Why I Believe Some Types Of New Physics "Other Than the Higg's" May not Be Found With The LHC...

Supersymmetry

This is the general idea that there is a wave (boson) for each fermion (matter) particle. Certainly there can be a wave for each particle at short distances, Einstein's idea, and there are both particles and antiparticles at short range, and no doubt mass energy equivalence. Even so these are short range symmetries. It's easier to flip a cup inside out like the matter and antimatter and mass to energy by the balance of the implosion and reradiance of the fields that create the physics of balance of relativity. Relativity holds quite well for medium range phsyics where the implosion and  reradiation balance. Even so there is a major question about relativity, if mass and energy are completely equivalent how can we tell them apart, and Dirac was predicting as much matter as antimatter if both relativity and QM are true. CLICK HERE. If we have waves and particles the same why don't we have a wave to fit our van, or a large particle for each wave in the stream, and so on. Supersymmetry would seem to involve unifying the many and the one in a general way at more distance than like the wave particle duality.There would be as much manyness of the one as oneness of the many in general, this is an objection to relativity also. Sort of like how some say mass might dissapear and then rezooms it's physics somewhere else, this seems improbable because the balance of mass and energy seems to need connection and pressure holding the field together. The basic symmetries and thus action reaction pairs of energy conservation are always found to operate by balance and more attraction than reradiance in general.This would be because the basic field needs to not destroy itself so more attraction than reradiance overall is needed for the cosmos not to have fizzled out to no density in infinite time. If there is generally more compression than reradiance, the implosion to where they are equal is fundamental and there relativity holds well no doubt. Even so mass and energy seem generally inequivalent as I say here. If they were the same there would be complete balance and all motion would stop, the earth and moon would fall at the same speed from the same distance to the com, and energy and mass would be instantly convertable like the sun, the cosmos would spin at hugely faster than light each 24 hours in equivalent motion, all particles would also have the universe spinning at FTL in 10 to the 67th power (number of particles in the universe per se) and so on.


 If there must be general distinction of waves and particles, even though by relativity they may seem equivalent at short distance if in balance, there is not as much matter as antimatter, and so on. The supersymmetry seems to be an attempt to make the many exactly the same as the one in general with one low energy particle for each high energy particle, this seems like saying if QM has general equivalence of the cups both inside and out, for all physics there is the same so we might expect the earth and all we are to be flipped to both inside out and how it is, sort of like an absent minded farmer who left the cow milkers on and turned the cows inside out! I believe that while mass energy is much the same at short distances and higher energy, the symmetry can't be extended to more general physics. There may be some degree of supersymmetry but at more and more use supersymmetry may fail.



Miniature Black Holes

These are easy to find with the LHC by simple calculations if  a simple way of relativity is true. The exact energy density needed seems simple, or is it? They may not be because if you have the quantum of relativity, the electron, the field by definition here is already imploding and reradiant at the speed of light, electric and magnetic. We could say in essence because of the much higher energy density of the field than gravity, the escape velocity of other particles and the electron is the speed of light, thus for the implosive component of the electron it is in essence a black hole. There are those who believe all the information is lost yet this would violate energy conservation one of the most well proven ideas in physics and a look in any real astronomy volume will show huge amounts of energy often falling in and spewing forth from black holes. Einstein disagreed with the infinity of black holes and there are causality problems. If the acceleration is c and the field here is a one way valve for matter and information how can the black hole have any gravitational influence on the matter outside it at all? This includes not just continuing the implosion of the mass around it, the more distant influence on other large masses is also why I believe the gravity is faster than light. Feynmann also agreed and onthis page is a method using the assumption of FTL and something like Hawking radiation inside the black hole causing the  huge ionization and then reradiance of the jets at Faster than Light. 

If an electric charge is a small black hole we conclude the opposite reradiance of the charge electric to magnetic if moving in the opposite direction outward is faster than light just as the jets of a large black hole are faster than the implosion to reradiate too.

The electromagnetically bound particles spin at just the speed of light, like gravity I believe higher energy particles being lighter than light may move faster than light, see my physics synopsis link upper left of page.

