Aging And Evolution, Why Do We Grow Old?

It's been said that whoever said being old was a golden age, sure must have had a lousy youth. It seems unfair to have pain and woe where no matter how good we are or how hard we try, we grow old. As the song by Kenny Chesney says, "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to go now". They've found structures of our genes they say are a sort of natural timing fuse of the body, telomeres. As you get older, the telomeres always are reduced and the length of the telomeres is always proportional to the age we are in our life. They've also found an enzyme named telomerase that goes on the ends of the telomeres and telomerase actually stops the fuse from burning so some or many think telomerase may be a real elixir of life life and life, 1537, 1839, 1901, and 1977 was a real good month! Another causeology of aging is about the possibility of life as a sort of demolition derby like with a royal washing machine they wash ye old Isuzus with.. My stepfather says as he's gotten older he goes to the doctor and jogs, eats righter, etc because like an older vintage Jeep or Izuzu, due to wear, you have to spend more time on maintenance for the same payoff. It seems possible that if the process of growing wise is about wear and tear due to friction which is a natural result of what's called entropy or disorder, we could just replace all the worn out doors, wheels, fenders of a car as they wear out, just as we sometimes replace a spleen or knee, the idea is that if we could just learn the skill of replacement well enough, we could live forever. (Entropy in physics is about the reason of why the future is not the same as the past, since heat flows from hot to cold, the randomness of a foam of particles in the future is not the same as the more ordered energy of the present or past, this is why a weather report farther in the future is less predictable 8 days ahead more than say, 3 because the randomness is more and more with times ahead. Entropy is what causes aging of all mass and energy around us.)


I've wondered why we age, and now that I'm wiser, established, and rich, well who knows, why not! Consider the cells of your body, new cells are constantly being created and old cells are dying. If the old cells weren't dying with the new cells being added on we would become giant and overweight. To prevent this while hoping to stay the same age by the same method on the other hand if no more new cells were added, this would be a problem too, because all life is in motion and needs change, energy is in change, certainly all life is seen to be in motion. Without the overall change of cells dying and others constantly being created, an important source of life itself would be reduced. A church like the Methodists favors the change of preachers in years to another pastor, cleaning house. Because life is change, it's cleansing to eat more types of chow than just cheeze, exercise too is cleansing because it's more in motion. So it would seem the body needs cells to die a small death to avoid the larger death of the whole person if they were either too large to walk or function or if they were the same size and unchanging with no old or new cells (a.k.a. death). We have to be some size based on the balance of two opposites, what would make us large and what would make us small. There's just so much hemoglobin they can squeeze out of a GE light! The body is like a miniature ecosystem, it too is based on a balance of many types of opposites. If your heart has problems, you kidneys must work harder, for any flexor there is always an extensor (this is why in cardio boosts they say to flex to the left as you flex to the right, and so on). And the ecosystem is like your body, and this would be the cause of aging. It's not about just the tendency to go from simple to more random and just wear out the welcome of the fender shop because in life you go from poorer health at more risk when an infant to a maximum power at about 18 and with me then the aging began. If life never got old with the same birth rate life would take up more of the resources and room, but the resources are finite, there's nowhere all the life could live in a finite world. This is why I think aging is not like an illness that can just be cured. To prevent the worse catostrophe of no room to move, or no change with neither cells being born or dying, just as the old cells of your body make way for the new, evolution would have many ways to stop the worse catastrophe with the smaller catastrophe of aging and dying of individual cells or other life forms. Life would be a sort of war for peace where individual soldiers or cells give their life so other might live. Since the larger problems of the lack of aging would be worse, evolution may have many complex strategies to prevent the lack of aging beyond when we're a teen. Like cloning, it may seem to be a simple idea in outline, but because of the problems about room or change it may not be nearly as simple as just a roof or wheel transplant of a Geo or Chevy. What about telomeres, you may say? Here they find that the enzyme that stops the telomeres actually causes cancer in a large number of trials with cells given telemerase in the lab. Individuals with cancer don't grow large in size because the randomness the cells have is enough to be fatal without all the cells in the body multiplying. If they all were malignant without the individual with cancer dying, that person would be large in size. It seems that cell death and even dying is one important mechanism of evolution that saves us and the world from worse harm, if there was a better way with billions of years evolution would have found it. Aha you may say, the wheel, or civilization weren't in evolution and we achieved both. These are much easier to achieve than finding infinite recources or more room where there was no more, actually it's something not even civilization may achieve. Living is space stations is not viable, one explosion will set us back 25 years. It's estimated the cost of living in space stations to be one million per person.

