Why Time Asymmetry Seems to Be Evidence That Relativity is Incomplete

If mass and energy are equivalent like particles (more like mass) and antiparticles (energy) time would be reversable.

Time is only reversable like the spins of the particles like little clocks (all time is always measured by periodic oscillation and it's a well proven idea that time is proportional to frequency) at higher energy with quanta. If for longer range than just a bit the spins are aligned with the field where the direction of the spin is only an allowed value at high energy so all the collisions are simple, like reversing billiard balls.

Spins are about time and aren't aligned in common mass all around us, while Feynmann believed that for the short time after matter and antimatter interact reversal is possible because time is indeed always measured by spin and frequency, at greater distance the spin isn't aligned so it gets much more complex and time would be much tougher to reverse.

Thus time is reversable at high energy with the quanta of Emc2 , more spinning mass, just that much more linear energy as Einstein believed while at lower energy it's not. But lower energy physics are much more common than higher energy or at any rate gravity would be the creation field that is lower energy and unifies the energy conservation, ect.

Thus lower energy physics not energy conservation and Einstein's idea of mass energy equivalence may be the most important physics not e=mc2 or relativity,
if time is assymetrical from future to past this makes sense.

If mass and energy were equivalent, time would be reversable.

The assymetry of time is evidence that although the quanta are of worth, there is a more definite foundation in waves of gravity being more important than particles.

If mass and energy are truly not the same, one will be of more worth than the other and relativity wouldn't be not the most general causology, and Einstein's mass energy equivalence seems perhaps to be a reflection but not the foundation so it may not double the cash in the mirror of mass energy or matter antimatter being the same, it's of worth but it seems incomplete.

That mass and energy are unalike would explain why matter and antimatter seem so counterintuitave. If matter and antimatter are the same, why not true and false? Science with it's way of knowing this itself would be disproven.

And this would be why indeed there is more matter than antimatter. Gravity if assymetrical and the foundation makes time and matter and antimatter with the same distinction.


THEY FOUND NERO'S HOUSE (09 9 29th) BOOOOO! Or well, You know...

Archeologists have unearthed a giant spinning dining room that was in ancient times often mentioned with Nero at the center so he would be "like the sun" with it in rotation with the Earth's 24 hours so no shadows (in the night they laughed at Nero when no one was aware!) and the room was 50 feet round and had wheels underneath powered by water, with a roof that could drop flowers and scents on the audience. The golden house of Nero was built on the ruins of Rome that burned in Nero's fire while he was 37 miles away in his villa and the violin was not yet invented, so the old saying that Nero fiddled while Rome burned is not the "real" history some say. The Dining room was mentioned by numerous ancient sources and the golden house built with money taken from the country was so vast took up three of the 7 hills of Ancient Rome.

Originally the dining room overlooked lakes that were later drained and the Colisseum was built by the Emperor Vespasian. You may know that Nero was not much liked then or in the 21st century. Who knows? Eventually!
~~

Gravity And Causality Why It's Both Implosive and May Reradiate as Einstein Believed

I believe General Relativity is proof of Einstein not of the relativity of gravity. All the experimental proofs of General Relativity, Mossbauer, frame dragging, ect., are proofs of change in acceleration, where the speed of light changes and Special Relativity is the only time when all observers are equal with a constant speed of light. While Einstein tried to solve this by his Equivalence Principle where he says all accelerated frames of reference are equal like in his inertial and gravitational elevator thought experiment, he considers only the accelerated frames of reference here not all observers, which is the foundation of the entire causology of relativity. If all observers are equal, why are just some observers valid in general relativity?


As you may know two physicists won the Nobel Prize around 2000 for the "proof" of General Relativity where Einstein predicted the rate of gravitational radiation from massive systems like the binary stars. The measurement in higher resolution has been believed to be evidence the assumption that gravity as Einstein believed is radiant at the right rate. But here too the acceleration is not proof of the relativity of gravity, if my causology of GWD is true, this is more disproof of General Relativity! Einstein believed that gravity moves at the speed of light, a seemingly straightforward conclusion since by E=mc2 the less mass you have like the lighter force of gravity the higher the speed, like light which has 0 rest mass so it moves at the speed of light. Gravity being lighter yet would go at its top speed too, which by relativity is just the speed of light.

