wealth, Culture, as I say here. I'm talking to a lady and I said, you know how comfortable you are tends to influence how good you do in some respects, and she said, I agree!
This seems to fit altruism to shared energy or resources, they say, the Greeks were great, what was it about the Greeks? Was it inherent wisdom they had? It's the same Greeks today, with overcrowding reducing the level of their culture. Click here for my site about Evolution and Overcrowding.
How to labor, and to love, this seems the measure of abundance, energy would give both, and a measure of how life is seems to be if we can defend and also be creative in ways that cause good. Even so to say like many may that those in say the 1600's were great, yet someone like "Einstein was bad" in our later times because of resources or the lack of resources of modern life seems like saying, some have luck and others don't and it doesn't matter why. But if Shakespeare was great because of living in times with reduced overcrowding caused by just the luck of the Black Plague at that time in history and Einstein was without this special advantage, then we would be more in control if we know about evolution and reduce the overcrowding based on evolution in order to return to the age when illness was almost absent in living evolution as research has seen. Einstein said the only way to make it to heaven is through suffering, better may be to live in a rich world where silence is more golden.
Those who have hunted evolution may say like at first, there was no real change in the world by this, yet as I say on my site the collapse of the ancient world seems to have followed the increase of the overcrowding then, and the chance as I say on my site about this seems with a high degree of nonrandomness Click here. Evolution may not show much sign with just a few species going extinct, and while there have been large extinction events before, the evolution of life flows in to heal the wound, but only if it's not damaged too far.
People have 400 "bad genes" not found in evolution, and some say this has been caused by the dilution of the gene pool caused by overcrowding and more people living than before. It was found in early research also that Europeans have one bad gene caused perhaps by the black death of the 13 to 1700's. Other research shows that a mother's behaviour can change her genes and this is passed on from mother to child, and build up over generations, as well as that genetic damage caused by severe depression doesn't reverse. The gene damage itself caused by behaviour has been shown to be reversible by methylation ("methyl, the hypothetical radical of wood spirits, and it's combinations" no I know how by college!). I wonder if more research will find that the main cause of the 400 "bad genes" is because of people living in the dark ages for 40 generations. If the poverty was caused itself by overcrowding then, those people of those times would have been living both with poverty and overcrowding. One cause of the damage might be too much life and abundance in a simple measure, yet, strain like the dark ages may have caused more harm. The overcrowding hasn't been going on much longer than the 1000 year time of the dark ages and history is only 2/3 older without much overpopulation for much of this time.
I believe that as has been said, adults are no wiser than children, just more cunning. People didn't save themselves from the dark ages by the wisdom of not murdering evolution, nor the cunning they lost by doing this (Carl Sagan says the fall of the ancient world was like a large scale brain reducing surgery of the mind of the ancient world) and thus we might still be living in shacks if the plague hadn't saved the world of the 1600's by luck. If we learn from this mistake, and here in our own day, people are neither wise to evolution or living in a way their cunning can't outwit because as Von Newman proved, good and evil are more important in evolution than any mere wit, they may hope for luck to save us, but better by far I believe would be to learn from the mistake of the ancient world about good and evil in general, and reduce the overpopulation to restore good to it's real worth, the default setting of evolution for millions of years.
For my complete site about this see the link list upper left of page "Evolution and History."
Click Here For How we May Reduce Population Density Without Reducing Birthrates using the science of the 2010's or more advanced technology and science like CRISPR.
Darwin had trouble explaining altruism. If evolution is only survival of the fittest, why is there any cooperation? Our cells would seem to compete ruthlessly down to one cells or just atoms if there was no cooperation. I think evolution needs a good way to explain love.
Some say why believe in evolution, if we are just animals and an animal is uncaring, we would just not care about GMC God Mother and College. One of the main advantages could be because of realizing the advantage of treating the world in a considerate way, like common sense.
In the origin of life the problem was the life had a real time evolving to larger than the one cells. It took billions of years from the origin as believed to the Cambrian time of larger life. By measure of the computing time life took it must have been a real challenge to make the improvement to higher life, with a small fraction of time after then to now.
The age before life like fishes was with altruism. If the bacteria in a pond or lake needed a solution to a problem, A sort of early internet! All they had to do was swap chromosomes, and to all go the advantage. There was reduced competition and this would have increased cooperation.. This was not life competing with life rather life against nature. Life today lives just 5 miles from the shore... 99% of the fish and 3/4 of the people live there, they have since the dawn of the reruns of old AM/FM shows on the wave radio. The life wasn't mostly in competition since there was unlimited shore room. If there was room needed, the cells would have just radiated to the shore nearby, in a slow march of life around the shore for billions of years. Each day as wide as the ocean, as deep as the sea, the life was drained out. The ocean was a sort of life sponge (if the sponges were gone is the ocean any deeper?). No life lived then in the ocean much, like a wet marsh (from the Latin mare sea) and it wasn't bogged down since it was rebuilding up each day. "I've been looking for my dreams, a 100 times today.. I build them up, you knock them down, like they were made of clay.." so goes the old song (actually not billions of years old!).
The land was also barren since primitive life lacking in advanced defenses like O shielding by the ozone couldn't yet live there due to UV rays. Thus the life was trapped in the narrow zone between land and the vast ocean.
As time went on, the shore of life extended its reach, till finally all the shore was taken. Life was altruistic up to then because there was no competition and cooperation was better against the sea, a simple strategy of copying was the best by overpowering in numbers, like in creativity, the basic method that's been agreed by those who know for those without wisdom (yet at any rate ah youth!) is just like the celebration of good motifs, if no better, at least the boss won't fire you. This is still the power of life like amoebas in our age, they may not be vast in size, but they are numerous in computing. Even once the shore was closed, the competition would have taken much more time to build up more pressure since life then couldn't travel so far and so the pressure had to react around the shore and return to build up. Closing the shore wouldn't even much have accelerated evolution till later if the shore was thousands of miles around.
Mind and matter were more unified since life at was at near radius where mass and energy balance, unlike life like us was. This balancing point of mass and energy is why relativity is so great and the waves and particles are balanced at that distance. Where the cosmos balances is why also at larger distance the division of mind and matter would be increased. In quantum physics each particle has a wave as Einstein helped us know, yet at our common room temperature and radius, there can be solids of flow seperate, not always the same.This is why I believe neurons or genes are more permanent, mind controls matter not vice versa so much since mind is more like relativity, and relativity has won well. This was how the life had interchangeable software, there was as yet no specialization of the division of mind and body. The evolution of the division of mind and body wouldn't have been achieved by slower evolution by the bacteria, once the pressure increased, only then would higher speed evolution have evolved the more advanced systems. Often only more extreme events are the cause of genius.
Actually the first land life, plants called stromatolites are found in the record of fossils to be Australian.
In the sense of science, this idea of the shore as utopia would predict the coast of a large island would have closed ahead of what would have been a continent and this might seem to say larger life might have started more on an island or a lake than a continent. The problem with this is about how the life would have colonized the island over the vast sea, actually the life of the shore with shallow seas of the continents might have a higher evolution here and so the fish might have evolved here. This might help us predict where the fish first evolved via the fossils if this about altruism is true.
Altruism wasn't gone. The older life had abundance of resources, this is my simple definition of altruism, glorified sharing of an abundance of resources, and all the laws of people about this are an elaborate method of this (if also balance by competition). Shaw the author would say the great evil was always lack of money. A lot of us are in love with virtue, no doubt...
