USING CRISPR To Edit History/ Why Cancer or other Illness Didn't "Evolve" To Reduce Overcrowding

It's believed by some that cancer (or its behavioral parallel) might be a more basic survival mode in evolution, anaerobic or without oxygen compared to aerobic, for efficiency, etc. as in like hibernation (winter) or estavation, the summer equivalent. 

  Estavation and hibernation evolved by way of a shortage of energy resources, not because of snores! They make more efficient use of the resources and are an evolved adaptation. 

  The idea that cancer evolved to control  overcrowding for early life would then imply it isn't of any value for more highly evolved large organisms  because what would have reduced the overcrowding in a pond of bacteria instead would kill the entire higher evolved individual. Cancer with more basic evolution would be an adaptation and the other not in favor of the survival of genes. 

 Over millions of years if so evolution would seem to have selected out cancer or other illness for higher life. Insects and fish aren't like higher life in that while they get all kinds of other diseases with overcrowding in studies, they don't get mental illness like higher life (mammals, birds etc.) 

  Another problem is about the way that cancer cells don't die. In the pond of bacteria, if the cancer was an adaptation of value, all the cells in the pond would have gotten cancer and then lived an undying death. I don't know what an "undying death" would mean, perhaps having to watch 1000 years of NFL! Grand Opera can't wait! 

 I've exercised an hour each month for 20 years no one else could have other than me for me, even so I think a gyroscope exercise machine might solve for a solution for the rich. Sounds like optimal for me!

  I would say mental illness and cancer no more evolved to control overcrowding than heart problems "evolved" because of all the fat and salt added by food processing or that people are stressed in a heat wave because they "evolved" to . These problems are not a measure of evolution, rather I'd say they're a measure of evolution's lack of adaptation or reduced ability to adapt.

  When most are criticizing America around the world and studies show including most Americans, this may not be an evolved adaptation. The reason is if the US govt. fails there will be a huge economic uproar. And since money is so important, having to do with supply and demand, resources per person, and competition, as with the money crash of 29, the events may be severe.

  There's a deep truth here, if we were unkind to evolution by removing predators and the competition is rising because of reduced resources, or at least don't recognize her great power by paying evolution some respect and reducing the overpopulation, nature will return if by no more than the lack of evolution. Bad behavior like good gravitates to its own level. To me there seems a deep need to reduce the overcrowding, not by violence we may not survive, but by recognizing this truth and reducing peacefully before it's too late.

  How to do this? One of the best methods I can think of might be by using the CRISPR (cheap gene editing) method. This powerful recent method would be a comfortable way to reduce family size, and return to a golden age like Ancient Greece or the 1600's when the overcrowding was lowest in all of history, not onward to what seems to be an uproar. The beauty of the CRISPR method is later we could reedit the genes to "normal" so the level doesn't fall too low and no one feels left out. See my Link Evolution and History Upper Left Link of the page. For more about the CRISPR method for overcrowding, see second post of that page, or see link at end of the post.

Don't find fault, find a solution, some say. Or the legal maxim, when in doubt, lean to the side of mercy. Instead of finding blame for the problems the world is having reducing the strain may be far more valuable. This is a more reliable way for people to stay out of trouble or have more cash, plus all the things that are good in life.. It's great to be an optimist, even so common sense has it's advantages., and sometimes I recognize the treasure that the saying like a giant river love without truth can do untold damage, overrunning the shores. Love others but too much quantity reduces quality of life. To me the debt as it's building up seems like how people have done something due to the overpopulation like robbing the banks, about VISA and it won't work. Blame is not the solution, finding a solution like via CRISPR seems wiser.

 As I say on my site there "Evolution, Overcrowding, and Its Historic Influence" there are four great parallel ages in Eurasia E and W, the classic age, a dark age, a second golden age, and a modern age. And the general levels of overcrowding were the same in both zones E and W yet there seems to be no other connection between i.e. Ming dynasty and 1600's Europe. If we flip a coin four times and get  the probability of this being coincidence, it's 1 in 16, flip it four more times and the cause of it being luck goes down to a mere 1 in 256. This seems evidence to me that overpopulation has shaped the general contour of history in a powerful way (Good times no overcrowding, bad times overcrowding) and the CRISPR method may be a wise way to achieve control of history.

