A Much Higher Octane Diesel Engine! The Tokamak

Designs of fusion reactors like the Tokamak hope to use a magnetic field to enclose high energy electrons and protons, others try to use the inertia of the fuel to stabilize the implosion of lasers like the inertia in fusion implosion so much the protons have no where to go and implode. The problem is these reactors have instability of the surrounding field, so the magnetic bottles they have are more like a leaky gas bag. The nearest the best magnetic bottle has gotten to fusion needs about 25 times more pressure than they have. This is with high temperatures of the fuel assumed to be necessary to generate the reaction. Trying to confine a ball of hot gas with another gas seems to be improbable, air is an air leak no doubt. Another possibility than air for air has been devised that may be more viable may be by mechanical compression of the gas, by way of counterbalancing cylinders. Each set of cylinders and cylinder blocks would have the shape of a cylinder and half sphere on the ends that mesh tightly so first the fuel would be in a more oval shaped room with rounded ends, on compression the cylinders at the maximum compression would be with the plasma shaped like a sphere, so more stable by the physics. The inner walls would be with many positive charges of atoms imbedded in the cylinder face at regular intervals so the positive field of the cylinder walls would also be more leveled all the way around to compress the fuel of protons. To reduce instability more, lower temperatures would be used, this would be like a diesel engine compared to gasoline powered; the fuel may ignite more by internal pressure and heat so it would be more stable while with lower temperature up to the ignition point. The discoverer of dry ice, Bridgeman, found that water remains frozen even at high temperature if the pressure is also raised. Another way to reduce instability is by focusing of the fields of the magnetic fields of the cylinder walls so they would extend just a short distance this would reduce the instability the longer distance fields of the magnetic bubbles would have. If the fuel is too hot a surrounding area of field might be used; to boost the stability to add more force the solid outer shell to power the reaction would be of worth to increase the probability of fusion and inside this a minimal but strong layer of field would move the force from the cylinder to the compression of the fuel more reliably. Coolant like electric cooling might be also used to cool the cylinder after each power cycle using some of the power of the fusion to power the cooling. To actuate the buffer field high speed sensors and actuators would be used to actively stabilize the field. This may be especially of worth with the use of smaller cylinders and fields since with reduced field to control it's more reliable.

The two cylinders on each side of the pairs of counteracting machines would be sealed by a sort of magnetic flange of many rings of the width of the cylinder of the two pistons so none of the fuel could leak out. With no leaks and more balanced pressure instability would also be minimized.

There are the two sets of cylinders in this lottery machine of the star in a jar so that when one compresses and has fusion it expands and then this expansion on one side of the machine is transferred to power by a strong beam perhaps of large size and a strong lever arm to cause the compression of the other piston in its pressure phase. This way part of the pressure cycle is used to power the next boost.

Like an engine of a road machine if more pressure is needed to make the reaction go a spark might be used for extra atomic power, this would be used in more optimal ratio or just to add more pressure and not so much heat up to the point when the maximum pressure was achieved. The spark would be a sort of atomic spark plug that would be perhaps a bit of Uranium that would be hit by a laser on one side of the cylinder.

25 times the pressure is not that much by these methods to achieve because you can exert much more pressure with a solid than just with air and much of the problem of the bubbles is about instability, not pressure. If the instability and the pressure are both overpowered by these methods, this will make fusion more like fusion was always imagined to be in the old movies about science and life of the year 2000, all the reruns have 0-0-0 at Christma like St. Clause in B.C!

To improve pressure without so much heat is by use of physics of the mighty ant about strength of materials. The ant can lift a huge amount of mass and throw it far; if humans could do this it would be like throwing the mass 20 miles as they say in Amazing Sci Amer. So too a gyroscope generates the most force at smaller distances because the strength of the machine is most at closer distances where much higher rpms are reached. While temperature is heat per unit of mass, heat is not the same. So if you felt the heat mass has around the outside of Jupiter it wouldn't feel hot even though it has higher heat than the solar power of the sun. Each molecule moves fast in the mostly empty space but there are not many of them. And the space shuttle tiles are so radiant they can be real hot and not burn your hand. Pressure can be much larger if the surface area is decreased without melting the machine. Thus a smaller piston of the fusion machine may be both of more worth because of it's ability to exert more than the 25 times the pressure, and because of it's reduced heat which won't multiply up each surrounding atom's heat or instability without so many atoms. The uses of magnetic fields to hold the fuel was originally thought to be of worth because the high heat of the fusion would seem to melt any metal walls. The metal walls are still there in the Tokamak but they are removed away and the confining magnetic bubble is between the walls and the fuel. The use of more powerful, but nearer and more stable and actuated fields may help.

The problem of the smaller heat output of a smaller piston would be solved just by using more pistons on each side in even numbered sets. Smaller cylinders also would reduce leaks by use of the smaller magnetic field in R&D, it would be easier in simulations and use to find where leaks would develop and control them more reliably.

All this will help increase our bet of this vast source of safe power on a large scale. Typically heavier atomic nucleii would be used of positive and negative valence that would align by the strong electric field of the pistons so it would be more probable the poles of the protons would implode to the poles of the neutrons, fusing both by pressure and the strong force without having to overpower the centrifugal force of each random alignment of the non polarized field of the Tokamak. Another way to safe atomic power may be lining up protons in the N S, N S poles in a wire and draining off the spin by a beam on the side of the limb of the wire thus formed with a complete loop of electric field all the way around to collect the atomic power converted to electric. This I name the Atomic Motor. It would take nano engineering we don't have yet and may not be as efficient, so compression of the fuel may be more of worth in the near physics. More mass would be converted to energy with compresssion.

-

Are Gravity Powered Machines Good Physics?

....