Some now believe altruism is not because of gene selfishness, rather it merely increases the chances of survival by increasing the ability to win by competition. The Malthusian problems people seem to be having after they have murdered much of evolution seems to tell us that gene selfishness alone isn't of higher value in evolution. The increased competition for decreased resources caused by overcrowding in turn by overhunting of evolution may cause people such stress that gene selfishness as has been used against evolution isn't of as much value as altruism.
So I agree that gene selfishness isn't the cause of altruism, rather it's caused by something more like common sense or efficiency. If you have a wonder herb and it's of worth for all your life, and you put it only on your hat, it would be common sense to spread the advantage around. So altruism would be a way of building up our life by efficiency.
Altruism would be sharing of abundance, this predicts where there is lack of abundance, sharing would be reduced. If there is less to share, there would be reduced sharing. My father would sometimes say would say life is about survival of the fittest, yet who would go to their luxury villa and, relax without stress if possible. For who? When some conservatives claim we were attacked in 9/11 because of our being kind to the poor, blacks, or women, this seems like saying, there's a famine with people's treatment of evolution, and sharing is not of value since if there were a drought or other reduction caused by increased competition for reduced resources, the value of kindness is reduced and this seems so in a way since maintenance of self is necessary to help others. This is being true to the self. However justifications like this are like saying, there's no better way about debt than how people have been. Yet there was in evolution for millions of years. When some say, there's no better way, this often means there is, they just haven't looked far enough to find it, and there would be more wisdom in this. I think the reduction of the "debt famine" may come from the wisdom of reducing the overpopulation, as in evolution. If we don't, the conservatives could say, most people have treated evolution or the world unkindly so most have no legitimate right to all the luxuries and advantages of civilization. This claim can be justified because it would essentially be true, but it would be untrue if we reduced the overcrowding, since the unnatural competition would be reduced. I believe ff we do what's most natural and reduce the overcrowding peacefully, then this "natural" conclusion (a rock is natural too but it's not life) would be revised to what's "most natural", the higher level of civilization.
A simple idea that altruism is sharing of abundance alone is not enough since abundance isn't a guarantee of value. The rich aren't guaranteed to be good because of wealth alone. There is the belief that heredity is stored environment, and a more recent idea based on other research that says the genes create the environment and a third idea is that it's not what is owned or realized but what we make of it. Other research finds that forgiveness can be synthesized on computer software using the math of evolution of behaviour devised by Von Neeman in the mid 1900's. At first the software has tit for tat, then it moderates to more advanced levels where if the other software makes an error, the competition forgives. Forgiveness seems to fit in with altruism as an abundance of resources as like benefit of the doubt, benefit being from the ancient word meaning good. Sort of like an operating expense of a business. "We have enough, and nobody's perfect, I understand."
If altruism is about abundance, it seems rather about the idea also of memory of surfeit, like charging the battery of business too. Business of any kind needs profit more than loss, of this I believe. And if genes create the environment, all would win always, and be absolute. Therefore I believe the older more established idea of heredity as stored environment to be truer.
Altruism would be about common sense and efficiency since though not perfect it would carry dreams of love from oasis to oasis in the desert. The idea of how the water and abundance would be used when the oasis is reached may be as important as the resources, since a resource is just a blob of energy without refinement! There is no doubt to a considerable level of worth, what we think of love will increase it most of the time somewhat more at any rate. Genes do create the environment, just not as much-as environment! One of the best ways to create a good environment would seem by sharing. History shows there have been bad people in the best of times, and good people in the worst of times. Life has to be for profit, but life has been made of energy.
Micheal Schermer the author says in the evolution of altruism, by way of selfishness, we were out to convince others of what was essentially the lie that we weren't it it for our own good. The show had to seem to be completely so or we would lose, so with evolution of the good lie repeated so many times, it became true and love evolved. To me love seems like a defense by efficiency, to conserve resources from the inside. It isn't a lie there are good people, they are efficient to achieve more than if they are guilty. To say there's no altruism would be to say there was no surplus for millions of years, there was life 24/7 and rest with conscience of evolution. Actually I think of altruism and survival of the fittest like life and death, and it was a constant balance in our life in evolution.
In the history of civilizations evidence shows that the abundance of resources correlates to 80 to 90% with what are taken as the value of that culture's ideas over other cultures. These 5 Foundations of History: Water travel, Moderate levels of Competition, Access to Salt, Good Weather, and so on seem to correlate well withl 5 other measures of greatness like Wars Won, Wealth, Culture, as I say here. I'm talking to a lady and I said, you know how comfortable you are tends to influence how good you do in some respects, and she said, I agree!
This seems to fit altruism to shared energy or resources, they say, the Greeks were great, what was it about the Greeks? Was it inherent wisdom they had? It's the same Greeks today, with overcrowding reducing the level of their culture. Click here for my site about Evolution and Overcrowding.
How to labor, and to love, this seems the measure of abundance, energy would give both, and a measure of how life is seems to be if we can defend and also be creative in ways that cause good. Even so to say like many may that those in say the 1600's were great, yet someone like "Einstein was bad" in our later times because of resources or the lack of resources of modern life seems like saying, some have luck and others don't and it doesn't matter why. But if Shakespeare was great because of living in times with reduced overcrowding caused by just the luck of the Black Plague at that time in history and Einstein was without this special advantage, then we would be more in control if we know about evolution and reduce the overcrowding based on evolution in order to return to the age when illness was almost absent in living evolution as research has seen. Einstein said the only way to make it to heaven is through suffering, better may be to live in a rich world where silence is more golden.
Those who have hunted evolution may say like at first, there was no real change in the world by this, yet as I say on my site the collapse of the ancient world seems to have followed the increase of the overcrowding then, and the chance as I say on my site about this seems with a high degree of nonrandomness Click here. Evolution may not show much sign with just a few species going extinct, and while there have been large extinction events before, the evolution of life flows in to heal the wound, but only if it's not damaged too far.
People have 400 "bad genes" not found in evolution, and some say this has been caused by the dilution of the gene pool caused by overcrowding and more people living than before. It was found in early research also that Europeans have one bad gene caused perhaps by the black death of the 13 to 1700's. Other research shows that a mother's behaviour can change her genes and this is passed on from mother to child, and build up over generations, as well as that genetic damage caused by severe depression doesn't reverse. The gene damage itself caused by behaviour has been shown to be reversible by methylation ("methyl, the hypothetical radical of wood spirits, and it's combinations" no I know how by college!). I wonder if more research will find that the main cause of the 400 "bad genes" is because of people living in the dark ages for 40 generations. If the poverty was caused itself by overcrowding then, those people of those times would have been living both with poverty and overcrowding. One cause of the damage might be too much life and abundance in a simple measure, yet, strain like the dark ages may have caused more harm. The overcrowding hasn't been going on much longer than the 1000 year time of the dark ages and history is only 2/3 older without much overpopulation for much of this time.
I believe that as has been said, adults are no wiser than children, just more cunning. People didn't save themselves from the dark ages by the wisdom of not murdering evolution, nor the cunning they lost by doing this (Carl Sagan says the fall of the ancient world was like a large scale brain reducing surgery of the mind of the ancient world) and thus we might still be living in shacks if the plague hadn't saved the world of the 1600's by luck. If we learn from this mistake, and here in our own day, people are neither wise to evolution or living in a way their cunning can't outwit because as Von Newman proved, good and evil are more important in evolution than any mere wit, they may hope for luck to save us, but better by far I believe would be to learn from the mistake of the ancient world about good and evil in general, and reduce the overpopulation to restore good to it's real worth, the default setting of evolution for millions of years.
For my complete site about this see the link list upper left of page "Evolution and History."
Click Here For How we May Reduce Population Density Without Reducing Birthrates using the science of the 2010's or more advanced technology and science like CRISPR.
