Why is There More Matter Than Antimatter if both Special Relativity and Subatomic Physics Are well Proven?
Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter based on the union of special relativity with quantum mechanics. As I say on this page Click Here he also predicted magnetic monopoles based on the same blend of physics (and just a bit of sci fi.). If magnetic monopoles are indeed not found, this seems to imply either SR or quantum mechanics is more of worth, and since the latter has many more complex predictions that are not about SR, with no “loose ends” special relativity SR in my belief may only be a subset of subatomic physics. Relativity won’t tell us why the mass of an Lamda or what the S quantum number is, so I believe relativity is incomplete.
Since there are no monopoles found, this seems to be evidence for this, even so you could also say, if QM and subatomic physics are unified, antimatter would be the result. So why is antimatter found and monopoles are not if there is a distinction of SR and subatomic physics?
In my belief mass and energy are not the same, mass is heavy and unifies to oneness, energy is light and more common, fermions and bosons, the balance of opposites that are all around us, hot and cool, plethora and paucity, earth and moon, research and rest so the web allows memory consolidation for our brain!
In SR mass and energy are called equivalent, the mass augmentation of SR is derived from the motion through the field on acceleration, that is, derived from motion. Motion is energy, so what Einstein assumed to be mass energy equivalence in SR thus is actually not the same wrench of the cosmic magicians, matter which is a bit more like mass, and antimatter, more like energy, are mostly not like mass and energy. Thus the matter antimatter conversion to energy predicted by SR and atomic physics seems more like an energy energy conversion to energy than a mass conversion to energy. It’s highly efficient but this would mostly be because the energy energy of matter and antimatter are more at the same level of power than mass to energy, resonating like two antenna of the same wavelength. In truth if mass and energy were exactly the same there would be no way to say if mass were a wrench or a power washer of the displacement of light on the starship windshield.
Equal and opposite energy energy would be more unstable than the more unequal change of mass to energy..
The asymmetry of matter would be caused by the natural asymmetry of mass and energy, not a mysterious force that some invoke to solve the asymmetry. A particle of this type would have to be in most interactions to mediate the asymmetry, and isn’t seen. The Standard Theory (or what's known about it) has no loose ends (at least on the outside, deeper in I believe the fractional charges may move faster than light with higher density of the wave and so on, my hopefully optimal generalization of Maxwell’s idea he used to predict the speed of light based on the density of the medium of the wave. This higher speed motion inside the particles would explain why there are three generations of fermions even though they all have the same electric charge. This logically follows in what I call my physics of GWD General Wave Dynamics because on the outside of each particle the speed of the spin is just the speed of light to obey relativity so well, and deeper in the spin has the faster than light phase change, and more mass arises for the extra motion because all mass and energy are made of motion and it would take more motion than the speed of light to make a heavier electromagnetic particle than an electron. Electrons and the unified speed of light Maxwell used to predict the speed of light and unified electric charges seem to be all relativity allows. ).
There is much evidence for SR, and even so in GWD it’s true superficially, like what‘s seen from a distance at near the speed of light with no force acting in the rest frame of observers motion. In GWD what we see at great remove is only mere looks, not what we feel, real forces, real control. The religions of the world teach that looks are shallow, and aren’t the higher truth. In order to make the acceleration fit in with the idea of relativity’s uniform motion, or actually just description of the motion without cause, Einstein believed no force of gravity exists, and this was the rather comic way he formulated General Relativity. General Wave Dynamics describes all forces by the causes in Dynamics not just a description of motion.
The superficial truth of SR would be because mass and energy are both based on energy conservation, quantity of motion. Thus while there are small bits and washers of antimatter in the machinists shop shelf of science caused by common physics, there isn’t as much antimatter because stability around us needs the asymmetry between mostly unlike action and reaction. In relativity both high or low speed observers are either at rest or in motion, so mass and energy seem the same, so actually matter and antimatter would be equivalent. If mass and energy were exactly the same they would convert right away, instead it takes billions of years in massive stars, and common reactions in our own cosmic reactor nearby take months to hear about when powertrain returns are at the relative motion of the station..
I believe SR being about the speed of light is mostly a thermodynamic explanation of the large middle realm where electromagnetism is in control. At the extremes like for gravity and the strong force, the waves may be faster than light in GWD by way of a phase change. If antimatter is about electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is about the electric charge on the outside of heavy particles and not deeper in where the fractional charges would perhaps have lightened up to travel faster than light, the equivalence of the electric charge being merely reversed for the antimatter would seem to not hold, because by the phase change in order to not gain infinite relativistic mass at faster than light the inner field by definition would not be interacting to the degree of special relativity. Annihilation may seem to not hold for both the electric field and the strong force of heavy particles if SR is only about the electric field. Annihilation would be efficient it seems because the longer range implosion of the opposite electric charges funnels in the atoms to the antiatom, then the strong force itself is multiplied up more by it’s own power. The general implosion would boost the strong force implosion to higher efficiency and the electric field of the particles may be much stronger at close range due to the compression of the field lines by the strong force. The strong force doesn’t implode much, it’s not long range and yet it’s much stronger than the long range electromagnetism, so the centrifugal force of the longer range electric field has more compressed power here to balance out the implosion or there would be unlimited implosion.
The antimatter of the strong force is always created in pair production out of the lower energy electric charges; all the quantum numbers and conservation laws of the lower energy fields plus more are always conserved for higher energies, thus to make heavy antimatter the exact type that is strong force antimatter of the same energy based on the precision of this interaction is the type that is created, a proton and and an antiproton would annihilate by weigh of the strong force being mirrored by way of the electric field. The control of heavy matter and antimatter annihilation would not be superficial to the electric field because the heavy antimatter itself is mediated by way of the electric field, this would in truth perhaps be the mechanism of confinement, going through the lower energy field where relativity holds to reach the higher energy. This would be why there are other combinations of the fractional charges possible that aren't seen, with heavy particles of resulting fractional charge always caused to be of 1 or -1 because of the necessity of the mediation by way of special relativity always being conserved with the speed of light constant at lower power.
An electron is light and a proton is heavy, why not the other way around, why not a + light particle and a heavy -? A heavy negative stable particle seems possible, though it would much change some atomic and most chemical reactions. The main reason the proton is mostly stable as known may be not because of the weak force, the strong force or electromagnetism alone; these forces are the same as for other mesons and the rest of the heavy particles. I think the stability here is caused instead by the threeness of the fractional charges at the lowest energy of the baryons, this seems to be what’s the most unusual about the proton. The three fractional charges would take more power to cause reactions than the rest of the heavy particles. It’s well established that reactions always go slower if the particle has to flip to another, as I say on this page, my complete proton confinement/stability site with more about this.
The proton’s stability thus seems positive, but only because it’s at the right energy to be stable, not because of any fundamental connection with conservation of electric charge. There are lots of negative heavy particles that aren’t stable, that none of them may be so because there is only the stable proton, which turns out to be positive by resonation with just that positive field there at that energy may just be coincidence. I believe the proton is stable because it has three charges, and is coincidentally positive, but the three charges are caused by it being at that energy level of the wheel rotation in 1000 light years. There could indeed have been a stable heavy negative particle if it were not the same mass as the proton for stability.
Here too even if the stable heavy particle was negative, it would need to have another rest mass than the proton for stability. All energy conservation is based on action reaction pairs, if all is in balance all motion would stop, if you press two weights on the Mazda and lift with force, the car will stay higher while you seal the wheels, even so if it dropped on the station, Ouch! For all to be in motion, the two action reaction pairs need to be unlike, mass and energy, so in GWD the mass energy asymmetry is deeper than relativity.
Monopoles are related to the fundamental necessity for all particles to have angular momentum. All known mass flows through time, the spins would be like small clocks, particles have poles when they spin, thus a monopole is tougher to create than a mere negative bubble of the field. The monopole asymmetry may be a more exact asymmetry based on geometry than matter and antimatter, after all leptons aren’t the opposite of heavy particles, the scale of rest mass of the mesons and leptons and other headlights of the speed of light rest in subatomic physics is continuous. If there were always more energy for more mass by the discontinuous quanta of Emc2 instead of the more general F=ma we would expect that much more antimatter always. In other science, life as in evolution is not about exact opposites, rather more small changes in large numbers.