...There are patents on them, but do they work without violation of energy conservation? These machines are sort of like a bucket and a weight on a boom, the balance makes it so they lift even "old energy" in the pail, and this is an ancient machine used in egypt to lift the nile of 3000 BC awhile. A gravity powered machine now in use has weights on both ends of a boom. This is rather like power steering when you go out for a whirl in your Chevy, you have the forces the same on either side, so it just takes a bit of force to move the column. If you put a machine to generate electricity powered by the tires side to side motion, the force could be used to achieve work if the balance of the pressure of the fluid in the power steering were cheap (I just wave my hand on the wheel when a goddess jogs past, and when she'll gossip awhile, I'm strong to lift her a bit via just saying hi!) With the gravity powered machine instead of constant power of the power steering used to cause the multiplied force of the machine, it's replaced by gravity. Even so gravity is unlike the balanced hydraulic pressure of power steering because it never runs out of power and balance of the forces. So if you had two weights on both sides and each weighs 1000 lbs it seems it would be of worth to use that balance like with the power steering wheel to move a machine to do work. (Inertia would be more but this would just be solved by slowing the machine.)

-

...This is easy to prove just with a simple experiment, if you use use a beam with holes or other like clamps that hold two pound exercise brightbells looped in the sidewise beam on the side of a pivot like a sawhorse and another beam of comparable mass to the weights of like wood of 2 or 3 ft broad above the machine, when you have the weights you can lift one of them just by moving your center of mass towards it, and once the mass is removed at the top if at the same time the center of mass is moved to the other weight, it's easier to balance also, this is much easier than lifting the weight, it's why machines like this are used instead of lifting 1000 lbs by hand. You'll see the weight is much easier to lift with the boom on top than without by just moving the center of mass when you load, and it's easy to balance the machine for a reload just by moving the center of mass because the boom of wood adds force like the wheel power to multiply up the power. The main point here is that if you first lift and drop the weight with the other, and then add another moderately heavy beam to lift the same weight, you'll notice it's much easier! And to move the center of balance of the machine to relift the weight takes reduced labor where the machine has a roller and is in balance. This is how gravity power machines multiply up the mechanical advantage. If you had two 5000 lb weights and you try to lift five pounds this is much easier than if you lift five pounds without the machine, just as if you put a weight by the side of a wheel and move it by power steering (don't try this at 100 mph!) it would be much easier to move from where you, in the editors sofa and not asleep at the wheel control by small motion than with a van without power steering, as in the experiment. Instead of the force of the power steering causing the balance of the wheels, the force of gravity is used with the two weights, and this would be caused by the pressure of the flow of the particles of the field, a more inexaustable power source than the power steering. (I think it's even possible the field itself may never run out of energy, for why and how, click here..) Whatever the cause of the flow if it exerts pressure to cause the machine to multiply up, this like the flow of other fields may be useful if tapped, a sort of hydroelectric power flow. With these machines each stamping motion generates force that also lifts the machine to the next stamp on the other side. The egyptian machine they use to this day (the bucket and boom and weight) could be used for power of this via combining it with a turbine by lifting water or other stuff in the bucket, dropping it in a turbine for power and while the beam is at rest at a higher level the pivot of the machine is moved to where the empty bucket and the weight balance by the weight of the beam. By letting both bucket and weight rest while moving the pivot, more advantage is gotten each time the bucket is raised or lowered enough to achieve extra power. A bucket and boom could operate by no other means if this were untrue. This may seem to violate energy conservation, but if there were not more power gotten out than we put in, this machine would be out of use and all sorts of machines like levers or machines of other types would not be in use.

...

Say you have two buckets of liquid stuff, one one liter and one two liters. If the weight of the beam (the force multiplier) is 1 on each side, the weight on one side is 2 an on the other side is 3, and the ratio is 3/2 or 60%. If the weight of the beam is much raised to 100 on both sides, the ratio to lift the bucket is 102/101 or about 1%. And once the heavy bucket has been lifted and emptied to equal the 1 liter jug, they both weigh the same to lower it down to reload. The weight of the extra one liter is all of the liter, so the cost of lifting it has been reduced by almost 60%, and the more weight is put on the beam the more power is saved, and the rebound these machines use with with each stamp and optimally moving the lever arm makes the savings more by using the inertia of the weight to multiply the force. This is something even Archimedes or all the world's inventors since might have invented. Archimedes was the author of volumes of sound and action adventure. No doubt he knew about lifting weights on machines, the difference is using the weight itself lifted like water to then do work. This may seem obvious, but someone had to put the memo on the first website! This is the genius of gravity powered machines.

  When you think about this, moving a pack like a luggage cart sideways up a hill is much easier than to put the weight on your back for the same distance, thus the sideways motion of the beam at the top of the cycle to take up the imbalance as the bucket is emptied at the top can be counterbalanced more easily than just by way of the pressure of gravity that also makes it near to 60% better.

..

Not only is the weight of both masses reduced, their inertia is increased. If you took the two weights to orbit and weightlessness, the weight would be 0 and the force needed both to start and stop the masses would be much the same, so energy is conserved. But when the machine is moved to the earth's surface, like motion of the wheel on the superhighway, more force is able to move the "reduced weight". Gravity is implosive and is reversed in the outward entropy of more common force, so gravity seems to have opposite entropy.

..

Click here for several patents on gravity powered machines, see field of invention.

..

Each time a machine like the bucket is lifted there's extra hydrolectric power out and the overall spin of the earth is reduced just a bit. Even more amazing is that engineers have been trying to invent machines like this since ancient times but didn't know what they were. I think the Energy Conservation Promotion Foundation has named the conservation of motion the same as the conservation of motive power, which seems to be something else, with gravity, at any rate. The motion of the higher energy field like electrodynamics is balanced by the electric charges with conservation of motion because it's mostly balanced but gravity is continually violating conservation of motive power locally by wringing out the power of the earth and sun, no matter how much time passes there will always be more of the motive power. And since relativity is about the speed of light and thus electrodynamics of electricity and the balance of charges, gravity is perpetually imbalanced and so the power of these machines is proof of the opposition of special relativity and gravity. Einstein himself believed that a massive body gains mass with time by way of the gravity, as they've found with supermassive astronomy where there is no matter falling in, yet the masses are increasing at the right rate to be explained by implosion of particles of the field. As I say here on my Physics Synopses Link I think this is because gravity is not relativistic and so gravity and other waves like the strong force spinning around may move at faster than light.

