Is Evolution Speeding Up?

....

....With the entire human genome mapped, among evolutionary biologists the concensus is more that our evolution has been accelerating with the rise of culture and civilization. It's well known that many genes are selected (so they survive and become part of the genome since they have a survival advantage) with changes caused by civilization. For example no one on earth had blue eyes before 10,000 years ago because blue eyes traveled with light skin with the invention of fire so we could live farther north. People with dark skin have trouble making vitamin D from ultraviolet light there, so people who live in the north have two dozen mutations that decrease production of melanin. Evolution by other measures has been accelerating at 150 times the rate of natural selection. The independant way to the same conclusion by computer simulation was that if the current rate was constant between the time when we seperated from other anthropoids, we would be 100 times more unlike the them than we are if the speed had not been boosted by civilization after 10,000 years ago.

....Other evidence of higher speed evolution by way of the genome map are in other realms. Once cattle were herded for milk, it was of worth to be able to drink cow's milk so 80 percent of Europeans have the gene for lactose digestion, but just 20 percent of Asians and Africans (because they often had other food in the tropical belt). Malaria is about 35,000 years old, yet in Africa and other areas people have already developed 25 new genes to protect against malaria. If evolution is about survival of the fittest, why are older people or those with deficiencys not selected out? Research with older people shows they would seem to be the same, children who are doted on by grandmas are more likely to survive and grandmother's genes to be selected in. In truth evolution wouldn't seem to always favor extreme change, so many traits like the hand's 5th digit which seem to have no use would have not been selected out immediately. Even down to the atomic level life is made of more smooth elements without sharp jumps in the orbits of the electrons like metals. Evolution for millions of years was both death and life, and there is no sharp distinction, or we wouldn't sleep "as if watching TV" for much of our life. A cell or a life form like a mite is both alive or dead if you can dry it out for 20 years and then add water and it revives. It would seem the cause of evolution of allowing older people their say is not because evolution was based on survival alone, it was based not just death and was based on life also, both fights with wild animals and gossip with sweet women who live up evolution's superhighway were common. Darwin himself didn't believe in survival of the fittest, he uses the word love 87 times in his memos and, "Survival of the fittest" just once. In truth survival of the fittest was a 20th century promotion of Spencer, so the idea that evolution was unkind only might not be called Spencerian, not Darwinianism.


...If evolution allows old people their rights this would seem to be evidence something would be incomplete about the basic mechanics of evolution if survival of the fittest were only part of evolution, not disproof of Darwin's evolution itself. This could be like Eisenhower who would say America's power is the sum of all weaknesses subtracted from the sum of all overall strengths. Action that improves the world is more of worth than just life, the doers and the do nots are more of worth than the haves and have nots. Evolution incorporates behaviour, certainly behaviour was common in evolution. If in ancient times you whiffed a flower and it made you feel good and this increased your survival rate over others, or if you saw a vision of beauty, even if you share no DNA with the flower or the land and ocean you saw, the increased fitness would make you want more. And when many over thousands or millions of years were made stronger by the power of the flower it became part of our genome. Our DNA is stored enviroment. Evolution would be Survival of The Fittest, in a more general and roundabout way.

..

...Charity in general would be because doing good would increase fitness more than evil. In the evolution of the math of the evolution of behaviour Von Neumann thought the most important type of behavoiur is about good and evil, not just smart and dumb or rich or poor. This is because a carnivoir like the boss or a bear has the most power to cause the most harm and with fewer carniviors than or bosses than herbiviors or employees found most people would try to avoid what the boss favors or more evil. There are fewer bosses and top carniviors in evolution good for business not to run but to be a good laborer! So healthy people wouldn't mostly sympathisize more with the boss as much as the poor or the elders. By the programming of evolution, the people who were moral would survive more often even if they share no DNA with the image or whiff. Evolution wouldn't always be about selfishness. How to labor and how to love are both of worth. This is why those who offer sympathy often don't tend to need love.

~~~

....In other words what evolution is or was was moral because disease was mostly absent so it was easy to be forgiving, good, and moral, and because those who were moral had higher fitness.