Superluminal Motion and The EPR are Perhaps of Cosmic Influence on Relativity...
Einstein said "if one of his ideas go they all go"..about relativity. What did he know about poverty? He was richer than Ritchy Poor in Nobel Gold! Even so he had some strong general antirelativistic trends. He believed in quantum physics that the observer didn't have to influence the observed particle and that the EPR was indeed faster than light (after he found out, at any rate by the experiment that seems to disprove relativity).. He also believed other things that seem antirelativist. He believed that is that light was a particle and unchanged in speed from emission to absorption in Special Relativity, and yet that the wave particle duality was also to be seen.
Einstein didn't believe Faster Than Light was impossible just that if a mass or wave was faster than light it would always move at FTL.
Even if there are there are many experiments proving Special Relativity, Einstein still had this way of belief about relativity being incomplete. In a sense the above, about the Uncertainty principle, the "spooky action" of the Bell experiments, and the wave particle are already seeming disproof of relativity, and seem at least evidence that it's incomplete.
Here are what I consider to be more disproof, or evidence that there is more than relativity in the cosmos.
SUPERLUMINAL PHASE SHIFT OF COSMIC JETS
The jets seen are in the line of sight, and it seems Faster than Light. Simple belief in relativity has the solution that there is a "phase shift". We see the jet in the line of sight so it's just a "trick of perspective". Actually, the phase shift is taken to be where the light of the high speed jets is almost at the speed of light. The light emmited from the jets "chases the source" causing compression of the wave as seen according to the phase shift, this in turnis believed to make the events from light emitted over hundreds of years seem to be emmitted in just years, so it's believed it seems faster than light but actually isn't. If the light is actually more like superluminal scissors, we might think the distance being closer would cause a slower speed not faster. In any event if the phase shift is by the line of sight, if the jets are indeed faster than light if we see them at right angles to our line of sight there is no way the phase shift can explain this. One reason I believe the jets may be superluminal is they must overcome the inward implosion of the field of gravity and if this is at the speed of light or faster, the outward reaction force of the jet would need more momentum than the inward radiance of the field and so on. The Wikipedia page on superluminal motion says the maximum angle for the phase shift to work is 19 degrees, yet some jets have up to 47 degrees.
Superluminal Motion of Cosmic Expansion
Here again I was left with a bit of fizz phyizics indigestion; The observation is that galaxies are seen sped away often at faster than light on all sides. Relativity must be so, right? Thus inflation cosmology will save on the rates for us; the solution is, "use the creation of the low energy field"). By this attempt to save relativity with Inflation Cosmology the galaxies aren't even moving, there's no force acting on them, the cosmic radiance outward is not of mass energy, it's caused by the creation of space (or field) So the galaxies aren't moving at Faster Than Light, the space created between them is de novo so they are mostly unchanged by relativity. The idea of no force acting on all the bodies may look like uniform motion, as you may know actually the acceleration of the outward radiance is speeding up. And recent assays with the Sloane Sky Survey finds that the galaxies to the N of us are spinning more clockwise, and to the S anticlockwise, which seems counter to Inflation Cosmology with its super high speed era that was used to explain the general cosmic isotropic 3K radiation (if left over from the Big Bang) by high speed stretching and smoothing. If it's not uniform motion, a force is acting on the mass and it could be a connection at Faster Than Light. We also may be able to measure the force acting on them by like changes in the field near and far the line of radiance out. Note that axis of spin of the Milky way also is lined up well with the line of outward radiance by the cosmic expansion, and this doesn't seem a coincidence.
To me the main problem with the expansion of space invoked to explain the motion of galaxies away from us at Faster Than Light is that with more space and the same amount of time, velocity is higher, it's simple. (Actually it doesn't matter where the space came from and I believe it's the low energy field filling up the space between the galaxies..). More space (more field) would mean more space per unit time, more velocity, and Faster Than Light Motion.
What is the low energy field between the galaxies made of? I believe it can't be empty space because light is a wave, and something is waving, in use of Maxwell's method he used to exactly predict the speed of light. The force between the somewhat distinct charges plus and minus is constant, so the predicted speed of light is too, though Maxwell realized if the charges were of other levels, they would change the speed of light in a simple method via the assumption of the resilient medium. Thus if we can see the galaxies there would be a low energy electromagnetic field the light would move through to travel the distance to us from the source. . The field wouldn't be quanta as via Maxwell because the quanta would uphold the speed of light and the galaxies couldn't be moving faster than light. Actually there are vast magnetic fields between the galaxies, and magnetic fields aren't quantised, so they are wavelike and I believe if they are well aligned they may be "slippery" enough to slide by Einstein's speed of light. There is also the gravitational field imploding inward to the cosmic center, and if this is also lighter than light by my use of Maxwell's method, perhaps it's much faster than light.
Two forces may be acting on the radiance outward of the massive bodies, gravity inward, and the magnetic field radiant outward at a slower speed than light to exert the "local" force under the compression of gravity to cause the cosmic radiance. I believe most masses like galaxies may have much more of the dark matter because they would have the slow gravitons to cause the slow gravity like the earth, and the much higher speed waves to unify all the fields by high speed synchronization like a superfluid to solve the problem any particle theory of gravity has that particles being with sides will radiate outward not inward like gravity. More about both waves and particles click here. Galileo when asked if the earth had particles causing the gravity if you toss up a mass like a rock why doesn't it move against the particles from the side as the earth goes around the sun, and Galileo's answer was the particles were like an atmosphere the earth carries with it. If you toss up the wheel or starship satellite it rises, and falls radially.
The atmosphere of the particles would only have a finite radius like the atmosphere, and beyond this the waves would have reduced resistance and move faster, this may cause the 1000x increase of the galaxies mass astronomers see by way of how the gravity changes other masses with not enough visible mass seen, and this would be why the Pioneer spacecraft are moving faster outside the solar system's bubble than they would by common gravity. The galaxies would connect even if Faster Than Light by gravity. The gravity implosion of the cosmos would be stronger at longer distance and lower energy and line up the magnetic fields. The NS particles would attract and unify with the gravity to implode toward the center of the universe, and be removed more while the NN and SS particles would with stand the implosion and power the outward motion. At high enough speed and low enough energy I believe gravity might overpower the entropy of the particles to not align NN and SS. If you squeeze an orange most of the flow is inward while some of it being lighter will resist and radiate outward. With cosmic radiance if the cosmos was closed as expected the galaxies would slow down by about 37% yet they are speeding up by the same 37% in acceleration. The solution here wouldn't be dark energy, just the more you squeeze the orange the more orange juice squeezes out in your jug. I always thought cosmic expansion was powered by the magnetic fields, not dark energy, even so here gravity would behave unlike common gravity, being stronger to align more of the magnetic fields. Gravity would squeeze the magnetic fields, and they would react, powering that much more cosmic radiance.
Another way to prove the speed of gravity here, if it's Faster Than Light may be about the degree of alignment of the galaxies, if Einstein's idea that gravity was at just the speed of light, then no signal will connect the distant galaxies if they move away at Faster Than Light so no force will unify them, yet if gravity is faster it will connect farther with more force. Thus, how much the distant masses are aligned or not may tell us about the speed of gravity, more alignment, it's Faster Than Light. Both the gravity and the magnetic fields would exert force on the galaxies, even so the line would of both wouldn't be the same if gravity is of higher speed.