..

You may know that a spinning mass keeps the same rate of spin, even so the sun is continually radiating out power. If the sun or a spinning wheel were more important, I believe the sun would be. Though the sun may overpower the quanta, even so the same field is here trying to boost acceleration, an asymmetrical field by definition may have extra flow of power. If a gyroscope were gravity powered and the field is there like in common gravity of a centrifuge much the same by Einstein's equivalence principle and Einstein's other idea of mass augmentation, wouldn't it speed up? This relates to a fundamental question about gravity, if gravity causes the redshift of light and redshift is an expansion of wavelength, why isn't the Earth inside out? My answer is that gravity itself may operate on a much different wavelength, that has Blueshift Click Here , because gravity brings masses together, it doesn't cause reradiation mostly (while I agree with Einsteins other idea here too that it may reradiate with i.e. cosmic acceleration, mostly it's implosive.) Because gravity is attractive Einstein's idea about mass augmentation with time may be more true than the conservation of angular momentum because it's something different. So while the Earth doesn't speed up, it certainly has an acceleration we constantly feel. I believe gravity is not the same as relativity, because the speed of light is only constant in uniform motion, and gravity is an acceleration, it can't be cancelled by the choice of frame of motion, gravity implodes, and linear motion may cause the radiance outward of centrifugal force, and so on. The use of this distinction may be by gravity powered machines, gravity like a sort of giant one way valve to give the huge weight to the rocks of the Earth, and the outflow if like Einstein believed and by my idea it's mostly of a lower wavelength so we don't fall off the Earth by antigravity, and also to have the Earth not gaining much weight from the implosion of the field. If the inflow is not the same as the outflow, a constant force is being created. The use of gravity powered machines may be like the source of hydroelectric power of the sun, just nearer and in many ways dearer to us.

..

,,These gravity powered machines are special, though you may see machines nearby, I remember engineers are often devising new machines, there is more to be engineered yet, some would say. 

...

Einstein believed an electron might increase in mass with time. Experiments to prove if this was so found that old electrons weigh the same as new ones. This seems like the gyrosoope spinning around and not speeding up with time. Like the quanta of the wheel the springs (electrons) stretch but just so much and then no more. If we put two springs like electrons or more common mass on a scale and then tried to power it by gravity if the springs were attached to the base of the machine and the scale there would be no extra power. However if we move them in the field of the gravity unencumbered and balanced by the machine the gravity in a real sense would be independant of the inertial component of the field, this is why the two components of a ballistic arc are independant. They operate at much different wavelengths and energies, otherwise gravity would be exactly the same as inertia. Gravity power machines in essence seem to have the inertia seperate from the gravity with less resistance from the field. We can squeeze power out from a diesel engine, and knowing when in the cycle to find the power is important, no doubt.

..

If like me, you hope to improve the world, Click Here for some Comics by me for creative energy to energise you another way than mere physics.

-

...Unlimited motive power is not uncommon in some machines, gravity is continually squeezing out extra power from the fusion of stars, and hydroelectric power when the machines go online generate power unlimited at low cost, the same for the power of reactors. These machines may be used for motive power of other machines of any type there are, like atomic machines up to giant power plants, with no cost other than wear due to friction. In the future all houses may have a gravity power machine, in storms all the power wires would be improved you see outside (Actually they found a way in 1997 for the fields around the outside the power wires for broadband for the whole country with just one small laser but with no power in the wires anymore, perhaps the greater hazard of the EMF of the wires would also be solved when they remove the wires. With so much power saved and earned by these machines broadband by usual radio waves would be a lot cheaper.).

..

...Gravity powered machines would seem to be completely safe for the environment. The only problem about this may be that the earth will gradually slow down (2079 is always zoomer than we think) so this might be solved by just aim of the machines into the earth's field by a non radial method. Note that these machines would be of worth even if the Earth had no spin, the field would continue squeezing out the heat, so the spin of the Earth is a seperate component of the field and the machines if used wisely would be able to use the power without loss of the spin of the Earth over time. Some have devised rotary machines that would have the two large weights and the weights would rock with more power as they also spin around, the spin of the right type would cancel out the spin otherwise taken from the field. Another way to "save the month hour and year" might be by using the most massive gravity powered machines just in the N. and S where they wouldn't much cancel the spin in the extreme high latitudes and wire most of the power to the S and N.

..MY PHYSICS SYNOPSES/FASTER THAN LIGHT, ECT.
-

Earth Asteroid Impact; An Improved Solution

Earth Day all Month!

The New Scientist says this month they have plans to save the earth from the event of asteroid impact by use of a heavy enough ship of perhaps 20 tons that would have enough gravitational force to move the asteroid enough to miss the earth. The machine, which would be relatively easy to build, would have enough gravity if it just stayed beside the big stonehenge block to move it in a year, but this would only be with a massive asteroid. While our sensors would see the big behemoths with a 20 year advance notice, the plan wouldn't work for smaller blocks on the stars hollywood elevator of fame without enough time to reach it and move it. This means small asteroids of less than a thousand feet wide (we can't see them well) limit the use of the massive ship to save the earth by this means. Because of this on the New Scientist link some say we should just find ways to sound out small asteroids well with radar or other methods and then just use common evacuation methods to save the people who live where the impact would take place, this is considered the better value for the cost.


BEAMS IN BOOMS

A cheaper method as I've said may be to use just a laser or other beam to change the path of a small or medium asteroid that would then whizz by the impactor deflecting it rapidly and cheaply. Because there wouldn't be as much advance notice or way to move the deflection mass to meet it just at the right month, a problem with this might be to reach the impactor in time by this method of both beam and gravity (of my own authorship). Even so moving smaller asteroids is faster than big stones of this type because by F=ma the same force applied a smaller mass will move it with higher velocity. If this helps and moves the small asteroid to deflect the large or medium asteroid in time to stop the impact this plan may still have the problem of random motion of the stones of the asteroid, they might break loose, which are believed to be a hazard because the whole asteroid and the stones nearby are all on the same collision path towards earth and many of them might cause damage if they hit the earth. (An asteroid is often like a loose bag of stones and sand). This is a reason the heavy ship beside the asteroid to deflect it was believed to be of worth, it would just have a gentle force of the gravity of this ship to move the asteroid slowly.