~~~

....Experts disagree regarding the cause of the acceleration of evolution now proven (or mostly proven at least for resistance to many diseases and changes like blue eyes) by the mapping of genes. It's in dispute if the increased rate is caused by more options when we removed from the evolutionary labor of other life without civilization, or by more adaptations needed to evolve to fit the sometimes drastic enviromental or cultural situations that arose with the rise of civilization. It's the consensus that the cause of the higher speed evolution is itself the increased world population with civilization on the increase. With more people alive, like a cyber machine with number crunching there are more traits caused by random combinations, so more options of evolution to solve any problem. It would seem more problems and more solutions both would be the cause of the high speed of evolution. Not only would there be more enviromental change, there may also be more adaptation to it. The change in enviroment was achieved with changes in genes, with more of both with each life cycle of our ancient ancestors. More selection and mutation both are needed for any change in evolution.

~~~

....To prove if both or one or neither is true we would expect there to be slower evolution of people who live in areas of low population and with a simpler lifestyle, and faster evolution in the cities. If it were caused by more people and not culture, more people with longer urban historys with the same culture as their rural cohorts would evolve faster, and if it were more about culture and not increased population the change in culture would go with the change seen in the genome.*



....The many not one causology about evolution is highly controversial. With the blending of cultures and worlds, even if the higher speed evolution causology may be proven, by the time it becomes well established may not be controversial. With transportation science we may all be one. And there are many advantages the idea of people being "many not one" may have in the meantime. Because of evolution each person may have his own particular power and genius others don't to improve the solution of a given problem in many ways by way of their special perspective.

....There is the other boost to evolution of ways we can change out genes based on evolution, so our children might be more a music hero, of math! Or strong and good at science. The new improvements where the cell of your hand is morphed to another cell like a stem cell to make an embryo would seem to be highly dissaproved of by evolution (not being in evolution for millions of years so foreign to evolved life). If this was like the older cloning (even if this may be "new" and improved so "more of worth") or changing snips of genes so the whole set of genes is used with higher speed improvement than gene by gene it may still be harmful. The idea is to see if any harm occurs with just a few people who would have "improved" DNA. The problem is that some genes "might be" simple and code only one change, others are polygenic, like for intelligence, which has more than one gene. Even so it's well known in GE that if you change one gene you know about, you often change 5 more you don't know. Many bright machines you may have seen on the web say that if you have the option of knowing what you get for the same action or not knowing, the machine has been programed to act like it's smarter generally always choose to be wise with the option. It's been said that "Wisdom is never by Chance". Caution would seem to be be advised beyond just the basic simple genes. There may be no way to know beyond this level. It might harm the gene pool much with more complex genes, us and the harm might not be proven for generations after the pool was permanently damaged. The word pool might be literal because of complex ripples in the other genes and physiology that may be unforseeable, with each ripple having important worth, if even one gene is changed, the whole pond of the standing wave may have an entirely unevolved (weaker) meaning. Science can't prove that when you take two elements like liquids and gasses, that you can combine them to always make a solid in a reliable way, there's a lot science can't achieve. Because of the ripple of the pool, many goals may be so unviable if the only way to win the prize may be by changing all the other genes, they would be changed so much they would be so unrelated they would be harmful. Genes may be like vitamins that are of worth only if taken with the other vitamins and herbs found in evolution's breadbox except more complex, if you take them out of the realm of evolution it may cause more harm than good.

..

....Even so there may be more allowed by evolution than the rate we're evolving now. Breeding of animals like the sheep in history shows room for higher speed evolution. DNA is not copied exactly. This was proven in 2008 with twins. With GE we may be able to add in a certain level of GE without too much damage if evolution is able to absorb it. While random mutation is almost always lethal, without some mutation we couldn't have evolved, so there would be more allowed, like how with better medical care more of us live to 75. Who we are is much about only us so a rate more than this higher speed of evolution may actually be of no worth. I believe the promise of GE is much like cloning, for much the same reason; while it seems simple to achieve, because it's so unnatural it would be more and more harmful and complex beyond simple changes.

I can't swim Why? In this room? No, I'll swim in heat waves!


MORE ABOUT EVOLUTION

OVERPOPULATION And EVOLUTION.

...

EVOLUTION Of MUSIC.

Evolution and the Golden Rule

WHY WERE WE SMART SO LATE IN EVOLUTION?.

SYNOPSES of THE ABOVE LINK

"Perhaps because as some biologists think we may have evolved like the manatees, dolphins, whales and other mammals at one time in our evolution into the water from the land to walk upright, then returned to land, then later only by luck millions of years we evolved our hands to be the genius of evolution we are. This third stage by definition may only have evolved without the other steps because evolution into the water was presumably to escape from wolves and other predators. If we stood higher in evolution for more vision, and then after returning to land in our evolution, our hands may have evolved in a seperate step, by way of the advantage of being able to reach up for a branch that had little to do with the first and second stage. In this causology even though we got our higher vantage point in the water, the water was mostly seperate from the branches, and like other mammals we might just as easily have evolved out into the ocean or deeper shores."

.
Why Evolution Was like Business,

(Not guaranteed because we're smart)
~~~