 Once the quantum is made between the electron and the strong force to add more mass, the field just spins faster, all mass is just spinning energy. (This is why amid the complexity, momenta and symmetries of all types are conserved). As I say, the field is already a black hole, though not infinite as Einstein believed, rather I use the the more narrow definition of having a faster than light component of the implosion of the  field. Note that a large black hole's geometry is with a mostly spherical "event horizon" and there is at least the realm around the jet where the radiant outflow of the field is moving in the opposite direction at FTL that gravity here also the cause of the superluminary motion of the jets seen (not a "phase" shift as some have hoped to explain away this inconvenience to relativity). The FTL spin would allow more centrifugal force to resist the implosion. The gravitational component of the field is present and continuous, and up to the  predicted level of the black hole and LHC energy. There is no sudden implosion, rather like the edge of a larger cosmic black hole of the cosmos, there's no definite edge because gravity being a lower energy wave is more continuous and not quantised as much as higher level forces. As the radial speed of light of the gravity is reached by the LHC I believe the field just adds more angular FTL sidewise spin to counteract it, thus no black holes are seen. Like the giant masses seen by a larger field, there's always a force to stand up to the inward flow of the field. If not, energy conservation would be violated and the implosion would be infinite and all or more of the cosmos would implode and we couldn't be here. Einstein believed black holes were just nothing and a big goof because of the infinities, better might have been to solve the infinities by energy conservation and assumptions like this.

The assumption has been that no known force is strong enough to withstand the implosion at c yet the finitude of the implosions both quantum and astronomical may be caused by the jets being powered by a fifth force or perhaps a sixth force or higher to power the big bang and so on. Physicists believe there has been no reason found to limit to the number of higher forces possible.

The general quantum jump say of the electron to the muon and higher would just fit to the attractive force with more and more FTL spin within this frame, the gravity is continually present, thus like the continuous spin inside the quanta the forces balance without friction, and since there's no special resonance there as predicted by relativity, no special resonance is seen. So perhaps no black holes are found with the LHC. I've wondered if the reason there is no resonace found of the black holes is because there may also be no gravity inside the more massive fields of the quanta, otherwise the resonance and its special spectra would be easy to find. We would see some change if the gravity is strong and it's there, if there is no gravity inside the heavy particles this might be because they are actually without gravity on the inside. This might be how gravity doesn't shield. In more dense compression gravity would become another force, the strong weak or electromagnetic, and would only flow around the outside of each particle and unify on the other side with a net negative entropy, the attraction of gravity more than the thermodynamic disconnection. This might be possible to be the way the neutrino goes through so much mass without pinging any of it. This is related to methods of making what we see invisible by bending the waves of light around the matter shielded to be invisible by physicists in this type of machine. Certainly since most matter is 9,999 times empty, there is plenty of room in atoms for this possible method to cause gravity without shielding and research with neutrinos may also be a way we may eventually see if gravity is this way. Another is if the outside of mass only has gravity, heavier atoms with more inside than outside compared to light atoms might weigh a bit less, if the impact of the field on the outside is the main cause of gravity.


ARE MASS AND INERTIA EQUIVALENT?

Einstein's gravity inertia elevator experiment seems to show that all accelerated frames are equivalent. In an accelerating elevator as an elevator at rest in an equivalent gravitational field,  Einstein said no experiment can distinguish the events in the inertial from the gravitational elevator if the outside windows are closed.

One problem is that the windows must be closed, important since sight by the all important light speed is the foundation of relativity. To look out the window in the elevators is to easily know mass from inertia. Another objection is about how with the Elevator only accelerated frames are equivalent. Why not all observers if they are truly valid? CLICK HERE for more.

Third, the gravity elevator is at rest while the inertial elevator accelerates, a heavy mass moves slower when an equal force both to it and a light mass. If mass and inertia were equal there would be no change in the rate of fall on any mass anywhere, ect. In general there is a loose connection between gravity and inertia, you weigh less at the equator than the poles by the spin of the earth in a continuous but not definite ratio. If the earth were spinning slower like the sun even with the sun's greater mass we would weigh more in Bogota than Ohio, god sends winter storms to Ohio so it causes less suffering there!