If the magnetic fields are aligned, at right angles there is still the quanta, so galaxies at right angles to our cosmic radiance wouldn't be mostly at faster than light another prediction of Cosmic Jet Cosmology Click or see link at Bottom of Page. This would be the mechanism of jets in general... gravity squeezes them with exclusion of the fields like electromagnetism for "antigravity" that lifts us against the gravity, the sideways quanta of the aligned particles of the higher energy forces above gravity allow no sideways motion as much by GWD and Maxwell's method I use like of galaxies so the heavier particles form the jet, and the gravity squeezes the tube and it radiates out. If the inward implosion is at the speed of light, the outward motion would be faster than light. It always takes faster motion than the escape velocity to move away from a massive body, or at any rate something with more momentum than the field. The advantage of faster than light radiance of the jets is that the energy needed is internal to the massive field. The singularity doesn't collapse as Einstein thought, energy is conserved and explanations using mere external fields (since no faster than light fields are allowed in these explanations and hence just fields outside the massive bodies would power the jets by relativity alone) to power the jets would come up short of energy to power them. The jets would implode just like all there is if there is no solid foundation inside the massive body.
Why Einstein Believed The EPR was "Spooky"?
He thought of it as faster than light, actually he was setting it up in hopes of proving relativity, yet his proof failed and has been more and more refined with time.. More recently "noncomunication" seems to prove Einstein's belief. Experiments with using the copying of the machines seem to send the signal as Einstein believed, but they can't "copy" so some say "no information is sent at Faster Than Light" after all. I've seen some comments that involve two beliefs about this; Sam and Betsy are at the motel, they put in the spin up wheel or the spin down wheel, by agreed convention center! Then they go to other realms, Sam opens the present and so does Betsy, and due to the initial union, they always find the wheels are aligned and no signal is sent.
Another interpretation of the EPR is about how it's measured, only by collapse of the wave function of the two wheels spinning. Since it's impossible to know how the wave function would collapse to measure it, relativists believe there is fundamental randomness, noncopying, that is impossible to solve, if Einstein was wrong here too about this, and Relativity wins. I believe the collapse of the wave function isn't even about relativity itself; it's merely like a shredder of a machine that then sends the signal at faster than light, if Einstein would have known. What I mean is this; if the wheels are just changed first by a random process, then we see if the other wheel fits the first, yet indeed the process of the wave function is mostly random this is evidence for Einstein's awe about the EPR.
Since the collapse of the wave function is a random process fitting within the weighted distribution, that the other wave aligns after the collapse of the wave function would only be if it were faster than light as Einstein believed. For simple spins of the wheels, the EPR could be interpreted as a reversed time event, the two boxes at the motel are only unified there. However for more complex wave function collapse events, the boxes will have first the random output of the near event, completely determined by such as Feynmans method, and this is as if the particle is less influenced by the entanglement, and then the other particle if by a signal between the two would have more nonrandom alignment, and this would be not time reversed since the first collapse is a nonreversable event.
How to possibly make use of this about the EPR...
I think of the wave function as like a gas about to change phase and condense to the solid of the particle seen. Though the wave may seem completely unpredictable probability rules apply. Thus I believe we might get around the cause of the randomness here that limits the communication by control of the change of phase using a focused implosion of a matter wave in the realm of the collapse. Since the randomness here would be the cause of the noncommunication, better control might then allow communication.
To generate the matter wave, standing waves of crystals or focused waves of other types might be used.
Einstein and others used arguments against the EPR that sound like or are related to objections to Newton's gravity of action at a distance, this is one reason I believe gravity may be involved with it. Einstein had this intuition and perhaps his method failed. I've asked whether the "antigravity" of the fields of subatomic physics could be by exclusion of the field lines of the more basic field of gravity. The gravity doesn't shield here because the gravity itself would perhaps flow around this zone of each "heavy light" muon or other denizen of the subatomic world, so here the conservation laws are explained and so is the lack of shielding of gravity. (The conservation laws go from low energy to higher with more and more properties conserved even though by energy conservation they would all be made of the same basic field of gravity, energised up to electromagnetism, electromagnetism up to the strong force, ect. CLICK HERE for more ). If gravitons just bounce off the outside of each muon or meson or electron and then flows around, gravity would remain distinct even if Einstein was right in a more general sense, like about energy conservation. The forces by the conservation laws both change yet stay the same from lower to higher energy in general.
Even if the forces are distinct there is still the necessity all the forces are unified too. That is, the outer zone where the electic field starts to not exclude the gravity may connect in a more complex way in order that the gravity being a nonlinear acceleration acts on the particle. If the EPR is a sort of gravity, where is the strong shielding gravity? In Special Relativity, I've used an argument like Einstein used for the EPR he could have also used to see it may violate relativity. Light holds itself together here by cohesion of the wave yet in SR it's already at the speed of light so no information to unify it is sent, and the light should lose it's information by random connection with distance. (As I say on my synopsis page link at upper left, another related argument applys about the acceleration of gravity nearer to starship earth; if the acceleration is at c no change or acceleration could take place, yet gravity is an acceleration, from higher to here where we rest up by our cozy machine of March.) And the lights redshift somehow knows about how to change to fit the speed of the now accelerated starship even if itself is just at the speed of light, thus it may be faster than light. These two ideas about Special Relativity both don't involve gravity, there's no gravity there, so the EPR may be like like a much stronger gravity that may link gravity to the subatomic realm as Einstein hoped to prove. Perhaps gravity is neither strong via the paradox here because the EPR isn't common without entanglement, and yet it has no shielding if it's like gravity also. The complex entanglement in my belief would fit in Einstein's other idea that there may be a low energy particle to get around the Uncertainty Problem, click here (Entanglement). Each electron far from identical, would have a characteristic set of particles that make it unique to all the others except the other entangled particle, and this would involve a complex wave between the two entangled particles at Faster Than Light. (The lack of finding these subparticles would be because the matter waves and fields acting like higher energy gravity would operate by acceleration. Gravity if opposite relativity is because, e.g. the Earth is more at rest and priveledged than the sun, and the moon less than the Earth with less gravity, and also it implodes to one unity yet electromagnetism like the electromagnetic speed of light of Special Relativity would radiate out to many ect. If gravity is the "opposite" of relativity, the speed of the gravity waves may also change with the wavelength causing acceleration, unlike the wavelength only in Special Relativity and linear motion, many overlapping changes in wavelength and speed of the gravity waves or the EPR could make a sort of swimming pool to rock by incoming particles, thus Einstein's low particles are there as by the evidence about the combinations like rishons as I say on the link, they are just too smoothed out by the jostling to find directly. A solution I've believed may be possible to find may be to slowly move two particles like electrons together over months or years to try to map out the field without random changes to seperate signal from noise, not the quanta rather the magnetic fields, and with the pressure balanced on both sides using magnetic interferometry.)
If all the fields are one by the conservation laws, there may be a zone on the outside of each heavy particle where gravity and electromagnetism combine, not the complete union that Einstein believed, but enough alike to have properties of each, or neither. Thus the acceleration of gravity and conservation of momentum here would indeed involve more than just simple ricochet of "the Einstein" the particles of his name, yet the gravity could be stopped or caused by use of the EPR, even if without shielding as like gravity. The EPR like gravity being lighter than light would move much faster than light, even if it's distinct. Even so the complexity of a nonlinear field if somewhat like electromagnetism would seem to involve something like shielding except if there might be something like a phase shift at lower energy. The quanta here might be more like a small flattened out saucer the waves of the EPR might flow in and out of at higher speed, this would be how graviy acts like a superfluid, flowing from cold to hot. Though T'Hooft's idea that information is always conveyed on the surface I believe is lacking in depth because the Earth's life is on the surface yet evolution has changed the higher information of the life in nonlinear ways that aren't all the information powered by the work done in of light powering the life, for more basic high energy systems I agree that this is important. Thus the outer zone where each force interacts with it's higher energy level with the higher up force would be of import, here to both gravity and electromagnetism by the EPR, and also via confinement of the electric charges and the strong force so the fractional charges would always add up only to + or - electric charges, a neat way to solve confinement. Indeed by the speed of light I think of Special Relativity itself as a sort of confinement of the electric field. If gravity is outside the influence somewhat of Special Relativity, if light being outside the strong force is generally faster than a heavy particle, perhaps gravity in turn may be faster than light, see my synopsis page for more..