SLICE OF LIFE

Another problem is about the high cost of boosting a 20 ton ship that far, as the people envision who favor just advance warning systems and evacuation over the heavy ship plan to move the asteroid by this method. A cheaper solution possible may be to use what I consider to be the general Equivalence of mass and inertia (not the same but close enough see My General Physics Synopses. Page for why I disagree with Einstein) so the machines that use an oscillating slice of wheel to aim the centrifugal force in just one direction instead of cancelling out all the way around the wheel could be used in place of what would have been the heavy ship as on the New Scientist site. This type of machine just exerts pressure on one side with the exhausts of the rockets and on the other side via the more controllable centrifugal force of inertia which would act much like gravity. The ship will move much lighter faster and cheaper, better than either the heavy machine or the advanced notice. The machine could be fine tuned with enough force to move it as fast as possible while being cautious to not move it so fast it would loosen the stones.

Another way to achieve low weight of the ship without loose stones may be to send a machine that has a low energy maser of the same or more energy than the 20 ton machine would use, of low enough power not to loosen the stones though of higher speed than by other machines, or even lasers that would sense where the stones are and exert pressure just on the more solid zones to move the meteorite or comet by computer actuation.
-

Optimizing On Up

These plans could be used in optimal combination on a budget, if we could afford no more and a heavy asteroid was headed our way, a machine like this could be used to just move the asteroid somewhat. But with just a bit of force we would move a big impactor to one side perhaps from the land to the ocean or the north and south and then just evacuate the people who lived there. For big asteroids with more advance warning it may be most cost saving to just move a small asteroid with the beam to move the larger, or an optimal combination, If the change in the path of the asteroid were distant and there was more advance room, the loose stones would be safer.

-
Got a lot of junk in your Post Office Box? Does the Sales team at the Auto Lot fill your box with memos for a breathbrush? Here's a solution; a Machine that converts all those annoying junk blurbs to paper, or rags. They've used junk posts to heat houses in a machine for years, so instead of burning the junk in a stove this would cleanse and recycle it, a good way to help the ecology. Resturants and county Auto memos for vehicles could earn a diploma in Mail Order with a Ma Bell cyber memo , Act As Save As If!

They say looking up to see the sky is calming, like with doctors who talk about the weather so they are paid the most. But we lived in the warmth of the low latitudes of the world for millions of years before the invention of fire, so it's not real evolution to go outside in much of the weather around December 35th or so. Rich relatives (yours, no doubt!) have had rooms with roofs that roll to see the shine. The ancient amphitheater in Rome had a roof of this type, and the ampitheater would even fill up with waves for sea fights by warriors in boats in the arena. What we don't want this weather or lions in the den of our room and want a roof like the rich? A good solution of the 21st century is a TV that beams up the star treck episodes live! It would light up your ceiling which reflects off the beam so they say may you see, not just the live vision of stars and moon and Venus at night, you can zoom anywhere in the cosmos, or use it as a learning or sleep learning machine, a giant computer so you would always be able to read mom's memos and it's easier to compute lying down (lying takes less energy than sitting or standing) or increase the hours of the day when you see the light and clouds or stars for more sleep like in evolution. If the roof is well reflective and the machine is on the wall it would be a much cheaper way to achieve this than a giant TV. The walls could also be with visions of anywhere in the world you'd want to visit (like the zoom on Wheel of Fortune).

They say trees reduce problems when they are planted on roads in urban realms, it sooths me when mom wins 30,000 more than the Wheel when jogging!

..

What's The Highest Speed of Rest?

It May Be Faster Than Light For Gravity and Slower For Masses like Alpha Centauri

About Einstein's and Maxwell's conclusions, the ether is assumed to be the proof of Maxwell's prediction about the exact speed of light based on the pressure of the waves, and in my causology this can be reconciled with Einstein's view that there is no field there and it's just empty space by the assumption that both Relativity and Maxwell are correct. Relativity and Maxwell's prediction of the speed of light are both well proven so my conclusion is that the seemingly perfect balance of uniform motion would be explained by the constant electric charges causing a constant wavelength of light with a given amount of uniform motion like an elevator with a weight and counterweight. Like the elevator there is no force in the rsst frame with constant motion and the speed of light would be "frozen in" at the constant speed, and when there is acceleration of the weight and counterweight the pressure of the field and the speed of light is changed. So the field Maxwell used exists but it is so well balanced with no acceleration it acts as if it's vanished. More on this link. (About the problem of the ether being so super dense by the earlier considerations it was implausable, my considerations based on the evidence seem to show that for whatever reason [I list a few possible ones] the density of the ether may not be huge. Click Here..) A wave at rest is essentially a particle and if you change the wavelength this is an important measure of the change of the motion because all motion is linear or angular and all is made of motion. So while Einstein may have believed the speed of light is constant in truth something important by way of energy conservation changes about the speed of light with changes in the redshift of light. The speed of light in a fundamental way changes with changes in the speeding up or slowing down of a high-speed observer (so that it's then constant at a lower or higher speed if the observer is higher or lower.). This change in the light seems to need to be so for there to be any way to measure any change in the speed of anything in the field. In the history of the research like with the Michaelson- Morley experiment the goal was to try to find a frame of rest of the field relative to which all other motion would be measured just as your speed through the air can be measured relative to an airship by how much pressure it exerts on the ship. Obviously finding such a rest frame would be useful to physics. In Relativity though, the ether (field at rest) is assumed not to exist, because in the Michaelson Morley experiment, the speed of light was found to be the same in all directions regardless of what the frame of motion of the observer was, as if the field completely gives way so there is no pressure of the ether in the rest frame of the observer. But if special relativity were the most general explanation of the cosmos there would be no changes in pressure and there would be no way to measure changes in motion, and the relativistic speed of light is not of most import in this explanation of mine, or the speed of light would be constant and absolute in all senses. Relativity is actually not about relativity but the unchanging speed of light Einstein then fit all the rest of his ideas about the physics of relativity within. If the speed of light is thus absolute by definition it would seem to be absolutely unchanging and there would be no change in the redshift or the momentum of the light possible.
-
It may seem any kind of more absolute measure would be unnecessary by just measuring relative changes in motion by way of changes in pressure of the ether (or my more relativistic ether based on what I believe is Maxwell's more general explanation by way of wave density). Energy is conserved, so it would seem all that would have to be done is to send changes in the field from one location to another without much of an overall connection. Relativity is about high speed motion but no one can live without rest (the solar system would be edgy otherwise!). If the cosmos was not held together by gravity with all motion and a loose connection of linear motion of all the mass of the universe, the cosmos would have become more and more disconnected and evaporated, and the universe would have infinite size and zero mass density. So I think the loose connection of special relativity is disproven by all the finite physics around us. Rest is necessary for life, for example, it's believed by exobiologists and paleologists that life can't start to evolve or exist without a surface to exist upon. Life wouldn't seem to be possible without a solar or star system that has planets that would orbit around a central more massive star that has to be more at rest. If gravity makes the sun more at rest than the earth and relativity is about disconnectivity as in the above, gravity and special relativity would seem to be the opposite, gravity's acceleration would be the opposite of special relativity's uniform linear motion because the change is the opposite of non change, and acceleration is a changing rate of change, while the linear motion is an unchanging rate of change.