.
One problem with the predicted rate of gravitational rate of radiation of the binary star system is that it is radiation, and gravity is an implosion. But we must assume that if the gravity is imploding at the speed of light, no outward radiance can take place because as I say about opposite light rays or high speed ships, if the light is moving at the speed of light, any motion in the opposite direction by any other body or light ray is faster than light. This seems to be like not just two opposite starships that absolutely lose connection beyond a certain speed like the opposite speeding galaxies astronomers see on each side, that's explained by the expansion of the space or field between them so there's no causal connection to violate faster than light motion by relativity some say, instead this seems like two opposite speeding airplanes that lose connection at faster than sound, and when they meet they find their speed didn't just disappear to 0 when they were absolutely disconnected as relativity would hold, rather they were connected by the low energy field like the electromagnetic field the air is mostly made of so when they meet they don't just materialize to violate energy conservation, the airships exist through the time of motion. .CLICK HERE FOR MORE ABOUT THIS.

If the implosion of the gravitational radiation is indeed at just the speed of light, any radiation outward at all is disproof of no faster than light motion being possible.

Implosion alone seems to violate causality. If you have a wave in a pond it only radiates outward from a source like a rock. With implosion and no reradiance, we would have the wave starting around the rocks and sand of the shore and then imploding in and causing the event that would be at the center of the mass. I've believed that gravity is time reversed in general from electromagnetism, gravity implodes us downward to a point, and electromagnetism lifts us up with expansion to more entropy. If thermodynamic entropy flows outward from hot to cold, it seems that gravity to attract flows inward from cold to hot.
As I believe also, there may be low energy reradiation of the gravity so the Earth isn't putting on huge mass by the implosion of the field to give all the mass weight by implosion, Click Here for 10 reasons why/conundrums solved by this (for instance the Milky Way and other massive behemoths are spinning too fast so reradiation of the field might only reach out so far, nearer in the gravity without some shielding by the reradiant field would fall off faster, and the Pioneer anomaly might be caused by this also.).

Reradiation of the field would be of worth as a way out of the problem about implosion and causality, this was Einstein's idea in a simpler form about the reradiance of the low energy field, as I say on the conundrums link I hope to improve this by way of the more recent astronomy and possibly by other experiments. Perhaps the reradiation needed to make gravity not completely time reversed is where Einstein got this idea. At any rate if gravity is at the speed of light and radiates even a bit, this might be disproof either that gravity is at the speed of light, a likely conclusion based on relativity alone (in GWD it may be much faster and have many overlapping speeds) or disproof that faster than light motion of the field is impossible.


The overlapping speeds of the field would cause smooth space time even in quantum physics, one speed in and another speed out to avoid cancellation by resonance like the gravity in and the heat out of the Earth or solar heat. With gravity more time reversable than not, since light has constant speed and changing wavelength in the "more electromagnetic" speed of light of special relativity, gravity being mostly opposite might have both changing speed and wavelength both, this would be dependant on the semiquantum way of the low energy field (continuous but not completely so for definition and stability also of subatomic physics, the reradiance of massive bodies like the binary stars is low energy or there would be antigravity and we would fall off the earth.). With reduction of the confining quantum wells of the low energy field unlike light by Maxwell confined to constant speed by the constant electric charges and constant field density of 1 and -1, gravity would flow like a superfluid, changing its own speed and wavelength both at once. The change of speed not just wavelength would be one of the most defining distinctions between gravity and relativity, this is an acceleration not seen in uniform motion.