Evolution And Aging
~~
Evolution of Complexity (Why Can't We Type out Words on the Typewriter At Random? Because Evolution is Speeding Up...).

Health and Evolution.. .

*Evolution and extinction of the Dinosaurs, Why not the birds and mammals? Click Here for what may be what I think might be seen, on an old old weather map!

..

Ways To Prove if Hydrogen Boosts Cosmic Redshift
.
Paul Marmet on his site about the Hubble Constant says he believes the redshift and the missing mass to close the cosmos can both be explained by way of molecular hydrogen. One problem here is if we assume gravity is the same the galaxies wouldn't spin as solid bodies as they are observed by the observatories. Another problem is that a train's doppler shift is not of comparable magnitude to its doppler shift via the density of the air, otherwise the greater the distance like of radio waves through the air, the greater the redshift. If Marmet can prove the redshift via hydrogen in the lab or with other materials this would be of worth and I would think the hydrogen way to cosmology would be more plausable though not probable. Marmet's site;

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html. .

Here's another link about "tired light" http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tired-light-theory .

In cosmology, the motion of clouds of hydrogen in the time of Hubble in the 1920's to prove the motions of hydrogen near and far was measured by the doppler shift, the redshift. If the redshift was caused by hydrogen as is Marmet's belief, there would be a redshift on both sides of the Milky Way not both blue and redshift this is well proven to be augumented or reduced with the spin of the disk of a massive body to or away from us, if and hydrogen is still the cause there would be the added redshift with hydrogen component for all distant masses. If the redshift was caused by hydrogen alone, the observations wouldn't fit Marmet's use of hydrogen to make the redshift caused by the spin seen. If this is the cause of the redshift here, its a step up to believe it's of worth to be the cause of the redshift of the cosmos. This is what led Hubble and others to believe in the expansion of the cosmos. To prove if more hydrogen causes more redshift, there would be more redshift the more distance we look to other side of the Milky Way and it wouldn't be about motion to see the other side even if it's not moving much relative to us.

Another way to prove or disprove Marmet's belief in hydrogen may be about the rate of expansion of a sphere (or possibly via cosmic vortex cosmology). Since the expansion is mostly powered from the center, heavanly bodies at more distance like with higher redshift if under power longer would move faster farther away from us, thus the cosmic expansion is also proven or disproven relative to the hydrogen cause by way of the earth being with completely symmetrical redshifts outward on all sides. If Marmet's conclusion is proven, with more distance, more redshift. With a nonsymmetrical expansion of the Big Bang more redshift would be seen on the more outward realm.
...

Self Assembling Power Plants Power Up!

We hear a lot about self assembling machines, wonderous mighty mini marvels that may be used in the most important way of all; to generate power! "What about Energy Conservation", you may say, " What machines have power output where there was no input of the field?". No doubt there must be fuel for a fire. But to say there may be no large source of fuel for the self assembling machines would be like saying atomic power or the patents they have for gravity powered machines are of no value. The ultimate use of self assembling machines may be to take fuel and burn it, even down to the subatomic level with a more highly efficient fire than just the random thermal motion of heat. One possibility may be to find chemical power in the air by way of small electric fields to extract the oxygen or hydrogen for fuel. Another use would be to absorb water from the air, with more energy and water out than we put in, just as in an atomic implosion with conventional explosives inward, more power outward is then achieved. This would save much power otherwise spent on desalination or moving water inland.

