...MAXIMIZATION OF THE FOUNDATION OF LOGIC.."WHAT IS INFORMATION?"

Here I want to talk about my ideas about how the incompleteness of math was definitely found by mathematicians around the 1800s.

 And they had thought from the time of the ancient Greeks that math is by deductive axiom. You know, you have the axioms, you deduce, and you can prove a reliable conclusion whatever you're reasoning about, about geometry or whatever. 

  But by the 1800s, it was seen there were flaws in this whole idea. You can't define things well. All kinds of logic had loopholes.. And so what was proposed was that you have a method of proving that you can't prove anything because of these contradictions. Basically for Godel's idea like the liar paradox, if a liar is lying it's a lie but if he's telling the truth about lying he's telling the truth.

To which I replied that truth is always going to be more important than falsehood. So I disagreed. If we have + and -1 electric charges and we measured like the liar and the truth, evidence will show one or the other is always going to win. 

(Actually the electron has some mass but more energy, and the positron has some energy but more mass, a decidedly nonrelativistic event if mass and energy are equivalent.  As I say here on my site elsewhere! It may be just this distinction of mass and energy between the charges that gives the resilient snapback of the light to just the speed of light as Maxwell believed. Einstein thought the most of Maxwell of any physicist.)

 So mass and energy are not quite equivalent. This I still hold to be true. And though one is truer than the other, one of each claim that we make is always truer than the other.

Click Here for my cleaning, health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation 

My Invite Link;

Benable is a tool to create shareable lists of things you recommend! You can skip the waitlist and create your own shareable lists by signing up using my invite link: https://benable.com/i/E6VCN

  There's also this idea that it's not absolute. We're not totally sure, but more sure than not. But ultimately, one of the main things I noticed about this is that you have the problem of knowledge in ontology where the basis of truth is considered. 

 They search all these events about truth and they find that all of them have loopholes, like in ethics, every virtue can be rearranged around to a vice and the only one that's least rearrangeable is wisdom. So I ask, what would be the most wise about this?

Because the truth is not perfect, I believe that not only is there more truth than falsehood and it has a physical basis, that's where you find what's true or false unlike with some of the higher math. But about the problem of knowledge, you have loopholes in all the types of knowledge they found.  This may be because longer distance connections aren't as sound as shorter distance connections.  And so I think instead of asking what can we know about anything? I would ask what's the best use we can make of what we know?

 I would ask first of all, what can we know most definitely?  And then we could work from there. And my belief is that about truth and falsehood, it's like action reaction pairs like the electron and positron.

  And so you have this connection like for Newton's First and Second laws and the Third law, Every reaction with an equal but opposite reaction. But there's mass in one law and there's inertia, 1 inertia in the first law and mass momentwo in the second law, momentum. And these combine to the Third law. All the action reaction pairs are based on what changes and what stays the same like inertia and momentum. 

 

 And so you have this kind of question in ontology, the problem of knowledge, they're saying that there are those who believe we can't know anything.

 And also there are those who believe we can't even know ourselves, and we can't know anything else.

 But if we look at what it's based on, it's the foundation of logic and that is the action reaction pairs. This is like the neuron because they have a simple and complex structure on each side the axon and dendrite, like with Noether's theorem. What changes and what stays the same can classify all sets according to this. And so you have the neuron in the brain with simplicity and complexity. And that's basically the form of information like action reaction pairs and energy conservation. 

 So the question of how we could derive this I think ultimately relates to how the more distant connections don't actually match up as much and so loopholes are common with distance or higher information, but not in the more basic information.

  For example in the history of life on Earth the larger life took much more time to evolve than the one celled life. This was because the short distance connection of the cell was with the stronger connections where the in and out waves balance like for molecular computation, but larger life needed to overpower the loopholes of connections with more distance. So the basic connections would be the most sound and reliable foundation of logic we would find anywhere with energy conservation.

 This reminded me of about how Einstein didn't define a signal or information in relativity, but I define them as a change in like the mass or  energy of a body in one place, with an exchange of energy between them and that creates a definite change on the other side, even if it's only probabilistic like a lot of the quantum mechanics are defining connections like this. So this definition is also based on energy conservation and the same idea. When you have a change as a balance, then you have a foundation of information like in information theory. 

 Information theorists can't decide what information is. There are like 70 definitions. They're all arguing about it. I think this about energy conservation is going to be the ultimate one that's the same, the same as the problem of knowledge with the dispute about what information is itself because it's based on energy conservation not looser connections.

  And so if you have the action reaction pairs, they're balancing like the neuron. And so we can know ourselves because it's based on that same action reaction pair, and when we look at the world around us, everything is based on that same pattern, extending out from this basis. You were wise, and aware!

  I believe that all this means while although we can't know the higher knowledge as reliably, we can know it more by probabilistic connections, and we can start with the most secure knowledge.. Although it's only by axiom, it's what all the evidence shows more often.

 And experience is the best teacher for my hope to help you find more value in this these events and math. 

Click Here for my cleaning, health, and wealth product list and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list..THANKS!

My Invite Link;

Benable is a tool to create shareable lists of things you recommend! You can skip the waitlist and create your own shareable lists by signing up using my invite link: https://benable.com/i/E6VCN

 And I would say there's more foundation in that principle and we can know things. Ultimately, the higher knowledge itself is not completely without value.. it's at a higher level and we're more evolved than one celled life.

 So I think that we would find a probabilistic element of almost any event with a loophole,  and make use of Von Neuman's idea about evolution of behavior, so you can always find one best move in any game of strategy if you boost your advantages and limit your losses.

 -

Why doesn't Gravity or the Collapse of the Wave Function Control Time as Much as Einstein Believed?

Einstein's ideas about time seem to have been convergent. One of Einstein's ideas I think of as more unusual was his claim that we're accelerating upwards through time on the surface of the Earth.

This may have been what led him to make the prediction that old electrons have more energy than new electrons, but they don't. The field flows through mass at the surface of the Earth and if gravity is acceleration in equivalent motion, it would seem as we or electrons accelerate, they would put on weight and change energy.

Yet if we were accelerating upward at a comfortable speed of 32 feet per second we would be at the speed of light in less than a year and we would have gained infinite relativistic mass by this acceleration. And gravity accelerates inward and time seems to radiate out by entropy as I'll say.

 Many physicists have agreed with Einstein's other idea about how the collapse of the wave function may control time basically by the same method as Quantum Computing except it's computing about time itself by selecting out futures.

  Discussions about the collapse of the wave function or the Many Worlds hypothesis or even Feynman's idea of time reversal being a possible event in subatomic physics have been considered. (Time reversal as it turns out isn't actually a property of subatomic particles.)

Image By Geralt, Pixabay

And others have asked "Where is there a definite past present and future in all these quantum events?"

 Here I will show you where the past present and future are in the system and while even if the collapse of the wave function and gravity are part of what we find time to be, there are some simple reasons to believe time is not mostly convergent either as with the collapse of the wave function or  gravity.

  Unlike the physics of space we can't reverse our motion through time. We're stuck in the present. To me this seems to be evidence Relativity is incomplete if space and time are unified.

It's been said  we could "no more believe time flows any more than we would say length extends". But if we look at all the world around us on the surface of the Earth we see all kinds of motion of the molecules and atoms in fluid flow.

  Time as has been well known in higher physics is proportional to the frequency of a system, so we may say it has something important to do about the spin of the quanta.