Speeding through the Cosmos, to measure high speed motion in a more absolute sense there is no doubt the light of special relativity can't be used to measure motion relative to a field at rest like the ether. It might seem just observation from a high-speed starship toward the stars which are more at rest (and non relativistic because gravity would be the opposite of relativity) would make it so we may find the most reliable way to measure our motion at any speed, but if we try to use just the distant star light it still wouldn't work by way of light because of the vast distances special relativity is about (not just the loose connectivity). Because of the huge interstellar distances and the "slow" speed of light, in special relativity there's no way to know if an event happens before and after one here than an event that takes place on Alpha Centuari 4.2 light years ago or in months ahead. An the other hand rest needs connectivity because the gravity of a mass like the sun is implosive and so this reduction of connectivity with distance means that any kind of information about who is a rest or not becomes much less reliable over great distance if measured by light alone. If rest is of such high worth to hold the cosmos together it would seem there must be some way physics would have of connecting up distant regions via the field. They are only two long range fields known, one is electromagnetism like the speed of light, and the other is gravity. So this is another reason about why my conclusion is gravity may operate by waves at higher speeds than the speed of light.


Click here for my Physics Synopses, a concise simple overview of my beliefs and some experiments that could be achieved to prove or disprove this about gravity, and the evidence in physics that has been found for faster than light. Rest is power, so broadband is a must. I can't make haste slowly not when a 99 cent sandwich is just 1.99!

-
In a high speed wave that would also change speed (acceleration of gravity) with the masses that cause it more at rest we would have a reliable way to know if the observer was at rest or in motion. The equivalent changes in the speed of light or red shift with the overall momentum of the gravity and light conserved with the light falling in and out of the gravitational field would be used to measure if the star is more at rest by way of the gravity waves not the light. A gravity wave would measure which is more rest just as a rock falls to the earth faster than the earth to the rock.

With a fast gravity wave the most mass at the center of the universe could be used for the most reliable measure of all other motion. By the above this is not allowed by relativity alone and would violate energy conservation if gravity is without implosion and rest.

Gravity would seal the cosmos in a non relativistic way and would also no doubt be self cohesive. The two long range fields are gravity and electromagnetism, so since light slows down in a gravitational field the gravity would speed up near a massive body, this is the implosion of gravity. Since an empty space is the opposite of a filled up space with more gravity and since light speeds up in low density field, gravity would also slow down here just as when you throw a stone up as it goes higher and higher it slows to a stop. But gravity is much lower energy than light so though the cosmic field would just extend out to a finite distance the radius of the cosmic gravitational field would go further. This would hold the electric and all the other dense fields in the "cosmic electromagnetic radius" in one great mass and the gravity at more distance would finally be slowed in it's motion like the stone at higher distances when you throw it. This would be the physical mechanism by which the cosmos is stopped from radiation of all its energy and the violation of energy conservation this would involve, the cosmos would need the gravity to be faster than light and of another sort of physics in order to outdistance the light and seal it in. Most of the electric charges of the cosmos may just be sealed in by electric attraction but light would radiate further without gravity outdistancing it.
-

Bio Power/Jet Stream Boost Via Heliballoons
..
A good use of amobea they've achieved is a jug filled with life that generates power! It's believed this may be improved by using the way plants common potting plants like airplane plants are that need no food or water, actually most plants get perhaps 97% of the power and "food" to thrive from the air! Pizza is just for Mamma V or marms, I know a marm who's gone commercial. She often says how our county has 30 shhss to eat a Pizza! And there are some power plants that generate more power per unit weight than animals higher up in evolution like the lion. If these plants that generate power or heat were bred or engineered so they would be of the type that would need no food or water like the airplane plant, it would boost power in each house that would cleanse the air of CO2 and indoor pollution and generate heat and electricity, without input of food or water. This would not be impossible. Power plants would be power generated right up your road where you live. I got some "Cheap Luxury" brand Bottled Water "Pumped From the Source" They use the same storage resevoir as the town!


Stream Fans Aloft Via Helicopter Balloons

They have the plan to tame the winds of the upper atmoshpere,one idea is to use fans on wires that would be held aloft like a kite by the continous wind, I don't know it they have heard of helicopter balloons, invented in the 70's, they look like a balloon with helicopter rotors that go all the way through the axis of the spin and out the sides for lift and control. It has the lift of an airship and the stability and speed of a helicopter. A use of the helicopter balloons would be to support the fans in the jet stream for stability, so much stability the power could be reversed and some months of the year the jet stream might be moved north or south in hopes of controlling the paths of say the worst storms, we all talk about the weather and we might get power out of it and control it eventually.