Evolution would consider aging (beyond a certain time of life) to be worse than obesity because obesity has the use of the survival advantage in evolution of the store of energy. This is why it's easier for us to win weight than lose it, presumably while living evolution is seen to abound in health, like forest fires that whiff so good because we evolved with them, we might need a good store because there may have been food shortages once in a while. More about LIFE AS EVOLUTION. Thus while there may be many complex ways evolution may use to cause aging and resist no change or too much change in general, the large size of obesity may be better than trying to live forever because it had considerable survival value, obesity is just the increase of some cells of worth not all the cells like in cancer.

It seems no doubt that heaven exists as the retention by civilization of all the advantages of the good people achieved while they were alive, Sir Issac lives on because we remember what he did and said. Before the invention of writing is prehistoric by definition because we have no way of knowing what the prehistoric persons did while they were alive, it's not that they didn't live, just that there was no record of their deeds. Einstein influences us so he lives on when we read about him it changes our brain in a definite physical way because in brain research all change in thought is found to have a closely linked physical change in our physiology. When we think of others they are what we become, a sort of world wide web of thought, operating much like the web or civilization where most or all the advances are retained by most. Even if heaven exists by this motif, absolute life may not because of limited room and resources. Evolution seems to favor unselfishness as well as selfishness (after all carniverous life and sweet women were common in evolution) and giving up our physical life so others might live seems to be the most unselfish thing anyone could do, so yearning for a way to cure aging seems to be an easy way of life and not the way evolution would have it. As Shakespeare said, "There may be an afterlife whether we like it or not" so too we may have to be unselfish whether we like it or not. This also makes the idea of dying someday not so tough to live through for me not only because it makes life more precious by it's rareness but because it actually has a higher meaning of giving life to others, no doubt it's still wiser to make sure you're donation goes to the most good cause, in history many people have been decieved.


Darwin in Origin of The Species used the word "love" 87 times and "Survival of The Fittest" just once. If so why have people believed that there was no harm in what they've caused to the whales, chipmunks, or moose? People have seemed to believe that the law of the jungle is all that matters about evolution, and this seems to be true in all the nations of the world for most of history, based on their treatment of evolution. The answer would be that while there are plants that don't eat animals (autotrophs, self energizing) and plant eating animals, there would be animals that would eat other animals. Both of these types of animals that got energy from other life (heterotrophs) essentially would find energy by stealing it from other life. Evolution wouldn't think it unusual to get energy from other life, when we go out to eat a burger, we all do (well not mom the chef.) There's a distinction between robbing the energy from other life in moderation (like bosses, a necessary evil) like evolution would have it, and the larger problem of how people have disavowed evolution with over hunting. Because the overpopulation hunting causes is a sort of event where no one dies, this has the problems of why evolution favors aging in a powerful way to cleanse and cause new life if the resources are finite. With more extreme carnivorous hunting, there may be so many people and no one dying, in a few decades with no room no one may be able to move, and because this is a sort of defiance of aging, evolution may make people ill by way of the overpopulation in complex ways. As I say on my site about overcrowding as it relates to evolution there is already increased Competition for reduced Resources, causing such stress it seems to be causing illness, in evolution this would be good just as when you start to get cancer if your bodies immune system cleanses out the bad cells, the illness would reduce the overpopulation down to more moderate levels, and over millions of years of evolution, this oscillation of the illness and size of population would make a definite boundary. Only by the artificial use of weapons has this boundary been overreached. It may seem like a feeling about the law of the jungle, and since people haven't realized about how evolution may resist it so strongly, it may seem that cautions like this about the evolution of aging may just be ignored. But we're not just any people, we're wise, and moderation about evolution is of worth to us. The Greeks believed mirth was stronger than beauty, and I think if it's our own payoff to reduce the overpopulation and over hunting, because the problems the lack of evolution are causing may be much worse than moderation we may achieve it. This is something all of us may learn, not just a feeling. If people realize what they're getting for what about this and enough people reduced the birth rate, our world would be stronger than it is now in 2097!
--

Dogs Typing May Have A Lot To Say!