  This could be where Feynman's time reversal would be derived from, because at short range the spins match up like small clocks, even while at longer range they don't connect up exactly, and time would indeed be more like the flow of fluid.

But the spin is angular. Motion through more empty space tends to be linear and a line if not linear has acceleration, so time and space tend to be the opposite of each other and not unified as much as Einstein thought because for example if they were unified and if you move backwards through space you'll be moving backwards through time. 

  

 So if we say space and time are not  the same, or are perhaps even the opposite, this is the explanation about why time flows but length doesn't extend.

  Hawking was of the point of view for a while we could actually influence the past from the present And many considered this claim by him to be wrong. The reason would be because of what I consider to be the essence of where the future the past and the present are derived from.

 Yes, gravity and the collapse of the wave function have considerable influence over what happens about time near the surface of the Earth. Even so (because it's not as knowable in the sense that we can't know the weather report 15 days distant as well as we know from 10 days away) the future is mostly radiating outward by the thermodynamic radiation from hot to cold.

Some have claimed also we could be even be "influenced by the future" Either of these type of claims about being able to influence the past or the future from the present seem highly counterintuitive to me at best because the past doesn't exist anymore (except for the records) and the future neither has a record or exists yet.

  Einstein's belief that we're being influenced by the flow of the gravitational field through us by the evidence about relativity by the Mossbauer effect I think is not the main cause of time because of my theory or at any rate not completely controlling time with thermodynamic entropy controlling a more major slice. 

 

 Gravity does indeed change the flow of time on the outside of bodies made of atoms or molecules around a massive body as we see by the slowing of clocks like atomic clocks in experiments but gravity is convergent and time tends to radiate out more. Gravity doesn't reverse every single particle like we would need for true reversal of time as it radiates in, instead gravity just sees a couch or train as a blob. Gravity not only radiates in, it probably doesn't mostly influence spin of heavy quanta, it would need to be hugely stronger for this.

As I say elsewhere my idea is that gravity actually wraps around the outside of the heavy quanta by what I call Line Removal, like paramagnetism for gravity so it doesn't have shielding or quantum numbers or super high energy at near radius, and it's controlled by each of the quantas spin generating the acceleration of gravity because they are indeed the source of gravity.

So gravity changes more the look of time, and the internal changes inside the quanta are another important way time exists.

  It's been said God set the world in motion and the rest of the influence is more indirect. Some physicists say only information at the surface or outside a body is important. But if gravity is outside the world and the quanta, most of the rest of the history of the world-past and future is not about gravity, like events inside often having much more influence.

WHERE ARE THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE?

In my theory the future is the energy arriving in radiating from the Sun. The present is the computation done both by the collapse of the wave function but also by the thermodynamic energy re-radiating out. The past is what remains of the stored record of the events of the present especually the events that "Won" the competition and were more fit by way of value by the rules if physics, ethics, yes even wealth has some value!

 The collapse of the wave function and gravity are also involved but don't have as much influence, and the time we evolved with is mostly about thermodynamic entropy.

The radiating out of time by the events near the surface of a planet like the Earth also means, while we could influence the flow of time for a short distance into the past as Hawking believed, and while the ancient events could influence us in the present, we can't go back and influence the past because the radiation of time is outward and not in reverse.. heat flows from hot to cold. Time doesn't flow from the future to the past.

 This seems like what Einstein didn't recognize in  his ideas about gravity and the collapse of the wave function which both radiate inward having influence on time.

  
 The future isn't an acceleration as Einstein thought because we're getting this simple linear thermodynamic energy from the sun to power the computations of the atoms and molecules near the surface of the Earth where we are. In my view the future is this energy and it hasn't arrived yet so it can't do computations till then and it's simple so we're not getting messages from the future because there is no life like on the Sun. The future "doesn't exist yet" so like the ancient influences on us we can influence it somewhat, yet it's not a place but no more than a set of possibilities till the energy reaches us. If it's too much month at the end of the money, in this view wealth has somewhat more influence!

 A big time machine like for the Earth can't be built because other than the residuals we have like from history or ancient DNA we inherited from life events, the past doesn't exist anymore, so we would have to build it like piece by piece with like 3d printer with huge energy costs and we would have to have a place to put it.

  The future like the energy from the Sun that hasn't reached us yet is about simple physics and it's another sort of time.

  If time is about spin of the quanta mostly and a heavy quanta was emitted and maintained its spin for billions of years before it reached a sensor and its spin was then measured, in what sense is this time? Our ideas about time are not of the vast majority of the matter and energy of the universe and we could say there's not as much complexity of time anywhere other than where life could exist.

  As I say, the present in this view is just the computation of events like the bond angles and the energies of the electrons mostly of the atoms as well as the nuclei, but also the computation of the collapse of the wave function to some extent as Einstein believed. This may not be the main part of what time is about.. it's about the computations of those atoms and molecule's bond angles..

And the past in this view is the record of the stored events so it happened before it was stored in the present.

  Since the past is based on the record of what's left like in the rocks like fossils, and it's in the present as the record, it's also wearing out, and the computations of the present are also constantly wearing out and running down.

 It may seem it would always spiral down to simplicity and all the life of the Earth might stop without the heat. But there is the source of the light of the sun that's arriving in from the outside to power this flow of time as we've evolved to experience it.

My belief is Einstein's idea that the collapse of the wave function itself controls time may not be completely untrue.

  As I said on my other posts I've tended to believe  entanglement events like the EPR make it so when you flip one electron with spin up and the other one always has spin down and vice versa so only those two electrons in all the electrons in the cosmos are connected this way. Einstein's other hope for a low energy quanta to get around the uncertainty principle could have a sort of small constellation of these particles around each heavy quantum. 

 

  And by this when you entangle two quanta you're also unifying the code of those special constellations of each quantum and they become one. Einstein didn't know what the low energy particle could be but I had tended to identify it with a quanta I thought had read had been predicted and had been discovered in the lab called the low energy Higgs' But I couldn't refind the reference to it on the web.

 

  So here I tend to revive the low energy Higgs' perhaps with a constellation of the Feynman particles around the quanta so they're fused even if the low energy Higgs' turns out not to be viable.

  

  Einstein's idea may be worthwhile because recent "low energy quantum experiments" seem to show he was at least partially correct. They send the quantum "mouse" a quantum past the other like Schrodinger's cat, and by watching how the "mouse" moves they're able to show the cat is either alive or dead.

This seems to be evidence for Einstein's idea whether it's about the low energy Higgs' or the Feynman particles in either event.

      (In this view the reason Einstein's idea is not completely true and how the low energy Quantum experiments only show partial results could be because the Feynman particles only partially act like particles because they're somewhat below the quantum level.)

  About this constellation of the low energy events around each heavier quanta this may be of worth to our ideas about time I think.. Having this special constellation around the outside of each quanta could allow each one to store a large amount of information with each event externally that were influenced by the collapse of that wave function.

  I believe this could be possible because it's been known since the 1920s, every single neuron of the brain contains all the memory of the entire brain because lab mice had their brain area removed smaller and smaller and they still remember all of the entire memory of their brain.

But the brain has like a quadrillion bits of data so each neuron will have a quadrillion bits too. And according to the Wikipedia proteins fold much faster and are much more unified than the speed of light physics allow.

  But if all neurons were storing data by this code of the constellation of each quanta and by collapsing the wave function to perform the computations just like a quantum  computer, evolution would favor this advantage for neurons and other proteins because it would have given a major survival advantage to the life with this advantage of utilizing the collapse of the wave function.. sharing both the storage advantage and a much higher speed computing advantage.