Dirac’s original conception of matter was a large lower energy level where all the mass was and a higher energy negative “sea” of unoccupied states for the antimatter. Why only one sea mostly not two would be because of the lower energy “sea” being held together by the general cohesion of the field, gravity. The lowest energy field to conserve energy in general has to be implosive because if it were in radiance more than cohesion all the mass of the universe would have fizzled out to 0 density. Lack of cohesion causes instability because by what seems to be the mere energy energy equivalence of SR, no mass is more at rest or in motion, even while gravity is less privileged for the earth than the sun, and less privileged for the moon than the earth by rate of fall. Relativity with no definite place of rest like matter and antimatter would seem inherently unstable, so antimatter’s rarity would be against the complete proof of relativity. Neither Newton or Einstein believed that being at rest in the field of the earth was more fundamental than uniform motion, but those with common knowledge often would remark when work is done, labor is more powerful than rest. As evolution holds, the most behaviour of worth is what creates the most real change. If the low energy field is always flexing and holding the higher fields of the mesons and other light and heavy particles together and work is always being achieved, the most natural way is for the main central flow of the energy to be with more work done by change, not energy to energy, energy to mass. (It’s also much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa, and this would be expected if SR were more superficial than GWD.)
The needed cohesion of the fields would hold the main low energy sea in a central river of flow of the field, mass to energy or energy to mass, but not energy to energy as often. We might indeed think of the central flow of the mass and energy of the particles and forces as the flow of a river, and antimatter as a more rare shore that’s not so easy to reach mostly because it doesn’t flow uphill either. Hold on, You may say, about information and the web to those in complexity math believe that any computer with enough time can solve any problem. If the fields are like a river and a bank this seems like the orbit of the Earth in the old days tough to reach by airplane, but not impossible either. Sooner or later our efficiency at creating antimatter, like cost of payload per pound, may be so much cheaper with improved machines so much that GWD will fail, and (almost) as much matter as antimatter may be created. That certainly seems to be untrue now, because the cost of making antimatter by current methods is estimated at quadrillions to make a gram.
As I say it seems much more that our life was 99% evolved on the land of the world, and while orbit is easy to reach, we won’t live up there for months or year round and around! The cost of living in a space station is estimated to be a million per capita and as it is an explosion caused by a piece of paint could slow the space program’s advance by 25 years, for essentially the same reason about the asymmetry of matter and antimatter in GWD, about efficiency.
Thus antimatter would seem to be limited like travel to Mars by general limits of physics. Here in 2010 we go to orbit as often as we like (within limits) so we may be able to make lots of antimatter, like boosting to orbit, by building tubes (or elevators to orbit) to pump the water from the river to the higher shore. If we could make the tube and pump efficient, perhaps using waves like solitions that don’t lose much energy as they pump the matter into antimatter in the tube, we might be able to create large amounts of it cheaper. And as you see on this site this has recently been patented, with the resonance in the tube being as predicted to “create antimatter from matter with “mere heat”. This will save millions on the cost of using “atom smashers” which cost because among other things they are competing with other uses of the machines to take time making the stuff.
Even as matter is not the same as energy and matter and antimatter are not perhaps equivalent by the slight changes even in SR where the average agreements on the speed of light of many observers will give general agreement about who is at rest or in motion if the history of all the observers are included, we might expect small changes even in matter and antimatter not seen in SR. I believe matter and antimatter in accordance with the distinction of the heavy oneness and many reradiance of GWD might have slight changes in spin not seen in SR, and because creation of matter and antimatter is an energy energy conversion, not matter to matter, the lower energy antiparticles like the positron, being with a lower energy quantum well, would convert the electron to a positron more easily than say a proton to an antiproton. and the rate of decay of an antineutron to an antiproton and positron to be at a somewhat different rate than the matter equivalent.
Antiatoms have much more volatile reactions with matter than mere positrons when they annihilate with electrons. As we would expect if mass and energy is asymmetrical and SR is not the most general, the lighter positron and electron is easier to create and destroy without much labor than the heavier proton and antiproton. If mass and energy were the same, all there was would have the same mass and energy. All particles would have the same mass and the rate of fall on the moon and earth would be the same, and so on. This is my “literal” definition of relativity.
Relativity is a profound idea. A world of complete democracy where all are created equal even so seems uncommon sense without the boss of gravity or king acceleration to optimize. If labor is so worthwhile why would we rest? I believe the small distinctions of matter and antimatter being about the energy energy equivalence of SR would only be in accord with the degree to which observers in SR can find who is actually more at rest or in motion by keeping track of the redshift of all the observers, all with lower redshift observers and higher mass are moving slower by way of conservation of angular and linear flow of the field and the rest are moving faster. By way of the information found by way of the light about who is with acceleration, even in SR with the equal redshift for both the accelerating observer and the slower observer, we have a way to know who is at rest or in motion, as we would expect if SR is incomplete. The more observers with lower redshift and without acceleration, the more probable they're at rest.
Another way of expressing the same idea is that a hill like matter is not exactly the size of the hole where the stuff was removed ("antimatter") from when you dig with your shovel in a field of gravity. The Earth is rounder on the outside and has more room here! There are both mountains and ocean depths but the oceans are generally deeper. Thus the effects like slower rate of radioactivity could be more pronounced with stronger electric or magnetic fields which also have their attractive component (derived from the basic lower energy field.) Relativity is about empty space time, not electromagnetism, so this could be a proof of GWD not relativity.
..
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Is Dark Matter Gravitational (Like Gravitons?) What’s Wrong With Heavy Weak Intuitions about MOND...
b The November 2010 issue of Scientific American has the headline "Dark Worlds" about the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles with a whole elaborate zoo of as yet unknown or nonexistent motes or perhaps mostly so to explain just two observations; stars galaxies and gas clouds move faster than they should by the visable matter, and the heavy weak bosons W and Z are a bit too massive by way of the calculations we have. For all the speculation however, the only solid evidence it seems is the change in gravity. If this is so, I think gravity may be the solution. If we were told there was electricity and density of mass, an unlikely conclusion would be that we would then be able to have found the laws both of subatomic physics and electromagnetism both just by lots of thinking and prediction of unknown particles, especially if there may be a much simpler solution to the dark matter problem, use of Einstein’s idea of a lower energy reradiant electrogravity that would both power the cosmic expansion and be the world of dark matter and dark energy in a gravitational form I call DGE, Dark Gravitational Energy.
I first got the idea for DGE from the ghost particle problem; ghost particles would be used to unify both inertia and gravity. Even so I disagree with some others who promote their version of the ghost particle physics who say these denizens of the implosion would have no mass. They exert pressure in my interpretation for both gravity and inertia, so they are particlelike, if so they have "sides" like particles and particles have mass. What exerts pressure would have mass. Black holes are found to add mass in accord with the ghost particle belief (although at just half the rate as found, Click here for more.)
..
At any rate ghostly physics for gravity and inertia seems to have the problem of why the earth isn’t putting on lots of weight. This may be how Einstein may have reached his conclusion about the cosmological constant, he used to explain why the cosmos hasn’t collapsed under gravity, later found by the cosmologists to be the expansion of the cosmos we observe. The field might radiate in by gravity exerting pressure and then reradiate as Einstein thought, at another lower energy (and without exerting so much pressure so we don’t fall off the Earth by antigravity, no doubt). As I say on the page of the first link this idea could be useful to solve many other problems unknown in Einstein’s age, e.g the Pioneer Anomalies, and much more.
.. One of the advantages of the GDE ghost particle physics is it would explain why the galaxies are all spinning too fast so they would not be stable by the observed rate of spin. Dark matter or DGE seems of worth based on the bending by starlight and so on, so we believe there’s a giant sphere of dark matter all around a galaxy holding it solid to spin around so they don’t expand outward.