The Beauty About Truth the Truth About Beauty

Some women think being beautious would be of worth to them, why is there this belief in the power of beauty? Research proves that men can know if a woman wants children just by looking at picture of the lady. And looks influence your personality (just lifting my Pearl Visions makes me exercise!) What's the real meaning of beauty? The ancient Greeks believed in beauty, Aristotle and others believed that beauty is near the level of truth. And no doubt, your name can influence your personality. Women with a "creative" name are more likely ot achieve well in life and men are more likely ot do well with a more conservative name. This was the nomen omen of the Romans, when the person was born they believed the name had influence on where they would go to in life. Some say that looks are a sham and we should have no part of them. My belief is that looks are of some worth but not the higher worth in contrast to other things in life. The ancients didn't have much more than civilization so they looked for other ways to improve than just wealth, so they had cleansing and belief in beauty, of higher culture if your goal is a clean civilization. So when the landlady shows up and asks for the ransom and calls me handsome, I hand some to her!

LOTS OF RAIN HERE There's a higher purpose in life than just life, if I see 257 Dish TVS, it's a web memo about the rain the other day! I invented air filled feetwear I sail down the side of the road, and when I reached the inflow they pump more air to lift me up for more go rounds, the umbrella's the sail! It wasn't the super highway or road it was the Lake Huron highway! My Boat Shoes almost sank, there was so much wind I say hi and talk for hours with a woman in minutes who lives up the road!

...

Time Asymmetry and Schrodinger's Cat

The famous familiar feline in Schrodinger's belief is related to subatomic physics where a lepton or other subatomic iota has an uncertain hour ahead so an observer has no way to know if it will collapse to save the ASPCA for a life of comfort here or if it will be reigning Felines in the egyptian afterlife for 3000 years! By way of Schrodinger we can't know beforehand if the subatomic event connected up to the cat in the box will be with spin up or spin down so if the cat was in the box and it was like subatomic physics, "the cat would be both alive and dead".

There are three questions here;

First,
..
Is the Uncertainty Principle the same as the improbability of general events we see around us, like a weather forecast in physics?

Second, If the probabilities are indeed like a weather report, do the violate causality like the cat and the box if connected to the unknown weather a week from now?

And if not, what is the difference in the time of the subatomic realm that can be reversed while more prosaic events around us that often cat or can't?

The first question is about the Uncertainty Principle being like more common probabilities around us. Like a weather prediction we know the weather only by general area of flow of the wind and rain tomorrow or the next day till the day it happens for whatever the cause. If the cause is the subatomic collapse of the wave function it still has a cause in the general flow of the field like the weather and for the same reason of complexity we still can't know it exactly, thus the Uncertainty Principle is not the same as the probablities in the subatomic realm. Probabilities are all around us, the Uncertainty Principle as Einstein believed seems to be only about the luck that in the subatomic realm the mass energy of the measuring and measured mote are about at the same level of energy, all around us are examples of proof of Einstein's idea on a vast range of scale from light hitting the moon, to a 10 lb bowling ball hitting a strike for the other team, there's no need for what's measured to be about the same energy as the ray of light or thunder to reach it. So like Einstein I believe the observer doesn't create what's observed with the light of the probe always changing what's seen, and the Uncertainty Principle is not an absolute space time limit, and the probabilities of quantum mechanics are indeed prosaic and more common like the weather. Here are some possible ways to get around the Uncertainty Principle this may be of much worth for computers.