Evolution and History (CRISPR method at end of post) click here.

An  Optimal Level Definition Level of Addictive Behavior

Addiction has traditionally been thought of as a relative of substances or events surrounding the behavior. More recently, a new way of looking at this has been suggested. Instead of the events and substances involved, this more novel idea is that only that behavior which when repeated, causes more harm than good. This seems to remove the connection between the physical problems and the behavior, and in essence makes all behavior that is bad as one thing. Bad causes harm, good causes improvement! Right! The problem here seems to be like a flat cost instead of (a round cost!) a more savvy method of allowing burden or relief in a way that reflects the individual. And I think for defining addictive behavior, the method used before of how the law judges good or bad behavior is instructive here. All good is not the same, and neither is bad behavior. Each according to need and worth seems a lot more efficient, and this may cause the higher good. E.g. the law says about alcohol, if it has been seen a problem, the law says in essence, it's how it works out becomes the evidence mostly for or against. This has been seen to be all society could afford, no matter how much the world might want otherwise. I think that if we regard each type of addictive behavior for it's own image in the MRI, and its particular solution when found, this is more about science than the law and much more about the way things work out by "law" of science, this has been the great power of science, it works by how things are, not just by trying to fit the world to ideas, even Einstein knew this, or he could have been even more wise if so..Alcohol and other addictions may be bad, but in life it's of worth for me to find a solution I don't find fault lines out W! (As I say on my videos (Encyclopedia Comp Video) I think we might even seal the fault lines, and then release the pressure to the W moving East by using large concrete magma tubes to release the up then  E magma motion of the plate impact with the continent moving W saving lives from the destruction of the W. by this relatively cheap solution. Most of the W US has no or not much earthquake defense in place, no warning system, few buildings built for the defense. Money is one of the costs, and the magma release tubes may save lives and money.)

As running is to walking so videos are to blogging, so goes the old dicho about painting and drawing at any rate. While I've been aware of doing videos on MeTV, well, YouTube, like mine better! It's more complex to make a good video, and few are able to do perfect without slower surer practice. So here I am. I felt relaxed about the Tube even so it only goes so far. Finding good images and lots of eye strain and my good looks aren't as good, since I'm now almost 57. Clint Eastwood said vanity in not so valuable, always let show your good side, there is no good side! Hope to find more good all around here.. Thanks for remembering me..Charles

Why LIGO may Be The Speed of Inertia Not Gravity Waves...Einstein Believed Gravity Was The Same as Inertia. 

 On my posts and videos I discuss many reasons why I believed gravity might be faster than light. The Earth is more at rest than the sun, and is thus a more privileged reference zone about gravity (more observers would say the Earth is at rest than the moon, and more observers would agree the sun is at rest than the Earth Moon system) right, because gravity might be nonrelativistic.  The higher the speed of motion, the more the displacement of light, like an umbrella in the rain being of more vertical motion than the same rain when on a train. As Van Flandern notes, why is there no displacement by gravity of the Earth to the sun? This would be because of  gravity's superluminary or superluminal, motion, and allstar, and visastar show.. I believe the EPR is so much faster than light because by things like energy conservation and other conservation laws, all the attractive fields or all the radiant fields of quanta  are derived from the one low energy field of gravity inside the supermassive fields of black holes, both unifying the fields yet also this would be the source of all the fields around us. The reradiation at that density of the waves would be where all the motion around us comes from, not merely other motion. This might prove someday that gravity is where all the field derives of the quanta, and the Ancient Greek question Einstein asked also about the electron, "Why does the electron have the charge and mass it does or in the related ancient Greek "where does the unified world around us come from, and how does the changes in distinction arise from this?" ( My Irish is as ancient as it used to be!) There is no equation for the collapse of the wave function, it seems instant for all zones of the quanta. If a large mass used the waves to fizzle out a large number of the quanta, all we might get is a handful of dust like Carl Sagan says in Cosmos, or just ephemeral dust moving out at superluminal speed. If the radiant inward fields of all types are derived from and like gravity and gravity is faster than light, the low energy fields of this type are also faster than light. 