..

...Have you heard of that dog in Europe who was in the news who was able to recognize more than 200 words? Dogs seem to know as much as infants and they are actually finding ways to see what the infant has to say. The time an infant looks at what's around them in the room is about what they like, the more time the infant looks they find the more weight they place on the conclusion, what the infant thinks is true.. With this they've proof of all sorts of truth about babies, they are smart and are able to see mama and father and know about physics, math, words and geometry even hours after lamaz, they know more sooner about much than was believed. I would always say before I read this about babies, I had a neighbor who would say to his baby, "Bring me my boots", and the baby would always help with the boots, even if he couldn't talk. Another realm where they can find out what nontalk geniuses like Sir Issac think is like with life of other types like a mouse or a hoot they put in a hall with two options, one hall has the water to splash around in and the other perhaps has no pool. They find that animals like mammals like the wave machine much better, so this about knowing all sorts of ideas about animals has been of worth to animal rights where they can prove whether animals say in a barn are in misery or not, and they know much more about animal psychology by these methods.

...What about dogs? They have basic computerized dog trainers which are often no more than an ultrasonic whistle and a battery, here the "computer" is just the person who is the trainer. This is a way to know what the dog thinks of the trainer. Just as much worthwhile perhaps would be to know what the dog has to say! If the dog can recognize 200 words, this puts dogs in the level of other animals they've been teaching sign language to since the 70's. You can't teach a dog sign language, it would be wild watching a dog with sign language, but a dog can move it's paw up and down and a bit side to side, so it may be of worth to see if the dog would be able to be trained with a typewriter, sort of like a Chinese typewriter, with the pictures or other symbols of the 200 words like the 200 word dawg about 14X14 symbols, except they all wouldn't be nouns (All the dog did was fetch lots of nouns and so on.) This would be a way for the first time for dogs to "Speak! Speak!" If not Sing! I once read this joke where they said this 12 year old taught his dog how to talk. The other kid says, what's the worth of a talking dog? And the other kid says, "I can think of at least a few dog food companies who would pay millions so he would stop talking!" "How much do we have to know to teach tricks to a dog? At least as much as the dog" With this typewriter for the dogs, the dogs now may be more up on the web than before! If evolution is involved, dogs and perhaps other animals like felines may say they know a lot more than people think. How much does the dog know? They might be used as witnesses in crimes if they were reliable. You may have seen like on Yahoo News where this dog to save a person when he has a stroke or other sudden illness, the dog types in 911 on the wire and saves their life, though the dog may not be the witness of the highest worth if without a good trainer, at any rate with good guidance they could say with the typewriter what they think happened, like with their better sense of smell. (This is being researched to diagnose illness better than machines, so in many cases if the dog told the truth while he was typing in 911 plus comments, the ambulance would be better prepared, in the most critical moment perhaps the most important distance between life and death otherwise unsaved). Mark twain said if it were a just world the dog would go to heaven and us too I hope, now we may be able to go to dog heaven more often!

Copyright 2008 Charles Frederic Lawson

-

Why "Einstein's" Time Reversal Would Not be Found With FTL....

..

..You Often hear about the problem of time reversal being a problem if Faster Than Light (FTL) wave motion is allowed even in possibility, as if it were a proof of relativity instead of just a possibility (this may be reduced to absurdarn thanks to a slow modem in my web machine..). No physics proof exists yet for this claim even though FTL seems to have already been observed in experiments. (See my Physics Synopses GENERAL WAVE DYNAMICS, (GWD) for more).

..

..Why is time not reversed with FTL? Even in relativity with the twin paradox where the twins are the same age as they often are (if not triplets!) and one returns millions of years later, the high speed traveller is not influencing the earth and it's dwellers in any way, both twins are just moving at their own rate, one slow and one fast without connection, this is just a disconnection of the field flowing at two rates, one high speed the other lower. The high speed twin's ship is not influencing the Earth. Since evidence for Faster Than Light seems to have already been observed as I say in the synopses if there were time reversal it seems we would have already seen it. For instance, the cosmos has been found at the greatest scales of distance to have a set of symmetrical "sides". COSMIC IMAGE Click Here.
...I think this could be explained only by way of a high speed Faster Than Light connecting force, not electromagnetism because light is not FTL, but rather gravity, since it's the only other long range force known to be present linking the two sides of the cosmos.