  And of course this is in disagreement without Einstein other than his great concern about the speed of the collapse of the wave function!

But if you look at this about how the neuron could store so much data I started to think about my theories of time about the past where the evidence is stored as a record moving forward into the future. 

This reminds me of like strata and layers on layers to store data.  So my guess is if so neurons might have this sort of layering of other layers of the degree of the collapse of the wave function to store more data. 

 If neurons turn out to store way too much data this may be how. And just as importantly the world itself being made of the same quanta may have the same data storage ability.

  So we could imagine by finding out the information of the low energy quanta around the outside of each heavier quanta we could have a super record of the history of the Earth and the past. 

(As I say on my future blog! The collapse of the wave function can't be tampered with in hopes of  finding Einstein's low energy code if it exists. Instead a possible solution may be by way of the waves code sent between entangled quanta including bring unified by gravity.. (I thought of entangling two quanta with a third quanta intercepting the wave to "find the code" but apparently this won't have influence due to Line Removal) Even so a possible way we might find the encoded information would be by using the Zeno Method of tubes of the light where they are rotated like a balloon to find measurements much below the quantum levels of energy. Even if the spin of the field is much faster than light we still might find resonances of the orbitals. Einstein when asked what time was, replied "Whatever you measure with a clock!" To me this sounds like Sir Issac Newton when asked how he got his ideas in math and science he said "By thinking!" 

 Einstein might have been a bit more general if he said, "Time is what you measure by oscillation, especially more regular oscillation. So I would think by using some method like a comb filter used with atomic clocks, the regularity even if higher speed might be measured for these waves and particles and while the Uncertainty issue would be solved as Einstein dreamed, this would be the end of the quantum internet, but also away to find the history of the world if Einstein was right about the low energy quantum and my idea if its value for the EPR might also add to his belief.))

Even while this wouldn't allow us to visit the ancient worlds it could be a great way to build a machine, not exactly a time machine but a real simulation machine if we might mine the quanta of the world to find the record if it exists!

  Masses around us are spinning at different rates and if time is more thermodynamic, it would seem different quanta and different amounts of heat may have different rates of the passage of time and as a result at night atomic clocks might run just a bit slower, an event having little to do with gravity or the collapse of the wave function as Einstein thought. 

  This might be an average change because the atomic clocks are stuck at one level and might only change the rate of spin if the atoms are moved above each quantum level. Note that different atoms have different levels of sensitivity and this may allow more quantitative evidence for this if it's so.

  While it's true atomic clocks once set up tick at the same rate, this is not a measure of the different rates of spin of clocks made of different materials or atoms. If gravity controls time all spins would be the same because gravity is simple. If time was uniform all the clocks would move at the same rate and no atom could change its spin from one energy level to another. 

 The outside of each quantum spins at the speed of light by relativity so it's quantized, but if all the quanta spun only at the speed of light not just "on the outside" the masses would only be 1, -1 or other quantum numbers of spin. If the mass is spinning energy we can't explain the large array of masses seen in quanta without more spin inside.

  Are we to say that heat has no influence on the spin rate of electrons as experiment seems to show? This would seem to violate energy conservation. I find this as improbable as Einstein's belief that gravity changes the energy of electrons. My idea seems superior to his or the idea that quantum spin alone is involved. 

 My belief is this dark matter component of the proton, (which would give 97% of the mass of the proton otherwise unaccounted for) may spin with a change in tension of the quantum spin, and only shows when enough of the dark matter tension is changed to then cause the change of rate of another atomic clock.

This reminds me of the question of "why does the muon weigh and convert from the electron at just the right energy?" 

 My explanation is the dark matter component of the electron is already spinning at faster than light with its tension, and then simply changes phase at the right level to create the muon.The dark matter tension is beyond relativity because it's more non quantum and faster than light. If it was spinning at the speed of light inside, like the other quanta, it couldn't have phases of mass like the electron's change to the muon.

 
  I believe we have no acceleration upward through time as Einstein thought because the light is uniform and radiating in at a regular rate.

As I say it would seem we evolved around our ideas about time. Time like water only exists in the fluid phase anywhere in the solar system on the surface of the Earth as ice water and steam. So too the vast majority of the future energy and in the solar system the energy above us like  radiation from the Sun is simpler than the time of our life.

  
  Carl Sagan was saying about life on other worlds, he was a water chauvinist and a carbon chauvinist, And I think we as living beings, because we evolved with the thermodynamic radiation of time are actually time chauvinists!

We can't travel into the past or the future and we're stuck in the present because we exist as life on the limit of our realm on the surface of the Earth.

  It's been said you can't run a mill with water that is passed, and you can't run it on water that hasn't yet arrived and while this means we're dependent on the energy of the water or the energy from the Sun this is also the reason why we can't travel through time. 

When we climb a mountain we don't notice the change of time by gravity much but we're for sure aware of how we feel our sense of the rate of time has changed. We know a lot by the proteins of our neurons but a lot of the outside world is not about proteins or gravity. As I say both the proteins and gravity are about the radiation inward of the fields. But all around us things are wearing out and running down. This is something gravity and the collapse of the wave function don't do (the collapse of the wave function is being researched to make a high capacity super efficient battery).

 Studies have shown, obese people actually have a different sense of the rate of time as it passes. If they weigh a lot, gravity might not be how!

  Some scientists believe the reason we sleep is because it improves the rate of folding of proteins, and evolution couldn't get around this basic event so it's of worth to most life to sleep even while it was dangerous otherwise (by risk of snack attack "by wolves") in evolution. But if the proteins are always folding and if time was at the same rate we would be awake or asleep all the time.

 

 All this could be made quantitative by the study of crystals. On my other post I discuss about crystals by multiplying up the size of each collapse of the wave function with the huge number of atoms as a way to measure and prove it actually exists, as well as using them for other uses like room temperature superconductors or super insulators and using the crystals to self-assemble to make larger quantum computers more rapidly. 

 

 The crystal computes like a quantum computer and this may help us to quantitatively define how and why the thermodynamic branching out of entropy is what it is because it would basically be the result of the implosion of the light like from the Sun or other radiation inward of the wave functions which then radiate back out as the thermodynamic energy of Entropy. This interaction between the collapse of the wave function would partially be as Einstein thought and the solution for how we could describe how and why the branches of the entropy rereadiance exist which otherwise has been unsolved.

 Click here for more of my ideas about time..

 PAULOWNIA HOW TO START YOUR OWN CASH CROP for 100$.. a single acre of Paulownia trees can be worth a million dollars, biomass $40,000 to 240,000!...      

      ...starting with biomass, which unlike the Trees need no intensive cultivation, you can harvest in just two to three years for $40,000 earned! ..

How And Why Paulownia May Be Worthwhile For Profit..

Please remember this is not financial advice. All investment has some risk, Never invest more than you can afford to lose.

Paulownia trees are being cultivated as a cash crop..

 They're fast growing and also you may not be aware but there's possible a way to get in on this market without a lot of cost.. by growing biomass you don't need maintenance like with the trees which need high maintenance and while less profitable than the trees this also has an advantage that it only takes two or three years to earn like $120,000 for just three acres of biomass. Once you've made the first 120 000 dollars and cut down the trees and sold them you can let it grow again and repeat for 120 thousand dollars perhaps every couple of years indefinitely " if the market holds up" (according to AI currently the market for biomass is good and increasing.)