As the gravity or matter wave swirls around the heavy particle information about its momentum would be exchanged. I think it's possible it may be a bit more complex than linear, even so if the basic field is acceleration, there may be complexity, but complexity may not be a problem if it at another frequency of resonance, like two antennas of other harmonics. Even if the EPR may be controlled by the electromagnetic resonance of the collapse of the wave function, if this is separate from the external matter wave itself, the external wave could act more like gravity as I say above.
Einstein was hoping for a way to stop or boost gravity at will, and by the above it's possible we might be able to actually use the EPR on so many particles the force would be like gravity, without shielding. Even so the EPR may only have value for communications, computers and perhaps finding advanced civilizations much sooner. For quantum cryptography and other :"sound links", I believe this may not be of value because "the Einstein" may allow changing the EPR without it being seen by the recieving machine enroute.
About the phase shift of the jets, the speed of galaxies, or the EPR these are some new lines of evidence about GWD proofs, but there are perhaps 20 more I use, to me these seem of value.
For my general frame of this idea General Wave Dynamics leading me to start looking for disproofs of relativity in comments like the above and predictions click the link.
Click Here for my (general) ideas about cosmology!)
Einstein said "if one of his ideas go they all go"..about relativity. What did he know about poverty? He was richer than Ritchy Poor in Nobel Gold! Even so he had some strong general antirelativistic trends. He believed in quantum physics that the observer didn't have to influence the observed particle and that the EPR was indeed faster than light (after he found out, at any rate by the experiment that seems to disprove relativity).. He also believed other things that seem antirelativist. He believed that is that light was a particle and unchanged in speed from emission to absorption in Special Relativity, and yet that the wave particle duality was also to be seen.
Einstein didn't believe Faster Than Light was impossible just that if a mass or wave was faster than light it would always move at FTL.
Even if there are there are many experiments proving Special Relativity, Einstein still had this way of belief about relativity being incomplete. In a sense the above, about the Uncertainty principle, the "spooky action" of the Bell experiments, and the wave particle are already seeming disproof of relativity, and seem at least evidence that it's incomplete.
Here are what I consider to be more disproof, or evidence that there is more than relativity in the cosmos.
SUPERLUMINAL PHASE SHIFT OF COSMIC JETS
The jets seen are in the line of sight, and it seems Faster than Light. Simple belief in relativity has the solution that there is a "phase shift". We see the jet in the line of sight so it's just a "trick of perspective". Actually, the phase shift is taken to be where the light of the high speed jets is almost at the speed of light. The light emmited from the jets "chases the source" causing compression of the wave as seen according to the phase shift, this in turnis believed to make the events from light emitted over hundreds of years seem to be emmitted in just years, so it's believed it seems faster than light but actually isn't. If the light is actually more like superluminal scissors, we might think the distance being closer would cause a slower speed not faster. In any event if the phase shift is by the line of sight, if the jets are indeed faster than light if we see them at right angles to our line of sight there is no way the phase shift can explain this. One reason I believe the jets may be superluminal is they must overcome the inward implosion of the field of gravity and if this is at the speed of light or faster, the outward reaction force of the jet would need more momentum than the inward radiance of the field and so on. The Wikipedia page on superluminal motion says the maximum angle for the phase shift to work is 19 degrees, yet some jets have up to 47 degrees.
Superluminal Motion of Cosmic Expansion
Here again I was left with a bit of fizz phyizics indigestion; The observation is that galaxies are seen sped away often at faster than light on all sides. Relativity must be so, right? Thus inflation cosmology will save on the rates for us; the solution is, "use the creation of the low energy field"). By this attempt to save relativity with Inflation Cosmology the galaxies aren't even moving, there's no force acting on them, the cosmic radiance outward is not of mass energy, it's caused by the creation of space (or field) So the galaxies aren't moving at Faster Than Light, the space created between them is de novo so they are mostly unchanged by relativity. The idea of no force acting on all the bodies may look like uniform motion, as you may know actually the acceleration of the outward radiance is speeding up. And recent assays with the Sloane Sky Survey finds that the galaxies to the N of us are spinning more clockwise, and to the S anticlockwise, which seems counter to Inflation Cosmology with its super high speed era that was used to explain the general cosmic isotropic 3K radiation (if left over from the Big Bang) by high speed stretching and smoothing. If it's not uniform motion, a force is acting on the mass and it could be a connection at Faster Than Light. We also may be able to measure the force acting on them by like changes in the field near and far the line of radiance out. Note that axis of spin of the Milky way also is lined up well with the line of outward radiance by the cosmic expansion, and this doesn't seem a coincidence.
To me the main problem with the expansion of space invoked to explain the motion of galaxies away from us at Faster Than Light is that with more space and the same amount of time, velocity is higher, it's simple. (Actually it doesn't matter where the space came from and I believe it's the low energy field filling up the space between the galaxies..). More space (more field) would mean more space per unit time, more velocity, and Faster Than Light Motion.
What is the low energy field between the galaxies made of? I believe it can't be empty space because light is a wave, and something is waving, in use of Maxwell's method he used to exactly predict the speed of light. The force between the somewhat distinct charges plus and minus is constant, so the predicted speed of light is too, though Maxwell realized if the charges were of other levels, they would change the speed of light in a simple method via the assumption of the resilient medium. Thus if we can see the galaxies there would be a low energy electromagnetic field the light would move through to travel the distance to us from the source. . The field wouldn't be quanta as via Maxwell because the quanta would uphold the speed of light and the galaxies couldn't be moving faster than light. Actually there are vast magnetic fields between the galaxies, and magnetic fields aren't quantised, so they are wavelike and I believe if they are well aligned they may be "slippery" enough to slide by Einstein's speed of light. There is also the gravitational field imploding inward to the cosmic center, and if this is also lighter than light by my use of Maxwell's method, perhaps it's much faster than light.
Two forces may be acting on the radiance outward of the massive bodies, gravity inward, and the magnetic field radiant outward at a slower speed than light to exert the "local" force under the compression of gravity to cause the cosmic radiance. I believe most masses like galaxies may have much more of the dark matter because they would have the slow gravitons to cause the slow gravity like the earth, and the much higher speed waves to unify all the fields by high speed synchronization like a superfluid to solve the problem any particle theory of gravity has that particles being with sides will radiate outward not inward like gravity. More about both waves and particles click here. Galileo when asked if the earth had particles causing the gravity if you toss up a mass like a rock why doesn't it move against the particles from the side as the earth goes around the sun, and Galileo's answer was the particles were like an atmosphere the earth carries with it. If you toss up the wheel or starship satellite it rises, and falls radially.