It's said by the inventor the heliballons may be powered by both the tugging and spin itself, sort of like the wave machines which oscillate up and down with the waves and the weight below the buoy except with air, it's believed this would be a renewable power source. The helicopter balloons will be stationed by the shore where the land and sea breezes are constant and both spin in the breeze and also with the tugging motion to add a lot more power to collect. It's thought if bad weather approached they could be lowered down automatically in to housing at on the ground or it could be above the weather. Since many sail collectors are considered bad for the beautious beach vistas it could be made to look just like balloons you see at the festival in August. This is uplifting like a vitamin jug that lifts me. It's good to know I've absorbed 50% RDA of BHT and Riboflavin!
--

A Cyclone Machine

(Used to Simulate And Control Real Storms..)

They now have this machine that makes a synthesized dust devil that's 150 feet in diameter and the cyclone will go miles high, once it's started it will implode more air generating more power inhaling more air indefinitely so it may be a complete power source powered by low pressure (Pop Sci July 2008 pg 46 Harnessing Energy From Tornadoes). A feasable machine 15 feet wide has been built and a 150 foot wide machine is under construction. (It's like The Wheel as Elevator. They have a great show on Wheel of Fortune. 25 years and I've never seen no contestant who didn't win!) In my comments on THIS LINK about the machines to control these whirlwinds in real life, I note that the simulated weather experiments to prove if it would work could be achieved by using perhaps air or water and so on of more than one density to generate a small synthesized storm that could then be used to see if the small machines like an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle could go to the small storm or and stop the flow of the air perhaps by cutting off the flow with fins, propellers or laser or by heat changes, steam jets, water jets, explosions, and so on sort of like how you stop a cyclone in the tub by putting your hand over the flow. A problem with the power generation whirlwind they now have in the works they say may be if the storm goes off the the machine's track and causes devastation. The author of the machine says he thinks it would be safe because he could just turn off the motor, however it seems not impossible if the conditions were ready, more probable than the real storms perhaps because the air would flow more to the storm, like how lightning is drawn to a higher hill. A solution may be use to use this synth to actually test the weather control of the more real storms. The tornado machine would go online and the machines that could control the real whirlwind would be deployed and well exercised and researched in use to make real weather control of the more wild storms achievable, and no doubt the same machines would be of worth to stop the synthesized giant storm. So all the power would safely be achieved of both the cyber storm and real storms would be controlled well. This would be at least a good as what people in prime time pharma infomercials achieve, it seems like they stand around and are just alive for a living!

General (Earth) Weather Control

Hurricane Control; Icebergs

Weather Control Simulation Experiments

(To $ave A Lot On The co$t of Big Machine$!!)

3 Ways To Reach Mars Cheaper

Momentum Builds Higher than 93 Million Mph

There are currently plans to go to Mars and beyond using what's called Momentum Transfer and Way Stations. The idea of Momentum Transfer is about and vis a vis how you can create more force on a body by impact on the outside by another high-speed mass. The starship has another mass after it's been launched that's boosted up to reach it, and when the two masses meet the speed from the faster one adds a lot of speed to the starship. They then move with a moderate (combined) speed till the starship rejects the mass and it then speeds up the ship by reaction when the momentum is moved outward from it, they say this would make time of transit to go to Mars or other distant realms just a few months not years. Even if you had a constant comfortable speed of 32 ft/sec it would only take a year to reach the speed of light, so boost is more of a problem than resistance to motion.
-

Way Ahead Of Our Time While We Save And Save

Another plan is about using Way Stations around the sun permanently or semi permanently in orbit between Earth and Mars, these would boost the speed of the starship and aid in fueling the Martians (they would be green if they ate a lot of cheeze chips!). I had the same idea but I considered it more and viable for Ma Bell because the cost would be so much higher to maintain the Way Stations. With the trip already costing trillions, the Way Stations are for the more distant years and months ahead (the remote with a big tube TV is big enough for 2010.)

-
A Storage Room With Round Sides

A third idea that could be used with the Momentem boost however might be to first send a sort of javelin boom that would spear into the side of one Mar's small moons Phobos or Diemos, these are presumably captured asteroids, miles wide, so they weigh a lot. Once they were speared in the side the boom would be extended out so that when a high-speed starship arrives (Arriba! Arriba!) on the wave of the momentum (The starships are up!) the boom would catch the starship and the linear motion would be converted to angular storing up much of the energy used to make the trip in the spin of the asteroid, this would be used to essentially keep the starship at almost the speed it was when it got there with linear to angular momentum, so the energy would not be wasted and stored. A major cost of the trip to Mars no doubt is cost of fuel and by storing lots of the motion almost half the trips power costs would be saved, so it would be even cheaper than by momentum when the boom and moment plans would be combined. To go back to Earth in the month of March (or the big Ides of blue I would see when I got here if my opthamologist had her say) the astronauts would blast off from Mars up to the center of the spinning asteroid with boom, land in the center of the moon and then gradually move outward on the boom were the starship with the speed increasing when in the starship. The starship would be released at high-speed and most of the speed would already be reached needed to return to Earth.


A Bit of Another World (Soaps Return Savings Cupons!)

Another method that has been invented to use part of in going speed of a high-speed probe would be by a sort of lever on the tip of the high-speed machine. The machine of strong metal or other high strength stuff goes inward, the tip of the probe nips a sample of the surface of the world or other body to be returned to earth. The trick would be to use a lever on the tip of the machine that would rapidly reverse the high-speed motion of the ingoing probe with a sample from the surface so it sort of bounces right off the surface of the planet and much of the inward momentum would be converted to the outward saving a lot on the cost, this may be the only way missions to take samples of distant worlds may be affordable. This may be more of worth than going up the road -and instead of dashed lines, you see a zip map!
-

MORE ABOUT THE RELATIVISTIC WIND TUNNEL

..