 In the Orient Paulownia trees are traditionally in demand for religious purposes and also for making things like musical instruments, bowls or other objects

  Religion can be a powerful influence at times and so they're searching everywhere for Paulownia trees. 

Since the trees are growing wild sometimes in the US and one tree can be worth $40,000, there are "Paulownia rustlers" in the United States.

The mayors of some US cities say just to cut down all the trees and be done with it because the rustlers are going to keep on cutting them down  and hauling them off often middle of the night before the owner knows. The owner wants to own enough shade!

Paulownia takes about 8 years to mature and the cost to plant some of the trees is about $15 an acre.

If this sounds good where you plant the trees and in like 10 years you're wealthy, there's no reason to believe this is bad luck, or luck!

Sounds good but there are a few drawbacks. As they say when your ship comes in "it's often time to do some unloading". The trees need to be slow growing. And as I say they're invasive and also they need to be trimmed regularly for like the first five years. To get around this a lot of people consider investing in Paulownia farms.

As I'll discuss however perhaps the best way to start maybe to grow it as biomass because it only takes two or three years to harvest and this is without all the maintenance. As I'll show you you can do this even without owning land by Co-ops or other methods.

While a co-op has value, I researched what it would be worth just to grow a 20 ft Paulownia bush like in your house by constantly trimming it but the most this will earn is just $300 in like 5 years. (This is like half a tree for biomass which is worth $600 each. Here in 2025, high quality paulownia trees are worth from $45,000 to $90,000..450 trees per acre worth $90,000 each could be worth up to $40,500,000..)

(If you're considering investing in farms, in a few years you may find investing in paulownia farms that use robots to trim the trees may be much higher value for because you'll be ahead of the market and you may have much higher payoff for value for your trees once they're sold.)

 Before, money was invested on Paulownia farms and profit wasn't much made because the trees have to grow slowly because the tree rings have to be narrow (more solid wood as the market demands) for them to sell well in the Orient. These paulownia farms weren't trimming the trees or using nets to slow growth.

  Here I offer three solutions.. first to make the trees grow more slowly for your own possible million dollar edition of the plan, as I say buying nets held up by poles, may shut off the light enough so the trees grow at the rate of your compound interest now in math of your mirth. Experts recommend trimming the trees to slow the growth and this was what some plantations didn't do before and they made less profit. Though nets aren't usually used, this might be a better way to improve profit.

Second, to prevent it from becoming an invasive species you may want to put a wall around the outside of your farm, and tarps around the base of each tree. You may also want to buy small robots to remove the seeds from the tarps. You pay for this as you make more money so it's more part of the advanced plan.

The owner may saw and snore louder because even for reclaim value, an acre of Paulownia trees is worth $40,000!

The main problem left would seem to be about trimming for the trees to grow well.. how some paulownia farm sites say this is "not a set and forget it crop".

  While robot arms are generally expensive, using a cheap x y and z saw with sensors would be cheaper.

 Drones have been used to try to trim trees but these seem dangerous and needing to be not an illegal hazard as they're in the air and I once thought of even using laser beams from a wheeled platform to trim trees from the ground. This might seem easier and simpler than climbing all the trees to cut the branches.

Perhaps best would use a "steam beam" to then use the laser to heat and melt the branch the same way laser dental drills don't damage your tooth, I relax and need no anesthesia to wake up! Actually laser beams turn out to be expensive and don't cut all the way through the branches and you have to hire professionals with special training to operate it.

I originally thought of robots on rails but these probably would be saws, not lasers or drones.

Biomass needing little or no maintenance would not also have the necessity or cost of the robots.

 You would need to own or rent some land but you can rent a lot cheap where I live for about $400 a month. If you're already on the land you're already good to go..

If you don't own land consider buying into a local co-op where they'll let you grow the paulownia like for biomass.

While some Co-ops typically have initial fees of  hundreds to thousands of dollars and perhaps other fees, some of them are offered at no cost.

 If viable in about 5 years you may be getting a million dollars or about $200,000 a year profit after expenses. And beyond that you may be able to expand your business. Admittedly it's a risk of your investment, but there is no investment without at least some risk.

If you don't yet have money for expensive trimming robots which you actually may be able to buy in 5 years presumably they say, consider growing Paulownia for biomass. It's worth about $40,000-$240,000 an acre and only takes two or three years to take your profit unlike the trees which take 5 to 8 years and biomass really is a set it and forget it crop to earn your profit. Just a few acres of the biomass could earn more than a hundred thousand dollars in just 2 years.

Once you've cut down your biomass after like 2 years and you have your $40,000 it then grows back really fast..as much as 150 tons a year of biomass..it's the fastest growing tree there is.

  I would think this plan could be a way you could start with your own farm and then you could help other people with their farms except you have a major advantage because you don't have to keep trimming the trees all the time so you can multiply up your profit a lot. 

 Also perhaps a way to much improve forestry business in general like for say Christmas trees because Christmas is the world's largest folk celebration. Lots of presents beneath the branches and the Greensleeves Christmas song sounds good.

Eventually this could also be sold as a franchise where you're getting a percentage of all the other peoples earnings being invested by other people in their farm and so most involved are getting much richer..

 Note; This list contains affiliate links. I may earn a small commission if you purchase through them — at no extra cost to you) Thanks for your sunshine and your interest in my site as it grows..

https://benable.com/starchip27

Click Here for my product list for growing Paulownia and straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list..THANKS!

Note For Those on SSI;

While a co-op is an option, and trees don't count as tax until the harvest, they count against SSI because they're an asset. The best option for those on SSI may be to get a relative or associate who owns land to grow the trees.

 

 If you don't want to use your own land you can also invest in farms that grow biomass for as little as $2000 for the investment though these  often have a wait time more like paulownia trees (5 to 8 years).

 So all you need to do is plant your first trees either on your own land or relatives land perhaps who lives in the country or with a co-op if you don't own any land, and in 3 years all you have to do is take photographs of it and send it to the buyers to visit your property and arrange transport with them..

 Doing biomass like this may seem to be even better than growing and harvesting the trees but it's not either or.

 A hybrid plan might be to use part of your land for biomass and also the rest with the trees.

  This plan would first self fund with the biomass and then after a few years you buy into the tree farming with the robots. And this may add more value because it's getting cheaper by your business volume and by making it so that all you have to do is plant like 10 more acres and at about 8 years you've earned millions more dollars.

 Of course you might not be interested in the robots and earning with biomass may be enough for a lot of people to consider without the tedious maintenance.

 As they're being developed the inventors still consider robots to be only semi-autonomous, or at first at any rate. So with 10 acres you would still need employees but you may have lots of money and you're the employer because of the earnings. You've reached seniority, even if 20! 

https://benable.com/starchip27

Click Here for my product list for growing Paulownia and other recommendations for nifty straight to the biz sources of these main products on my Benable recommendation list..THANKS!

COUNTERACTING GLOBAL WARMING, AND A POSSIBLE WAY TO DEFEND AGAINST CMEs.

  

 As on my other posts I've mentioned how I believe Jupiter may have influenced the Earth's weather for millions of years. Like the tree rings which have 11 year cycles (evidence about dendrochronology) Jupiter's magnetic field also goes in 11 year loops and my belief was that perhaps a large impactor hit Jupiter and caused structures like the Great Red Spot at the start of the Ice Age and this then might have cooled the sun because Jupiter's magnetic field is much stronger than the Sun's and it seems possible this then caused the Ice Age, which would only be modulated not caused by the Milankovitch loops which are about 100,000 years. It's been well known by scientists that all the events of the ice ages could easily be explained if the sun was just burning cool.