The atmosphere of the particles would only have a finite radius like the atmosphere, and beyond this the waves would have reduced resistance and move faster, this may cause the 1000x increase of the galaxies mass astronomers see by way of how the gravity changes other masses with not enough visible mass seen, and this would be why the Pioneer spacecraft are moving faster outside the solar system's bubble than they would by common gravity. The galaxies would connect even if Faster Than Light by gravity. The gravity implosion of the cosmos would be stronger at longer distance and lower energy and line up the magnetic fields. The NS particles would attract and unify with the gravity to implode toward the center of the universe, and be removed more while the NN and SS particles would with stand the implosion and power the outward motion. At high enough speed and low enough energy I believe gravity might overpower the entropy of the particles to not align NN and SS. If you squeeze an orange most of the flow is inward while some of it being lighter will resist and radiate outward. With cosmic radiance if the cosmos was closed as expected the galaxies would slow down by about 37% yet they are speeding up by the same 37% in acceleration. The solution here wouldn't be dark energy, just the more you squeeze the orange the more orange juice squeezes out in your jug. I always thought cosmic expansion was powered by the magnetic fields, not dark energy, even so here gravity would behave unlike common gravity, being stronger to align more of the magnetic fields. Gravity would squeeze the magnetic fields, and they would react, powering that much more cosmic radiance.
Another way to prove the speed of gravity here, if it's Faster Than Light may be about the degree of alignment of the galaxies, if Einstein's idea that gravity was at just the speed of light, then no signal will connect the distant galaxies if they move away at Faster Than Light so no force will unify them, yet if gravity is faster it will connect farther with more force. Thus, how much the distant masses are aligned or not may tell us about the speed of gravity, more alignment, it's Faster Than Light. Both the gravity and the magnetic fields would exert force on the galaxies, even so the line would of both wouldn't be the same if gravity is of higher speed.
If the magnetic fields are aligned, at right angles there is still the quanta, so galaxies at right angles to our cosmic radiance wouldn't be mostly at faster than light another prediction of Cosmic Jet Cosmology Click or see link at Bottom of Page. This would be the mechanism of jets in general... gravity squeezes them with exclusion of the fields like electromagnetism for "antigravity" that lifts us against the gravity, the sideways quanta of the aligned particles of the higher energy forces above gravity allow no sideways motion as much by GWD and Maxwell's method I use like of galaxies so the heavier particles form the jet, and the gravity squeezes the tube and it radiates out. If the inward implosion is at the speed of light, the outward motion would be faster than light. It always takes faster motion than the escape velocity to move away from a massive body, or at any rate something with more momentum than the field. The advantage of faster than light radiance of the jets is that the energy needed is internal to the massive field. The singularity doesn't collapse as Einstein thought, energy is conserved and explanations using mere external fields (since no faster than light fields are allowed in these explanations and hence just fields outside the massive bodies would power the jets by relativity alone) to power the jets would come up short of energy to power them. The jets would implode just like all there is if there is no solid foundation inside the massive body.
Why Einstein Believed The EPR was "Spooky"?
He thought of it as faster than light, actually he was setting it up in hopes of proving relativity, yet his proof failed and has been more and more refined with time.. More recently "noncomunication" seems to prove Einstein's belief. Experiments with using the copying of the machines seem to send the signal as Einstein believed, but they can't "copy" so some say "no information is sent at Faster Than Light" after all. I've seen some comments that involve two beliefs about this; Sam and Betsy are at the motel, they put in the spin up wheel or the spin down wheel, by agreed convention center! Then they go to other realms, Sam opens the present and so does Betsy, and due to the initial union, they always find the wheels are aligned and no signal is sent.
Another interpretation of the EPR is about how it's measured, only by collapse of the wave function of the two wheels spinning. Since it's impossible to know how the wave function would collapse to measure it, relativists believe there is fundamental randomness, noncopying, that is impossible to solve, if Einstein was wrong here too about this, and Relativity wins. I believe the collapse of the wave function isn't even about relativity itself; it's merely like a shredder of a machine that then sends the signal at faster than light, if Einstein would have known. What I mean is this; if the wheels are just changed first by a random process, then we see if the other wheel fits the first, yet indeed the process of the wave function is mostly random this is evidence for Einstein's awe about the EPR.
Since the collapse of the wave function is a random process fitting within the weighted distribution, that the other wave aligns after the collapse of the wave function would only be if it were faster than light as Einstein believed. For simple spins of the wheels, the EPR could be interpreted as a reversed time event, the two boxes at the motel are only unified there. However for more complex wave function collapse events, the boxes will have first the random output of the near event, completely determined by such as Feynmans method, and this is as if the particle is less influenced by the entanglement, and then the other particle if by a signal between the two would have more nonrandom alignment, and this would be not time reversed since the first collapse is a nonreversable event.
How to possibly make use of this about the EPR...
I think of the wave function as like a gas about to change phase and condense to the solid of the particle seen. Though the wave may seem completely unpredictable probability rules apply. Thus I believe we might get around the cause of the randomness here that limits the communication by control of the change of phase using a focused implosion of a matter wave in the realm of the collapse. Since the randomness here would be the cause of the noncommunication, better control might then allow communication.
To generate the matter wave, standing waves of crystals or focused waves of other types might be used.
Einstein and others used arguments against the EPR that sound like or are related to objections to Newton's gravity of action at a distance, this is one reason I believe gravity may be involved with it. Einstein had this intuition and perhaps his method failed. I've asked whether the "antigravity" of the fields of subatomic physics could be by exclusion of the field lines of the more basic field of gravity. The gravity doesn't shield here because the gravity itself would perhaps flow around this zone of each "heavy light" muon or other denizen of the subatomic world, so here the conservation laws are explained and so is the lack of shielding of gravity. (The conservation laws go from low energy to higher with more and more properties conserved even though by energy conservation they would all be made of the same basic field of gravity, energised up to electromagnetism, electromagnetism up to the strong force, ect. CLICK HERE for more ). If gravitons just bounce off the outside of each muon or meson or electron and then flows around, gravity would remain distinct even if Einstein was right in a more general sense, like about energy conservation. The forces by the conservation laws both change yet stay the same from lower to higher energy in general.
Even if the forces are distinct there is still the necessity all the forces are unified too. That is, the outer zone where the electic field starts to not exclude the gravity may connect in a more complex way in order that the gravity being a nonlinear acceleration acts on the particle. If the EPR is a sort of gravity, where is the strong shielding gravity? In Special Relativity, I've used an argument like Einstein used for the EPR he could have also used to see it may violate relativity. Light holds itself together here by cohesion of the wave yet in SR it's already at the speed of light so no information to unify it is sent, and the light should lose it's information by random connection with distance. (As I say on my synopsis page link at upper left, another related argument applys about the acceleration of gravity nearer to starship earth; if the acceleration is at c no change or acceleration could take place, yet gravity is an acceleration, from higher to here where we rest up by our cozy machine of March.) And the lights redshift somehow knows about how to change to fit the speed of the now accelerated starship even if itself is just at the speed of light, thus it may be faster than light. These two ideas about Special Relativity both don't involve gravity, there's no gravity there, so the EPR may be like like a much stronger gravity that may link gravity to the subatomic realm as Einstein hoped to prove. Perhaps gravity is neither strong via the paradox here because the EPR isn't common without entanglement, and yet it has no shielding if it's like gravity also. The complex entanglement in my belief would fit in Einstein's other idea that there may be a low energy particle to get around the Uncertainty Problem, click here (Entanglement). Each electron far from identical, would have a characteristic set of particles that make it unique to all the others except the other entangled particle, and this would involve a complex wave between the two entangled particles at Faster Than Light. (The lack of finding these subparticles would be because the matter waves and fields acting like higher energy gravity would operate by acceleration. Gravity if opposite relativity is because, e.g. the Earth is more at rest and priveledged than the sun, and the moon less than the Earth with less gravity, and also it implodes to one unity yet electromagnetism like the electromagnetic speed of light of Special Relativity would radiate out to many ect. If gravity is the "opposite" of relativity, the speed of the gravity waves may also change with the wavelength causing acceleration, unlike the wavelength only in Special Relativity and linear motion, many overlapping changes in wavelength and speed of the gravity waves or the EPR could make a sort of swimming pool to rock by incoming particles, thus Einstein's low particles are there as by the evidence about the combinations like rishons as I say on the link, they are just too smoothed out by the jostling to find directly. A solution I've believed may be possible to find may be to slowly move two particles like electrons together over months or years to try to map out the field without random changes to seperate signal from noise, not the quanta rather the magnetic fields, and with the pressure balanced on both sides using magnetic interferometry.)