If the probabilities are much like the weather, if we wire up the cat to the weather map of tomorrow "2079 AD is here today"! And if it rains the cat goes to the ATM machines on hold in Pet Airways and if it doesn't rain the cat is fine, we are all alive here today, and the weather tomorrow is the measure of tomorrow, only then we may know about the fate of the cat. Just saying it's possible it will rain is determined by weather science and is not proof the cat is both alive and dead. At all times the cat is either alive or dead and at no time is the cat both.
..
The third question seems the most interesting one. If the subatomic realm is often time reversable because time is always measured by periodic fluctuation like the spin of the particles as little clocks why doesn't this carry over to our more common scale realm of life? Why not just reverse the spins to reverse the time of more mass? As Feynmann believed this actually is true for mass and energy for a short distance after a plus and minus charge are created, even so at longer distance the spins don't stay so aligned and with complexity of the field at more distance time is not reversable. In other words the complexity of the cat proves Schrodinger's idea that the quantum realm is disproven, or at any rate is disproof that it's the same about time here at our size (Supper Size Me!)me than in quantum physics. If mass and energy are truly the same as Einstein believed like matter and antimatter or other electric charges and they are exactly the same even if for some reason we can tell them apart, they should be exactly time reversable. There would be no extra imbalance of entropy to make time assymetrical here where we dwell in the usual life we live with the sweet egyptian goddess. This would seem to be proof that mass energy conservation which says that energy is constant for an isolated system, is disproven by entropy and the assymetry of time. To make Shrodinger's paradox with the time symmetrical in the subatomic realm and the larger realm assymetrical there may be a slight change in each subatomic reaction with a bit of extra energy not measured by E=mc2 with the quanta "leaking out" a bit more of the energy than a completely airtight quantum well might allow. This is not uncommon in subatomic physics, the process of radioactivity can be well described as like a lava dome and there is a bit of trickle that over time (sometimes billions of years) finally leaks through side at the rate predicted and causes the radioactivity. If the quanta were absolute as Einstein believed an electron wouldn't be able to jump from one orbit to another in the atom, the well of the atom would have no leaks, this would only be possible if a lower energy field connects the shells and this would be the cause of entropy.

.. This assymetry of the leaking of entropy must have a cause, this would be the implosion of the gravitational field that would become stronger as it multiplies up to the subatomic realm and close distance and then reacts back internally at the subatomic mass energy density to cause the entropy; the gravitational field itself must be more imbalanced yet to hold the cosmos together without it winding down over infinite time. This field is in GWD my causology the source of all other fields, doing work on the rest and unifying them, the prime mover with extra energy. We couldn't expect a cosmos where no labor is ever done, and labor must have a source, with energy conservation alone and all in balance all motion in the cosmos would have already stopped. If mass and energy were the same as Einstein held there would be no entropy or gravity. Mass and energy seem to be time assymetrical so by E mc2 alone Schrodinger's cat would be both alive and watching the Weather Station 24 hours!
..
..I think this third motif relates to what time is, i.e. if mass and energy are truly not the same, or we couldn't know one from the other, entropy, the imbalance of heat flow from hot to cold is the cause of Schrodinger's Cat being time assymetric and alive or not exactly. Thus Einstein's Emc2 may not be true even if mass and energy are much the same in the quantum realm where "time is symmetrical". Increase the spin of the mass we might say and the linear motion of the energy is conserved in the quanta by almost exactly the same amount but perhaps not quite because entropy and time at longer distances are not balanced and time is not reversable with a definite past purresent and future!


...Energy conservation by the strict definition says "The mass energy of an isolated system remains constant even with the motion of it's constituent mass." However, there are no isolated systems. Gravity and energy conservation hold all the fields together so we would expect that if energy conservation is violated it would have something to do with gravity. In truth if the gravity is squeezing all the mass, the problem with the First Law above is that an "isolated" system to some degree is always decreasing in density and increasing in volume because of the heating and squeezing caused by gravity. The Second Law may disprove Energy Conservation because changes in volume for the same mass change the energy of the system with time.
..
..You may say for an isolated system the gravity flows in with a field of low energy particles to exert the pressure of gravity and conserve momentum and this is then converted over to the more dense expansion of the entropy that flows out, but mass by motion of the field is just moved from one place to another so the energy is conserved because mass and energy are not the same and one is converted the other. However they aren't the same by how we know so entropy doesn't cause the cosmos to expand to 0 density by more expansion to outdistance the lower energy longer range gravity of the cosmos, but the conversion of the gravity to entropy takes work being done and this would be the extra work that keeps the cosmos in motion. Mass moved from one place to another conserves energy but what moves it? It would seem you can't have the same force and motion inward as outward of mass to conserve energy or the mass would stay the same and no work would be done. Only with a difference in the inflowing energy and the outflow of mass is there a net change in the masses of bodies so work is done, and this means mass and energy are not the same. If they were the same they would balance exactly and no outward or inner motion would be possible.
..
..And Einstein's belief in the field being just empty spacetime is not probable by the conservation of momentum and energy in this simple explanation because if there is just empty space time no field can implode inward to cause entropy so there would be no gravity or reradiation of the entropy outward.

