Monday, November 14, 2016

Intelligent design theory does not have to destroy Darwin's theory of evolution. In a universe of pure probability why do plants and animals (Life) have instincts to both survive and reproduce?

I am figuring out why life reproduces or even bothers to try and survive in a universe of pure probability. The present explanation is it does not have to survive or reproduce but it does because it has some kind of overwhelming cosmic intelligence guiding it. We humans use micro organisms both flora and fauna as factories to create beneficial chemical reactions like brewing beer and distilling the alcohol from it. Nature does the same but for what reason? to create calciu...m carbonate mountains and coal seams ? yes. It all comes down to an intelligence communicated via electro magnetism and via photons which is damn strange science. There is no reason. Survival of the fittest , evolution to benefit species for better survival and endless reproduction for what reason exactly. we know the how but the why is non existent. We humans as a species unlike all the rest refine elements to near purity out of our environment including gold, silver, mercury, iron .aluminum , titanium etc that maybe what we leave after we are all part of some sedimentary layer in the earth in the distant future. we were all born to have an iron age , a bronze age, a steel age and titanium age etc in the geological scheme of things, we maybe cosmic intelligence's machine for some higher purpose in the long run.

All animals and plants leave behind after many generations are layers of sediments that pile one on top of another. various space rocks, comets, asteroids and small moons can have layers of what could be sediments that are seemingly mostly geological strata. It tends to be about rounding future planets in a process which is probability lowering and raising everything to the common denominator of the force of gravity. small moons that have strata appear to be broken parts of larger objects. Centrifugal force/ Centripetal also create variance in strata according to center of gravity , mass density an other factors. The reason may just all be part of a larger process in the cosmos we don't understand partly because we are egotistical as a species and see our thought , understanding and action as about us and not something incredibly dull like star building or something else.

This all makes more sense when you revisit my theory that says that photons have no mass and transmit no energy though space and that photons are merely misguided electromagnetic communications from with in mater that still have communicative powers with out actually transmitting any energy.  That goes to the same theory of cosmic semantics and communications that are in everything.  You can find that material on this blog and others I have created on blogger.com if you want to know about the new laws of physics.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

The speed of light is constant as measured by what exactly?

Say we live in a part of the cosmos where the underlying velocity of everything maybe over 800,000 meters per second that is moving relative to  well, we are not exactly sure.  Nothing is stationary. As Newton said objects in motion will stay in motion that is assured but even objects at rest are moving we actually know of none that are stationary.  Lets suppose the notion of neutrinos is really that of something standings still that everything in motion can interact with .  I would certainly not call anything a neutrino but I use  the word because supposedly they can be indirectly detected so they might as well be some ultra fine particle that is actually immobile as some kind of imaginary point of reference.  The speed of light has been given the name constant which is really to say it might as well be what is standing still relative to everything else but only sort of.  This is nonsense of course. Photons are moving much faster as we have done many measurements to assign the constant as a number. It has been tested and retested.  Now that we know that photons transmit no energy but only transmit code and that this code interacts with the underlying momentum via velocity of any object working as a detection instrument  the constant maybe more variable for the speed of light  because the code may not express it's message the same way when there are major changes in momentum.  It is from the dark momentum energy that a collision of objects can cause a powerful vaporizing explosion that photons interact with essentially to slow down or stop a subatomic particle thus boosting its angular momentum.  It is something like an elastic bounce.  totally new kind of relativity and the question then becomes does light or photons themselves have variable measurable speed  of light or expression.  The answer maybe the usual no but don't be so sure.  It seems we maybe able to transpose the tone or the octaves of the entire spectrum if the underlying velocity/ momentum of objects is variable.  Now as I dismiss red shift of photons as nonsense here is a way to undermine my perception and actually make that possible.  It has more to do with the detection interface of mater than the photons however.  Our detectors are moving at the cosmic rate that we move at and they could be elsewhere in the universe with an entirely different level of velocity relative to our own and possibly to some fractional extent of the speed of light.  I know my semantics of physics fails badly here.  The point is to go back to my articles that show that light is only code transmitted from electromagnetic disturbances that  are essentially failed communications with in mater.  We humans utilize this phenomenon now to do our own wireless communications. That is not nature's use so far as we know all photons traveling though space are accidents.  Radiation happens because within a material medium where electo magnetic forces are present the radiation allows communication between particles and atoms to bring those together that are necessary in various reactions.  If we have a brine where crystals are forming we can have different kinds of chemicals becoming different types of crystals in the same brine bath.  the sorting process is exactly because dark photons radiate though sending messages of what is where and how  or otherwise the crystals observed would not form.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Carbon is about to destroy your life and the planet? take the carbon quiz and find out.