If all the fields are one by the conservation laws, there may be a zone on the outside of each heavy particle where gravity and electromagnetism combine, not the complete union that Einstein believed, but enough alike to have properties of each, or neither. Thus the acceleration of gravity and conservation of momentum here would indeed involve more than just simple ricochet of "the Einstein" the particles of his name, yet the gravity could be stopped or caused by use of the EPR, even if without shielding as like gravity. The EPR like gravity being lighter than light would move much faster than light, even if it's distinct. Even so the complexity of a nonlinear field if somewhat like electromagnetism would seem to involve something like shielding except if there might be something like a phase shift at lower energy. The quanta here might be more like a small flattened out saucer the waves of the EPR might flow in and out of at higher speed, this would be how graviy acts like a superfluid, flowing from cold to hot. Though T'Hooft's idea that information is always conveyed on the surface I believe is lacking in depth because the Earth's life is on the surface yet evolution has changed the higher information of the life in nonlinear ways that aren't all the information powered by the work done in of light powering the life, for more basic high energy systems I agree that this is important. Thus the outer zone where each force interacts with it's higher energy level with the higher up force would be of import, here to both gravity and electromagnetism by the EPR, and also via confinement of the electric charges and the strong force so the fractional charges would always add up only to + or - electric charges, a neat way to solve confinement. Indeed by the speed of light I think of Special Relativity itself as a sort of confinement of the electric field. If gravity is outside the influence somewhat of Special Relativity, if light being outside the strong force is generally faster than a heavy particle, perhaps gravity in turn may be faster than light, see my synopsis page for more..
As the gravity or matter wave swirls around the heavy particle information about its momentum would be exchanged. I think it's possible it may be a bit more complex than linear, even so if the basic field is acceleration, there may be complexity, but complexity may not be a problem if it at another frequency of resonance, like two antennas of other harmonics. Even if the EPR may be controlled by the electromagnetic resonance of the collapse of the wave function, if this is separate from the external matter wave itself, the external wave could act more like gravity as I say above.
Einstein was hoping for a way to stop or boost gravity at will, and by the above it's possible we might be able to actually use the EPR on so many particles the force would be like gravity, without shielding. Even so the EPR may only have value for communications, computers and perhaps finding advanced civilizations much sooner. For quantum cryptography and other :"sound links", I believe this may not be of value because "the Einstein" may allow changing the EPR without it being seen by the recieving machine enroute.
About the phase shift of the jets, the speed of galaxies, or the EPR these are some new lines of evidence about GWD proofs, but there are perhaps 20 more I use, to me these seem of value.
For my general frame of this idea General Wave Dynamics leading me to start looking for disproofs of relativity in comments like the above and predictions click the link.
Click Here for my (general) ideas about cosmology!)
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
How Help to Air Travel And Sleep
We read of John F Kennedy Jr., son of president JFK who was learning to fly his small plane, hurt his foot and went up with his beautiful wife Caroyln Bissett who liked to be near him as they got away from fame for awhile in the clouds, so understandably millions of people were sad and hope perhaps for a better way for people like Caroyln to have the advantage of solitude and feel good.. A pillow has been invented that has air inside for better breathing; research finds those who have sleep when they breathe with actually in the 37% who have ADD, and merely 9% who breathe well have sleep problems about how they breath. The pillow may make it better for sleep with the soft whoosh of fresh breath to soothe noise. Research also shows loud sound while you sleep makes blood pressure rise for even hours after you hear the noise and 200,000 people a year are estimated to die of noise each year. The pillow could be water cooled or by hot and cool air, and massage you and tell you jokes or even improve your brain waves by computer as you sleep!
This could be a solution for anyone to have great sleep even the rich and famous because noise is changing sound by the physics and the soft flow of air in the pillow may be the best bed bought in years for city dwellers,Wouldn't you like the sue the beds that say you can buy better sleep for 10,000, and you imagine those people buying a bed and then realize sympathizing is rich and for this cushion for cheap. If dreamers feel good with a cushion they may feel good for the world.
About the plane, another sort of bubble has been devised, a bubble of magnetic field to form a cheap lift much simpler than the 200 or more parts of a gas engine. No explosions, like perhaps 3 components so so much more reliable.
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska who was a proponent of small plane safety died in a plane crash, and indeed these planes have a much higher mortality rate. This may be perhaps because small planes are at lower altitude and most crashes are on takeoff and landing, the larger planes are higher up, if they have radiance, so be it!
A cushion for sleep and a plane that won't crash.. more could be achieved to comfort of most including even the rich.. Like a good head phone that converts sound to your favorite words not just 5 when you go to a speech and the same stuff is said and others yell. If there is a commencement speech that is boring with lots of comedy added in by the machine this might launch lots of people to a life of real riches of both health and safety like J and Caroyln deserved..
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Was Maxwell More Awake Than Einstein 1n 1857?
Einstein admired Maxwell more than any other physicist about Relativity, he copied Maxwell the most.
If we take a pump and remove the air, sound stops yet the light whizzes right through the empty bottle. It's been said there is no evidence for waving medium, but if we have a small rocket ship inside the bottle, or a larger ship in the cosmos, it exerts force on the field as it moves forward, both from the exhaust and the force resisting the motion forward, to me this seems evidence there is the low energy field the wave is waving. For any change in momentum between the ship and the universe it seem reasonable there would be a force felt by the medium. If there were no change in the field there would be no change felt. If there was nothing there, there could be no change. Another reason I believe in this medium is because of Aristotle's reasoning, a truly empty space is impossible since it would allow travel at infinite velocity. We can have any density we may like as Maxwell used to predict the speed of light, but zero density is improbable.
Changes of the pressure via speed could explain how mass is invariant yet we can change the weight by being nearer or farther from gravity.
Click here about my solution to questions about what may be the probable density of the medium Maxwell used.
Click Here for My Solutions to time Reversal, Why Is this Not a Disproof of Faster Than light?
My general method a hopeful generalization of Maxwell's idea is that different density may allow for different speeds, not just of light but of FTL gravity and the strong force too, General wave Dynamics GWD. Here's My GWD Synopsis, or Click link at The Bottom after you read this post. SR is a local loop of the field. Perhaps if we assume that we are trying to prove in a more general GWD and then search where we might find it, the loop is not complete.
If the medium exists between electric charges as Maxwell believed the empty space time is replaced in GWD with the low energy field. If all is made of matter and gravity attracts and compresses to make the other mass since if there were no gravity the non gravity forces would have long since fizzled to 0 density by positive entropy and if the field is empty, perhaps all there is is made of nothing by relativity.
By the above, the medium seems to exist and this explains where the extra physics are from as a starsailor nears the speed of light, more pressure higher mass.
Maxwell used the constant electric charges to arrive at the speed of light, if there were a bit more or reduced positive charge the speed of light would have changed according to the density of the light. Assuming what is proven here is to say we can't ever go FTL not because the light isn't fluid, rather because the charges are constant and the light is well founded. This would be why SR is a real loop, there are a large number of charges, and they never seem to change. No change here, and SR wins, except as I say SR seems lacking in horse sense..