Another use of self assembling machines would be waste and recycling. With a process like thermal depolymerization any carbon waste is converted to oil by heat (like polyester for polyester plants, great!). With some of the power used to power the machine more power is out than in powered by the fuel. Unlike thermal depolymerization, self assembling machines could be used for power or other uses on any scale, small to vast. All rooms of buildings could use a machine that would cost no more than installation, the power would be much cheaper, and no power wires. They would also be portable. With self assembling machines, because of higher efficiency many more types of waste could be used. Small self assembling machines to add electrons to the waste converting the protons and electrons to neutrons of the radiant atoms with then more neutrons than protons so the neutrons would remove from the radioactive atom and decay in just 20 minutes of radiance stored for power, not millions of years. (This process (which I name reversed b radioactivity) would first line up the spins of the radioactive atoms so the electrons moving inward to combine with the protons would have an easy inward motion compared to having to overpower the atoms unaligned field which would take more power.) Another type of atomic power source that could be self assembled may be the Atomic Motor, or other fusion machines with small cones that would combine protons and neutrons to fuse by way of the strong force implosion of the poles not resisted by the centrifugal force of most strong force interactions. Because the machines could be made small, the force they can exert would be large because pressure is force per unit area, making chemical or subatomic reactions more efficient.

The self assembling machines may be good for recycling. Because of the radiant power of mass, any waste could be recycled into it's constituent stuff, even rebuilt back up to other more useful materials. The machines might clean up their own waste after the labor is done, but why would we want them to, perhaps not enough room? This could be improved by making them multipurpose like 5 in one software they have. And these small machines may be selective to break down just some components of the waste not others (i.e. bioengineering) saving energy and time. This would be of use to replace irradiation of food which often uses the equivalent of 10 billion chest Xrays, destroying good cells with bad, in many types of (unlabled) food we eat, not to mention of worth to selectively change tissue even to the subatomic level in the body to cure or control diseases with these machines.

Self assembling machines have typically been considered viable in zones like desert or colonization of planets or the moon where access is not easy. The low efficiency is considered to make it more viable to use more conventional labor to build machines here like in plants. If more power were achieved, not just labor or construction of other machines, self assemblimg machines may make their way more to where we are already, and where we are is cozy for months and 20 years with adorations of Julia Lewis Dryfuss in power!
..

Conservation Laws And Energy...Those who believe energy can't be created because of Energy Conservation may be assuming what they're trying to prove. Indeed, if gravity is continually winding up the cosmos, so it doesn't wind down by entropy over infinite time with thermodynamic and other energy conserved by quanta it seems the field may be continually creating itself with outside influence to power the motion, otherwise there would be an infinite amount of motion over infinite time with no power source. (If there's a power source at any rate it's more of worth than no power source for the infinite amount of motion if most other power around us has a source and cause.)

On this page I'll offer up my belief that inertial and gravitational mass or mass and energy may not be the same as Einstein thought. With no distinction they would be the same and we would have no way of knowing which was which. Einstein believed that in regions of more massive gravity, inertial mass would increase. First I'd like to reiterate a bit; If they are often unalike there is a distinction between them by my definition;

Gravitational mass is the tendancy for a body to remain at rest and increase angular momentum, and inertial mass is the tendancy for mass to continue in motion and move more in a straight line.