 

  As I say on my weather control post if the Ice Age was only caused by astronomical cycles, the period after the dinosaurs went extinct for 64 million years of global warming would have gone on indefinitely without something large having hit the Earth at the start of the ice ages to start the 100,000 year astronomical loops but there's no evidence for this.

 Indeed Jupiter acts like a shield from large impactors like comets because it's got more gravity, and large comets and other impactors are hitting Jupiter more often than they may be hitting the Earth.

 By this idea the baseline for the solar radiation is like it was for 64 million years before the mere 1 million years of the ice ages and these indeed might be modulated by the astronomical cycles but if they're caused them they would have gone on indefinitely farther and farther into the past! 

 (Actually nothing would have had to hit the Earth except at the beginning perhaps with the advent of the large asteroid size bodies in the giant impactor phase of the Earth's early history to cause the Milankovich events and this is indeed what we find with much older rocks in periods when the sun was burning cooler as the Milankovich astronomical cycles were continuing. And this means the Milankovich events were on going during the much warmer phases of Earth history including the time of the dinosaurs but there were no glacial events then and many of the dinosaurs ranged into the Arctic and the Antarctic.

So perhaps the only way for the Earth to be warm during the 64 million year period with the rise of the birds and the mammals would be if the sun would have been burning warmer or else greenhouse emissions, and the Milankovich events didn't cause this. As I'll say below I found out that the volcanic eruptions of the pleistoscene correlate well with the start of the ice ages and the peaks in the glaciation recently from another website and so now I agree that the volcanoes may mostly have caused the ice ages including the time of the snowball Earth events because there were really strong submarine volcanoes that associate with these events.

 Even so as I'll be discussing there may be valuable science involved in research about the ice ages including using small star chips boosted by lasers to quickly cheaply research surfaces of the solar system in order to see how much influence the impactor hypothesis and also how much changes in the solar radiation might have occurred.

 As I'll be discussing since the sun puts out a fifth of its energy in neutrino radiation this may have possible influence on the volcanoes by way of the recent evidence that neutrinos actually change their radiance from the Sun in 11-year Cycles just like Jupiter, and presumably because of Jupiter, and this might be because of simple mechanical pressure by the magnetic field squeezing the Sun with heating combined with the solar gravity and by its modulating and causing a different rate of fusion for the neutrinos.

The magnetic field of Jupiter would be modulated by it's volcanic (and highly magnetic) satellite Io eclipsing it every 22 years with precession around Jupiter.  On sunspot charts two 11 year loops are seen and with each second loop a reduction in the top of the curve  would be caused by this eclipse.

 Also this would solve another mystery about why the temperature is the hottest on the outside of the Sun because the particles of the sun are being pulled out by the gravity and magnetic field of Jupiter and at this point they're oscillating back and forth rapidly with more room to move and this makes them much hotter under the influence of other radiation outward from the Sun. We could say heat doesn't flow from cold to hot usually or it just "flows upward sometimes"..

 For reasons like these including the cause of global warming because the last Ice Age was only 75,000 years and the rest were 100 or even 200000 years, it seems possible the structure or structures like the Great Red Spot of Jupiter having damped the field for the ice ages are finally fizzling away by chemical and/or mechanical erosion on Jupiter, and so Jupiter has had influence on the Earth's weather.

In general throughout most of the time when we measured the Sun's temperature as with global warming historically the sunspots have been increasing as from 1850 to about 1960 even while the Sun's temperature hasn't been rising supposedly. Events like the Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum as you see could also be explained perhaps by smaller impactors than the Great Red Spot impactor.  

 Presumably if these impactors hit Jupiter we would see evidence with more exploration as I'll discuss, perhaps some splashing upward of the debris from the impact that might show a record on the surface of the moons of Jupiter like Europa or Callisto, and perhaps elsewhere on other planets like Mars or even on the moon.

 If Jupiter is changing the sun's magnetic field this would be by an outside influence and not as some have believed to be caused by a dynamo inside the sun.

 It would be expected that since the influence on the magnetic field by Jupiter is from the outside that the currents of the loops inside the magnetic field of the sun itself would only be near the surface. According to this link (Northwestern U.) that's exactly what happens..The currents only reach down to about 20,000 miles not 130000 miles to the center as had been believed.

While it's known that the sun's magnetic field changes in 11 year cycles, longer-term changes like for global warming haven't yet been established so this can't be ruled out yet.

 Another possibility I consider is that the sun actually radiates 1/5 of its energy in neutrinos. While the interaction for each neutrino is small when many more interactions are considered it may have influence and solar neutrinos have been found to change radioactivity rates of isotopes also in 11 year events. 

 I think of the magnetic field influence and the way that an impactor could decrease the amount of influence from Jupiter as a possible influence of changes in solar radiation like for the ice ages,  but also the change in the neutrinos might have some influence on the heat of the Earth like for recent global warming mostly from inside because most of the neutrinos will be interacting with the atoms of the Earth and there are a lot more atoms inside the Earth than out!

 This link from the physics World site says that the fluctuation of the neutrinos has been established with 11-year cycle of the Sun but the page also says there's no known way this could be so with established physics and while others here say that the correlation is not well established, a lot of physicists believe the correlation exists.

 Here I offer the following simple explanation..

  My idea is that radioactivity of the atoms in the lab we see with the machine that change with the solar flux involves the input of a solar neutrino of the right type of quantum number to match with electrons around the radius of the ready to be radioactive atom at that time by thermal random motion and also combining with the proton to form a neutron which wouldn't then attract by the strong force and this radiates out the neutron with radioactivity which is converted to a proton and an electron in about 12 minutes.

 This could be a possible source of heat for some of the global warming since the output of the (optical) light from the sun hasn't changed much or actually we don't yet know how much it's changed. Since it's mostly from inside the Earth it wouldn't be seen as radioactive heating much.

 

 If you like Click Here for my post about how we might reduce radioactivity like by reducing radioactive waste by way of this type of influence of the neutrinos from the Sun, or see the same link at the end of my post.

 You may note that few of the neutrinos actually interact with the atoms of the Earth. And even while the neutrinos are of small energy essentially they would act as a catalyst of the interaction by way of the right quantum numbers and the nuclear reaction itself may be far more powerful and enough to heat the Earth so while I realize this maybe less plausible than other explanations it seems possible at any rate..

 Since the modern maximum in the 60s the sun spots have been decreasing and the temperature of the sun has been going down while global temperatures have risen. This might seem to be evidence that the sun has nothing to do with the weather but it's hard to see how the ice ages for the time between the ice ages from the dinosaurs could have been caused by something people had done.  Of course the volcanoes are important but there may be other influences and I'm researching these here.

 We look at records of the change in world temperatures historically and this is minor compared to the changes in the weather in the ice ages to the interglacial ages or from the Ice ages to own era.