Take the Atmospheric Carbon Quiz? See How Smart You Are. So You Say You Believe In Global Warming ? OK Lets See What You Really know.
Take the Atmospheric Carbon Quiz? See How Smart You Are You Say You Believe in Global Warming ? OK, Take the Quiz and Find Out What You Really Know About Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's Atmosphere. Get All Questions Right and Win a Noble Peace Prize Lex Loeb Contributor Network . This is exercises is not about global warming or climate change. It is about basic scientific facts about earth's atmosphere. The quiz is really simple and multiple choice. Just pick the best choice per question and then go to the end of the article to see the correct answers. You must get all of the answers right to win a Nobel peace prize otherwise you fail the quiz. If you fail the quiz then you might want to brush up on your science studies. These questions are multiple choice. Pick the answer to each question that is closest to the scientific fact or to estimated and abbreviated numbers: . . . . . . . . . . . . The Atmospheric Carbon Quiz: Question 1: Most of the volume of air is made of what? (A) Carbon Dioxide. (B) Oxygen. (C) Pollution. (D) Empty Space. Question 2: How much gas is in earth's air around sea level compared to an equal volume of liquid water? (A) 5 percent (B) Half (C) 1/800th (D) none Question 3: Approximately how much does a cubic foot of air weigh at sea level on earth? (A) 1/2 pound (B) 0.10 pounds (C) One ATM (D) 0.075 pounds Question 4: Which weighs more? Hot air or Cold air? A. Cold Air B. Hot Air C. Both weigh the same amount. 5. What is the most prevalent gas in the atmosphere? (A) Oxygen. (B) Carbon Monoxide (C) Carbon Dioxide (D) Nitrogen (E) Xenon (F) Methane 6. What percentage of The Earth's atmosphere in parts per million per dry volume is Carbon dioxide? (A) 20.95 % (B) 78.08 % (C) 4.0 % (D) 0.00005 % (E) 0.0387% 7. What percentage of the earth's atmosphere ,in parts per million, is 10,000 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide (enough to start being toxic to people an animals)? (A) 50% (B) 1% (C) 0.05% (D) 10% (E) 37.7% 8. Which Gas constituent atom has the greatest relative atomic mass? (A) Carbon. (B) Nitrogen. (C) Oxygen. 9. Does Carbon Dioxide in earth's atmosphere React in normal earth conditions with other gases or water vapor in the atmosphere or act as a catalyst? (A) yes. (B) no it is generally very stable as a gas molecule. 10. At the present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and all other carbon gases put together which best describes the concentration in parts per 10,000 per volume? (A) 1 in ten thousand parts (B) more than 279 in ten thousand parts (C) 12 in ten thousand parts (D) less than 4 in ten thousand parts 11. If the amount of Carbon doubles in the atmosphere in the next 50 years because of out of control industrial growth what would be the maximum amount of carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million per volume? (A)10,000 parts per million per volume (B)90,000 parts per million per volume (C)776 parts per million per volume (D)3000 parts per million per volume. 13. Are there renegade scientists who believe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is getting dangerously low to support the earth's photosynthetic plant life on land because prehistoric times had much much larger amounts of atmospheric and dissolved carbon in the oceans? (A) Yes (B) No 14. Is it possible for gases to escape from frozen ice or to enter frozen ice the way old mildew tasting ice from your home refrigerator freezer tastes when left in the freezer too long? (A) Yes (B) No 15. Is it possible for a gas to suck up heat from the atmosphere and discharge the heat into the cold night air or up at higher elevations into outer space sort of the way an air conditioner cooler works by retaining the heat long enough to transfer it away from hotter areas? Is methane a heat sink gas that can be used in cooling systems? (A) Yes (B) No 16. What happens when a gas is heated? (A) It rises (B) It gains kinetic energy and moves at a more rapid speed in the atmosphere. (C) most gases with possible exception of water vapor clouds that have dust seeds tend to take an amorphous diffusion though the atmosphere. (D) All of the above. 