If gravity causes entropy, wouldn't time speed up with more gravity and slow with reduced gravity in contradiction with general relativity? As you see on this link mass speeds up time as in subatomic physics where the heavier a meson or other heavy particle is, the faster it radiates out if at rest. If time is spin or other event that oscillates (as time is always seen to be with no exceptions) and by conservation of angular momentum, the more mass the faster the spin so time speeds up with more mass. Einstein's gravitational redshift is more than balanced out by the overall compaction of gravity. Gravity doesn't radiate out in general with redshift it moves masses together or the earth would be inside out. This idea that removing mass from the earth would slow down time a bit might be proven with asteroids of lower mass, they could spin a bit slower if mass was removed than by energy conservation, and atomic clocks would perhaps spin slower there than Einstein would deign. If entropy is the cause of time and its asymmetry with motion slowing at cooler temperatures, with entropy slowed on worlds at lower energy, time may slow about this because nearer to absolute zero, motion ceases and so would motion in oscillation like time. The slowing of time near absolute zero is unproven by relativity because with more gravity is more heat with a higher rate of fall and the higher speed motion Einstein believes is the same as the higher speed of special relativity and its like redshift. Relativity says time slows in near massive worlds, thus with reduced heat by Relativity time should speed up with reduced mass. No doubt the slowing of time near a reduced mass like a comet would not be so much as the change in the already well proven atomic clock of relativity just near the surface of giant worlds because it's well proven that most work doesn't disprove energy conservation, only the small bit of labor that is caused by entropy may do this and in more general physics like the reduction in the 24 hours of the Earth if more mass were added, not a slowing as relativity predicts.

Work is being done in offices and many stores right now if the boss sez and this doesn't violate energy conservation, energy conservation and the distinction of mass and energy that might disprove relativity might be disproven by the smaller change in entropy with it's own change in the atomic clock.

If time and gravity are asymmetrical and gravity is adding extra implosion ot hold things together with much time and because (extra gravity is needed. with more implosion of the field than explosion or we couldn't be here) masses would implode more of the field than they lose with time and this would be why astronomy proves in the history of massive high energy sources they actually gain more mass than they lose. In their evolution galaxies have a mass of about 30 relative to the central mass early and later the mass increases to about 1000 times the mass. With no other source seen for the mass augmentation and both the imbalance of gravity time and entropy and the assumption that there really is a low energy field made of mass and energy there not empty space time as Einstein believed, these are assumptions foreign to relativity that might explain these and about 10 otherwise unexplained conundrums. Click here for the 10 conundrums and perhaps more than a conundrum would be!
..
..By mass energy equivalence Einstein believed a hot iron having more energy has more mass so it would weigh more. My belief is if mass is to some extent the opposite of energy and there can be any ratio of the two the hot iron like an airship with more heat will "weigh" less. Mass and energy seem to be opposite, to me much like mass and inertia, because like more energy, more inertia causes more linear motion, and so on, so you can weigh less in the low latitudes than the north with another ratio of mass to energy than Einstein believed. In truth if they were exactly the same they couldn't be changed to change your weight here. Like nonuniform motion in Special Relativity where work is also done the speed of light changes to then rematch the higher or lower speed of an observer, so the "speed" is constant, while by changes in the internal dynamic of the wavelength of the light and because this by definition this is a change in the momenta of the light, it's speed is changed by a general definition of momentum. If the speed of light changes in a more general sense, with work like changes in mass from low to high latitudes, mass and energy too may not be exactly equivalent and the foundation of relativity might be disproven.