...

Because of the causal disconnection of the "slow" speed of light like centrifugal force each linear motion like the atoms in the air of a balloon would go more and more outward like in entropy, thus in GWD, entropy and centrifugal force are both caused by relativity. With no way to know what is before or after here and alpha centuri, the connection is so loose it would lose power by relativity alone and energy conservation for higher energy physics would be disproven, and there is no evidence for this.

..

Gravity is much lighter than light so it would go much faster than light, you lighten up to travel fast. If you have a train with the Doppler shift caused by the constant speed of sound, when you go faster than sound past it, the sound is a compressed at near sound speeds, but if two observers are going beyond the speed of sound in opposite motion, the airship and the train are disconnected. This would be how gravity waves would go faster than light and not have infinite weight like relativity says, the gravity may be like an antenna of much other wavelength than the light of electromagnetism, and two unlike antennas wouldn't much resonate, so in GWD gravity mostly just passes through the lower power fields so the infinite mass at the speed of light of relativity or faster wouldn't be a problem. While a high speed airship traveller doesn't see the train as reversed in time by way of light, even with a jet faster than sound, the slower sound waves when the jet reaches them are picked up in order from old to new just as they are emmited except in a higher speed sequence, this faster than sound isn't time reversal of the time of the sound no matter how fast the airplane moves (or at any angle by way of light or sound. The aftershock sound heard by the observer on the ground is not time reversed even if the light travelling through it is faster than sound, it's in the order of the events on the plane, first we hear the first sound then the later sound).

..

The light is so much faster, we can see the "real" events on the train, and we believe the light is more reliable to say what goes on on the train. The sound tells us more, but we believe the people on the train are moving forward in time, if by the sound we would think they were not, and by gravity there may be a more reliable way to hold the mass of the cosmos together than by relativity. For time reversal to be feasible at FTL by relativity, the high speed ship's field would have to "control" the distant field of the earth if it were reversed in time. This isn't the same as the twin paradox where the two fields are just disconnected with both observers flowing ahead through time at different rates, here the high speed field would have to reverse all the other fields in the cosmos because the starship visitor could go anywhere in the cosmos and when he arrives if Faster Than Light time reversal were true, he would always be moving into the past wherever he went. The signal to or from a high speed observer seems more like a movie of the same events that are slower or faster for some observers than an absolute way to control them. This is why my observation that contradiction would be in the complete control of time between the observers is true; a high speed observer watching a distant starship event like a muon or a hot dish might see indefinite cooler stability, the speed of light being thermodynamic, while a low speed observer will see the hot dish, and when the low speed starship speeds up to the same speed as the higher speed observer, the two will both agree and disagree, even though the time is not reversable by the low to high speed observer in relativity itself. Einstein said because there's no other way for the information between the high and low speed observers to connect than by light and because the light controls the relativity, mass and time, this is not gotten around. In truth because of paradoxes like this, there must be an underlying set of events for each observer not seen by way of the light (as if "through a filter") like rest mass that relativity doesn't explain. The motion changes the field relative to the observer, not the events themselves. The high speed observer sees nothing unusual about the events around on his starship, and if the other observers are moving at many speeds there would be many ways the high speed observer's events would be changed as they would whizz past. We might thus find the real events of the distant starship and the mass and energy there by way of a faster than light signal. We could also find who is more at rest. Contrary to relativity, more mass like the earth is at rest than the moon, and the sun is more at rest than the earth, so on the average by conservation of momentum we can find the "real" more reliable speed of the observers from the framework of the more massive frame, as in the ether because the ether which Maxwell used to exactly predict the speed of light was assumed to move along with a mass like the earth, a more massive frame has more field around it, slowing it down more than a lighter mass.

..