As I say here I believe uniform motion and most of special relativity including the Fitzgerald Contraction might be caused by the resilience of the medium as Maxwell used to exactly predict the speed of light, more or less resilience would mean more or less speed.

One problem of relativity and uniform motion is about virtual particles, low energy particles that cause many effects, e.g. the Lamb Shift of hydrogen, magnetic induction, what a rocket's exhaust presses against to move forward in the vacuum, what resists its motion, and so on, the low energy particles would impact a body in uniform motion and it would slow to a stop. If the particles are there like the air with a body falling in terminal velocity to the ground uniform motion might be caused by one accelerating field like light or gravity and the particles would resist (lower energy particles or the air for SR or the cushion falling in the air) and the result is uniform motion. There would be some differences between a cushion falling in the air and a starship's contraction. While the cushion would change its speed by changes in shape, in relativity all mass is equivalent. If each quantum of a starship is like a small cushion with the rest of the "air" flowing around it this is no problem, though the cushion heats up this is not seen in SR since the attracting wave and the particles and and the gravity and the air aren't at the same energy as the attractive wave and the particles in SR, they can more nearly balance and there is no shock wave of the realm around a high speed mass in uniform motion as with a cushion. The particles are found to increase with the third power of the speed to exactly fit SR and I believe they are what cause inertial resistance to change in motion by the balance of the two charges plus and minus with the constant speed of light because the charges are constant as Maxwell believed. Thus in my physics of General Wave Dynamics or GWD the changes are like an elevator weight and counterweight in balance with uniform motion and the constant speed of light. If Maxwell predicted the exact speed of light based on a resilient medium yet relativity is well proven with nothing but empty space and time in SR, both are there in GWD but the constant speed of light is frozen in in uniform motion and yet with acceleration and change in motion the low energy field exerts pressure not predicted by relativity.

The balance of charges is important to why the ghost particles exactly fit SR other than with acceleration, they are low energy particles that fit inside the light particles and may wrap around  particles they hit and reunite on the side opposite the direction of motion with a net gain of cohesion of the quanta. This could be the mechanism of other cohesive forces like gravity and how the neutrino has so little interaction with other stuff, a mechanism is needed so gravity can overcome the radiant entropy of the higher energy fields to attract more than radiate, gravity is invisible to mass in some fundamental "weigh."

The low energy particles in SR if fitting in without a radiant shock wave seen in uniform motion could balance with only internal resistance to the motion, if there was no resistance, the attractive component just like unlimited gravity and no air could accelerate to unlimited speed. Terminal velocity is much like uniform motion. There's an attractive force to pull the mass forward, and the particles being the opposite of waves would be needed to stop unlimited acceleration not observed. From the particles (except the "shock" of changes in speed) the particles would put up resistance from inside the light quanta and unify on the other side in this scenario. Relativity "doesn't say" the particles aren't there, just that they have to add up to the physics observed, other observations not fitting with relativity tell us the particles are probably there.

As about inertia and gravity though gravity is often unlike inertia,  they are often loosely related even though inertia is is often called pseudogravity, to make them generally the same I believe the same particles used in uniform motion might be involved with gravity, except the motion is with the general flow of the river with gravity and the inertial elevator is moving instead of the river at rest. That the equivalence principle can be reasonably exact (though not the same as I say here ) I believe is due to the same particle as in SR because of equivalent energy of say 32 ft/sec plus all the elevator in the shower, where ri-sing in the rain of Einstein's though experiment, while being accelerated by Einstein's gravity waves, not the ship itself, we never feel the wave directly since the SR wave of Maxwell, and Einstein's wave are not the same energy and only the particles exert the force of inertia. If the particles move at 32 ft or faster and you fall at 32 ft relative to the wave being higher or much higher speed, not much change in the force is felt, i.e. you would feel much the same as you fall as at rest if the waves have high speed and little relative difference in speed, while particles exert the force by proxy that is caused and exerted by the waves and moving with you exert not much force yet when you are at rest they suddenly will in a real way.

One problem with the unity of space and time in SR is if you go the opposite direction in space if they are truly unified you would also go backward in time.