The disproof of the complete mass and energy equivalence is possible in the Fine Structure Constant, the number 1/137 that relates the strength of electromagnetism to the strong force. If a lower energy quantum well has less well defined walls by Mass Energy distinction it might radiate out a bit more than a more massive well, so with light and electromagnetism compared to the strong force and with the huge number of lower energy particles like light and electrons there might be more radiation there from the energy than the mass, just as a more massive body like Jupiter holds on to more of the lighter particles and a world like the earth or moon radiates away its air. Since the permeability of quantum wells made of more than one density, some more complex than others may have a distinct set of ratios and different numbers of radiant particles each may contribute to the exact value of the Fine Structure Constant. The Fine Structure Constant is also the ratio of the electrons speed in the Bohr atom to the speed of light. Thus since the light is lighter than the electron, the light could leak a bit more and over time the Fine Structure Constant might be actually increasing as some recent experiments may claim. The Fine Structure might be related to the expansion of the cosmos with entropy as I say. With more room, the light would perhaps be losing energy by the gravity and starting to bend back around and fall inward to the center of the cosmos to conserve thermodynamic energy quantity of motion, perhaps "not quantity of motive power". The slowing down would be both measure of its leakage and it's entropy too. But if the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism is changing perhaps and with the strong force also leaking out just a bit, the exact change in the fine structure constant predicted by GWD is exact. Entropy alone which after all is thermodynamic and like Relativity's speed of light doesn't predict the strong force. I've held that the strong force is actually disproof of relativity because if the speed of light is the top speed and light is much about electromagnetism, there is no greater density possible than that of an electric charge, at the speed of light. By Relativity it seems there is no higher speed than the spin of an electron at the speed of light, so if mass is just spinning energy as in GWD the highest density a muon or a meson could have would just be that of an electron, light and electrons only and no heavy particles would be possible.

..Radioactivity as a sort of quantum leakage of entropy thus might not take place completely by E mc2 if mass and energy were completely equivalent, a possible prediction of this idea. This may be why only 1% of the mass is converted to energy in nuclear reactions. There could also be smaller changes in E mc2 by way of the entropy. Since entropy is often smaller change of power than work being done, the change in E mc2 would also be small. Even so the possibility that matter and antimatter, mass and energy, may not fall at the same rate exists. Since you can lift a lighter mass a bit higher up and it will thus fall a bit faster, antimatter, being a bit lighter like energy may be lifted up a bit higher than energy with the same force applied to counteract the gravity in an updated version of Millikan's oil drop experiment, still the best proof we have of the existence of the electron. Actually since electrons and positrons are like matter and energy with electrons at a lower filled field of mass and positrons are also proven to be higher energy and with more motion, they're like matter and energy and if matter and energy are the opposite it takes an equivalent downward attractive field to counteract the motion of the positron while the electron uses an expanding upward field of almost the same mass energy and so on. If mass and energy are not quite the same the fields are not just opposite in direction and force as mass energy inequivalence would predict, there is also a slight change possible in the level of the electron and positron above the floor of the lab machine even if the same force is applied, because mass and energy are so important to physics a more internal distinction of the mass and energy of the charges may exist even if the applied force is the same.
..

THE WEAK FORCE, MIGHTY MOUSE OF PHYSICS?