Einstein derived the equivalence of mass and energy from the simple equations of special relativity. The mass increases with the speed in the regular way. So Einstein believed that if the mass is derived from the motion or energy of the starship, mass and energy are the same. In GWD like linear and angular momenta they are generally the same but not exactly the same. Linear and angular momentum are both alike or there would be no conservation of momentum; even so like waves and particles they can't be exactly the same because they're much the opposite. Mass and energy like mass and inertia can be in any ratio, you weigh more at the higher than the lower latitudes on the Earth because mass (gravity) and inertia (centrifugal force) or mass and energy are in no definite ratio. If they were exactly the same the mass and energy of the sun would convert instantly, and the cosmos would be either completely mass or energy. They wouldn't be exactly the same in special relativity because the basic set of events for each observer found by the higher speed wave would be mostly the same. Relativity would be mostly true but because mass and energy are also unalike the higher speed lower power wave may be of more worth to us. Gravity would be more reliable to find the truth even with the stronger influence of light on the speed of the events from a distance. Because the conservation laws go from simple to complex with lower to higher density forces like in subatomic physics as if the field at one level always energises up from the field below it and not from nowhere via energy conservation, gravity being the lowest energy would be the foundation field, and mostly of most worth. If Emc2 is the most important F=ma wouldn't seem to ever be true at lower energy, and because gravity may be more important it may be of worth to us in many ways. GWD may not disprove relativity, but the physics of gravity may be special, just as radio hasn't disproven words and we may use it for its special uses, sound is good for the physics of sound, light has other uses.

..

Because the signal of the gravity waves are of lower energy and are less influenced by the light between them, and because the basic set of events near the high speed observer is unchanged, the new IP machines that may soon be built used to both make and recieve gravity waves by a shock wave of subatomic heavy particles in a known probable way might be used to find an underlying set of events about both the rate of time and the order of the events all observers say is true. This may not completely so because gravity is an acceleration, so the gravity wave may change a bit in speed between the observers, and the electromagnetic field between the observers has enough influence to change the observed rate of time from a distance. This may not seem like the events seen on the train by way of the sound, because at high speed sound may influence the train a bit by friction and heat as it moves through the air, while the high speed events seen on the high speed starship by other observer's speeds may seem much more influental by way of the light. However the basic events of the high speed ship are the same. Mass and energy are mostly the same but I think they're not exactly the same especially at low energy like For F=ma the low speed version of Emc2 because mass is heavy and energy is light, and the connection between angular and linear momentum generally connects them. If they were exactly the same mass like an acceleration and energy like linear motion would be like a line both round and linear at the same time, or the same for waves and particles.

..

The disproof of time reversal relates to the problems of a giant time machine of the H.G. Wells type which is unfeasible not because of the impossibility of just moving all the particles to older coordinates of space and time based on a good historical record, the problem is that it would take a huge machine to rebuild it, so the whole ancient world would have to be rebuilt in order to visit it because no ancient world now exists. This would be why even with all the genius of science, physicists haven't yet built a real time machine of worth. (The contradictions like a person going in the time machine and has an accident to influence events so the time traveller couldn't be born, are not disproof of time travel if the mass of the traveller is just moved from one world to the past world created by the giant time machine because it's just moving mass from one set of coordinates to another, and the future world doesn't have to be connected for the travel to exist any more than moving from one world to another by more usual travel is impossible, if both the older and newer worlds of time travel existed by way of a big machine and there was a way to move between them this is not disproof of time travel itself. Contradiction is not disproof of physics, all around are opposite action reaction pairs, and energy conservation is based on a balance of heavy mass and light and all the other opposites in the cosmos.)