Another reason I believe in the complete union of mass and inertia is about centrifugal force. The formula for centrifugal force is much unlike gravity;

Centrifugal force;

(constant times RPM squared )  RxM

For gravity;

G m1 m2/d2

Relativity may hold by the equality of mass and inertia (centrifugal force) the equations would be the same. RPMs are not mentioned in the second equation at all. The radius and mass are linear in the first equation. increase either and the force linearly multiplies while for gravity there are not one mass but two (talk about relative inertia) and the radius is a second power fraction decreasing with radius. The geometry of the first equation seems that of a circle where the area of radiation is around the circumference proportional to 2pir

while for gravity its a sphere because the formula is 4pirsquared for the radiant area of a sphere. This would be another distinction between gravity and inertia not found in relativity while also being why solar systems level out. This may be important to MOND, Click here


If gravity is a sphere and the same as inertia relativity would say this is impossible. Obviously there are other physics than GR or Einstein would have been able to make inertia and gravity the same exactly. I think of loopholes in relativity as the answer because as Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go. Even so these ideas wouldn't be disproof of SR, just a sort of contrast nor an extension of them either as some have said no one will ever disprove SR just extend it just as Einstein extended Newton's gravity and didn't "disprove it". If th opposite of a great idea is great memory rather for low energy fields here I think another realm of physics to occupy and one room isn't the opposite of another even if it adds to the village.

As I believe in two waves and one type of particle to unify Einstein's Elevator as above this would be a general unity as Einstein believed. Evenso centrifugal force is much unlike Einstein believed. Centrifugal force is unlike gravity and another particle may be the cause. Einstein, Newton, Maxwell  and others have believed in low energy particles, to explain gravity itself and Einstein's belief about the Uncertainty Principle being unlike common life where a smaller ray of light interacts lightly with say a cushion and doesn't make it more cushy. The Uncertainty Principle would be perhaps involved with these same low energy particles as for gravity and inertia a good cause of there being no need for the measured to always be at the same energy as what measures. A particle to explain centrifugal forces may be at another another level than the gravity SR particle since it takes only a tiny centrifuge to make hugely higher g forces than the entire world billions of gs more. Unlike Einstein's belief this particle would radiate and be needed to explain all the distinctions between the two equations of gravity and inertia. Relativity has no wheel to round out the spinning lady realtor like we have here with like the house in South America that spins around to follow the heat where the machine rolls around.

Einstein believed in low energy particles to explain the Uncertainty Principle in a suprisingly unrelativistic belief to some since the observer has such all influential worth in SR and subatomic physics. It has been believed to measure is only to observe. If subatomic physics isn't relativistic and the standard theory has a massive body of experiment and math to well prove much more than SR, we might say there may be nothing completely relative, and relativity is not as complete as we may like.

The vast energy range between low energy gravity holding galaxies and the mass the electron may also allow 1 or more fundamental particles. Frank Wilkzec won the 2004 Nobel Prize for his contributions to QCD. The back reactions of electrons seems to create some of its inertia and mass and a similar method like Lorentz's in 1892 except for heavy particles like protons and neutrons. His conclusion is that the Higgs' gives them some mass but not most. Most of it is by the resistance via the field around it. If mass here is from other mass this isn't the foundation like the the Higgs' because where does the field get its mass, or where does the Higgs' get it's mass? The small changes in mass of subatomic mass that makes each particle have its own rest mass and features wouldn't be because a Higgs' of huge energy as predicted or huge changes would take place in all reactions. There have been no fundamental building blocks of small mass yet even so Einstein's low energy particles may be the solution or more. If gravity can't be quantised if it's mostly a wave, perhaps subatomic physics can be mostly nonquantised, with just a few low energy waves that would be just somewhat non wavelike. Einstein said it was impossible to conceive of  an ultimate particle that could emit and absorb waves, thus I agree waves are the foundation.

For low energy experiments being done, Click Here.