17. How does a gas in the atmosphere make objects on the ground and the surface of the ocean hot? (A) They bump into those objects transferring kinetic energy of motion. (B) They radiate infrared and other types of electromagnetic waves into empty space that get absorbed by material objects that retain that heat energy. (C) It really does not mater how much heat is retained by the relatively rarefied gases in the atmosphere because the sun rays hitting the physical surface of earth is many times more efficient as direct exposure. This direct exposure makes surfaces hotter than secondary re-radiation of solar energy from gases in the atmosphere. (D)There is evidence that the earth's surface warms the atmosphere perhaps more efficiently than a relatively diffuse atmosphere can warm the earth's surface. (E) All or any of the above. 18. If it were true that Mars could be made habitable for life from earth by pumping carbon dioxide and other gases into it's diffuse existing atmosphere would that atmosphere need to have more atmospheric pressure than the earth's to be effective especially if Mars does not have sufficient ocean equivalents of surface liquid water? (A) Yes (B) No 19. Which of the following conditions will make an actual greenhouse with flowers growing in side of it cooler? (A) painting the floor of the greenhouse black. (B) Sealing the greenhouse so out door air can't get in. (C)taking the windows out so the open atmosphere and pumping in carbon dioxide to replace the effects of the window panes. (D) increasing the sun's exposure on the greenhouse by having mirrors around it reflect more light in. 20. Scientists say that if you have a methane gas stove in your kitchen and no way to light the gas so it burns you can still cook with it if you expose it to sun light because methane gas can absorb 22-25 times the energy of carbon dioxide exposed to solar energy and retain it longer. (A) True (B) False 21. Polar bears survived the ice age and as a consequence they also survived the greatest melting of ice in the last 30-40 thousand years. (A) True (B) False 22. If a group of scientists predict that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to cause temperatures to rise on earth and data is collected that shows their thesis may be wrong, which of these answers should they not be. (A) A bit skeptical of their hypothesis and their conclusions. (B) somewhat skeptical (C) Angry that the data does not conform to their advanced training and logic. (D) Feeling like they may have made a mistake or entered some wrong assumptions in the way they generated the original thesis. 23. The ancient Maya thought that if they sacrificed human being to gods that control the weather and ate parts of their sacrificial victims that they would get more than enough rain needed to grow luxuriant crops needed to maintain large populations. If the Maya were right about the world ending in 2012 then they must have been good at predicting the weather with the magic of human sacrifice rituals? (A) True (B) False 24. In the prehistoric times sea levels on earth have been as much as 300 to 500 ft higher than they are today and 300 to 500 feet lower than they are today? (A) true (B) false _____________________________________________________________________________ Answers: (warning you are the genius tell me if I have a typo or got any wrong )use these answers to cheat with if necessary: 1=D 2=C 3=D 4=A 5=D 6=E 7=B 8=B 9=B 10=D 11=C 12=unlucky 13=A 14=A 15=A 16=D 17=E 18=A 19=D 20=B 21=A 22=C 23=B 24=A . Close