Many believe time reversal isn't impossible, but it would take a much higher resolution machine than just the waves of small masses of special relativity to reverse it, this essentially another disproof of mine like the problem of the contradiction about the lifetime of the muon but on a larger scale. Almost all the information in our mass around us is about electromagnetism, so to rebuild a past set of coordinates of mass and energy, each particle would have to be moved with sharp resolution not seen in general fields like of relativity, a general field of waves can't control all the motions of all the particles of the cosmos at short range like it would take to build the giant H.G. Wells machine. A wheel is not oval like in projective geometry even if we see it sideways and oval from a distance, and the events themselves from a distant observer wouldn't be time reversed other than their image, like the wheel. We can't control how round or oval a wheel is just by seeing it from a distance.
Thus if there is FTL now being observed and/or good reason to believe in it, if time reversal went with the FTL and it was not just disconnected at higher speed than light like the plane and the sound of the train, the cosmos would be hugely changed, this about the high speed airship is more of worth than an old 45 rpm 78. Since it's not time reversing this would be evidence that disproof of Faster Than Light via time reversal was just speculation by others than Einstein about relativity..
While time reversal is possible by way of machines to control the coordinates of all the complex masses and motions of particles by way of the guidance of a well enough informed recording of where to move the mass and energy to, the idea that long range physics of a simple field to make all these complex changes for the cosmos in general is not worth proof or disproof of any physics. While time reversal in retro without a large machine seems impossible, some may say, time reversal is obviously impossible other than with short range change by large machines. Actually Einstein's own conclusion was that it was possible for Faster Than Light just so the motion of the waves that were Faster Than light were never slower. Einstein himself believed that Faster Than light wasn't impossible, just that as far as he could tell by 20th century physics, the speed of light seemed like a limit because of the infinite mass added in in special relativity at nearer light speeds. To explain the evidence for Faster Than Light by my own belief is not disproof of Einstein's vision. It seems he allowed augmentation of his own conclusions in just the way about the speed of light or higher speeds that may be possible with respect to his idea that Faster than Light wasn't impossible. In relativity the speed of light is absolute motion and without any change if via Einstein's explanation that there was no absolute rest, absolute motion of light is another absolute, why one but not the other seems to be what sometimes even Einstein thought about the speed of light. He believed faster than light to not be impossible, but his disproofs about time reversal are not nearly so definite and while as you see on my synopses link there is now lots of evidence for faster than light, no evidence exists for time reversal, and no evidence may in a 100 years from 2057 ago. "Disproofs of Faster Than light by time reversal" were mostly added on by other physicists who weren't as great as Einstein.
..

How To Reengineer Other Planets Cheap With Impactors.
..
Oxygen is the most abundant element in the cosmos. The earth is almost 50 percent oxygen. Mars formed out of the same rocks as the Earth. Where is the oxygen and liquid water on Mars? Presumably Mars is like the Earth, the Earth's water is from volcanoes over billions of years (otherwise 15 minutes ago would've been a good year for waves in the arena, and will be in 20 hours when watching 256 reruns.). Water would have of remained liquid on Mars just for a while because although the volcanoes on Mars would of added both heat and air pressure, because of the low gravity of Mars, the atmosphere would have boiled away in just a while after the eruptions would stop. This would be why there is erosion of craters but not so much erosion the surface is more weathered like the Earth.
---
We may be able to rapidly and cheaply change Mars by moving a small asteroid to move a larger stone by its mass when it would whizz by, and this could then move a larger asteroid yet to move perhaps a large moon towards Mars, with just a cheap laser to move the small asteroid and we may even be able to have the convenience of setting this in motion from the Earth without having to go up for the proverbial orbital boost if we use a large enough laser.
--
To change Mars rapidly and cheaply (before the Insurance rates go down) we could smash a moon with water (e.g. Jupiter's moon Callisto) into the side of Mars. The ice of the moon would be converted to steam and hydrogen and oxygen by dissolution by way of the heat, and the heat generated by the impact, with more than the power of the asteroid that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct would also be stored both in the side of mars where the moon would impact, and also in the atmosphere the moon would create by it's vaporization of the ice that would diffuse around the entire planet. The impact would boost air pressure and add air and heat, essentially the same as the ancient lava flows that caused the water to flow in the older history of Mars. Even so just as in those days, the atmosphere and radiation may boil away in perhaps 100 years; this would mean we might have to replenish Mars in cycles of depletion and impact, perhaps by this method by reservation of a zone where the impact by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th......moon would take place, or at least moving all the people away from the zone at that time..

