This page is for family members who may want to know how I was bragging to myself over a couple of ideas over the last few years but getting pretty much a bad reception from them over say, everything... If you are looking for my psychic method go here... EzPsi. I also have an FTP of the whole site at FTP EzPsi. I realize the psychic method thing may make you suspicious of the "ownership" of these ideas, but for the record they were mine.
The first is the physics idea though I admit I do not know if it is Linus Pauling or not. It concerns the physics of chemistry. I suggest there are no shells or orbitals only the simple geometry that the electrons should naturally gravitate to. What I mean is notice the almost "perfect" shapes etc., tetrahedron, cube(6), cube(8 = corners), 12-sided, 20-sided, etc. Look I don't have the right words or language for this, just what I remember from college chemistry and physics... The "perfect shapes" 4, 12, and 20-sided fall all along the alkaline earth metals. So lighten up on the next few sentences as I suggest the are no periods, shells or orbitals - JUST GEOMETRY. I plan to go buy a 20-sided and see if it has 38 corners, realizing that for a 12 sided the corners won't work because they aren't equidistant from the center of each pentagon and themselves with each corner the same distance from the nucleus. They are probably skewed at different temperatures due to some other factor. Some kind of energy existing in each molecule. ADD: I feel it is something kinetic yet related to what has been called the weak force of gravity (I personally don't believe it is weak.) So the idea is no shells, no orbitals, no periods, more like D & D dice of electrons... I have some other ideas but I got a bit carried away when I wrote them up so relax and don't worry about it.
The second idea was around the same time. It is a piece of cloth where you start with a flat weave grid and allow computer driven pixels to be either woven in or not woven in the piece. This way you create a pixelated photo-like weave in a grid of what would otherwise be flat weave. I realize or guess that the loom would fail too often to make this one practical. A variation on the picture idea was to weave at random using some factors creating a hopefully stronger product (like a rip-stop at random.) I posted this one some years ago on an outfit called Brigadoon that I guess as the name suggests went away for 200 years if not forever... ergh. It is in Usenet, barely linked to this name. To my family, hey, that's mine.
OK this is the latest variation on cloths that I know of... Bal 0.2: on one side of a loom pull the tines (?) out every other thread, so the cloth doesn't have 2 threads per each weft/weave (?) it just has every other thread at a different tension.
Some optics ideas, well an idea really that may generate some more... Are lenses prisms? You know how when you shine light through a prism the colors splay out - well, is that actually happening with normal lenses as well? Are the colors being distorted by the lens? (it's shape(s) and materials...) Would it be possible to correct the colors that came through the lens to a digital eye using some software and the correct math? Anyway, lenses may be prismatic. That's the basic idea. If they are, also, try to make lenses, like using a little feedback work, that have better function or clarity. The idea came from the Pink Floyd record cover. Just imagine placing a lens there. More here, virtual optics comes to mind... correct all the lenses so that the image is as if coming through virtually perfect lenses. This would have to be found but some knowledge of the lenses used and/or how normal lenses work and some sort of sampling or comparison of adjacent pixels may help. Further, could you skip using lenses at all, instead just manipulate the image using software?
Some non-physics ideas just to get them down, some are several years old (OK, this went poorly... giving credit I mean... OK, this still went badly...) This first idea needs some explanation, my brother and his wife have been doing something special with their young daughter and this entire concept got mentioned in a past year by candidate McCain (increasing human intelligence.) Due to the sending and the fact that we could have the entire corrected program sent down and that I would like to rope my brothers into it I felt I should put this idea down here, to kind of solidify it. But, you may have got upset that it sounded like I took credit for more than I meant to... credit FOR THE DEMONSTRATION, FOR THE INTRODUCTION probably goes to my brother's WIFE (an ex-special education teacher.) Credit for the actual research goes to the researchers (I thought obviously...) SO, using sending and research about education and human intelligence, send down (if we can't finagle it so it's already in) research to increase human intelligence. My observation of what my brother and his wife are doing, should let me solidify it and include it with the sending info. Allow me to PUT IT DOWN where it can be seen with sending info... OK? So here just to inject the idea and solidify the suggestion: a hypothesis that as children's brains grow, TEACHING and PLAYING well with them say during early growth or growth spurts for example will expand the connections within their brains in a biological way. Will build brain matter. I think it has to be kept up.
I spent some time asking myself why particles are spherical and I brought up the idea of gravity which I had heard some years before was a weak force... It seemed to me there could be gravity out as well as in. At first I thought gravity toward everything else - but I currently feel there may be what I call a sub-matter soup (dark matter had been mentioned.) So the particle forms at a certain radius or size from sub-matter with gravity out to the soup and in toward the particle. Atoms form as a set or sum or relationship of multiple particles, just that the nucleus is bigger and the electrons smaller. So the idea of one alone comes up, which may be a photon or a free electron.
So is gravity the only force involved, charge just being a way of "seeing" gravity. At the time (I had seen an IBM atom picture) I was thinking spheres because I was afraid I would have to learn about geometry and spheres and pi for example in a binary way, like there (matter existing) or not... Anyway a photon as a single particle, hydrogen as 2 particles, etc. Recently I thought about mass and the fact that I was taught the nucleus consisted of protons and neutrons. Since what I know about gravity depends on mass I wonder about the radii changing with the addition of another electron and the nucleus changing size to meet that (a nucleus blob of soup.) This would affect the overall geometry of molecules for example. Charge? Is Maxwell's a way of expressing the sum of gravity toward (into the point,) toward (out of the point) and everything else (sum of out in all directions.) The result I feel should appear to be perpendicular, a cross-product.