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

So if photons really are just code and nothing more than.....ok I can actually control your mind.

http://mindxxxcontrol.blogspot.com/

The Inverse of the Inverse Square Law proves that photons carry no mass and no energy but only code.

Looking for the proof I needed it was not hard to find.  If God created photons why and what would be the purpose of having them radiate from a source if the purpose of having photons was to transmit energy?  If God had that intention he would have invented something better than the laser.  It would be the inverse of the inverse square law .  It would concentrate photons rather than radiate them into space and concentrate them at a point identical to the source from which they came.  The same would be true of the other inverse square law phenomena which I think are just limited to photons, gravity and magnetism.    The suggestion that all three of these obey the inverse square law implies something about all of these.  All come from a source that has mass but all three have no mass, and none of them actually transmit energy though space in spite of the apparent illusions.  Any implications that any of them have properties of waves or frequencies are according to remote detectors made of mater even if they should have counteractive properties.   



<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

As for infrared detection ....infrared radiation is a signature of something that was hotter before shedding those infrared photons as detected.   There might be no reason to believe an object that had had excess infrared energy is necessarily still hot without them.  The curious thing about infrared radiation is that what ever has shed them apparently has no need for the excess 'Heat'.  If it was not excess than they would not be radiated or re-radiated but retained as some form of internal kinetic energy?   That assists in creating the proof that photons do not actually transmit energy that is a property of themselves nor provide a carriage for transporting it.   The idea of semantics of photons as pure code wins again.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Changing The Basic Metric/ Constant Of The Cosmos From The Speed of Light to Momentum.

Maybe the speed of light is irrelevant?  Einstein wanted to make the speed of light the basic metric for the entire universe.  That was because of it's consistency as a measured constant .  Light has to be detected for the speed of light to be measured and that takes mater of variable forms across the electro magnetic spectrum.  My discovery that photons actually don't transmit energy though space but are code as in messages being sent that have 'semantic' properties across the spectrum and periodic table and that light neither has properties of wave nor frequencies since those are properties of the material indicators from material detectors leads to all new conclusions.  The first problem was trying to figure out where the subatomic angular momentum push comes from  if no energy is transmitted by the photon though empty space.  That led to the quick realization that momentum as all mater is in motion or relative motion due to the rest of the objects in the cosmos being in motion.  Einstein thought that a person in free fall would not feel any sensation of falling as such and that is the same thing as being on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy all moving at more than 30 thousand meters per second relative to other objects out there in the universe. 

Should our planet suddenly crash into any object just sitting still it would become as annihilated as all or part of the earth in that collision.  We don't feel that energy or even know it exists. It is like sitting on top of a dam just before the dam breaks....just floating on a lake not knowing we have all that potential energy to go into a free fall. On a rocket ship the astronauts may not even realize they are in forward motion until they collide with something that makes a gaping hole in  the space craft or totally blows it up in the collision.  It is thus "dark energy",  imperceptible  except in the instance of a collision of some sort.  That's momentum and at the subatomic level it may just be this invisible energy of momentum that photons release as they deliver their code to atoms and their subatomic particles on collision.  So it thus says the speed of light is irrelevant.  The coding sent in photons was meant for instantaneous communications between atoms or molecules where they originated not for deep space travel which is why they might as well be seen as instantaneous  just distended possibly over billions of years.  It is the interface of the detection mater where the photon is detected and the energy detected is most likely (it becomes more obviously the proof of it when you go on thinking about it) because of the dark energy of momentum which is what happens at the photon collision level.  That says the interaction of code and energy is already part and parcel of the mater and not incoming from space as some component of a photon.  My radiometer proof clearly shows photons can't have mass.  I only recently discovered they also have no energy either.  It is just a frame of reference error an illusion that we think photons transmit energy.

Momentum of objects in space is then obviously the basic metric and constant  of photonic energy release.  Almost everyone agrees that virtually everything in space is in motion.  Does that mean that light or photons can slow down mater?  Ah , yes to a very small degree.  The idea of the force of light is actually the opposite.  Moving on to astronomy we have ideas that we are observing a universe that is expanding and now one expanding and never slowing down.  You can retest theories like that with the photon data to decide  from a momentum perspective instead of the speed of light analogy.  Much of mater we observe in the universe is at one with the universe by virtue that it is part of a system of momentum such as the earth sharing the basic momentum of the sun and the rest of the solar system. it promotes an order that prevents chaos of solar system objects crashing into each other very often.  Things out of step with this momentum in the vicinity are a hazard to themselves and to the rest of the solar system.  Not one with the universe.  The next thing to think about with the dark energy of momentum is how it relates to nuclear physics as it just might and thinking of the dynamic collisions that might help lead to the right conditions that build heavy unstable radioactive atoms.