 As I say the sun radiates a fifth of its energy in neutrinos, and one thing we know about neutrinos is that they can change types as they radiate out from their source. Due to the quantum numbers, only one type of neutrino will fit the events of positive beta radioactivity as I say on my post, so I think it's possible that cooling the sun would actually make the neutrinos convert over to this type of neutrino (anti e neutrino) more often by lowering the energy of the reaction inside that makes more neutrinos and these might actually cause more heating of the Earth from the inside by the radioactivity even while the sun is cooling. Magnetic heating and cooling may not be the same as the thermal temperature of the sun and may be more involved with neutrino radiation. Magnetic "heat" may be independant and this is why the temperature of the sun itself hasn't changed much. Magnetic heating may cause more heating of the Sun and thus the Earth.

 (Magnetism and electricity may not be completely the same as Maxwell believed. My belief about this is that like heating and cooling in thermodynamics and also like gravity and inertia or mass and energy, these are not completely equivalent. For example recent research shows that heating is not completely the inverse of cooling. If relativity were true completely we would expect them to be completely equivalent. 

 This is what we were always taught in physics about how an ice cube melting can be time reversed when it's cooling but it's easy to see this really isn't true because the water doesn't flow up to the ice cube and then freeze in the shape of the ice cube. So the idea that gravity and inertia are completely equivalent I don't buy into and so we can say that the magnetic field of the Sun not being equivalent to the thermodynamic electric field of the atoms actually can be shielded considerably independently of the heat shield for the starchip we might boost to the Sun for research.

While the second law of thermodynamics shows that heat flows generally from hot to cold it doesn't say why, and by relativity we would say that it would be equally valid unless relativity is incomplete.

 Otherwise we have an explanation of it like Aristotle's that smoke rises because it's the most natural thing for it to do, an explanation that explains nothing.. Click Here is a recent post of mine about why I think relativity is incomplete or if you like you can click the same link at the end of the post..  I also include links to what I consider to be some of my most classic posts about this, mellowed with age, not  yawns!)

 

 Cooling the sun thermally could actually make more neutrinos somewhat like the Curie limit for magnetism because the reaction needs the right angle of the neutrinos and the electron into the proton by way of the magnetic poles aligning to create the neutron will be like trying a code to fit in the lock at the right angle and if there's less thermal vibration of the atoms with a cooler solar temperature this might actually create more neutrinos not less. This mechanism of change in the 11 year neutrino flux by changes in the angle in solar heat rather than pressure may be an important or most important way the neutrino flux changes with these loops and may carry over to more intensive solar events like the ice ages over geologic time..

Click Here for why I think that this type of neutrino might be useful for this possible explanation as a cause of global warming or see the same link at the end of the site if you like.

Why The Greenhouse Effect Isn't the Only Cause For Global Warming of Venus.

The idea that scorching temperatures of Venus are evidence for greenhouse emissions may not be complete, because it's been found that Venus is actually putting out more heat than it's taking in from the Sun and this might be simply by volcanoes heating the atmosphere and maybe not so much from carbon dioxide from those volcanoes causing the greenhouse events on Venus. 

 Venus may get its heat itself from the tidal forces by keeping the same face to the Earth all the time, the same as how two thirds of the earthquakes and volcanoes on Earth happen within 10 days of the 1st of the month when the moon is closest.

 So the argument that the heating of the rocks may have released carbon dioxide, and this may have heated the temperature of Venus more, which may have released more carbon dioxide to cause a runaway global warning event on Venus may be wrong. Venus is closer to the Sun and it has more volcanoes so it just has more heat.

 If there was not more keeping the Earth's temperature from rising we would certainly say that during the time of the dinosaurs and also during some of the interglacial ages since the climate was warmer there might have been a lot of release of carbon dioxide from the rocks and this could have led to the runaway greenhouse effect but it didn't.

  Whatever caused the temperature to not indefinitely rise for all this time surely must not be luck and so this type of event might be discounted as we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

It might seem that the volcanic eruptions on Venus might cause an Ice Age for Venus like on Snowball Earth, and the reason this may not have happened is because, as they say on the link about how volcanoes correlated with the ice ages including the peak of the times and the onset of the cooling events, rhyolite lava flows may have caused global warming but usual volcano eruptions may have caused cooling, so perhaps the global warming of Venus was mostly because of these rhyolite lava flows.

 As has been believed, all the changes of the ice ages could be explained quite readily by way of just the sun with reduced heat and dramatic rapid changes in global temperature aren't the express property of our machines causing more global warming.

We can explain global warming currently by greenhouse gases emitted by humans but we need some other cause for the onset of the ice ages over the time since the extinction of the dinosaurs.. And it would seem the ice ages won't match the astronomical causes well, if the astronomical causes aren't sufficient and neither is any influence by us then. 

 We certainly need some other explanation for the ice ages and other weather and even if recent warming is caused by the influence of CO2, After astronomical events, greenhouse gasses, and dust as I'll say below, I think we still need a fourth major general cause of the changes in the weather. 

 The influence of Jupiter on the weather over geologic time by way of impactors while yet unproven, may be a simple and straightforward solution and it might be influenced by the neutrino flux.

 Even if it's not I believe there's (often) more to it than astronomical loops or CO2.

 Certainly greenhouse gases and probably the astronomical loops can modulate the ice ages but the question is, they modulate what?

If nothing hit the Earth, there would need to be a sudden increase in greenhouse gases at the onset of the Ice Age since the astronomical influences are no different presumably from the 64 million years and more before that in geologic time when there were no ice ages. However this AI link shows that there was no sudden decrease in carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases at the beginning of the Ice Age. 

(On the link the site also makes the claim that the CO2 follows not proceeds the change in temperatures. While this would also support my idea that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming, I've seen sites that claim the opposite is true.)

One question that scientists are researching is about why halfway through the Pleistocene the astronomical cycles went from 41,000 years to about 100,000 years. 

 If Greenhouse emissions can't change the astronomical loops, I would ask how could the Milankovitch Cycles suddenly go into 100,000 year loops. It's true we can't explain it by an impactor hitting the Earth.

 It's possible with all the ice weighing down the Earth it changed its angular momentum and that flipped it into other resonances of the orbits.

 If another impactor had hit Jupiter, this could  have changed the ice by changing the solar heat, and this might have changed the astronomical loops.

 Gravity and the orbits tend to be nonlinear and even while the Earth's flip from a low energy to a high energy orbit is possible, returning to this orbit after the change seems improbable. So the older evidence for the Milankovitch events before the ice ages seems incongruent with the idea that in more ancient events the Milankovitch loops were 100,000 years, yet during the start of the ice ages they were at 41,000 years and then halfway through they converted again to 100,000 year loops.

Click Here for a Smithsonian page about how they're looking at evidence about ice in Antarctica to see what may have caused this.

 Research is ongoing about what changed the astronomical events but I also ask what in the world could have caused the general changes about the ice ages.

 About Jupiter's influence on the Earth's weather to me the main smoking gun about this would just be that the tree rings are showing continuous loops of about 11 years with these records which is the period of the orbit of Jupiter and the sunspots. Solar radiation like light and heat has changed by 0.04% over the time we've been measuring it and yet the plants are continuing right on in 11 year events.. Jupiter must be influencing the plants somehow so we think that it may be influencing the weather and if it is then this may be a possible contributing cause of the ice ages by way of Jupiter and the Sun.

  I find it inconceivable that the tree rings wouldn't have continuous changes associated with Jupiter and the sunspots without some weather influence (perhaps neutrino influenced heating or magnetism) to change the rate of growth of the plants like with oxygen, radioactivity in the clouds, rates of lightning caused by this radioactivity, how much rain is falling on the Earth, combinations of these, or other causes.