The best moons or comets would have compounds that would have greenhouse gasses so the air would make the most of the solar radiation, if the greenhouse causology has any worth, which there may be doubts about. They recently found that the "greenhouse heat of mars and other planets all rise and fall with mere changes in solar heat". Indepth Look.-
--
Once the first large moon adds the oxygen hydrogen water and heat which would be more efficiently stored by this plan if the air has higher pressure, other asteroids or comets would be moved to add materials, organic chemistry, nitrogen, and other stuff perhaps at the same site or on the other side to round out the distribution. Air lenses may add solar radiation. A problem would be like the heat from orbit the Japanese are considering with collectors to then beam the power to the earth; What, they ask, if the beam is moved and the lense or other machine burns up a city on Earth by accident? This would be the same but moreso if a beam by the refraction is moved to the side, so it's possible all the people on Mars would freeze while the air pressure was low. To make this more safe another plan would be to use two asteroids in near mars orbit with counterrotation that would power motors by opposite spin, the power would then be beamed to the surface to heat Mars well. The asteroids would have more inertia than the lense (or the lense might have two asteroids on both sides) so the risk of accidents of this type would be reduced.

In the longer term once we have a foothold on mars we might actually add gravity to hold the atmosphere permanently. This could be achieved by either digging a well more to the center or wells placed at regular distances. Super dense solids made of Proton Solids could be used in the well(s) to make the gravity of Mars stronger.

.....

THREE WAYS TO REACH MARS CHEAPER AND FASTER

-
MORE ABOUT MOVING ASTEROIDS CHEAP

-
WHY NO LIFE ON MARS? A MAZDA PR WOULD BE OF WORTH!

-
WEATHER CONTROL

-

--

Why are Globular Star Clusters Round?

..

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, says it would be great to live in a world and look up in orbit around a star in a globular cluster, "The sky of these worlds would be ablaze with stars." And because they often orbit high above the plane of the cosmos, wow can you imagine what a zoom?!


HOW STELLAR BLACK HOLES ARE LIMITED BY THE MASS OF THE STARS ON THE MAIN SEQUENCE

As it says on this Science News link the first finding about middleweight black holes seems to disprove them, the galaxies have them in massive power and black holes are known 10 times the mass of our own star, both these are seen by the astronomy but no middleweight black holes. It's possible even subatomic particles like muons or baryons are essentially black holes of small size because of faster than light implosion of the strong force with waves of higher density than Einstein's speed of light, so higher speed. (Einstein predicted faster than light in his own EPR paradox and couldn't believe his own creativity, and now evidence for faster than light is becoming more evident (click here for my physics synopsis.) So if two sizes of black holes are known or knowable and gravity at all scales operate the same, mid size black holes are not impossible by any disproof of gravity itself. I think this great midweight diet of physics may be about how the creation and evolution of black holes takes place. If there are no giant stars of 2000 times the sun or 20 stars in orbit, to form a star the only adhesive force to hold the dust well is gravity. All the rest of the dust would evaporate of it's own random motion. Beyond the limit of the cloud stars would be no more massive with time because with the critical density reached inside the cloud, it ignites via fusion which would blow out the rest of the dust. The dust would always be seen to blow away from all the stars, otherwise no limit would be seen on the mass of the stars. Once the stars were formed this mass limit of the stars would also limit the size of the implosion of the black hole formed from the star in it's late evolution so medium weight black holes wouldn't be caused by stellar evolution.

To stop these small stars from adhering to larger and larger star clusters of say 20 stars in orbit and forming medium sized star clusters near us, the distances between the stars would be so great and the motion of the stars is high speed, so each time the star or other massive body would move near, the gravity would slingshot the stars even farther than their already near 0 general density. A black hole at a distance is the same as a more massive star about gravity and if there hasn't been enough time since the formation of the Milky Way this distance and slingshot effect would have stopped all the outer mass of the galaxy from having compacted to a giant massive black hole.


GLOBULAR CLUSTERS WHY NO MEDIUM WEIGHT BLACK HOLES?