I believe in a moderate energy Higgs' to explain the rest of the mass not caused by Wilkzel's Lorentz method, even so I think this is only an intermediate high energy particle not a fundamental mote needed to explain the much smaller mass distinctions in mass of heavy particles seen in rest mass and the unity and disunity of inertia and gravity. No Higgs' (other than the less important High energy Higgs' which may not be the foundation) may be found with the LHC. I believe a low energy Higgs' not a heavy one may be the foundation. Perhaps there will be much physics the high energy Higgs' won't explain. The Higgs' found in July 2012 may only mediate the high energy reactions between the strong force and electromagnetism. It's not yet known what's up, perhaps the god wave of women's lib! And may not be the foundation, rather being moderate energy. Many Higgs' have been considered possible, so Einstein's idea may be more of worth here than sensational journalism in general. An anamoly has been found, this doesn't mean it's absolute. No doubt it will extend our physics reach or perhaps not much, but I believe if it's not a wave, it's not fundamental yet.
..

Stopping Pirates, Airplanes to High Rises and Defending Against Earthquakes in High Rises.

Here are some ways that have been invented to defend high rise buildings from problems like 911 in the future;

Systems for airplanes;

Net thrown from ring above floor say 5 stories up plus rockets to smoothly and gradually steer and slow an airliner.(click below for more)

High speed lightweight Shields or airbags on rails to intercept the impact

A puck system that intercepts either bullets around ships or larger pucks to shield if rockets.
The cause of the 911 collapse was the fire melting the structural components, not the impact. The heat of the fire built up melting the cheaper beams of modern building codes. A  sort of invisibility cloak with heat for the beams has been proposed, the heat doesn't build up to high enough levels to melt the beams instead just flowing around them while also not heavy like strong beams, like lightening rods for houses. Or heat pipes and electric coolers powered by the heat to cool the fire faster..

Using part of the heat to power electric strengthening I beams, not heavy but much stronger when needed, also of use for earthquakes with just the right resilience (too stiff and it may fall as too flexible as research has found), and for general hi rise stability, ect. cheaper than a giant pendulum, and easier to build ect..

Click here for more

..

SPIN MOTOR

Einstein was smart, even so there were many things he didn't find. To me he seems sort of like a creative interpreter of the cosmos, like a painter who sometimes adds in special highlights and hopes of his own who leaves some of the vision out or in.. He often contradicted himself even in his greatest moments, perhaps if he just changed the angle of his vision, the vibrations would come in from the cosmos somwhat at another energy changing his vision! One example of a simple idea he could have perhaps won another nobel prize  with is the molecular gyroscope, recently invented, that may be a super sort of battery to store huge amounts of power of super efficiency. I liken a conventional chemical battery to like collisions of a car, that wears out gradually and much loss of energy because of the quanta, to extract power takes methods of overcoming the quanta, this causes more friction, ect. The molecuar gyroscope, via the continuum of the lower energy fields even if smooth still stores and converts the inertia and mass to energy with much higher effeciency since unlike the electric field the magnetic field of the poles where the mass and energy are converted in and out is not quantised ect. The idea is a great idea not even Einstein thought of though he could have anytime he was alive and with "old science" of the early 1900's.

Here's Another Idea Vis a Visa;

We often here of these statements that a handfull of stuff could be used to power New York City by conversion of all the mass to energy..


I believe mass and energy are equivalent mostly (and completely for quanta at higher energy though not perhaps for gravity where the galaxies are spinning too fast for gravity to not be more reinforcing. After all it's an acceleration).. If we look at that mass and convert it to energy if mass is just spinning energy, we may say to convert mass to energy completely, all the spin is converted to more linear motion. There is a huge amount of linear motion in usual mass, where is it in usual life? Most of it cancels out.


To line up the spins is perhaps a way to find the energy. If we take two gyroscopes say of 10 foot pounds of force each that spin at more than one attiiude, it will take less force to align them for the mass conversion, say half a foot pound than is in the spin a much more powerful real of power. so too for small machines.


This seems like an asteroid or other heavy mass that's moving at high speed, it takes far more force to stop it head on than to change its speed from the side a bit to miss the World (so we won't miss the world!).


If by aligning the spins and then the machine has power we collect via the magnetic fields, this would perhaps be a way to find the strong force that powers the outer spin of the molecules, by way of the field. The alignment of the field would multiply up the machine.