The solidity might come from aligned jets of black holes forming the spiral arms as they evolve from many smaller streamers to just a few spiral arms with older galaxies. The black holes would merge with tiime, ultimately forming the solid linear spiral arms which always have streamers that trail the motion not leading. This would explain the solidity, just as bodies around us get solidity from the electromagnetic fields. Click here for my page about how Black Holes might explain the evolution of galaxies. Even so solidity wouldn't explain the faster spin, so I think stronger gravity might be needed here to explain e.g. why older galaxies weigh 1000's of times more than they should by implosion of visible matter seen around them.
It's possible heavy particles like WIMPs would interact with gravity just somewhat and no more, to me this seems like heavy lightness or a linear wheel. I favor DGE because gravity interacts with gravity already without assuming ad hoc physics. If gravity interacts with all the rest of the cosmos according mostly to mass, why not with WIMPs if the Wimps are bending the light like gravity? Gravity seems basic and how much it's influenced by gravity seems to be the foundation of what mass is, a heavy particle may not influenced by gravity that much, especially if how we know it's there is by how much it bends light by its gravity.
..
This use of DGE would explain many things, including the union of general and special relativity. There would be no need for WIMPS where the GDE would do well here because it’s agreed by all the marms who tamed the internet and presumably they are the astronomers who hold the stars and planets in a line, the one thing we can say about dark energy or WIMP’s is that they attract light by gravity, though not heavy mass within "what may be" the halo so much.
.
WIMPS are believed to interact by just the weak force and gravity, and this is held to be an continuation of the physics tradition of around 1900 when Fermi used the observed unknown cause of radioactivity to explain proton and the WIMP used to be the cause of the W and Z bosons, which I think is not necessarily so.
I believe gravity would be enough to explain dark matter in a simple way. The particles would move at high speed, perhaps much faster than light in a radiant spherical halo. Their kinetic energy and low individual attraction per particle would make the halo, even so because they have mass, they would fall back in with enough distance, thus as I say the giant masses like M31 would hold on to their mass and add mass over time, explaining the otherwise unknown problem of why these massive wheels have about 1000 times more mass when older than new, even with no viable connection with the rest of the cosmos seen, and how high energy starlike distant bodies have no wheel of milky whey like cheeze for fuel otherwise seen. If millionaires have bought the world's supply of Munchy Cheeze, so VISA can't have any, so be it1
If there is the mass of Dark Matter and it’s adhering to the mass, it attracts itself and the stars too, heavy mass settles down much sooner so there would be huge changes in fusion not seen. We know dark matter attracts matter because it bends light reliably and the galaxies are spinning fast. If heavy particles were the cause, the lives of all the stars would be much reduced, and the stars we see could hold much more fusion. If WIMPS are what spins galaxies and bends light there would seem to be giant realms around where we would see both nothing in the center and lots of X rays around the outside where they fall in, a huge border zone for all of the outer realms! We presume WIMPS would interact with themselves and being so massive they would find the center of stars and change fusion.
DGE, not WIMPs would solve the mystery of the famous Bullet Cluster, which is actually a pair of massive clusters that have impacted, the most high energy events known other than the Big Bang itself.
"The gas mostly impacted at this range left the stars mostly with the same motion. For this reason it’s believed dark energy interacts with usual mass without much force since it stayed mostly aligned with the stars in collision."
..
If the field were only under the influence of DGE and gravity they would have not have had a strong cohesion, as observed, WIMPs being 100,000 or billions of times more massive would be adhesive either way. The general way the DGE bends light as strongly as it does would be, like with the neutrino, the huge numbers of the DGE particles and their high speed if FTL would have much mass and energy in general, thus the particles would bind loosely like gravity at shorter distances, while over greater distances they would bind and multiply up the force, perhaps like Einstein’s other idea that large mass increases over time with the implosion of the field. This is why we ourselves don't weigh a huge amount like dwarf galaxies around the milky way that are found, only at greater distance is there higher speed of the DGE, and the reduced friction by reduced field density would multiply up the force as seen to warp the galaxy, and so on.
The higher energy denser field would be the same matter wave field as in QED with its evidence of the mass moments of two masses on a beam thrown up in the air spinning around the com and easily and regularly changed by just changing the masses even in "empty space" by an "l" shaped connection, or by the exaust of a rocket that would press against a dense enough field to move it forward, ect. For the dwarf galaxies the weight of the bubble is higher not like our weight falling to Earth if from an airship, rather most of the motion of the field here is outside the bubble, this is why you don't weigh much if you are a singing diva! The bubble in fall has resilience so not much pressure is felt inside it, but much weight could be added on from the outside since gravity not the bubble which as for the spinning masses and the c.o.m. are not gravity, since they're there even if no gravity is present for the l beam and the two spinning masses in the lab.. The outside flow if gravity wouldn't be limited by relativity so it would have much more change in weight than just small changes in the speed of light seen in relativity.
I believe relativity can't explain changes in weight. If there is much change in weight of two masses not the same, mass is momentum, or quantity of motion, more mass would mean a much larger change in the speed of gravity. With relativity two masses will always weigh the same because of just the relative motion of the field not the mass which is not in the equation for free fall since different forces are used to raise the two masses to the same height. If we assume the force is not important, than we are also have no explanation of momentum, and the horizontal F=ma seems mysteriously distinct from the zenith fall of relativity. (No doubt We can't do without Special relativity, and it's needed to watch Zenith TV rerun! But General Relativity and gravity seem not to fit and may allow other options.) If you think of force and momentum as more important than space, the masses are unified, horizontal or in other realms. I think Einstein was assuming what he was trying to prove about the two masses and gravity. (You lift them to the same height with different forces, then they have the same speed. Force seems more important than space since force does work, so the same force to the different masses would lift them to other height and they fall at different rates, General relativity may be general somewhat! Even so there is a large change in two masses, and the redshift speed of light is a much smaller change. I believe If all gravity was the same all masses would fall at the same rate and the Earth moon system would spin with the same center of mass halfway, and all planets would have the same acceleration of the field, since all fields are equivalent and acceleration is essentially not considered. You may say, what about the acceleration of Mercury, frame dragging ect. But these are changes in acceleration, not the two masses falling at the same rate, the theoretical foundation of General Relativity. For more see my Physics Synopsis/GWD upper left of page.
If each mass has an aurora and it's caused by the low energy faster than light field, Einstein's idea about gravity at just the speed of light means only the wavelength not the speed of the standing wave around a mass would change. This would explain why a heavier mass moves slower with the same applied force, it's field is spinning that much faster by its mass, so it has that much more resistance to the external field not explained by relativity. It's also a standing wave, even so the pattern of the interference bands may be much unlike what relativity would predict. In GWD, the speed of the component waves in and out is much higher and an acceleration, and a much greater change in speed than by relativity as a percentage to explain the difference in mass. By finding these bands we may be able to figure the speed of the waves. An experiment I propose is to take two masses and set them stationary, then measure the bands by slowly moving an atomic clock between them. In order to measure the bands which may be faint, moving the clock's probe at a slow speed, perhaps over years or months may help improve resolution of the field.
You may say as Einstein did, there's no field there it's just a vacuum. I don't ignore the pressure a starship exerts on a field, the masses on the boom like the Earth and moon, or that as Aristotle believed, a truly empty field would allow infinite speed of propagation. And Maxwell's exact prediction of the speed of light was based on the assumption of the resilient medium. The field doesn't just dissappear when acceleration would stop for a starship in uniform motion, instead in GWD it's balanced by Maxwell's use of two opposite charges like elevator weight and balance, and the overall pressure in uniform motion or at rest is 0, so by a sort of bouyancy the field seems to vanish but only in linear motion. The field is there all along and the quanta freeze in the motion and the speed of light, but indeed the speed is momentum, so changing the wavelength by acceleration say 20 times gives us 20 speeds of light in a nontrivial sense.