The speed of light seems to be an assumption of Einstein's based on his faith in just the one experiment, the speed of light by the Michelson Morley experiment. The speed of light actually is unlike other speeds such as of sound in relativity because it's constant and is supposed to be the limit. In all the other examples of wave motion you see, with changes in the density of the field, the top speed is changed. More or less field density and the wave speed is higher or lower, (or vice versa depending on the type of waves. They come in pairs so some speed up while others slow down to conserve momentum.). This is a general principle, well proven with many waves and many speeds. And Maxwell used this assumption of the general speed of waves when the density is changed to predict the exact speed of light. For both these reasons my belief is that a lighter field like gravity may have it's wave motion at faster than light, according with the density of the wave, it's much less dense, so it would be much faster than light. The speed of light of relativity would just be one example of the many more examples in physics of the speed being according to the density.

You have all these relativistic effects. If gravity is in another wavelength and so isn't much effected by relativity because it's another wavelength so like an antenna at another wavelength it mostly just passes right through the relativistic field of light where do all the relativistic effects go? Do they just disappear? As on THIS LINK where I say if the speed of light is electromagnetic, and the relative speed of the field is what counts in Special Relativity, if we set up a high energy electromagnetic field and measure the effects of the motion of the field on stationary mass in the box, this could be a sort of Relativistic "Wind tunnel" where we can measure and bring into the lab all the motifs of Relativity. I liken relativistic motifs to a ship out in the ocean. As it ploughs through the waves, it sets up a shock wave in the ocean. If we assume that the ship is limited to moving just in the water, the more you accelerate it, the water resists it with more pressure. The speed of the waves like the speed of sound in air can be constant, and we might assume it would take infinite energy to go much faster than the top speed of the wave. This is based on just the assumption like with Einstein, the top speed is limited to the waves of the ocean and that ship could never spread out wings and take to the air or go into the more reduced field of high speed through the cosmos in general. The idea that the speed of light is the top speed would seem to be just axiom and fit in with these more general examples of the more general idea that top speed of a force is determined by wave density. Ultimately all of physics is or will be derived from some sort of axiom. This is why Einstein is great, he found physics of much worth, but no doubt while any current proof by the evidence is an axiom till disproved in a sense, and all science has it's axioms of proof at any time in the history of science, some motifs are more general that others, and I think this may be so for Relativity.

If gravity is much faster than light, I think all the relativistic motifs won't just disappear if we measured high speed events with higher speed gravity waves. The properties that are unchanged and that aren't just relative to the observer (like the mass augmentation, which would be caused by pressure of the field) would be distinguished from just what's relative to the observer. For instance observers at more than one speed find two masses for another high speed body in motion, obviously this isn't as fundamental to the physics as the pressure causing the distinction of the mass. If the more general physics are determined by field density, this may be like a ship in the ocean, and all the relativistic motifs would be determined by the way the field reacts to changes in pressure including the mass augmentation, the Fitzgerald Contraction, the slowing of time and the Doppler redshift, would all be measurable or at least more provable by the Relativistic wind tunnel, since the long range fields of relativity are simple many of the motifs might be proven to have simple mechanical causes. (For example the slowdown of time would be caused by all the particles of the high speed mass spinning like small clocks, time has always been found to be related with periodic events in all experiments so time is proportional to frequency and is an acceleration which is one complete spin of the particle, time would be slowed by stretching out to the field and so all the small watches would have a stretched out motion like a helix so the slowdown of time would be caused by the angular motion of each clock being converted to linear via the high speed motion.) If we look from higher up to see a ship on the ocean via the faster speed of light available to us perhaps, from the point of view of an airship, the physics of the pressure of the wave don't disappear, obviously Einstein was a genius. While most of the motion of the boat is about the waves of the sea, it's not general enough to assume the boat or hovercraft would have no way to go up in the air, some have motors of power to achieve air travel.. The wave physics of the ship won't just disappear, but they might be extended to more general physics. All the relativistic effects might be measured by gravity if higher speed just as the waves of the ship in the ocean are measured by the higher speed light of the airship. As I say on the link about the relativistic wind tunnel, one of the main problems about going to the speed of light is about the fuel problem, it would take so much boost of the rockets to reach the speed of light, H.G. Wells would be out of the good economy! This might be solved by making the wind tunnel small, the way they now are building cheap atom smashers that any lab has the cash so high power physics are in the realm of more.
It's been believed that with forthcoming experiments to see if the idea of faster than light signals as in Einstein's own EPR Paradox reach from satellites in orbits at more distance, if it's indeed faster than light, they say you could have both observers both saying they were first instead of simultaneous. But the lack of the simultaneous time is a hallmark of Special Relativity because the distance us great and the light is slow to reach. You can never say which even is before or after for great distances, like to know what's up at Alpha Centauri in a few minutes. It's equally valid to say either us or the distant observer is definitely first. So I think if faster than light is proven by the experiments, it will actually restore simultaneous connections and know who is first, an important disproof of relativity because nothing could be connected up more than expand outward, and gravity couldn't hold the cosmos so energy conservation would be violated with all the mass expanding outward with no connection if gravity is not faster than light, which it may be..-
Here's why a Starship isn't "Ploughing through the Field" in uniform motion near the speed of light with lots of friction and the speed of light changing, even though the assumption of this field and the speed of light according to it's resilience is the basis of many ofter speeds of waves in fluids, and Maxwell's exact prediction of the speed of light, Eenstien's Spell Lift Elevator!

RELATIVISTIC WIND TUNNEL

...

EVIDENCE FOR THE MODERATE DENSITY ETHER

... My Physics Synopses

Physics Links

..

An NFL star is fiancee of Sonya Richards, Olympic runner, Atheletes run in our family too!

Doctor overcharge you? Set up a $ a year for the health coverage to pay the bill, say you're saving a lot, if the doctor is trying to help and of worth you'll live to be 100,00 and in good life and the nurse will make a fortune!

- -

 Even With Millions Of Years Of Our Evolution,Why Did We Evolve to be Savvy So Much Later?