All is made of energy conservation, all except perhaps gravity which may be a source of perpetual motion to continually wind up the cosmos, so while it exists at higher energy like of electromagnetism held in quantum wells with energy neither created or destroyed, with the general expansion of thermodynamic entropy there would seem to be the necessity of gravity winding up the cosmos or it would wind down over infinite time and it hasn't. It seems all is connected up, and in subatomic physics it's well known that as you go from the lower energy force like the weak force to electromagnetism and then the strong force more and more conservation laws are in use. Electromagnetism has laws like electric charge and energy conservation well observed, and the strong force has all that's encompassed by electromagnetism plus more laws like conservation of isotopic spin and baryon number. This seems to fit the idea that all is made of lower energy fields energised up to higher energy. Each force has all the energy and features of its own energy level plus some more than the forces below it. On the other hand, the weak force seems to be the strongest force because it powers atomic reactions. The strong force is only attractive so it can only power the strong expansion of the atomic bombs or of atomic power by squeezing in the central weak force which powers radioactivity, the glorified name for expansion of the mass of the reaction. Like squeezing the juice from an orange, the strong force is attraction that can only implode to then heat up the short range more dense weak force to power it's radiant heating just as the lower energy only attractive force of gravity causes the heating of the solar power. Does gravity or fusion or the weak force power the solar heat? In truth it's all three, while to say the weak force is so weak it isn't the cause of the power seems improbable, because if we only allow that the weak force is weak and the strong force is actually implosive, there's no outward expansion to power the atomic reactions. For this reason I believe the weak force is weak in name only and in truth if it's the cause of atomic reactions it must be strong, even stronger than the strong force in order to overcome its implosion. The weak force is thought to be weak because it's a short range force. In truth it may be weak at long range because in order to explain it's weakness some have taken this strong force of short range (thus great strength) and subtracted a second strong component of the field to find the strength we see, the classic method used to find the electron's mass and charge so numerically well of "renormalization". If the weak force powers the atomic reactions and it must be strong, in truth it may be the strongest force there is. Going from electromagnetism to the strong force to the weak force the range decreases, and it seems that gravity would be longer range than electromagnetism so the cosmos won't leak out the thermodynamic heat and the cosmos would wind down over infinite time of energy being neither created or destroyed. Gravity fits in this pattern because being the weakest, gravity obeys the least conservation laws, e.g. it doesn't obey conservation of electric charge. The gravity may outdistance the light to hold it in just as the electric field out reaches the strong force, and the strong force is stronger than electromagnetism which is stronger than gravity, thus if the weak force is the shorter range force it seems in some sense it would be the most strong, even if only at close range or even perhaps in some higher dimension. Even so the conservation laws act like the weak force is weak with the fewest conservation laws for the weak force in subatomic physics.

..

Gravity is long range (to hold the cosmos together without leakage), electromagnetism is shorter range, the strong force is shorter and the weak force has the shortest range;

..

Yet gravity has the least conserved, then the weak force then electromagnetism, then the strong force. This is not the same general motif. Why? Perhaps it actually seems these are unrelated motifs but they actually may turn out to be the same with more indepth higher energy resolution like with the LHC.

By the first idea that the conservation laws are conserved from lower energy on up, with more intrinsic strength at close range it's possible if the weak force is actually strong, so the conservation laws, being a general increase of complexity with more energy like many things around us (e.g. the history of patents in invention, in evolution, or science) would perhaps have more of the conservation laws being obeyed in some form if at least at close range perhaps in another way to move even if they are more bottled up for some reason than the same consevation laws of the other forces. If it's true that conservation laws are important to physics, and that the weak force is actually strong this would seem to be so, or a possibility.

How to Save More Heat, To The Power Vendor, You!

There are now inventors who are using large acoustic lenses to bend sound waves around and away from rooms to hope to make a zone with no noise at all. Or perhaps even a hat you wear that's much cheaper than antinoise to always have quiet, a solid gold room you wear! And this is believed to be of use for submarines to make sonar not bounce off the sub but rather to bend around it and so the sub would be invisible to other sonar. Another possibility under consideration is to make large heat lenses around houses, perhaps an inflatable dome that would not only bend most of the summer heat away from the house from all directions, it would also capture the heat via collectors in the dome and put it back in the power grid. Thus there would be a reduced heating bill and more money from the electricity. The general shape of the heat shield would bend the heat rays away and focus them to either collectors or just into wires or optic fibers. At christmas and when the boss is mad, if the shield was reversed you may be fired with ambition!