If we know the mass of the DGE particles and we know how fast the galaxies gain or lose mass we know the total energy imparted per particle acting on each and the general force of gravity, and from this we can calculate the radius of the halo by how far up the particle will go before it falls back toward the center, a calculation impossible with WIMPs which would just be too heavy to not fall in.
..
As I believe, the motion of the gravitons or DGE in this calculation may be faster than light. Even so gravity is gravity and the general F=ma would still hold to unify the field mostly. I agree with Einstein's idea that if there is a low energy particle we could get around the Uncertainty Principle by reduced interaction so the light measuring a cushion is not so massive it changes the cushion itself, this is anti relativistic as Einstein believed, and I believe this is a good reason to consider that relativity may be incomplete. There seems to be no need to believe that the observer has a beam in his eye that changes what's measured in any absolute sense, Einstein asked, "do you really think the moon is not up there when you don't look to see it", Real relativitistic!" I believe use of F=ma not the Uncertainty Principle may be the foundation of lower energy physics the more mass the slower a body moves by lower energy and F=ma. This may be how to calculate the mass of the lower energy particles Einstein believed in, the more mass the slower the travel so if the acceleration of gravity at the earth's surface is 32 ft or so (astounding R value of cool in summer!) we know the mass by the force applied and the speed, you apply force F to a mass, if it moves at speed a you know its mass.
It's known by how dark matter bends light that it actually moves slower than light if it's there, but this may only be the aurora. The particles of air of the atmosphere near us moves much faster at shorter distances than just being loosely dragged around if the Earth moved faster like a large bubble. Thus while the general motion of the DGE may be slower than light, this doesn't rule out that some DGE particles are faster than light and they also may explain many other mysteries and so on.
..
The other evidence is taken to be about the mass of the W and Z particles as evidence for WIMPs. They seem quite a bit heavier than they should be, as if multiplied up by the force of the unseen massive particle where they shouldn’t by the simple calculation. Would this be proof of the WIMPs we might find with the LHC or other machines now that they are "live"?
..
While no doubt, and in time we may have more evidence, my belief is in DGE. Just as faster than light particles may explain the dark matter and more, faster than light spin of subatomic particles inside the outer realm of the electric charges may be used to describe all the particles heavier than the electron which relativity can’t by way of faster spin of the field more than relativity’s speed of light just for the electron and light by GWD, my theoretical generalization of Maxwell’s idea, the changes in wave density always have changes in speed to conserve momentum; more mass more speed. The FTL matter waves would change phase fast from solid to wave to explain both waves and particles at the limit being one, there must be underlying union (other than if they both radiate out from the center, one wave and one particle, but this wouldn’t be disproof of GWD. Even so in order to change to a wave already spinning at the speed of light the same field however would seem to need to change to a particle at faster than light for any change.) If mass is mostly spinning energy to conserve mass and energy, all the non electronic quantum numbers including the mass of the W and Z would be caused only by changes in momentum of the field. We may say the W and Z seem to be anomalous, even so there are so many quirks and foibles of the quantum numbers, there could be 50 internal causes for why they have the extra mass, all of them determined by the faster than light motion of the field perhaps where relativity would not allow not by WIMPs. If the standard theory was perfect the constants wouldn't be unknown and the assymmetry of matter and antimatter would not be seen as in the newer experiments here in 2010. This was predicted by Dirac by combining Special relativity with QM, so my question is why are not equal matter and antimatter seen? Einstein used relative motion of wires and magnets as evidence for SR. Neither is in a privelged frame at rest or of motion in relativity, so if mass like matter and energy like antimatter were exactly the same there would be the same amounts of each.
We may ask why do the galaxies with the huge halo of the dark matter spin faster matter and bend light both, under the influence of the dark matter, yet the dark matter in the pistol nebula seems to bend light while the normal stuff seems to flow through it? This would be much the same as both the anamolies with the space probes outside the solar system moving too fast and the galaxies spinning a bit faster while the bending of light seems to belie a huge attraction of 97% of the mass in the halo. In these three examples, we know the outer light reaching us is much bent while the normal mass at the center remains much the same, other than moving perhaps 3x the speed of Newtonian mechanics or relativity for the galaxies. All three examples may be unified by the aurora. Inside the aurora the inflow causes common gravity, and the reradiant outflow of the particles would keep all the masses from gaining at a huger rate per second via implosion, perhaps like Einstein thought about this. Even so the reradiance, under the influence of the gravity waves would only reach up so far before the particles would fall in and be recycled by the field. (Gravity waves would be needed to explain how, if both particles and waves are there as the source of all other fields are there, they don't radiate if particulate and unconnected, a problem with any particle way to be the way out for gravity as in the ghost particle method. The waves may mostly be the power source to overcome the entropy of thermodynamics, waves attract and unify)..By reradiance and implosion both the field would be "renormalized" while also under the motive force of the waves, which exist also outside the aurora. Actually the density of the particles is just lower and never zero in order that gravity could not just attract the starship, the galaxy and the cosmos out in range. If we ask where's the extra mass holding the galaxy with the light bent this may be no more a question than asking why the starship outside the solar system may be more moved than the solar system. The solar system would have just common mass inside the halo where the forces balance with the common law of radiant energy while outside the waves are moving more without resistance, and the galaxies also have no huge extra mass even with the light bent. This is of course a version of MOND, even so it may have all the advantages of explaining inertia and gravity while also the distinctions that Einstein didn't note. E.g.aAs I say if gravity and inertia are unified, why are they so hugely unlike in strength? Gravity cancels out by acceleration of falling, inertia by linear motion. Gravity can't be stopped, inertia is cancelled by turning off the elevator motor of Einstein's elevator. Click here for more.
Note that the high energy events we see in the above are both higher in mass and energy. The motion of the particles is almost at the speed of light. In relativity since mass and energy are equivalent and the motion is fast we expect the particles to have large mass and large gravity. Relativity says all the mass is increased with high speed motion so the motion of the high mass density already there would have stronger gravity. Einstein believed that gravity waves move at the speed of light or slower to obey relativity. If the gravity propagates at the speed of light the direction of travel of the particles would have to have a polarized motion relative to the field. Carl Sagan in Cosmos describes a relativistic motorcycle. The observers at near the speed of light would only be able to see the light ahead and not to the side because of the displacement of light. If gravity is much weaker it might seem it would just bypass this problem but motion is motion and relativity holds an absolute foundation in the unchanging speed of light. Thus I believe that the gravity if it obeys relativity would have the exact correllation of the polarization. Einstein believed it was space time itself that creates the polarization, so there would be no "loose ends". Masses fall at the same rate in GR and the rate of fall is held to be essentially mass independent. If gravity is thus for the high mass energy events at the speed of light by relativity we would perhaps see polarazation of both the gravity and the particles. The mass and energy of the pistol nebula have no great changes in the gravity observed according to the motion. This is one reason to believe gravity might travel much faster than light. Instead of large relativistic effects, gravity being lighter than light might move faster than light. Though the particles would act by proxy Faster Than Light propagation of the waves would be seen. This is indeed what Van Flandern notes about the displacement of light for gravity as we look to the sun, as we travel there is virtually no displacement seen as we would expect if gravity propagates at much faster than light. Van Flandern by other calculations predicts the lower speed limit, mine is an exact value, 3 times 10 to the 37th power times the speed of light as I say here on my Physics Synopsis. If we see the high energy events and the field was with communication at just the speed of light, the gravity is changed, and if it actually is 10 to the 36th power faster, the change in gravity would be almost the same as gravity near the earth in this respect.
My revival of Einstein’s idea and more would allow for the problem of why dark matter and dark energy is just three times as dense as dark matter, not 1000x or 10 million; The magnetic field may power cosmic outer travel of the jets and the gravitons of gravity may be equal in power to the outward magnetic flow of the field, like centrifugal and centripetal force, where thay would balance at long range, the strength of the two would be much the same so there would be no need to use mysterious forces or particles to unify the physics. We have general evidence for lower energy fields.