Gravitational mass and inertial mass are like Einstein's mass energy, with the Equivalence of both being because energy and inertia are more like linear motion, and mass, both gravitational and prosaic are about unity of the field to hold the mass together. One or the other of these two is more important so you don't have two exactly equal but opposite truths. I think the more important of the two is mass and gravity for three reasons; because the cosmos must be held together by gravity or it would have expanded out over infinite time with energy (in quanta) mostly being neither created or destroyed; because in the history of science as with Galelio or Newton or even Einstein, improvements in gravity have been the most of worth to physics, not just other science like the physics of sound; and because all the field seems unified (attraction) by one lower energy field. Thus by this law the assumption that Newton and Einstein made about the most natural way for a body to move being in uniform motion unless acted on from the outside may be of worth to understand how energy conservation and gravity work. The most natural way for the cosmos to move in general by my definition would be by the greater imbalance of force, not balance, otherwise there would be no change of motion, or cause winding up the cosmos, and the cosmos would have wound down. The Earth has greater gravity and gravitational mass than the Moon, and the Sun more than the Earth, so the Sun and The Earth are more at rest. Relative to the Earth, the Moon has more inertial mass so it moves faster in its orbit and in more linear motion. Unlike Einstein's assumption that all masses fall at the same rate where the F=ma law only applies in radial acceleration, a lighter asteroid or comet moving past a star like the sun is usually seen by astronomers to move faster than a heavy one by conservation of linear and angular momentum. F=ma holds both for the more distant comet and for two masses dropped near the earth because what Galelio and Einstein assumed would be arbitrary that they must be raised to the same height. Otherwise with comets or horizontal masses you would always have to add just the right amount of the force to make the heavy mass move along with the lighter mass at the same speed. Einstein believed force wasn't important and that gravitational and inertial mass in balance would be the same. Many more proofs exist of conservation of linear and angular momentum than of the Equivalence principle, and all the known proofs of Energy Conservation are evidence that with Einstein's Equivalence Principle he was assuming what he was trying to prove. If you apply the same force you can lift the lighter mass higher and drop it farther and faster like with the monthly slosh of the moon and the earth, force is more important to distinguish between masses because the cosmos is more about force and mass than Einstein's empty passive space time. By this definition of gravitational and inertial mass, mass and energy are distinct. Einstein predicted increase in inertial mass with strong gravity. If mass and energy were the same with more gravitational mass and with pressure the inertial mass would also be greater. If inertial mass is by the definition resistance to stopping and tendancy to remain in more linear motion and gravity causes rest with more density of the mass, more compression would reduce the mass defined to be inertia by my causology. Thus this idea as it relates to Energy Conservation seems to predict that a mass moving through the more dense field would have more resistance and the inertial mass would not augument as Einstein believed.

To measure this, since centrifugal force is the tendancy to travel in more linear motion, in greater gravity, a particle or mass with reduced inertia may curve more downward under the influence of the field, not less as Einstein believed.

Mass and energy aren't the same. If they were exactly the same it would be a world without all of what's seen seen when the RN at the opthomatrists lights up for 300! Weight is reduced at the low latitudes because the inertial mass is more, so in my causology any ratio of gravitational to inertial mass is possible (and the same would be true for mass and energy because they are much the same.). Even if motion is what the universe is about and no doubt important, what the motion is made of is also of more worth in what may be my more encompassing physics, this part of my causology of General Wave Dynamics.

In GWD, Newton's Third Law in more general use is the foundation of the cosmos. Because it's based on balance like a scale, in general it's the same as energy conservation which is what conservation laws like conservation of electric charge are based on. The simplest and most general type of symmetry would just be the (all important and simple) linear balance of action and reaction pairs.

A problem with this unified law about balance. If all the cosmos is based on this unified law and it's balance would seem to stop motion, how is all the matter and energy in motion? This problem may be solved if the opposite forces of Newton's Third Law are actually not equal and there would always be left over force, even if just a bit. Newton's Third Law can be combined with Newton's First and Second Law because balance is more general so in this formulation the First Law of force would be combined with the Second Law of inertia into the Third Law of balance of the First and Second Law. And this is also the distinction between mass and inertia, if they were exactly the same in action reaction pairs e.g. like matter and antimatter, no overall change could take place.

Another reason in favor of this unified law is that its much the same as the symmetry laws that have been proven to be the foundations of math like in set theory (the more math shines the more she stays the same.). Sets are a collection of objects, based on what changes, the individual elements, and what stays the same, the oneness that they are in the same unified set. This is the same as Newton's First Law about force or more unifying forces like gravity, the Oneness of acceleration of F=ma, and Newton's The Second Law with the Many in the centrifugal force of more linear motion like the expansion outward of entropy. Like waves and particles, there is no more simple foundation by any science concieviable.