  The wavelength of light changes with the speed of the observer in Special Relativity. It would seem to need a faster than light connection to be influenced by the starships motion before the light reaches the observer. Why is there superluminal motion seen for cosmic jets?  A black hole of radius a has an escape velocity of c yet a larger black hole not have the same radius if its escape velocity was also c.. How can anything escape these fields like the jets if the escape velocity is c? If there is no singularity to conserve energy so no infinite implosion as Einstein himself demurred, and as others like T'Hooft and myself believe, it seems like only faster than light centrifugal force would be stronger than any other force inside the supermassive zone. If the field or space time in Special Relativity is empty, why is a force of push or pull felt on acceleration of the high speed observer, or any observer as the wavelength (or speed of motion of spin, or speed) of light changes? This would seem to fit Maxwell's idea of the resilient medium he then used to predict the speed of light so well. (If this is true, my idea may be that if gravity has resilience like Maxwell's medium, it being much much lighter than light might also be much faster, you lighten up to go fast.) And I believe the regular structure seen in the Wmap image of the CMB is so regular and symmetrical because of the speed of gravity so it unifies these and other huge cosmic areas.. And so on.

 You may say, strong claims need strong evidence and there are the 10,000 experiments proving Special Relativity, and the handful above that seem to be other science. Yet Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go. And gravity isn't about Special Relativity. Like Mach, Einstein believed inertia is the same thing as gravity. But Einstein had a real labor trying to match inertia with gravity. Special Relativity, SR is about uniform motion and a constant speed of light. With gravity the speed changes and there is acceleration. Einstein tries to make gravity going down the same as the Earth moving up by millions of rockets to boost the same inertia as gravity. And by what seems to me this comic science would have us at the speed of light in a year at the comfortable speed of 32 ft/second.

Einstein believed old electrons weigh more than new electrons, and this would follow from the motion of the surface of the Earth if so, and experiments have disproved this..

 Sure predictions Einstein makes are about changes in acceleration, the shift of the orbit of Mercury, the bending of starlight, frame dragging, these are all about changes in acceleration, not uniform equal accelerations for all observers. Gravity seems non relative if only some accelerated observers are valid, this is not relativity of the observer . If any observer isn't relative, then I believe it's not about linear motion and the constant speed of light.

  So this seems to be why the speed of gravity waves might not be the speed of light.

Is LIGO disproof of this? Aside from the possibility of spoofing, like the OPERA failure and other problems with details of the machines, no doubt this may be also possible, with time we may find the evidence here.

 If the result is valid, this would be my explanation. It's possible the results are wrong, because of these reasons especially about acceleration of the black hole at c, how does the wave or any information reach us if it's not faster than c? In some important sense, somehow it seems to me gravity is indeed  faster than light. So I believe either the results like OPERA and Bicep2 may be wrong or gravity is faster than light.

 I think if Einstein believed gravity is inertia to fit constant speed, constant light motion  to General Relativity, he chose the speed of the inertial waves, not gravity. Why or how can gravity as a wave of acceleration not flex over a billion light years between us and the source? Gravity is an acceleration, shouldn't it speed up or slow down? I've held there has been no quantum gravity seen because gravity may be a set of unifying waves. While inertia may be about quanta like light and at the speed of light, I think the waves of LIGO if proven might be inertial waves that may only show the image of the distant event not the cause. I believe inertia is just a machine sort of and gravity waves are more like the ghost in the machine.