General Wave Dynamics Synopsis....
b The November 2010 issue of Scientific American has the headline "Dark Worlds" about the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles with a whole elaborate zoo of as yet unknown or nonexistent motes or perhaps mostly so to explain just two observations; stars galaxies and gas clouds move faster than they should by the visable matter, and the heavy weak bosons W and Z are a bit too massive by way of the calculations we have. For all the speculation however, the only solid evidence it seems is the change in gravity. If this is so, I think gravity may be the solution. If we were told there was electricity and density of mass, an unlikely conclusion would be that we would then be able to have found the laws both of subatomic physics and electromagnetism both just by lots of thinking and prediction of unknown particles, especially if there may be a much simpler solution to the dark matter problem, use of Einstein’s idea of a lower energy reradiant electrogravity that would both power the cosmic expansion and be the world of dark matter and dark energy in a gravitational form I call DGE, Dark Gravitational Energy.
I first got the idea for DGE from the ghost particle problem; ghost particles would be used to unify both inertia and gravity. Even so I disagree with some others who promote their version of the ghost particle physics who say these denizens of the implosion would have no mass. They exert pressure in my interpretation for both gravity and inertia, so they are particlelike, if so they have "sides" like particles and particles have mass. What exerts pressure would have mass. Black holes are found to add mass in accord with the ghost particle belief (although at just half the rate as found, Click here for more.)
..
At any rate ghostly physics for gravity and inertia seems to have the problem of why the earth isn’t putting on lots of weight. This may be how Einstein may have reached his conclusion about the cosmological constant, he used to explain why the cosmos hasn’t collapsed under gravity, later found by the cosmologists to be the expansion of the cosmos we observe. The field might radiate in by gravity exerting pressure and then reradiate as Einstein thought, at another lower energy (and without exerting so much pressure so we don’t fall off the Earth by antigravity, no doubt). As I say on the page of the first link this idea could be useful to solve many other problems unknown in Einstein’s age, e.g the Pioneer Anomalies, and much more.
.. One of the advantages of the GDE ghost particle physics is it would explain why the galaxies are all spinning too fast so they would not be stable by the observed rate of spin. Dark matter or DGE seems of worth based on the bending by starlight and so on, so we believe there’s a giant sphere of dark matter all around a galaxy holding it solid to spin around so they don’t expand outward.
The solidity might come from aligned jets of black holes forming the spiral arms as they evolve from many smaller streamers to just a few spiral arms with older galaxies. The black holes would merge with tiime, ultimately forming the solid linear spiral arms which always have streamers that trail the motion not leading. This would explain the solidity, just as bodies around us get solidity from the electromagnetic fields. Click here for my page about how Black Holes might explain the evolution of galaxies. Even so solidity wouldn't explain the faster spin, so I think stronger gravity might be needed here to explain e.g. why older galaxies weigh 1000's of times more than they should by implosion of visible matter seen around them.
It's possible heavy particles like WIMPs would interact with gravity just somewhat and no more, to me this seems like heavy lightness or a linear wheel. I favor DGE because gravity interacts with gravity already without assuming ad hoc physics. If gravity interacts with all the rest of the cosmos according mostly to mass, why not with WIMPs if the Wimps are bending the light like gravity? Gravity seems basic and how much it's influenced by gravity seems to be the foundation of what mass is, a heavy particle may not influenced by gravity that much, especially if how we know it's there is by how much it bends light by its gravity.
..
This use of DGE would explain many things, including the union of general and special relativity. There would be no need for WIMPS where the GDE would do well here because it’s agreed by all the marms who tamed the internet and presumably they are the astronomers who hold the stars and planets in a line, the one thing we can say about dark energy or WIMP’s is that they attract light by gravity, though not heavy mass within "what may be" the halo so much.
.
WIMPS are believed to interact by just the weak force and gravity, and this is held to be an continuation of the physics tradition of around 1900 when Fermi used the observed unknown cause of radioactivity to explain proton and the WIMP used to be the cause of the W and Z bosons, which I think is not necessarily so.
I believe gravity would be enough to explain dark matter in a simple way. The particles would move at high speed, perhaps much faster than light in a radiant spherical halo. Their kinetic energy and low individual attraction per particle would make the halo, even so because they have mass, they would fall back in with enough distance, thus as I say the giant masses like M31 would hold on to their mass and add mass over time, explaining the otherwise unknown problem of why these massive wheels have about 1000 times more mass when older than new, even with no viable connection with the rest of the cosmos seen, and how high energy starlike distant bodies have no wheel of milky whey like cheeze for fuel otherwise seen. If millionaires have bought the world's supply of Munchy Cheeze, so VISA can't have any, so be it1
If there is the mass of Dark Matter and it’s adhering to the mass, it attracts itself and the stars too, heavy mass settles down much sooner so there would be huge changes in fusion not seen. We know dark matter attracts matter because it bends light reliably and the galaxies are spinning fast. If heavy particles were the cause, the lives of all the stars would be much reduced, and the stars we see could hold much more fusion. If WIMPS are what spins galaxies and bends light there would seem to be giant realms around where we would see both nothing in the center and lots of X rays around the outside where they fall in, a huge border zone for all of the outer realms! We presume WIMPS would interact with themselves and being so massive they would find the center of stars and change fusion.
DGE, not WIMPs would solve the mystery of the famous Bullet Cluster, which is actually a pair of massive clusters that have impacted, the most high energy events known other than the Big Bang itself.
"The gas mostly impacted at this range left the stars mostly with the same motion. For this reason it’s believed dark energy interacts with usual mass without much force since it stayed mostly aligned with the stars in collision."
..
If the field were only under the influence of DGE and gravity they would have not have had a strong cohesion, as observed, WIMPs being 100,000 or billions of times more massive would be adhesive either way. The general way the DGE bends light as strongly as it does would be, like with the neutrino, the huge numbers of the DGE particles and their high speed if FTL would have much mass and energy in general, thus the particles would bind loosely like gravity at shorter distances, while over greater distances they would bind and multiply up the force, perhaps like Einstein’s other idea that large mass increases over time with the implosion of the field. This is why we ourselves don't weigh a huge amount like dwarf galaxies around the milky way that are found, only at greater distance is there higher speed of the DGE, and the reduced friction by reduced field density would multiply up the force as seen to warp the galaxy, and so on.
The higher energy denser field would be the same matter wave field as in QED with its evidence of the mass moments of two masses on a beam thrown up in the air spinning around the com and easily and regularly changed by just changing the masses even in "empty space" by an "l" shaped connection, or by the exaust of a rocket that would press against a dense enough field to move it forward, ect. For the dwarf galaxies the weight of the bubble is higher not like our weight falling to Earth if from an airship, rather most of the motion of the field here is outside the bubble, this is why you don't weigh much if you are a singing diva! The bubble in fall has resilience so not much pressure is felt inside it, but much weight could be added on from the outside since gravity not the bubble which as for the spinning masses and the c.o.m. are not gravity, since they're there even if no gravity is present for the l beam and the two spinning masses in the lab.. The outside flow if gravity wouldn't be limited by relativity so it would have much more change in weight than just small changes in the speed of light seen in relativity.
I believe relativity can't explain changes in weight. If there is much change in weight of two masses not the same, mass is momentum, or quantity of motion, more mass would mean a much larger change in the speed of gravity. With relativity two masses will always weigh the same because of just the relative motion of the field not the mass which is not in the equation for free fall since different forces are used to raise the two masses to the same height. If we assume the force is not important, than we are also have no explanation of momentum, and the horizontal F=ma seems mysteriously distinct from the zenith fall of relativity. (No doubt We can't do without Special relativity, and it's needed to watch Zenith TV rerun! But General Relativity and gravity seem not to fit and may allow other options.) If you think of force and momentum as more important than space, the masses are unified, horizontal or in other realms. I think Einstein was assuming what he was trying to prove about the two masses and gravity. (You lift them to the same height with different forces, then they have the same speed. Force seems more important than space since force does work, so the same force to the different masses would lift them to other height and they fall at different rates, General relativity may be general somewhat! Even so there is a large change in two masses, and the redshift speed of light is a much smaller change. I believe If all gravity was the same all masses would fall at the same rate and the Earth moon system would spin with the same center of mass halfway, and all planets would have the same acceleration of the field, since all fields are equivalent and acceleration is essentially not considered. You may say, what about the acceleration of Mercury, frame dragging ect. But these are changes in acceleration, not the two masses falling at the same rate, the theoretical foundation of General Relativity. For more see my Physics Synopsis/GWD upper left of page.