Inertia itself is based on balanced uniform motion. This might seem to be enough to create the balance of energy conservation, if no force is in the rest frame of inertia or uniform motion. Balance on all sides by definition is inertia. Even so if all motion were linear and uniform like the hot particles of the air in an airship, the overall linear motion of each atom of the air inside it would expand out farther and further without much adhesive force between the air molecules, so by inertia alone all the matter of the cosmos with infinite time of thermodynamic energy being neither created or destroyed would have expansion and no limit, and we would have no soap operas! The balance of inertia is not complete for energy conservation, and there must be attraction to hold the airship and centrifugal force without too much outward expansion via gravity or other forces of implosion. Without a more distinct definition of gravitational mass and inertia, gravity wouldn't uphold the law of inertia well because if it did as Einstein held all masses would fall at the same rate because all motion would be uniform with the constant speed of light. The speed of light changes with gravity, and masses fall at different rates when the mass is changed. All the proofs of General Relativity like the change in the orbit of Mercury (other than the same rate of masses dropped from the same height where Einstein held the opposite idea to be proven in contradiction), the Mossbauer effect, frame dragging, the bending of starlight, are about changes in acceleration, not just acceleration and are proofs of Einstein, not gravity. The changing speed of light around massive bodies is because more massive bodies are more of use to know what mass is about when it connects up with the rest of the cosmos. This would be why so many people at first believed Einstein's relativity was lacking in depth, like the man when he heard the proof of relativity on TV about the eclipse, stomped his foot on the earth and said, "I refute it thus!" Relativity is well proven but not about gravity. While General Relativity supposedly is of worth for uniform fields, gravity is an acceleration, and by definition there are no uniform fields, otherwise we would fall at the same rate on the Moon as the Earth.
If mass and energy are not Equivalent about motion, mass is somewhat unlike energy to keep the cosmos in motion. E=Mc2 with it's assumption of the Equivalence of mass and energy and of centrifugal to gravitational mass has seemed all encompassing because of the ubiquitious "all around" speed of light in relativity. Emc2 has the same general form as F=ma, F, force is much like the Energy, E. The mass is the same, and C2 is an acceleration. Thus F=ma is the same general law as E=mc2 and is the same as the unified law, above, and with it, there is also the same problem of no motion added in from the outside. All the forces convert to units of Emc2, and the speed of light is thermodynamic. Einstein's contributions via relativity and his other improvements about thermodynamics and electricity mediate the vast oceanlike middle realm of science between gravity and the strong force, and relativity seems to hold even with mass and energy not being the same to keep the cosmos in motion. It would do this by having all the particles of subatomic physics spin on the outside just at the speed of light in units of Plank's constant while deeper in the particle to have more mass and density than the electron and it's speed of light it would spin faster than light. This would also explain why Plank's constant is constant and not with some other value, because of relativity and the constant speed of light on the outside of each particle, but not why there are continous masses and wavelengths in subatomic physics, about which relativity and quantum theory have no comment. More mass, higher density, faster speed, may be faster than light. There would be no infinite relativistic mass augumentation in GWD because the charges of subatomic physics lighten up to travel light [fractional charges] and the strong force, being much like gravity may be inefficient because it's mostly a wave and fluid both being only attractive, so it would slide past the electric charges without too much friction even if Faster Than Light. Gravity could go faster than light in general because it's of much different wavelength than the speed of light and its electric field and like an antenna of much unlike power it wouldn't resonate. This is how it may disprove energy conservation because with no resistance or friction gravity could create extra energy with more power violating Energy Conservation at long range like galaxies are seen to spin too fast to stay compact without gravity being stronger, the Gravity Would Be More Efficient Here. Click Here. And if gravity is more efficient at greater than 2 Kpc and the increased force of spin of the galaxies was caused by the increased efficiency, more distance like of the orbits of more galaxies with lower energy, if caused by more efficient gravity would seem to have stronger gravity yet and faster spin than the galaxies if the cause of the higher speed spin is caused by the higher efficiency of gravity.