 I've held that gravity and inertia aren't the same because of e.g. the huge distinction of strength. A single high speed centrifuge can have 5 million gs of force, and the huge Earth has one even with it's larger mass. While it may be good to find inertial waves (they may allow good astronomy and more since centrifugal force doesn't shield metal plates) these may not be gravity. Einstein might have believed these were gravity waves and they do move at c.

 If the spoofing turns out to not be a goof, I think the energy of the LIGO waves may fit more with inertia, and this might tell us inertia and centrifugal force are at the speed of light, and thus a quantum field. Einstein believed light was a quanta in SR unchanged from the source, and if this is like constant motion and a constant speed of light, the quanta also go with any field at c like inertia. I've tended to believe the slow speed of inertia would be by disconnection of quanta like light. The slow quanta separate like the distance to the moon in 2 seconds, so only if gravity is faster the moon wouldn't sail away.

 I believe there is no quanta of gravity, or not nearly so much (some would be needed to cause gravity build up the mass around us, as I say elsewhere.) But gravity waves may be much much faster than inertial waves.

 The strength and thus the speed might be the same as the speed of the inertial field at c but scaled way down in strength to fit the change in the millions of g's of the gyroscope, up to the much lower energy, much higher speed of the waves.

  I believe there may in waves and out particles for inertia and centrifugal force, and out waves and in motion of the particles for gravity. Centrifugal force like inertia would have particles and the slower waves that radiate out with the sides and quanta that might keep the speed the same of the waves seen by LIGO. Gravity might need much faster waves than inertia to overpower the outward radiance of these quanta. Even so the waves for gravity may be tougher to find and if the waves seen are indeed inertial, the force they exert will be mostly by the particles, this was how Einstein would have found the equivalence (not equality) of gravity and inertia.  Inertia has sometimes been called pseudo gravity. So gravity and inertia may  have the same quanta but the waves are not the same. If the particles of inertia move outward and they exert most of the force of the wave seen by LIGO, it would seem that the waves found would also exert more force radiating outward than inward from the source.  If Einstein had predicted inertial waves to fit his vision of gravity as the same as no change in the speed of light for the given radius, gravity with inward radiation wouldn't have  outward radiation so much with each wave oscillation seen.


   To prove this an idea I had could be used except improved to see if it's faster than light. I used the idea of the Cavendish torsion machine in a satellite around the sun to sense  gravity from solar flares and other events, the most explosive events in the solar system. Or arrays of atomic clocks might be cheaper. If gravity is faster than light, we set the orbit of the sensor at a distance near enough to sense the event but far enough away to get enough shade! Or at any rate a way to have enough distance to see if the gravity is separate from the light and inertial waves. So first with the event, there might be the gravity wave seen almost immediately, then the inertial wave and light wave both arriving at say a half hour if the distance is half a light hour. This would seem to definitely separate gravity from inertia, and inertia in it's more relativistic way of the quanta. And since gravity radiates in not out, and centrifugal force or inertia seem to radiate out, the first motion of the gravity method would find the machine moving a bit more in with each wave as it passes, while centrifugal force radiates out and this would show on both the light and the sensor of the waves as Einstein believed. 

  If gravity is the same as inertia, and the force is much increased inside a gyroscope, there might be also strong changes in the gravity measured around the machine by relativity and there is no change here also.

As Van Flandern believed if the escape velocity of a massive body is the speed of light and this is the cosmic speed limit, no information of any kind about gravity or any wave can reach the outside. So I think of the union of the two super dense masses LIGO found as being first emitted by gravity waves inside the black hole, and these then reached the outside where the inertial waves then moved on their way our way. The inertial waves were set in motion by the gravity waves but may not be the same. The gravity waves may have passed by us billions of years ago.

 If gravity radiates inward to oneness, and centrifugal force radiates out with heat, (the "thermodynamic" speed of light more on my videos) the opposition of gravity and inertia as in GWD, has a changing speed for gravity, and the constant speed of light for inertia and Special Relativity. Light travels at one speed and is relative, while gravity travels at many speeds and is not so relative it seems. So gravity changes the speed of light, and inertia stays the same.