The quanta are real important, because my First Principle is Field Preservation, there had to be one! If the foundation gravity wasn't more implosive than reradiant where would we be? It has to hold well or the zero density of heat flowing from hot to cold without Preservation would not allow us what we love, a hug by Mother Earth. The Second Principle is that they can't implode to 0 or we couldn't be here. Einstein could have realized this and not changed his belief about super massive fields, they don't implode to 0 instead they put out huge jets often. I believe this may be because of a fifth and sixth reaction force inside these events not a singularity, violating energy conservation. In GWD they spin at FTL so the can stand up to the FTL inward flow of the field, perhaps a good reason here to believe in FTL too. Only if they spin at FTL would this seem possible. (The particles of these forces would fizzle out to usual particles outside the jets because only under the super pressure of the massive bodies would they not fizz out. This would be why we see none of these heavy particles around us in the Solar System or the Earth.)
Quanta are the balancing point where the implosion start to reradiate, answering Einstein's ancient greek question, why does the electron have the charge and mass it does? Why not my being so rich I read the yellow pages and in the shade?
SR has won so well as far as it has because there has to be both implosion and reradiance and they have to balance somewhere near! Even so quanta are an emergent way of quantum physics, they can't be nailed down, the absolute quanta couldn't change and these is no seperating the waves from the quanta, we can't say where are the quanta because the waves around them are indefinite, there is no where the quanta are definite. All the parameters and dependant variables, only the Higgs' is external.
If the quanta aren't absolute, it becomes possible SR isn't absolute, and if the feild is rather like a field of the atmosphere or water, our machines may allow improvement with.
If we have an ocean the cosmic ocean or life's a beach, say and we send a torpedo through it the fluid will react and make it add mass like in SR. If all the rockets are the same and the density of the wave is too, some might say, this is an absolute wall, no faster to go is ever seen since the force of the wall is always more than the small force of the rocket. This arises from the assumption of the medium.
The area of the torpedo is important to the infinite mass of the wave, if each torpedo has a limited area, this doesn't mean it would always be so. A larger torpedo would need more force to move at higher speed, and this is just why a heavy mass usually weighs more and I imagine smaller than quanta breaking the loop, like the low energy quantum experiments where they twist light to make a much smaller bubble of subquantum size, that may help us in physics.
If we assume the quanta are not absolute and that all the rockets may not be the same, this might be a way out of the loop. There are torpedos that go at 4 times the speed of most torpedos, this is achieved by smoothing the field by moving some of the flow of exhaust ahead of the machine, this forms a more fluid air zone around it that is so smooth, the "impossible" wave has better flow. The limits of relativity might also be a mirage, one of only inefficiency of machines so far.
In GWD the fractional charges of the strong force are lighter than light so by F=ma not Emc2 they may spin at that much faster than light. The charges average out to about e.g. 1/3+ 2/3+ 1/2 or 9/6 so the inverse speed would be about 1.3 times c, a generally close agreement with Stephen Chou's shelftop experiments.
Here's a way we might prove or disprove GWD in this respect;
If you know physics well you know the noncommunication limit of the Bell Theorem seems to fit SR, and other tricks like the superluminal scissors fail the FTL method because though you can change the group phase and other phases, you can't change the information signal.
The difference between propulsion methods like rockets and more advanced machines in the IP are about what seems to be what distinguishes SR from GWD. SR involves light and what is seen from a distance, light controlled no doubt by the quanta, even so what we feel seems always more real than the vain visions of looks, the religions of the world tell us so. When there was the evidence in for SR one math genius stubbed his foot on the ground, and said, "I refute it thus!" I believe what I feel more than what I see because there's more work done from inside than control from outside, we don't have others eat or exercise for us, or the rich might!
Machines are being devised called momentum transfer,and allow e.g. going to a distant zone like Mars or Jupiter in weeks not days by sending up a "weight" that is caught by the vehicle, then "thrown" in turn to create a reaction force, that's of higher efficiency because what is felt is of higher power than the low energy field. Another good kind of momentum transfer machine in IP are super computers that uses small levers that are higher speed than any other computer, and are not knocked out by electric shock pulses and that are of real efficiency because unlike quanta they don't have all the friction going in and out of the ons and offs, these are some typical advantages of momentum transfer, and indeed, molecular flywheels may store higher power and convert mass to energy at higher efficiency than chemical methods.
If the water and torpedo are in balance I propose that we make a small torpedo and experiment with ways of improving both the efficiency of flow like the air torpedo and also the momentum transfer method. This would be how the fractional charges of QCD could be faster than light, they have reduced friction because they're lighter than light, and there is more force pushing them as they spin, the force on them is stronger like the rocket's push and so they go fast.
The machine would be like a linear accelerator, with the small rocket. We know from QED that the matter waves can be shaped by the matter like electrons or protons, to add the "air" around it like the torpedo, we start changing the low energy fields around the small machine. There may be two ways to do this, by changing the general shape of the shock wave with acceleration, like with small strakes or changes in the phase of the waves, much as in airplanes this improves airflow. The other way may be about changes also in the frequency of the shock wave, and so on.
Here we realize that particle accelerators have never once had a proton or electron move faster than light. They always gain mass at just the relativity rate. But the quanta and the light are in a loop. To make an information wave at FTL you need a wave other than light, and light is the only other wave than gravity that's present in the accelerator, so there is no information signal available at that low energy to send the information at FTL, the accelerator uses relativity to prove relativity. In GWD this isn't a real proof.
The field is a low energy field like the Mars ship in the IP above, but if we always use a low energy field instead of momentum transfer and ways to also hope to perhaps improve flow as the torpedo the mass (of the ship) and the energy (of the field) may be more nearly the same as in SR and so the loop can't be broken, other than the possible ways of inventing new GWD machines like the rocket and field method. If the wall is the same and the torpedos are the same, the resistance of the wall of the wave will always seem to take infinite force to go past a certain speed but this may only be if we assume the quanta and thus the waves are unchangable. By building improved machines I believe, as with the strong force we may.
In GWD gravity is a "machine" that maintains its own motion being an acceleration; being lighter than light F=ma (lower density, higher speed) it may have enough reduced friction it has it's own flow and force much the same, the same as a superfluid flowing from cold to hot. In GWD gravity may break the SR loop by fluidity more than force.
As I say above, using field modulation experiments around the small machine may help it travel in violation of SR as with reduced mass augment via the "air" around the small machine being improved like the torpedo, and also I believe we might combine this with momentum transfer. Remember FTL spin of the fractional charges in QCD is caused in GWD both by the reduced friction and smoothing of the field but also by the greater force inside the baryon or meson like the exhaust of the rocket. Even so because of the equivalence of mass and energy, the loop may enough that there needs to be enough of both in special events like this of both high energy and mass density, e.g. how the fifth and sixth force inside supermassive fields could do this.
Note that these events are "hidden" from relativity, the SR loop only applies to the outside of heavy particles mostly, In GWD the external charges only add up to 1 -1 or zero, unifying to relativity. The hiddeness would be how and why there are combinations of the fractional charges possible e.g. with net fractional charge never seen, these would violate SR at low energy and this would be the cause of confinement not a nonintuitave force that gets stronger with distance, which wouldn't radiate out in three dimentions. By geometry there isn't more room inside a mass than outside.
To add momentum transfer we might use something like a rail and use small kick machines, none at FTL like as the superluminal scissors yet like the sign of your name in lights by Pearl Vision each in it's own real might boost the speed in violation of SR. Another method of momentum transfer might be to use some sort of propulsion system inside the machine. The machine is small because as mass and energy aren't equal in GWD a small mass has more energy not the same so it's high speed with more force applied, not the heavy mass. If a big mass was used a much more expensive machine would have to be built.
Here's My GWD General Wave Dynamics Synopsis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)