The wave density motif would be the same method Maxwell used to predict the speed of light well based on the force between electric charges to (hopefully) predict the speed of gravity, the speed of tunneling of the fractional charges, and the speed of the strong force and thus the predicted rate of radioactivity based on the assumption of Faster Than Light and other considerations. CLICK HERE. for this. More or less charge or field density changes the field density more or less so the wave like light is at another speed by way of the density as in my causology of General Wave Dynamics GWD. Even with Faster Than Light motion inside the particles to explain more mass density than via relativity, the speed of light on the outside would control the rate of transfer of momentum by way of E=mc2 because at lower energy and higher radii with relativistic drag, the field would slow to just the speed of light, and relativity is well proven in this realm. In higher energy physics mass and energy are "forced" to behave the same by the quanta. They're numerically alike by the proportional conversion of the mass to energy by Emc2 and this method of Combining Newton's Three Laws with The First Law of Thermodynamics into one Law. But they may not be exactly the same (even numerically) by way of the distinction between mass and energy. With Einstein's mass energy equivalence a hot iron having more energy would have more mass and weigh more even if the amount Einstein predicted was beyond the limit of resolution of 20th century experimental physics. If mass and energy are equivalent, Einstein offered no explanation about why they aren't the same in many respects in more general physics. I believe only if both balance and change are encompassed may the physics be more complete. An airship with more energy and heat wouldn't rise if it has more mass by mass energy equivalence.

Einstein's Mass Energy Equivalance is mostly true for thermodynamics and the First Law holds at moderate energy but I think they may not be so much the same at lower energy where quanta wouldn't not be so sharp in resolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the heat and entropy are always increasing, and gravity is continously flexing heat out of the Earth. Both of these motifs violate the First Law (of Thermodynamics) that energy is conserved. It may seem the First Law is not violated by Entropy because the thermodynamic expansion of entropy is where quantity of motion is conserved, but in general this may not be true at longer range and lower energy because of the problem of infinite expansion of the entropy over infinite time so there most be more implosion than expansion to hold the cosmos together. More motion is continually being created and the field is augumented and this would be disproof of Energy Conservation. Even if we believe the cosmos didn't have to be created and of infinite time because energy is neither created or destroyed, friction would rule, so there may still be continuous creation of the field to keep it in motion. Even with the gravity exactly balanced about the friction, the gravity would be overpowering it so the gravity is doing more work than just a balanced physics, to hold the cosmos and the field in a unified general physics. The possible distinction that would express the basic distinction between mass and energy, of gravitational and inertial mass in experiments in subatomic physics would be smaller and smaller at higher and higher energy. Einstein believed that in the massive gravity of the Earth the electron would have more mass and all electrons actually weigh almost the same. (If motion of the field was relative as Einstein thought, and it was the same to say the earth's field is moving through mass like electrons as to say they were accelerating upward at 32 ft it would be at the speed of light in less than a year and the electrons of the earth would have huge mass by way of relativity.) With gravitational and inertial mass unalike and the mass of the earth and the electron at rest "for real" without Equivalent relative motion of the field causing it, a smaller effect about the amount of extra change may be by way of the radioactive radiation of the Earth. If subtracted from the total heat output and divided into all the particles of the earth the heat output gives the amount of extra power added to each electron or other particle, and this is amount of motion of the field that disproves the absoluteness of the First Law of Thermodynamics. If all the field is unified by energy conservation and gravity achieves this, it seems possible the other forces would do the same at least somewhat. Because this would essentially be a Unified Field and shielding would also be a prediction of this idea, the extra power of mass would be much like that of shielding, to add in more power of the electron, there would be as much friction to cause the interaction. The Lamb Shift of Hydrogen may also be disproof of energy conservation. With the self adhesion of the field more mass exists than by just the First Law of Thermodynamics, actually with any self adhesion or expansion of the field, or the distinction of waves and particles, there is disproof of Einstein's absolute Equivalence of Mass and Energy.In subatomic physics because the quanta hold the electric charges so well to uphold relativity, the amount of distinction to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics would not be large. Like the quantum well of radioactivity, even in subatomic physics at higher energy with a small outflow in the side of the well there would be a small change in the conversion of mass to energy that would be proof the mass and energy aren't equal even if mostly equivalent, this would be reduced in more massive particle interactions where the quantum well is more solid. (The lower energy wells would have more change because the wall of the well is not so high or deep so it would be easier for more energy to flow in (and from itself like gravity it being of the same field and unified)). This amount would be common with the degree of the well, and the density of the field.