You may say, why hasn't anybody thought of this before? Surely someone would have? But Einstein never thought of the molecular gyroscope. New innovations are being found each month.


This may be of worth since it's partially the strong force it may be a way to convert lots of mass to energy yet unlike atom powered physics the radiatioactivity may be an also ran. Any matter of any type might be of SPIN machines, so elaborate mines may not be needed.


I read of an inventor where I live in in VA of the early 80's who supposedly invented a permanent magnet motor to solve the energy crisis. You may say this will never work because energy conservation says you only get out what you put in, right? For longer distances energy conservation works well but at short distances the spins no longer cancel. A small wire beside the gyroscopes that would generate current in the wire near where the spin doesn't cancel. However the collection would be simpler if the N and S of each gyro is without quanta and more mass to power. 


Do we always only get out what we put in? If this were so we would only get out the same for the strong force or even hydroelectric, ect. There is no theoretical reason other power may not be found like the SPIN machines. To align the spins perhaps gasses could be condensed to solids, and so on.

I can think of another use of molecular gyroscopes. Machines that convert oscillation to linear centrifugal force in just one direction (a slice of wheel not the en tire wheel!) have been in the IP for years, and I saw a site about how all the UFO sightings (I don't believe in saving this when the dish is unidentified when I eat out) could be explained by more advanced use of existing physics; e.g. an inertial force machine to power the "UFO" without sound or turbulence would use rings with a weight on one side and to aim the force of inertia the wheel just is sped up on one side as it spins in the direction to exert force. Using a molecular machine like powered by the gyroscope could be simple, low maintenance, an it would exert a huge force because centrifugal force is much stronger for small gyroscopes than larger ones, the common gyroscopes of older use explode due to lower strength of materials, even so the smaller ultracentrifuges have forces of billions of g's because they don't explode.
..

Imagine Food Prices Improved By Half, a World of no Pollution, No Wires on Electric Cars, And Solar Power in the PM/AM/FM Hours!

We read of Google promoting solar power for its machines and others who scoff at this as "solid image boosting PR" by Google. This may not be so however since Google is using a new kind of solar power. Mirrors that follow the solar rays and focus them to a small turbine to multiply up the power 1,000 times over conventional solar panels. We read of the engineer who circumnavigated the globe in his solar panel powered car, a trailer behind lifting up the machine (which I presume must have had good propellors and fins to drive on water too on his drive around the world!). We see these wimpy solar cars that just take 1/8th the power, if we multiply the power by 1,000 the power and put the mirror collectors on a trailer behind each car or truck, though no solar power at night, the daytime power might be stored in molecular gyroscopes, recently innovated. Molecular gyroscopes may have the advantage over chemical batteries because I think of a chemical battery as a cascade of friction, running out of power because it takes the quanta to knock out the electrons of each molecule of the battery, and this is more like a demolition derby. A molecular gyroscope uses the low energy field of continuous space so there's no quanta to loosen to extract the boost, like an atomic gyroscope to store lots of power in the same place. A gyroscope has much higher efficiency of conversion so the electric input is much more easily converted to the spin and then the spin is converted in return to electric when to climb or zoom if to the stars.

Solar power thus energised could power not only hybrid automobiles all day and night, when solar power is rich! It could also power ships in combination with wave power (these go about 2/3 slower in the same time but are reliable) and with hybrid wind solar and wave power on each vessel. Shipping on the superhighways and shores involves the price of food and many other goods and services, and if there is reduced or no cost to the fuel, the prices here will go down. It's been noted that the price of food has doubled since 2005 because the fields used before for food are now being used for ethanol and other hydrocarbon fuels, and that this isn't actually true since 95% of the land is used to feed cattle, ect. Land is land however, and the 5% used for food if halved will still raise the prices. In truth if there was free energy and the cost of maintaining vehicles was the only cost involved, the entire 5% could be used for food.