Here's my physics synopsis

 Relativistic Wind Tunnel II "Predictions"

 I have some nonrelativistic beliefs about my idea I've named the Relativistic Wind Tunnel..RWT. The RWT would involve using relative motion of light or heavier particles, e.g. to see if we might find the common slowing of time, plus other effects not yet seen though predicted by relativity. The Lorenz contraction has never been seen though we believe it would be there if space and time are more unified in Special Relativity, so if time slows, it's believed the Lorenz Contraction might show up in the RWT. One advantage of RWT is we could start with just a few atoms on the cheap, and then build larger machine as resources allow. And time, or more time may allow it!

 I don't believe in the absoluteness of even Special Relativity, for example, I believe contrary to Einstein's belief that at near the speed of light, a high speed observer wouldn't notice anything unusual on board his ship. I believe the particles may be so polarized and ionized like electrons line up in a high energy field there would be no high energy observer. If the space is empty, large shields wouldn't be needed.

 I believe inertia like centrifugal force radiates outward, so the bottom of the ship in the RWT might be a bit wider than the top. There is no radiance of anything in SR, it's just empty space time.

 I believe with just a few atoms we might find mass induction, even if the radiant field is without electric charge or direct contact. This would be because of interaction with the inertial particles like for centrifugal force pressing against any mass in relative motion. Like the distant light changing its wavelength faster than light to match up the change in speed of the high speed starship, mass induction may be in reach here. One question we may answer with the RWT is why mass induction isn't common for common physics around us. Even if mass induction is for the light, and for high speed masses, I ask why when we feel the pressure of the particles even for gravity or as we move around the room, this would seem to be a form of mass induction, yet by the common definition of mass induction, one mass moving as the other moves by, this isn't seen around us. If we find it in the RWT, at what energy does it stop, and why isn't it more common? Is the mass induction of light only caused by its polarization? If so how much polarization of common mass is needed to cause it?  

 Einstein believed mass isn't electromagnetic, and I believe he was wrong if even neutral particles like the neutron have a higher speed connection by the waves like the EPR to find the plus and minus charge that goes in the 10,000 times more room unoccupied by the quanta inside the atom or other composite mass by spin to be the source of gravity. See my Youtube videos (Encyclopedia Comp Video, see link below). Thus mass is indeed electromagnetic and even so the external light in the RWT doesn't need to have electric charge to create the effects of Special Relativity here because the low energy field interacts reliably with high energy RWT in general to conserve energy.

 Einstein believed all accelerated frames are equivalent, yet if two masses in the inertial acceleration elevator are dropped at time one and two, relative to the accelerating observer at the base of the ship they indeed are seen to move away from each other and the observer on one of these masses will only see the other falling mass in uniform motion, and the force is transformed away by the frame of reference. In the gravitational elevator, the two masses in their rest frame will see acceleration away from each other, and this can't be transformed away in the egravity based elevator nearer to us. This seems to be a reflection of the light in the inertial elevator being constant in speed so the two falling masses are also in uniform motion relative to each other and the light. So the RWT may only fit Special Relativity if the external light is in uniform motion itself. 

 For the RWT only accelerated light changing with time, or perhaps a more self radiant beam here would produce what Einstein thought was the same. You may say, right this is an accelerated frame of reference with accelerating light in the RWT yet acceleration of the masses in Einstein's high speed elevator can be transformed away and this isn't supposed to happen.

If we have two external observers, one "at rest" and another in a second RWT at another "speed" than the one near the "speed of light", the observer at rest will see a different history of the events in the light speed RWT if its temperature is different, influencing other thermodynamic events, It's hot and where are my electric hot socks, neither electric or hot! 