If each mass has an aurora and it's caused by the low energy faster than light field, Einstein's idea about gravity at just the speed of light means only the wavelength not the speed of the standing wave around a mass would change. This would explain why a heavier mass moves slower with the same applied force, it's field is spinning that much faster by its mass, so it has that much more resistance to the external field not explained by relativity. It's also a standing wave, even so the pattern of the interference bands may be much unlike what relativity would predict. In GWD, the speed of the component waves in and out is much higher and an acceleration, and a much greater change in speed than by relativity as a percentage to explain the difference in mass. By finding these bands we may be able to figure the speed of the waves. An experiment I propose is to take two masses and set them stationary, then measure the bands by slowly moving an atomic clock between them. In order to measure the bands which may be faint, moving the clock's probe at a slow speed, perhaps over years or months may help improve resolution of the field.
You may say as Einstein did, there's no field there it's just a vacuum. I don't ignore the pressure a starship exerts on a field, the masses on the boom like the Earth and moon, or that as Aristotle believed, a truly empty field would allow infinite speed of propagation. And Maxwell's exact prediction of the speed of light was based on the assumption of the resilient medium. The field doesn't just dissappear when acceleration would stop for a starship in uniform motion, instead in GWD it's balanced by Maxwell's use of two opposite charges like elevator weight and balance, and the overall pressure in uniform motion or at rest is 0, so by a sort of bouyancy the field seems to vanish but only in linear motion. The field is there all along and the quanta freeze in the motion and the speed of light, but indeed the speed is momentum, so changing the wavelength by acceleration say 20 times gives us 20 speeds of light in a nontrivial sense.
If we know the mass of the DGE particles and we know how fast the galaxies gain or lose mass we know the total energy imparted per particle acting on each and the general force of gravity, and from this we can calculate the radius of the halo by how far up the particle will go before it falls back toward the center, a calculation impossible with WIMPs which would just be too heavy to not fall in.
..
As I believe, the motion of the gravitons or DGE in this calculation may be faster than light. Even so gravity is gravity and the general F=ma would still hold to unify the field mostly. I agree with Einstein's idea that if there is a low energy particle we could get around the Uncertainty Principle by reduced interaction so the light measuring a cushion is not so massive it changes the cushion itself, this is anti relativistic as Einstein believed, and I believe this is a good reason to consider that relativity may be incomplete. There seems to be no need to believe that the observer has a beam in his eye that changes what's measured in any absolute sense, Einstein asked, "do you really think the moon is not up there when you don't look to see it", Real relativitistic!" I believe use of F=ma not the Uncertainty Principle may be the foundation of lower energy physics the more mass the slower a body moves by lower energy and F=ma. This may be how to calculate the mass of the lower energy particles Einstein believed in, the more mass the slower the travel so if the acceleration of gravity at the earth's surface is 32 ft or so (astounding R value of cool in summer!) we know the mass by the force applied and the speed, you apply force F to a mass, if it moves at speed a you know its mass.
It's known by how dark matter bends light that it actually moves slower than light if it's there, but this may only be the aurora. The particles of air of the atmosphere near us moves much faster at shorter distances than just being loosely dragged around if the Earth moved faster like a large bubble. Thus while the general motion of the DGE may be slower than light, this doesn't rule out that some DGE particles are faster than light and they also may explain many other mysteries and so on.
..
The other evidence is taken to be about the mass of the W and Z particles as evidence for WIMPs. They seem quite a bit heavier than they should be, as if multiplied up by the force of the unseen massive particle where they shouldn’t by the simple calculation. Would this be proof of the WIMPs we might find with the LHC or other machines now that they are "live"?
..
While no doubt, and in time we may have more evidence, my belief is in DGE. Just as faster than light particles may explain the dark matter and more, faster than light spin of subatomic particles inside the outer realm of the electric charges may be used to describe all the particles heavier than the electron which relativity can’t by way of faster spin of the field more than relativity’s speed of light just for the electron and light by GWD, my theoretical generalization of Maxwell’s idea, the changes in wave density always have changes in speed to conserve momentum; more mass more speed. The FTL matter waves would change phase fast from solid to wave to explain both waves and particles at the limit being one, there must be underlying union (other than if they both radiate out from the center, one wave and one particle, but this wouldn’t be disproof of GWD. Even so in order to change to a wave already spinning at the speed of light the same field however would seem to need to change to a particle at faster than light for any change.) If mass is mostly spinning energy to conserve mass and energy, all the non electronic quantum numbers including the mass of the W and Z would be caused only by changes in momentum of the field. We may say the W and Z seem to be anomalous, even so there are so many quirks and foibles of the quantum numbers, there could be 50 internal causes for why they have the extra mass, all of them determined by the faster than light motion of the field perhaps where relativity would not allow not by WIMPs. If the standard theory was perfect the constants wouldn't be unknown and the assymmetry of matter and antimatter would not be seen as in the newer experiments here in 2010. This was predicted by Dirac by combining Special relativity with QM, so my question is why are not equal matter and antimatter seen? Einstein used relative motion of wires and magnets as evidence for SR. Neither is in a privelged frame at rest or of motion in relativity, so if mass like matter and energy like antimatter were exactly the same there would be the same amounts of each.
We may ask why do the galaxies with the huge halo of the dark matter spin faster matter and bend light both, under the influence of the dark matter, yet the dark matter in the pistol nebula seems to bend light while the normal stuff seems to flow through it? This would be much the same as both the anamolies with the space probes outside the solar system moving too fast and the galaxies spinning a bit faster while the bending of light seems to belie a huge attraction of 97% of the mass in the halo. In these three examples, we know the outer light reaching us is much bent while the normal mass at the center remains much the same, other than moving perhaps 3x the speed of Newtonian mechanics or relativity for the galaxies. All three examples may be unified by the aurora. Inside the aurora the inflow causes common gravity, and the reradiant outflow of the particles would keep all the masses from gaining at a huger rate per second via implosion, perhaps like Einstein thought about this. Even so the reradiance, under the influence of the gravity waves would only reach up so far before the particles would fall in and be recycled by the field. (Gravity waves would be needed to explain how, if both particles and waves are there as the source of all other fields are there, they don't radiate if particulate and unconnected, a problem with any particle way to be the way out for gravity as in the ghost particle method. The waves may mostly be the power source to overcome the entropy of thermodynamics, waves attract and unify)..By reradiance and implosion both the field would be "renormalized" while also under the motive force of the waves, which exist also outside the aurora. Actually the density of the particles is just lower and never zero in order that gravity could not just attract the starship, the galaxy and the cosmos out in range. If we ask where's the extra mass holding the galaxy with the light bent this may be no more a question than asking why the starship outside the solar system may be more moved than the solar system. The solar system would have just common mass inside the halo where the forces balance with the common law of radiant energy while outside the waves are moving more without resistance, and the galaxies also have no huge extra mass even with the light bent. This is of course a version of MOND, even so it may have all the advantages of explaining inertia and gravity while also the distinctions that Einstein didn't note. E.g.aAs I say if gravity and inertia are unified, why are they so hugely unlike in strength? Gravity cancels out by acceleration of falling, inertia by linear motion. Gravity can't be stopped, inertia is cancelled by turning off the elevator motor of Einstein's elevator. Click here for more.