Ideas like using the air stream to generate 500 times more power than we need wouldn't be by using kites that take off as helicopters as some say due to risk of giant crashes. (Even so bobbing airships wouldn't have such crash problems if made of lightweight materials so as with the current regulations, if a plane hits the air it's so lightweight it just tears through and no crash is unsolved.) The jet stream is up and out of reach for now, but solar power is something anyone can now build with mirrors, a trailer and a motor to power the electric motor. The savings may drive the change for the better. It would be far cheaper than a conventional hybrid now in use.

Solar powered airplanes may be much stronger if the mirror and motors generator is on a boom under the plane out of the shade, lowering the com for stability and rolling back on takeoff as a wheel and then lowering the boom for travel.

Trains could also use these collectors, in arrays. In all cases no doubt, cheap solar would only reduce costs of fuel, contributing just say 1/3 to the savings other than automobiles. Automobiles may be almost completely solar powered as above, and ships powered by wind wave and solar may also reduce the use of bunker fuel, the cheapest grade of oil that causes acid rain. Trains may be improved by cheap solar and perhaps wind collectors on windy days that like the solar collectors could fold down for going through tunnels.

No price for shipping other than maintenance, ect. would be better since the majority of shipping of goods by far is on ships. In any case all the values would be higher, some more, some less, but this is common.

And no doubt as with Google, cheap solar has huge potential for anyone who invests in these machines, the power companies pay them money, and the continue building, getting richer and richer, as power gets cheaper and cheaper. Current storage methods using e.g. ponds of water pumped uphill when the sun is hot and then released when in need of power may be of use till other methods like the gyroscopes are improved.

Since 40% of the ocean is now covered with trash, I envision large navies of wave and or solar and other auto computerized ships that could also use thermal depolymerization (that converts plastic, CO2 ect to oil to generate more power in a loop of more and more energy) and clean the oceans. The non CO2 like metals ect could be automatically returned to shore to build land, making better use and more land if the stuff were processed to large pucks like the navy is using to solve the 9 tons of trash a large aircraft carrier puts out each day. In truth I think computerized trash transport ships to send the trash from ship to shore would be perhaps cheaper, and when they eat with the foam dish or spoon they won't melt in their mouth, since biodegradable foam is the other option considered to save the oceans and shores by the navy!

..

ANOTHER POSSIBLE WAY TO IMPROVE About EARTHQUAKES

You may read about the problems of trying to harness geothermal by digging down deep and the steam rising from the well thus drilled to then be used for power. This is believed to have caused an earthquake in Basil Switzerland. Others have proposed to stop earthquakes by finding no fault insurance lawyers like and injecting steam or liquids down to smooth the flow of the plates and reduce pressure in hopes of making the tooth pulled not schmertz so much when the earthquake finally is. The problem is obiviously about the unpredictible nature of the fault lines and that this wouldn't help as much with faults where the pressure is already built up as in the west (actually geologists believe out West they won't go swimming in the ocean if the earthquake hits they will go North as the fault line is aligned.) .

I was walking near the parking lot of Wal Mart where some have proposed building glass roads that would collect 10 times the energy for the store even if the cars are all parked. And the glass road would even have movable lines. The developer of this shining road of the stars is working on durability; semis do 20,000 times the damage to roads as SUV's. On the more prosaic lot of another store I was walking in there were lines where there had been cracks in the asphalt filled in via tar, I the comic joshed that this might be a good way to stop the lot from having a 6.7 shake! Instead of smothing the fault lines, seal them to prevent via the tar postponing the inevitible permanently. Then I wondered, is this another method perhaps of use, so if we actually immobilized fault lines and there was no pressure from the other side, I believe this is possible. To reduce the pressure we might find where the source of the pressure was building up and drill down to create magma release valves that could perhaps release pressure and magma to the surface like the ocean floor where the pressure would be harmlessly stopped. No doubt some sources of the force are deeper than we may yet drill, and some regions of buildup are over inland zones, so each danger zone would have it's own advantages and limits. Even so this may be a good extra defence against this possibility. For the main defence (other than perhaps tsunami wave generation walls by force near the shore, coating reactors in radiation absorbing foam, ect as I say elsewhere on my site (type in search box)) I think reducing torque between the water and land N and S may be better than defending after a disaster as I say on the second page of my Weather Control site (near the bottom of the page).

.