  When the three observers one medium speed relative to the low energy outside light and one with the light moving faster by (change in wavelength of the external light in the machine) and the RWT observer and the rest observer move to one common energy they  find two higher speed sets of RWT events when tney reunite so the observer isn't absolute. The time is more internal not completely controlled by the distant observer.. All three observers would seem to have a different set of events seen on the high speed ship when they match up if Special Relativity is right.. When we see a wheel more oval than round at another angle than a flat tire! The wheel is still round, and proof or disproof of this may be seen with the RWT.

I believe if gravity is faster than light the roundness may be found, because while there is change by the change of the Lorentz transformations, I hold Special Relativity would only be true if it were completely so. A boat in the ocean is with large waves is controlled if we assume what we might want to prove if there was not yet any evidence seen that the weight fields might be unlike the mass field. When we see by the light to see the ship, we see the roundness of the wheels of the wave and the ship.


  
  In relativity, space and time are unified, so we might say if we merely reversed the RWT field direction, by moving backward through space the time would also reverse, but this seems improbable. Therefore relativity seems incomplete, and faster than light might be provable or disprovable in the RWT e.g. by changing the phase of the low energy field or perhaps by another of my ideas, to use small EPR bubbles between entangled particles on the side of the starship in the RWT which may be at the same speed and energy level of resonance as centrifugal force, and so more likely to form a shield to smooth the low energy field that otherwise creates the relativistic resistance to higher speed motion. I originally thought of using magnetic bubbles but these would only seem to give 2x the speed of light for the starship. Like other electromagnetic fields as in centrifugal force with magnetism of the more common type the field isn't removed enough to have the resonance more like a shield.  Perhaps if the field resonates at its own energy the results will be nonrelativistic eventually here also.

 You may say, if the speed of the low energy field is much lighter than light and thus much faster than light by my use of Maxwell's method, we might expect it to be nearly absolute in speed at any rate. If Einstein's low speed quanta only finds this field by "recieved knowledge" and are essentially the complete continuity of the field he believed in so it wouldn't completely fail as he said how can we influence it? Edgar Allen Poe in his mysteries said about codes, any code that can be created can always be reversed by the same process to solve it. So too as you move around the room, the force of the low energy field changes us in a simple way, by resonance with like this bubble method for the starship shield in the RWT, I believe it's possible eventually we might achieve disproof of "Absolute Relativity".

I assume the Low Energy Higgs (LEH) which was predicted and recently proven in the lab would cause pressure like jostling of the light to cause pressure like the Lorenz contraction. Particles have sides and these would cause pressure like gravity as you fall, by moving along with you they exert the force. Einstein believed however in a fundamental way the light never interacts with the inertial elevator so the speed of light is constant. The jostling of the light with the force exerted on it by the LEH might be a way to distinguish GR from my ideas like GWD (General Wave Dynamics). This would be because the light changes its wavelength information long before it reaches the high speed observer if the observer changes their speed. Only if the low energy field is faster than light would this be so.
So too changes in the light added in by the acceleration of the machine might allow signals to be sent to the observer in the lab outside the RWM machine.

What does a starship move relative to? I believe in a combination of Newton's more absolute space time with Einstein's relative motion. This is because by gravity the more massive a body is the slower it tends to move. F=ma seems to be a more general version of E=mc2 and both hold well. So the starship indeed moves relative to the field and it exerts pressure to cause the Lorenz contraction. The round wheel seems flattened relative to lots of observers at different speeds by different amounts yet I believe by the pressure there is also a change in the starship itself that can't be transformed away. The field isn't at absolute rest or motion  but in many different wavelengths and speeds. It gives way easily as Stokes believed with force of long or light duration and exerts strong resistance when the force is strong and quick. It's partially true the motion is relative to the low energy events if you allow that the average history of all the events of gravity and otnet forces are averaged since e.g. tbe sun should have 97% of the angular momentum of the solar system yet it only has about 3% because the early events like the T Tauri phase drained off the spin. So too if you consider the average we might expect to find a general rule and this might allow us to know the starships speed essentially by conservation of energy. The pressure is roundabout but it's there.




Please See Also My Physics Synopsis


Here's My Youtube Video Site Thanks For Listening..