Note that the high energy events we see in the above are both higher in mass and energy. The motion of the particles is almost at the speed of light. In relativity since mass and energy are equivalent and the motion is fast we expect the particles to have large mass and large gravity. Relativity says all the mass is increased with high speed motion so the motion of the high mass density already there would have stronger gravity. Einstein believed that gravity waves move at the speed of light or slower to obey relativity. If the gravity propagates at the speed of light the direction of travel of the particles would have to have a polarized motion relative to the field. Carl Sagan in Cosmos describes a relativistic motorcycle. The observers at near the speed of light would only be able to see the light ahead and not to the side because of the displacement of light. If gravity is much weaker it might seem it would just bypass this problem but motion is motion and relativity holds an absolute foundation in the unchanging speed of light. Thus I believe that the gravity if it obeys relativity would have the exact correllation of the polarization. Einstein believed it was space time itself that creates the polarization, so there would be no "loose ends". Masses fall at the same rate in GR and the rate of fall is held to be essentially mass independent. If gravity is thus for the high mass energy events at the speed of light by relativity we would perhaps see polarazation of both the gravity and the particles. The mass and energy of the pistol nebula have no great changes in the gravity observed according to the motion. This is one reason to believe gravity might travel much faster than light. Instead of large relativistic effects, gravity being lighter than light might move faster than light. Though the particles would act by proxy Faster Than Light propagation of the waves would be seen. This is indeed what Van Flandern notes about the displacement of light for gravity as we look to the sun, as we travel there is virtually no displacement seen as we would expect if gravity propagates at much faster than light. Van Flandern by other calculations predicts the lower speed limit, mine is an exact value, 3 times 10 to the 37th power times the speed of light as I say here on my Physics Synopsis. If we see the high energy events and the field was with communication at just the speed of light, the gravity is changed, and if it actually is 10 to the 36th power faster, the change in gravity would be almost the same as gravity near the earth in this respect.
My revival of Einstein’s idea and more would allow for the problem of why dark matter and dark energy is just three times as dense as dark matter, not 1000x or 10 million; The magnetic field may power cosmic outer travel of the jets and the gravitons of gravity may be equal in power to the outward magnetic flow of the field, like centrifugal and centripetal force, where thay would balance at long range, the strength of the two would be much the same so there would be no need to use mysterious forces or particles to unify the physics. We have general evidence for lower energy fields.
General Wave Dynamics Synopsis....
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Was William Shakespeare Real?
Author Michael Shermer asks of those who believe Shakespeare’s writing was by another author, the other authors who would be Will might be Christopher Marloe, Bacon, and 50 others.
I was telling my mom the English professor I had another way out for old chrome dome, and she scoffed, We all know Shakespeare was real. "But wait, there’s more of what!"
Shermer says, "In science, a reigning method of explanation is presumed provisionally true and continues to hold well until a challenging explanation of the current evidence and also accounts for anomalies the prevailing one cannot. Using that principle here, by general truth Shakespeare wrote his own plays until other contenders make it well known a challenger fits more of the literature and the historical evidence."
"Some say Shakespeare’s labors would only have been created by anothor author of high learning, yet the words make lots of allusions to the high school marms Shakespeare had, not Cambridge and Oxford dons. He often and commonly writes of schoolmarms and loud volumes, saved by the christmas bell..
How could authors of humble culture have written with a higher level of erudition?
..
"His father was a middle class land owner whose estate was valued at the then respectable sum of 500 pounds, (you could buy a modest villa for 50 pounds) and whose station is life was high or higher than Marlow or Ben Johnson, who were actually sons of a shoemaker and a mason, respectively, and they somehow managed to master the high drama of the 1600's well.
In addition there were so many words written about him by those who knew him, we assume he was not a mere clown who went to FL to celebrate winter!"
Even so while the above seems enough, it’s actually merely the best proven, and here’s where my mom realized what I was saying with my ye old world word processor;
There are two major ommissions;
Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens a new believer in the unauthorized authorization of "doubtsaboutwill.com" site , asks," Where are the books? You can’t be a scholar of that depth and not have any books where you live. He never wrote others, he was never seen present at any major event, the coronation of James or any of that stuff. I think the evidence he was not the author is beyond a reasonable doubt."
Shermer goes on to say although the contenders say this is disproof, with no manuscripts, receipts diaries, or letters, they neglect to mention that we have none by any of the other author contenders either.
My mom, the PhD MP condones Shakespeare. I never had time to read his plays, one day I might, and I may read Shakespeare’s Juliet and other yarns. Some of my own writing has been influenced by yarns of the old world type.
I was always reading encyclopedias or comics and inventing my own as on my site. It’s been said he who blends the necessary with the sweet has the blessing of most in life, so I would either try to solve problems or build up celebrations with all I had in life. On TV I would watch the tragedies and comedies, the news and commercials, Jeopardy and Hee Haw, or The Wheel, which mom says has important elements of both! Even so like a good math conundrum, more evidence than we have would be considerate of old Will.
..
A goal would be to explain not mere mentions by other authors of Shakespeare, it would be of worth to know why we have no memos or mentions of Shakespeare at the major events, one of Will’s ways out may not be other authors, rather the following may be;
..
Newton said he cared not much for the world outside, and Newton’s maid is quoted as saying, "Newton never went out once for bowling or any other activities" And he "Did not care for the politics of the world, just to improve what he knew well about physics and math." This might explain why Shakespeare was at none of the festivals, lots of authors and other greats never went out to socialize, This itself isn't impossible.
..
About the missing documents, there may be two reasons. Perhaps like many of the ancients like Pliny the Elder (encyclopedia) he had a secretary since it’s not well known but true "Shakespeare wasn’t able to write without the royal express permission" above the boos and hisses of the London authorities who tried to stop celebrations. I think it’s possible they may have gotten hold of all his papers and books and burned them at once, not uncommon in those days, nor uncommon for most works of an author to survive even if some tried to ban them. Carl Sagan in Cosmos describes how books were banned in the 1500's, while like in ancient Greece when the philosophers school was for those elect who ate no ancient pizza, the unrepentant wanted pizza, while the philosopher already learned about life 111! There were so many who liked to read, no doubt the authorities too, censure was often better for the author more often than those who hoped to stop authors. Or perhaps Will went to the big events in his actor’s wear to dodge the authorities.
..
Plots to assassinate (a word Shakespeare invented) character with mere words or not so mere explosions were not uncommon in 15th and 16th century England like the Gunpowder Plot or the Popish Plot. And in those early days no one in particular may have been responsible documents vis a vis a great like Shakespeare, or in the stress of the plague and the religious wars this would have been more common.
..
If this was true, we might look for Shakespeare not in the documents of other authors, rather the authorities and any attempts to burn his papers or books by the authorities (though it seems the authorities with the most control, would be the most probable if this were so). There must be some explanation for both the real Will and the missing evidence we would expect to find. While this may not be the explanation, if there is a Will and Wills Way Out, this isn’t impossible and no other way to fit all the evidence is known. No doubt the book burning might have been in secret, so the authorities would remain popular, they knew there would be resistance.
This method of explanation for why we have no books or papers of Shakespeare would only allow the time from when he was more unnoticed due to the events of his time to when his documents were more in demand and when it would have gotten tougher to collect them all and burn them all without much awareness by fans. Perhaps this time was 200 years; if so there would be just his lack of presence at the festivals unexplained, perhaps his only unusual habit, or for good reasons like caution to stop boos and hisses of the other element, all the world's a www.org.
..
Author Michael Shermer asks of those who believe Shakespeare’s writing was by another author, the other authors who would be Will might be Christopher Marloe, Bacon, and 50 others.
I was telling my mom the English professor I had another way out for old chrome dome, and she scoffed, We all know Shakespeare was real. "But wait, there’s more of what!"
Shermer says, "In science, a reigning method of explanation is presumed provisionally true and continues to hold well until a challenging explanation of the current evidence and also accounts for anomalies the prevailing one cannot. Using that principle here, by general truth Shakespeare wrote his own plays until other contenders make it well known a challenger fits more of the literature and the historical evidence."