In a book called "The Descent of Woman" author/biologist Elaine Morgan puts forth the explanation that we walked the world of the savanna because like the manatee, the dolphin, elephant and other animals, at some time in our and their evolution we evolved from the land to the water. Like some other mammals, in the explanation proposed in her book, the author, (or authorama perhaps!) says we lost most of our hair because like other animals of this type we were more streamlined in the water, and many other features of our anatomy would be explained, like our nose being with the air at the base so we could breathe well, our tears of salt like many marine animals to keep out too much salt water near the shore, and for example why a woman's wig is stronger when she's pregnant (so the baby can hold on while the mother and baby are out in the water). Or e.g that we have a completely different cooling system from other primates, subcutaneous fat (presumably to insulate from the water) and kidneys much like aquatic mammals.

And we are smart like other mammals who like the water in this scenario because like them we went in the water in one of the great ages in our evolution. Like claws and teeth, too much specialization for animals that lived on land would have not caused brilliance if with more narrow range of movement or articulation, in the realm of the actual physics much like in the realm of sleep and dreams, comedy is serious business. With a plethora of types of motion in the water, the mammals who evolved like us would have had more focus in more general computation and comedy and would evolve more brilliant solutions. We wouldn't have considered just such a limited range of values.

There are many other things the assumption that we went in the water like the elephants would explain, elephants are so well adapted to the water that they swim from island to island in the Mediterranean and use their trunk to breathe above the ocean waves..

To evolve from the land to the more old wave sounds I think our evolution to the water and beyond would have started perhaps at the mouth of rivers in the tropics were most life now lives. This would have been a worthwhile realm for this hour in our evolution with an environment of calm not like the sometimes unsafe ocean waves, so more conducive to survival. Basically, because of this being an optimal region upstream, I think all life that evolved like we did may have achieved evolution of this type in the same general zone.

  This is the realm where the rivers meet the ocean, the estuaries, where most life lived for most of evolution's ages. Most if not all fossils from the time of Morgan's hypothesis are found near the shores of ancient lakes and shores.

 So we would be living a bit upstream of where the river would meet the shore, then we would have walked out into the water and stood up because we could walk further out from the shore to be out of the reach of wolves and other shore predators, which is one of the main reasons in Descent of Woman (the book mentioned above) the author says we walked to the water that was a few feet deeper. Then after we had evolved upright with the lift of the water, it would have given us more advantage like being able to see further from higher up, and to reach higher up in the trees for lunch, and we would have evolved in return to land because of this advantage.


An interesting question is, if most types of life that evolved at some point in their evolution into the water would have lived in the same general zone a good bit above where the river meets the ocean, why did we evolve back to land but the dolphins and whales evolved out into the ocean water? One of the main reasons would have been that we indeed got more advantage in a higher vantage.

 Being able to see and reach further may have been what moved our own evolution in particular to return towards land. It seems easy enough to believe for any animal that would evolve out into waters of some depth that they would have been uplifted by the water, and would have the same advantage we received in our own evolution, so any animal of this type at this point in their evolution would have a better chance of higher reach, including the whales and dolphins.

 So just as they have found whales in fossils with both feet and fins, it's possible that fossils may be found with either whales or dolphins who may have walked on just two fins somewhat in their evolution. It's not impossible because there's no reason to distinguish us from them in evolution by this. Standing on two feet because of the lightness of the water is not something we invented, the physics were the same so it could have happened to any life that evolved like us.


The oldest footprints of our distant relatives they have found are 3.7 million years ago on the plains of Africa fossilized by the pumice from a nearby volcano after our ancient relatives walked in the muddy rain that afternoon. This is evidence we were higher up in our vision of life early in our evolution. If we stood upright mostly because it was easy via the uplift of the water, I think we would have evolved our hands in a more distinct second step later for the reason of reaching up in the branches.


You've always heard how we evolved to reach up and grab the lunch above us in the branch, and this was how we walked the earth in ancient, prehistoric times. I think this would have been too much at once and we would have developed our hands and stood higher in much the same hour of evolution if this were so. If we evolved both the higher reach and our hands at the same time, the usual explanation would have us being bright sooner without the wait between these two ages if they were from the same cause, to reach up where our lunch was in the branch above.

Click Here. In both explanations we're bright because of our hands, and when our hands evolved we would then be smarter at that time of the hour in our evolution. "Slower" if just by luck would have a longer wait from the time of our higher reach and vision to the evolution of our hands, and then near this time our brains would have suddenly become more robust. If this was by just mostly good fortune for us, just by luck there would be a wait more duration from the hour of our higher station in life to the evolution of our hands and then perhaps our more advanced brains because of this (faster than by evolution's slow way of life if in just one step and time over perhaps just tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.  The time of these two steps may be generally only somewhat near in the history of our evolution. Even if only a moderately strong correlation is found, this would be of worth to tell us how important the change in our hands was to our advance to higher evolution and then civilization.).

The reason we evolved back out of the water might be because we stood upright to reach the branches of the berries out over the water. And by being semi aquatic we would have already have been semi upright and the process would have been constant. The dolphins and other mammals looked to the waves and we looked up to the branches.


If we evolved how we walk in another unrelated and slow step than how we may have evolved our hands, this would be more like evolution is generally thought to be, with more small steps by good luck instead of fewer large steps.

  Whales elephants and manatees we are more unlikely to have been smarter than us even if they having evolved into the water like us were more likely to have stayed aquatic. And the rest of the land mammals are much less likely than even the whales or manatees to be as smart as us, the explanation being that evolution would only sometimes lead to aquatic evolution for land mammals and it wouldn't really converge by necessity on how we walk and our hands being of more use and our leaving the water beyond this. The luck would be sort of a two layer filter and just by luck we won the bet, or evolution would of thought of this advantage for many other types of land animals with more than 600 million years of evolution.

My Solutions To Objections Nina J (Anthropologist) Has About Our Evolution in and Out of the Water


CLICK HERE. to buy Elaine Morgan's book about evolution.


"Safety in numbers for speeding drivers Wed May 7, 11:28 AM ET


BEIJING (Reuters) - Speeding drivers in south China are getting away thanks to machines which switch the numbers on the licence plates in seconds, state media said on Tuesday"

If they use the light up plates to operate their machine, they would never be asleep at the wheel!
..