...

THE LOGIC OF ENERGY CONSERVATION

In math there is the use of disproof by contradiction. If energy conservation is based on Newton's Third Law unified with the other 5 Laws with opposite action reaction pairs causing most of the physics, it would seem by energy conservation and Relativity this can't be used as disproof of anything because it would be proof of all there is. Relativity has all observers equal so all truth and falshood are the same by the logic of relativity. Only if energy conservation was based on more of one than the other with each action reaction would there be no absolute energy conservation. Matter with more mass wouldn't be exactly the same as antimatter with more energy and would perhaps fall at another rate than via Einstein's causology. This would be why a particle in subatomic physics with no charge, even if made of a plus and minus that would cancel has a bit of leftover charge like the neutron which is made of a proton and electron. The mass is not quite the same as Einstien would have perhaps believed. Another reason Einstein's causology seemed so improbable to many people, with mass and energy the same, is like the exact equivalence of + and - electric charges of equivalent mass and energy (an electron has more energy and a positron more mass) true and false, bad and good would be the same, and a vast realm of logic from the egyptians and greeks down to our time and science would be disproven. If mass and energy were more exactly the same, opposite masses like the earth and moon would be exactly the same like electric charges, this in support of my conclusion that Einstein's belief about mass and energy is mostly derived from electric charges, and the speed of light alone, rather than the deeper truth about the distinction between mass and energy being what may be the ultimate cause of the motion of mass and energy in the cosmos. The idea that all motion comes from other motion and is circular reasoning, not the outside force of the lower power field energising up the rest of the field. There are no perfect deductive systems. Science shows in the real world there are no absolute proofs like Euclid with his geometry. There is always at least some possibility more complex outside influences will make any deductive argument invalid with it's perfect conclusions from the evidence and no more. Mathemeticians now believe Euclid's proofs are more like a philosopher king than a king with absolute rule, and there's evidence that the axioms of math are not perfect as they would be via Einstein's belief. The idea of proof of a theorem used in math by disproof of the opposite would be valid only if matter and energy were equivalent. With mass and energy not = there would always be a slight probability that proof by disproof of the opposite wouldn't work. The cosmos wouldn't uphold energy conservation by this definition about gravity at great distances because the universe is self powering. By definition there's nothing outside the cosmos. (The cosmos must be a contained unit of finite mass or the infinite mass would have already engulfed the world and Lite Booze Commercials!) The degree to which mass is unlike energy in the given problem to solve would determine how improbable it was that proof by disproof of the opposite wasn't absolute. This is why in the history of math, math with more deductive proof like Euclidean has mostly followed science with induction, not science following math because proof by exclusion without evidence would be like mass and energy being in perfect balance so much there would be no change, and causology by union would be circular reasoning without more experiments to prove or disprove a given conjecture.

It will be a boom to many pro sports to go computerized. Free radicals running around at colleges flood the circulation with exercise, and they have the same basketball conversation with each go round of the win, but I've never had a basketball say a curse or other oath like *(%^#@#$! The player wears the wear with cyber opponents between the player and the hoop, by action without them for 3 points and then making moves with the other players trying to win, and from greater and greater distance with assured wins with each improvement like a reflex arc, this will improve the scores in most pro basketball games, much like chess has improved by way of training with machines, the value of machines like this would be higher than osteoporosis! This would have auto cyber return of the power, for anyone to be with power click here OLIVE LEAF.. For more advanced moves like rebounds and other moves between players real training would be of worth, even though it may improve scores and more basic moves. Who wants to just type in and click a rebound? Here's How! (CYBER SPORTS).

...