"Some say Shakespeare’s labors would only have been created by anothor author of high learning, yet the words make lots of allusions to the high school marms Shakespeare had, not Cambridge and Oxford dons. He often and commonly writes of schoolmarms and loud volumes, saved by the christmas bell..
How could authors of humble culture have written with a higher level of erudition?
..
"His father was a middle class land owner whose estate was valued at the then respectable sum of 500 pounds, (you could buy a modest villa for 50 pounds) and whose station is life was high or higher than Marlow or Ben Johnson, who were actually sons of a shoemaker and a mason, respectively, and they somehow managed to master the high drama of the 1600's well.
In addition there were so many words written about him by those who knew him, we assume he was not a mere clown who went to FL to celebrate winter!"
Even so while the above seems enough, it’s actually merely the best proven, and here’s where my mom realized what I was saying with my ye old world word processor;
There are two major ommissions;
Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens a new believer in the unauthorized authorization of "doubtsaboutwill.com" site , asks," Where are the books? You can’t be a scholar of that depth and not have any books where you live. He never wrote others, he was never seen present at any major event, the coronation of James or any of that stuff. I think the evidence he was not the author is beyond a reasonable doubt."
Shermer goes on to say although the contenders say this is disproof, with no manuscripts, receipts diaries, or letters, they neglect to mention that we have none by any of the other author contenders either.
My mom, the PhD MP condones Shakespeare. I never had time to read his plays, one day I might, and I may read Shakespeare’s Juliet and other yarns. Some of my own writing has been influenced by yarns of the old world type.
I was always reading encyclopedias or comics and inventing my own as on my site. It’s been said he who blends the necessary with the sweet has the blessing of most in life, so I would either try to solve problems or build up celebrations with all I had in life. On TV I would watch the tragedies and comedies, the news and commercials, Jeopardy and Hee Haw, or The Wheel, which mom says has important elements of both! Even so like a good math conundrum, more evidence than we have would be considerate of old Will.
..
A goal would be to explain not mere mentions by other authors of Shakespeare, it would be of worth to know why we have no memos or mentions of Shakespeare at the major events, one of Will’s ways out may not be other authors, rather the following may be;
..
Newton said he cared not much for the world outside, and Newton’s maid is quoted as saying, "Newton never went out once for bowling or any other activities" And he "Did not care for the politics of the world, just to improve what he knew well about physics and math." This might explain why Shakespeare was at none of the festivals, lots of authors and other greats never went out to socialize, This itself isn't impossible.
..
About the missing documents, there may be two reasons. Perhaps like many of the ancients like Pliny the Elder (encyclopedia) he had a secretary since it’s not well known but true "Shakespeare wasn’t able to write without the royal express permission" above the boos and hisses of the London authorities who tried to stop celebrations. I think it’s possible they may have gotten hold of all his papers and books and burned them at once, not uncommon in those days, nor uncommon for most works of an author to survive even if some tried to ban them. Carl Sagan in Cosmos describes how books were banned in the 1500's, while like in ancient Greece when the philosophers school was for those elect who ate no ancient pizza, the unrepentant wanted pizza, while the philosopher already learned about life 111! There were so many who liked to read, no doubt the authorities too, censure was often better for the author more often than those who hoped to stop authors. Or perhaps Will went to the big events in his actor’s wear to dodge the authorities.
..
Plots to assassinate (a word Shakespeare invented) character with mere words or not so mere explosions were not uncommon in 15th and 16th century England like the Gunpowder Plot or the Popish Plot. And in those early days no one in particular may have been responsible documents vis a vis a great like Shakespeare, or in the stress of the plague and the religious wars this would have been more common.
..
If this was true, we might look for Shakespeare not in the documents of other authors, rather the authorities and any attempts to burn his papers or books by the authorities (though it seems the authorities with the most control, would be the most probable if this were so). There must be some explanation for both the real Will and the missing evidence we would expect to find. While this may not be the explanation, if there is a Will and Wills Way Out, this isn’t impossible and no other way to fit all the evidence is known. No doubt the book burning might have been in secret, so the authorities would remain popular, they knew there would be resistance.
This method of explanation for why we have no books or papers of Shakespeare would only allow the time from when he was more unnoticed due to the events of his time to when his documents were more in demand and when it would have gotten tougher to collect them all and burn them all without much awareness by fans. Perhaps this time was 200 years; if so there would be just his lack of presence at the festivals unexplained, perhaps his only unusual habit, or for good reasons like caution to stop boos and hisses of the other element, all the world's a www.org.
..
Thursday, August 27, 2009
..
SIMPLE WAYS TO TO FEND OFF A CME
...
...
The chances of a CME or other superstorm that could grow to enough size to knock out the power grids and communications is 1 in 20 in the next 15 years, says Daniel N. Baker University of CO., "undoubtedly devastating to the most advanced countries." On my site link below, I imagine how small simple wires radially to orbit much cheaper than space towers could be used to change the speed of the Earth's spin and reduce the number of earthquakes by cancelling more of the torque caused by the moon's gravity now being stronger on the water than the land and Earth's uneven mass (as the Earth is an oblate spheroid) thus reducing heat and the earthquakes and the risk of a supervolcano too (1 in 100 chance in 1000 years, changing global weather for 30 or 40 years). The small wires could have weights on them to speed up the changes. ect.. This might also be of use to change the precession and stop the 27,000 year cycles that are known to be associated with all the glacial and interglacial ages, either in start or end. The wires could even be used for power to motors on the Earth by spin as the wires move within the earth's changing field, and because they are with more cash in than out, they could be built larger and larger, even up to real elevator towers perhaps. Though I don't believe in elevator towers because they would be the largest machine ever built and a piece of paint could and would bring them down sooner or later, smaller wires with much smaller area are well within the reach of our science. Much cheaper methods to boost heavy payloads like the army's light craft, laser powered craft powered from the ground are already being built. Using the small wires for small elevators to boost up a large number of small payloads that then would assemble to starships or whatever in orbit seems not impossible and the most viable elevator plan. Other uses in combination (or alone) for the wires may be as small siphons to keep sea level from rising by making them absorbant and with small one way valves, and so on.
Rich For The Stars
About the storm, the wires might be used to store up power at night and then release it in the day between the wires when the CME was near the Earth to reduce the damage. As I say on the page below, even satellites with beams to connect to the Earth might be used to balance the torque, while creating energy too. Though satellites for now might be too expensive to be large enough for CME, large enough numbers of wires would be cheap, and the more wires in place, the more power would be recieved, so cheaper to enrich us.
..
SURF THE WEB, SEE THE STARFISH SHORES
..
Better for CME's might be a large net to shield from the field. There has been proposed a 600 mile shield to reduce global warming that would be of super thin stuff, but a net, being less dense might be more valuable for the CME and cheaper than this to reach the altitude of value. Another possibility is even that of nets at the top of each wire, directly above the cities or realms who have built it for shielding, or special antennas powered by the wire.
Sunny and Rain, With Always Optimistic Weather! More About Possible Weather Control Methods that May Lie Beyond In 2010
Rich For The Stars
About the storm, the wires might be used to store up power at night and then release it in the day between the wires when the CME was near the Earth to reduce the damage. As I say on the page below, even satellites with beams to connect to the Earth might be used to balance the torque, while creating energy too. Though satellites for now might be too expensive to be large enough for CME, large enough numbers of wires would be cheap, and the more wires in place, the more power would be recieved, so cheaper to enrich us.
..
SURF THE WEB, SEE THE STARFISH SHORES
..
Better for CME's might be a large net to shield from the field. There has been proposed a 600 mile shield to reduce global warming that would be of super thin stuff, but a net, being less dense might be more valuable for the CME and cheaper than this to reach the altitude of value. Another possibility is even that of nets at the top of each wire, directly above the cities or realms who have built it for shielding, or special antennas powered by the wire.
Sunny and Rain, With Always Optimistic Weather! More About Possible Weather Control Methods that May Lie Beyond In 2010
....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)