Another idea under construction is an inflatable hurricane shield around houses that would connect to a permanent foundation flange around the base to stop flooding and that would also be like the hurricane window guards in use that are kevlar to save the windows from high speed projectiles just by hanging up this venetian blind. iboom.com says the kevlar is strong and not heavy so it would be held upward and filled with air to deploy and once it was over the house the roof would hold the shield up, protecting the building from both the flooding and most of the damage from the storm. For the best protection air pumps could continually inflate the shield while the storm was in progress though this would not be necessary. Another possibility might be a retractable shield of kevlar like the old convertible tops for automobiles. Materials are one key to making hurricane proof buildings. Buildings survive storm after storm (without hi tech science!) in some regions where hurricanes are common because they are of concrete, so billions in expensive research (some is!) building computer simulations to survive storms with all the expensive walls and roofs and other structures some have built may be unnecessary.

Even though a kevlar shield would itself cost a lot, some sites say the price of kevlar and other materials may improve as time goes on e.g with Fullerines, and it would be an insurance boost, especially for large buildings like mills because of economy of buying the kevlar in volume compared to the value of buildings saved. And unlike concrete this could be retrofitted or with the low weight of kevlar might be airlifted from one zone to another before the storm hits to save on the kevlar by reusing it where most of worth. All the foundations to secure the shields from floods might be permanent in each city but since hurricanes don't hit two cities at the same time they wouldn't have to be shielded at once so all the shields may be moved to just the one city about to be visited by the storm like by train, saving money. This may be the cheapest way to retrofit large buildings.

It's been the second beautiful summer in a row in 10 years where I live, not too hot. Even so if you go out in the heat you may see those bands you wear on your head that have fibers to absorb a lot of water when you soak it in the bowl of water, and this gradually trickles down your brow so the ad says, cooling your head. In actual use like the water cooled pillow filled with water you find it soon runs out of cooling power because the bandanna runs out of water or because of no evaporation like the pillow. If trickles of water were constant either the bandanna or the pillow would cool well, if you spray your face in the heat it cools well even without cooling the water which is only for the hottest days. Even so it would be easier if the bandanna continously cools your head because I sometimes forget to spray in the heat or have to do something else, OUCH! A solution that's been devised for the trickle of more than biz cash flow may be a hat with a water resevoir in the top sort of like the first air conditioner built in india in the 800's or so that used a rug hung on the side of the room where a wall would be, the rug had a trickle of water in the top from a small trough across the top side and the more constant monsoon winds blowing through the room cooled the water in the rug to cool the room by many degrees, like 30. I always wanted to be a water cooler and a tower for bottled water, The lake has no more than me! There are other cooling systems, but unlike other coolers this uses the trickle of gravity from the resevoir so it doesn't need a hand pump to compress the air to raise the water from a backpack.
..

The nation's power grid loses 7% or 16$ billion worth of its energy each year during power transmission and redistribution. A recent way to improve this without expensive supercooling has been devised, a bit of the electricity is rerouted to electric cooler insulators around the outside of each wire, as if a one way valve inward to hold the heat. The cooling makes it so the power flows with reduced resistance and power loss, and the inward flow of the field also is used. The goal has been to create supercooled flow so no power is lost. Copper or aluminum wires heat up and radiate while an empty field has the least heat loss because without friction or heating not as much heat is radiant. To perhaps achieve Edison's old dream power may be beamed between microwave collectors on high or lasers inside mirrored tubes. Even so tubes to carry the power with no matter inside them might have the problem of leaks of the power from inside the mirrored walls of the wire. A vacuum is a poor conductor by convection or conduction because of no other molecules there but a good conductor of radiation. Thus a low density wire with a mirrored inner outer layer may be of worth. The mirror is easier to stop heat loss than by insulation other than electric insulation and if combined with it. A lower density solid that may be of worth is an airogel, the lightest solid and the engineer L.M. Smith says this would be used to both stop leaks by absorbing much of the power with an outer layer while allowing reduced heat loss in common use. Like a sponge there would be a slower leak if damaged like by unraveled wire but not so much as a complete loss of power and pressure of a tubular wire while at the same time in common use much more radiant power would be saved. Halleluighah, I Sure Have faith I can't spell!