If Jupiter is influencing radioactivity rates on the Earth in 11 year cycles, it seems possible it might influence it in unknown ways over geologic time and be a contributing cause of the radioactivity of the Earth. (Some elements will not be as changeable by the influence from the outside, so while most of the radioactivity out will be much the same, a considerable degree would be energised by the neutrinos. So as I'll say while this might allow us a possible way to control earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanos by reducing Jupiters influence on the Sun and cool the Earth like by a magnetic bubble shield between Jupiter and the Sun, it may only allow partial control over these events.)

 I don't think necessarily that the association between greenhouse gases and the changes of the glacial and the interglacial ages are a causal connection.

This is because when the Earth cools down the plants reduce their activity and they stop using carbon dioxide from the animals so there's more carbon dioxide and this then raises the temperature back up in a simple loop that keeps the temperature the same for millions of years by way of carbon dioxide. 

 There's not yet enough data to prove or disprove if there's been a general heating of the Earth with increase of the global warming.

   However I've read that there is evidence that when sun heats up and changes shorter term that Neptune and Mars having greenhouse gases also change their temperature somewhat with the solar flux. 

On this link Brave Browser we see that the changes in Neptune are actually caused by distance from the Sun and so the amount of solar radiation it receives and changes on Mars are not due to the greenhouse effect due to the thin atmosphere, and here too the changes are considerably much not caused by the greenhouse effect. 

  Both planets have a high percentage of carbon dioxide in their atmospheres however, and while of course the atmosphere of planets like Mars or Neptune are special, this short-term flux in the heating of the planets with changes in the solar radiation is a general prediction of my idea and also as we find out more about the weather history of the planets, a general rise in global warming with other planets like over the last hundred years 100 years from now as the Earth has been heating with the records if caused mostly by general change of the sun might be a prediction of this. For now there's not enough evidence to prove this about the other planets.

  Or at any rate there might be a general change in the magnetic field of the Sun during the ice ages found in the records left on the surfaces of the planets and moons compared to the time since then and also in the times before them.

 (While this is out of range of our sensors now this may be relatively easy to prove in the years ahead by a method I devised.. By this we may send small cheap starchips boosted by lasers to explore the solar system rapidly and find out what the planets tell us about long-term changes in the solar radiation including the magnetic or even radioactive events as it may have influenced their surface history. 

 As I say on my other posts, use of these small star chips would be by self-assembly in orbit around planets perhaps by using magnetic fields around each of them to unify into something like a 3D printer, then sending more ink by way of the lasers to print out drones. These would go down to the surface of the planet to find and retrieve samples if we also send fuel pellets by way of the lasers to power the drone. Then the drones would boost back up to orbit where we could also print out a laser to boost the samples back to us. 

 (This could even be useful to make a lot of money by finding the diamonds with the drones on planets like Saturn or Neptune! According to this NASA page It's believed that it's raining diamonds on both these planets  because there's lots of carbon and lots of pressure.)

 Finally we could use a magnetic net near the Earth to retrieve the diamonds with the small starships perhaps each carrying one diamond for lots of wealth... and science value.)

 In any event something must have caused the Earth to be much warmer before and after the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs to the time of the ice ages and now, and this might be no concern.  

Recent evidence supposedly has been found that the Gulf Stream (ocean flow) is changing and it might even reverse.

  If we look at how the Gulf Stream has increased or decreased only by how it then changes the biology would we know more about what these changes are and whether our influence is even the cause or not.

 Greenhouse gases are found on other planets like Neptune and Mars but the only sure changes with general rise and fall temperature may be when the sun heats up or cools down. While it's true Mars has a thin atmosphere, we would expect to get results by ratio according to the degree to which there's a large amount of carbon dioxide blended with other gases in the atmosphere.

The Influence of Dust on Global Weather not Greenhouse Gasses

While I believe that greenhouse gases may not have as much influence on the world's weather as outside modulation if it's found at any rate that the other planets just heat up or cool down with changes in the sun, I believe that like the Milankovich events, dust created by people may modulate the weather.

 If you look at a picture of the world at night and you see where the brightest lights are they're on the east coast to the United States. This means the most machines generating dust are also there more than anywhere else in the world and according to this site this is where the global cooling has shown the most change.

(On the link they say that the cooling of the East coast of the US maybe caused by more cloud cover in the tropical Pacific which then rotates up and around to the Northeastern and central US and back down to the E. Coast with also more cloud cover there which shields from the sunlight and cools the E Coast. 

I would think this isn't a causal link and this is because the jet stream may be held down by the dust which is a more powerful influence than just high pressure rising in the W. as with the droughts in the West. We might expect if there's more cloud cover in the Pacific like this there could be more cooling there too but there isn't.

Perhaps first the jet stream is influenced by the dust and this then carries over to the Pacific causing the clouds, and these then cause more influence to the East. We might be able to find evidence for this in how the energy of the force is transmitted from the east coast to the west by way of tension on the jet stream.

  The jet stream is powerful and whatever holds it down if it's strong enough is going to have a lot of influence on the world generally because the jet stream has a lot of energy..it's moving at hundreds of miles per hour and for example it's believed that if we can harness the power of the jet stream like with machines this will give us 400 times as much energy as we would need.)

 The dust is sticky and it's dragged down the jet stream as it's cooling because it shields from the sun and then the jet stream being a continuous loop all the way around the world changes much of the rest of the world's weather.   

 This also involves heating like in the west coast of the United States because if the jet stream is moved N by the tension it's actually centering around the E. coast of the United States for changing much of the rest of the world's weather.

 So if we would want to stop these weather events some way we would want to move the jet stream or remove the dust. Perhaps the best way would just be to shut down more of the machines or use solar power or the advent of fusion.

It's been found that the Milankovich cycles and levels of carbon dioxide don't correlate  as closely to the start of ice ages or the peaks of the glaciation nearly as much as the influence of large volcanic eruptions. These produce aerosols that cool down the planet.

Click Here for the link.

But what may have caused these volcanic eruptions to increase as the radioactivity of the Earth was generally decreasing might need another explanation itself and by this idea first the Jupiter impactor might have increased the number of neutrinos being emitted by the Sun by way of the reduced temperature increasing the solar neutrino influence and that in turn may have caused the radioactivity of the Earth to increase and with them the volcanoes and the ice ages.

Even so because of this, here I accept that neither CO2, dust, or astronomical events are the cause of the ice ages, even so this change in volcanism may be in need of improvement itself. If the Earth's volcanism is cooling down over geologic time from the start of the Earth then why did it then heat up to start the ice ages if the curve is generally lower and why has it stopped now for this interglacial age? 

Radioactivity would seem to influence these large volcanos and yet by continual cooling of the Earth this might seem to be without the outside influence of Jupiter. 

Outside influence of Jupiter if viable may be the cause of the solar neutrino cycle and since it may also influence volcanism, this may have value to us as I say below because we may be able to build shields that will help us to limit the influence of Jupiter causing either ice ages or global warming if so.

In addition to controlling global temperatures if we want, if the neutrino connection is viable this might also help us to control earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcano eruptions. The other events contributing to the ice ages will have their own percentage of the influence and so we might only be able to reduce these by a certain percentage but this might save a lot of lives and reduce these disasters.

According to this AI search page, "radioactive heating from the Earth is constant and shows no change over time (other than a gradual reduction since the start of the Earth)".. If the neutrinos are influencing the heat this might only be caused by overlapping the different radioactive elements of the Earth and so they might seem to have a smooth heat.