Globular clusters themselves would have the massive ionizing power of fusion, much stronger than merely moderate gravity so they would be held outward by the field expansion. With all but the stars that aren't radiant there would always be more outward expansion than contraction, so if the stars move near, the outward force is more. The stars near the center would perhaps either have the most radiation and ionization of the globular cluster to out boost the implosion or at least they would be of higher radiance than the amount needed to achieve it. In essence with globular clusters the radiation would hold off the gravuty instead of the high speed gravitational rebound and combined with the radiation outward, the great distances between stars even in globular clusters would both be enough to make it so black holes would be held off with distance, speed, and radiance. This would be like a gas with more random motion of the stars bubbling outward by heat and outward radiance than the amount needed to cause implosion. Globular clusters would have low angular momentum in general because more spin would cause flattening and globular clusters are spherical, and the random motion of the stars would be of import because if the stars were at rest even with more gravity, the stars would "sieve" and more and more would fall to the center. In order for the cluster to not have spin because the stars are proven to be old, the stars themselves must not have much spin or they would all line up and the clusters would level out. The stars are Type II old stars and they were all formed at the same time, it's believed the cosmos itself is just a few hundred million years older.

Why are these stars so old?

A possible cause may be about radiation. If radiation pressure is what holds the stars out and stablized at a distance, the inward and outward forces balance. In subatomic physics the neutron is stable in the atom because it's like a Mazda in the lot with other cars around it, so it can't make it out of the lot. Thus the rate of the radioactivity of atoms like hydrogen is essentially slowed to a stop even though the neutron is radioactive. If the stars of the globular cluster are balanced between the outward radiation and gravity, if the gravitational compression is strong enough the radiation wouldn't have as much room to expand and it could slow the rate of the evolution of the stars. With slower evolution of the stars fewer black holes of small size would be seen (a proof or disproof) and this would limit the medium weight black holes, because medium weight black holes wouldn't be created by star capture with great distance and random motion of the stars of globular clusters. Black holes of stellar mass would implode the light of stars and could thus become more massive, but if there were mostly stars in globular clusters and few black holes caused by stellar collapse, the radiation pressure of mostly stars would make all the stars stable between expansion and contraction. The idea that globular clusters are a good measure of the evolution of stars as is believed because they were all formed at the same time would be not a reliable way to know because stars nearby us or elsewhere outside the dense field would have a higher speed of evolution.

---

You may say, "There is more mass in the globular stars, and it would gravitate to cause more black holes." if there's more radiation pressure, they may be held off and not collapse to this density. If so, a prediction is that some of these systems will have higher density if the gravity is without so much outward flow of the ions.

Even if with enough time the medium mass black holes or the entire galaxies would be giant in mass, there hasn't been enough time for the force to cause this, because the forces of the outer stars and globular clusters would be limiting, the process of formation of medium weight black holes might be slowed down.


EVOLUTION OF GIANT BLACK HOLES

Black holes of giant power may also be explained by the evolution of galaxies. Unlike the stars of globular clusters, giant black holes like the center of mass believed to be in Saggitarius of the Milky Way would have more implosion via gravity than the amount need to hold off the expansion of the other forces like radiance, great room between stars and random motion. A central black hole of more massive type like the Milky Way wouldn't be formed by outward explosion/implosion like the small black holes caused by the late stage collapse of stellar evolution, the gravity would be too strong for the expansion to start. It would be formed by the same general force of gravitational implosion as the formation of the stars from the cloud of dust, but also with stars and small black holes also being in the implosion, and instead of lighting up with fusion at the fusion density it wouldn't light up, because the implosion is stronger than the outward radiation. It's been proven by astronomy that black holes are like super electromagnetic dynamos. I think a fifth and sixth force inside black holes are what may power the giant jets of these bodies, fusion isn't strong enough. [The usual particles of these two action reaction forces (because forces are always in pairs) aren't usually seen in experiments because they would always be unstable except under extreme pressure of the gravity, and fizz out to usual subatomic physics outside the jets.]

The implosion of the central giant black hole of like the Milky Way may be more like the formation of stars than later in their life cycle because beyond a certain density the jets of the galaxy would light up powered by these forces, by seeing just when they light up we can calculate the strength of the 5th and 6th force which I call superfusion. Because these super massive black holes are created by capture of the mass not expansion and implosion at the same time with the end of stellar evolution, the most probable stars to be captured into it would be old stars with reduced radiation so they wouldn't be able to hold off the implosion like with globular clusters. This would explain the otherwise unexplained conundrum of why the stars at the center of the milky way are older than they are at the center of the disc of the milky way, with more density usually the stars around us are not old stars. The stars that are falling in would be stars with lower radiation that would be more heavy than "light".


-