On the two particles, can two photons or free electrons get together at say the right distances and velocities and sort of cause a hydrogen atom to form? Like if you could collide or stick together 2 or more photons would they cause a nucleus to form and trap a passing free electron?
Here's something fun right now - I may have it all wacky but relax... do you think moment is actually spinning in 3d? Like it gets reduced to a plane perpendicular because that is the sum of a curve which "curls" up and around in 3d. So I am asking if moment is all perpendicular or just summed to that (all components.) I don't know if that matters if you are accurate enough but picture it spinning in 3d not just the perpendicular plane.
Just some thoughts about gravity. OK in some fluid could we spin 2 separate spheres some distance from each other and see what happens? Spin them both in the same direction or not - what I mean is, is the fluid getting spun away and leaving sort of space between which they will then move into. OK, so I guess you get the idea, can we go from there? Actually do some of this math I mean. See if some numbers make it come up like gravity. Let me mention something, what is the sum of possible spin directions, maybe keep that in mind it may be 45 degrees like you know or perpendicular or whatever - get it.
An idea mixing the particles and lenses... I was taught a little about diffraction in high school. Picture if you will that light is particle behavior. At slightly different velocities (I hope it isn't spins, but) the photons are actually different masses due to some gravity action at that speed. So in a prism, it is some kind of rate and gravity action that causes a change in output velocity and maybe mass corresponding. I would suggest seeing if the math comes out smooth. More here next day... I am not sure you get me. The lens is made up of molecules that are near each other according to their interior geometry. Like bonding, they fit together due to gravity and maybe charge due to the factors affecting each particle (electrons and nuclei.) So they act as if bonded by gravity and maybe charge between all particles present. For example solids fit together well and strongly while liquids have some play and gases are all play or don't really fit together at all. So the photons try to get through this group of molecules and change their velocities according to their gravity interactions with the molecules of the lens. I feel they may actually be at different speeds (OR SPINS) causing the idea of different frequencies of light. Worse even, gravity may depend upon speed so the photons have slightly different masses at different speeds and seeming frequencies. Just to mention, there would be an average or most common path that would end up corresponding to the diffraction.
Follow up to previous note: With the idea that an electron was a photon was a common single particle I wondered how many would be around in the universe, then the topic of flow of electrons came up. Sorry I don't have the right words but I thought about conductivity and wondered whether electrons were really flowing in a circuit or the atoms were all there and simply the grav interaction of electrons and nuclei en masse was what really happened in a circuit (bumper cars?) So this idea came up: when a radio signal travels through space does it change in shape and amplitude as it travels - and would it be possible to correct, even software synthed alone, the signal to get better range and reception. Sort of correct some sort of identifier signal then correct the data close enough. With the dynamo I was on this kick about gravity and charge and wondered whether gravity wasn't actually the only force in action, well and motion (sorry to be annoying but spin?) Like, when you power a dynamo are you using great amounts of power to basically go "that way" rather than though I admit I do not know the devices even and they may only draw what they use, instead powering it accurately like right scale component vectors. Would it run smoother even maybe? (steppers, hard drives) If I knew the devices would it draw only what it needed? Then think about acceleration and things like heat causing trouble - but the concept was a motor powered by a signal or in the range of very smartly designed devices.
signal changes as being received like conduct - molecule(s), electrons move differently than transmit
so: signal -> "AIR" -> receive
TRANSLATE signal at target
* actually at same time
probably weak(er) AND DIFFERENT
so again, TRANSLATE
? fast math
? may have to CALIBRATE rcv
? use only most "obvious" for bin/digi signal
Some fun from a few years back... animals and babies/children may have different hearing than adults, alter some sound and music to fit children and animals. OK, so I had this physics book some years back that had all sorts or human measurements, and I can just see myself saying we could simply harvest dead baby ears... that may not go over too well. So I would pitch it maybe only to musicians or do this instead, but not with bad intent... use harmless brain monitors and attempt to approach more brain active baby music or IF YOU HAVE THEM ALREADY, get human measurements for some more legitimate purpose like safety (ergh, this sounds pretty bad - normally I would laugh a little but my brothers have young children now and it probably wasn't funny anyway.) Sing along though if you can. Maybe acceptable to adults too - MAYBE. Someone came around and mentioned pitch is slope - so for example babies brains may function only so quickly, you may be able to step them up according to size and level. Much math? Maybe also spatial. And patter. And some singing. Insert: You know that show Teletubbies? I would like to pitch it/to it/for it as a place for some baby music, sounds and singing. Maybe in 5.1. I honestly feel it will be slowed down, but you could get some harmless brain activity maps. I don't always want to put them to sleep. Can I pitch a conversion program with ranges - tweakable. Convert to sheet music too? The joke: a cat singer that sings cat live. Somebody actually do this then look back and teach us to talk to animals.
More sound: Spatial: not using headphones yet, go ahead and create virtual mic/speaker points in space, do the physics of each point in the player so it fits the reference spatial model. You may be able to use only one speaker. Perhaps you can produce digitally. (Maybe correct.) More sound go ahead and standardize a/d and d/a and/or go ahead and correct digitally from front of mic to front of speaker - maybe try for below human noise. Combine all that. Maybe get a reference stereo or a decent digital box. I had a bullet speaker, but it is kind of weird. I feel headphones may be "useable" if you scale up the objects and understand they may be "fuzzy" that's all.
10182016 OK what I meant to say was: Make the power supply to a dynamo more accurate (sorry that SOUNDS easy/simple.) OH wow this document got a bit loose. MY NOTES (I see you somewhat, but these are just demented NOTES, relax,) so keep going... do you build something, then map it (calibrate,) THEN send back the math/ideas so you can build something that "responds?"