I would think a sudden eruption of a lot of large volcanoes with the Ice Age events might show (at any rate) a partial change of some sort about the radioactivity powering these volcanoes. 

 So far no evidence has been found for changes in the Earth's radioactivity at the beginning of the ice age, but as on this link not much research has yet been done about this. So the influence of radioactivity on global cooling is a possibility. Some evidence and some weather, is better than no weather!

 Whatever caused the Earth to be heating, we still have the need to defend against solar  events like the CMEs.. These are the giant solar plasmas that may wreak havoc on the power grid and it's been said that we're going to be clobbered if one hits us and we're overdue by historical evidence that was unknown before they built the power grid. So worldwide it may knock out both the power grid by resonance and the internet and 30 nuclear power plants at once if we get hit. (The diesel generators only have 30 days of backup power.)

SHIELDING FROM CME'S AND PERHAPS GLOBAL WARMING

 Some have proposed that we could stop global warming by putting a large light shade between the Earth and the Sun, and these plans have been improving by use of the material like carbon fibers so they're not so heavy or huge and so they might be somewhat cheaper.

Even so the engineering would be on a large scale and expensive.

Here I propose that we use a magnetic shield between Jupiter and the Sun to stop Jupiter's influence at the point when we might find a CME is beginning to form on the Sun, this might be most common at the time when the sun spots are at a maximum also.

 For this instead of using a heavy expensive optical shade as for global warming boosted far away I think instead we might be able to use a much simpler lighter cheap magnetic bubble between Jupiter and the Sun or to stop the CMEs a closer shield between the Earth and the Sun.

  Magnetic bubbles have been proposed to send space vehicles to different areas of the solar system or beyond by way of Einstein's idea of light having radiation pressure to power the sail.

  One good thing about magnetic bubbles is about how the further they get from the Sun the more they expand so it takes no more power to get more acceleration outward from the Sun.

This AI search page says that magnetic bubbles are being researched for shields around spacecraft to shield from solar radiation events. While the link says larger shields might not be as efficient because they need to be high energy enough to totally deflect the CME I think this might be solved by using more magnetic bubbles in an array, like how more small telescopes can be used for longer baseline astronomy.

 I believe that since it might have to be between the Sun and Jupiter where the Earth is when most of the CMEs would radiate out towards Jupiter with Earth between, this would only be the most probable time when they would hit the Earth, so we wouldn't have to pay for high payload cost to boost the shield far and so most of the time we could just keep it turned off.

By this the shield also wouldn't be like a large radio star in the sky which wouldn't be good for  radio astronomy or communications.

But because it radiates out with heating as the magnetic field of Jupiter is stronger, the bubble shield would also get stronger to counteract it more, saving a lot on cost and size of the shield.

  Indeed this might be a good way to counteract global warming itself if the idea that Jupiter is changing the weather is true since this might be much cheaper and simpler than an elaborate optical shade between the Earth and the Sun. It's partially powered by the outside magnetic field itself so it's cheaper.

  Jupiter is much further away from the Sun than the Earth and so if we intercepted the magnetic field and make the CME fizzle out before it reaches the Earth we wouldn't have to influence the plasma directly from Jupiter just between it so instead of it being influenced over light hours we would still have the half hour delay between the Sun and the Earth at the speed of light. 

 Also we would need good sensors like neutrino sensors to find out when the CME is about to start (neutrinos may give major advanced notice about events deep inside the sun because the solar storms spend quite a lot of time inside the Sun before they radiate out) and I think while we couldn't directly cancel it right away as it moves towards the Earth it would gradually fizzle out if we intercepted it with the shield.

 Solving another Ice Age in our future with a shield, which might also be used to boost Jupiter's influence on the Sun, would reduce the issues about how people can't move from their national boundaries like they did in the days before when there were no fences and the weather changed.

 On the other hand while these methods could be used to reduce global warming, I would say we wouldn't even want to use the shields to cool the Earth if global warming is actually caused by Jupiter's influence since the most natural way for the Earth would be generally warm like it was for 64 million years. Changing this would seem to be expensive and unnecessary.

 Perhaps we will find that if the Great Red Spot really is influencing the weather and fizzling away, it would seem the probability of another such large impact hitting Jupiter is small and because the last ice age was only 75,000 years and many of them were 100,000 or 250,000 years we may just be entering into another long-term period of mild weather like to 64 million years after the dinosaurs, and we may not have to do anything for the weather to stay like this indefinitely on into our future.

 While stopping CMEs may save us from the Ice Age if by Jupiter, changing the world's temperature by this method may not be advised because it may be putting too many eggs in one basket etc. Even so if the magnetic bubble shield was ever built it could easily be shut down unlike an optical shield or other methods that have been proposed like large amounts of sulfur aerosols added to the atmosphere or other methods like these.

  During some of the interglacial ages hippopotamuses were far north as England but we really may not want reindeer as far south as Spain. Certainly before putting up a shield for other than solving CMEs like for short-term use we might want to make especially sure that Jupiter's simple influence is causing global warming if we want to reduce it. 

 

  I imagine using one shield like this near the Earth first for more continual defense against the CMEs if needed, but also another one, or an array moving continuously around the sun with Jupiter as it moves to counteract global warming to "whatever degree!" we might use (this could also reduce the CMEs in general).   

 Because part of the magnetic field would make it past the bubble this would make it so it wouldn't remove all of the sunspot radiation events which may be valuable to life on Earth at any rate changing something perhaps like the oxygen rates in the air if the dendrochronology and the other evidence has value.

 Mostly counteracting global warming as I say might be expensive and possibly unnecessary.. if the world is indeed entering into a long-term interglacial age by natural events as Jupiter might be multiplying up its flux by the reduced damping from the impactor event or events that caused the Ice Age, a cheaper CME Shield would seem to be the best value. It seems possible that Jupiter could either increase or decrease the neutrino flux with its increase or decrease.

Even if neutrinos turn out not to cause volcanoes as much, I think another use of Starships might be to send them right into the sun and use small but high energy magnetic bubbles around them to shield from the magnetic field and also metamaterials of the right size to hopefully counteract a lot of the heat perhaps also with miniature Peltier cooling or magnetic cooling on the chip. We might not have to pay much for the return trip of the starchip after it moves into the Sun with the laser because the radiation pressure of the sun would then accelerate it outward at high speed to us..

One thing we can say about heat is that at short distance it doesn't take nearly so much cooling to keep it cool. This is like pressure which is force per unit area and you can get much more huge pressure if the area is really small. 

 So too it might not take huge amounts of heat to cool the starchip if we also either use the energy of the Sun or perhaps just a small nuclear boost on the starchip if it had enough shielding from the heat and using starchips like this may be valuable to research about the Sun more than even the neutrinos perhaps.

 

Here again for you is my post about reducing radioactivity which may also may be useful as a sensor to give us advance warning about CME events as has been noted. Here's a page (Interesting Engineering) about UsingNeutrinos for an Advanced CME Warning Method. A good neutrino sensor would enable us to know when to turn off the power grid and this might save us from the CME Adverse Events.

Here again is my post about why I think this  type of neutrino the anti e neutrino might be one possible explanation of recent global warming.

 Even so for longer-term changes I believe it's possible that the Jupiter impactor events might be a contributor to a considerable number of the ice ages events.

As promised, here's a my post about why I think relativity seems incomplete. Thanks for your science wit and wage to the world..