--signal, and wave clipping/degradation( why we see colors)--

    if a wave is seen as a rainbow, as it travels, with the different frequencies of the wave stacked, one on top of the other, then we can see, that when this signal, or wave, encounters a medium that is vibrating, at the same frequency, as just one part of the wave, that part of the wave is thus deflected, or degraded, per medium encountered...canceling, or "clipping", that part of the wave--


 example:

    colors..."r.o.y.g.b.i.v"

    i believe the reason we have color, is due to the object that the full-spectrum of light is hitting, is vibrating at the same frequency as part of the full-spectrum wave hitting it, thus "canceling", or deflecting, that part of it--

   so, when we see blue, the object is vibrating at the right harmonics to deflect, "clip", or "cancel" blue, from different objects( all things), having different "molecular harmonics"( see "molecular harmonics" post), due to variations in their molecular structure, and temp--

   if a full spectrum color wave, encounters one medium, vibrating at one part of that waves frequency, "canceling", or deflecting it( blue), then travels farther, and encounters another medium, that "cancels", or deflects, a different frequency of the wave( red), we then see, the two deflected waves traveling together, back to us... as purple--

   i think a proof for these concepts( "wave clipping", and "molecular harmonics"), can be seen in daily life already, every auto mechanic knows that the color of metal changes when heated( a bolt perhaps??), but, i suggest that as the bolt is heated, the reason it's color changes, is due to it's number of collisions per-second increasing( "molecular harmonics")...

    explaining exactly why, the color of metal changes from being heated, and showing that color is in fact dependent, on the number of collisions per-second( "molecular harmonics"), of an object a person is viewing--

best wishes, john kruschke--

  (cs)

--photosynthasis--

the skinny--

  trees send water to their leafs, via the "water veins" of the tree, from the root...the veins in the roots( "water canals"), hydrate the "solar fields"(areas between the veins of the leafs), so the suns rays will dehydrate the moist chlorophyll there, release "o2", and absorb the "c" from "co2"( chlorophyll is "ch2o")...

    so,  "c" is pulled from the air, around the leaf, leaving "o2", after "h2o" evaporates, and releases "o2", leaving "ch"..."ch" is then taken into the tree, to make more tree, thus, a tree's trunk, is composed of carbon, and hydrogen--


"02" production--

   i suggest that a tree produces o2, by removing the "c" in carbon dioxide( "co2"), from the outside air, and releasing the "o2", from "h2o", via evaporation, on the surface of the leaf, which is engorged with chlorophyll( "ch2o"...chlorophyll, before evaporation)...meaning, the "c"( carbon), in chlorophyll( "cho2"), absorbs "co2"...since carbon alone does this...after the "o2" from "h2o", is evaporated from it...leaving "ch2o", since the leaf still has some moisture, yet the leaf has lost some, in the convection/evaporation process, of chlorophyll...basically, i suggest that carbon tends to move, and bond, to a like substance...another carbon molecule...and "co2" has a carbon molecule in it, so, "c" bonds to the "c", in "ch2o"( chlorophyll), and it releases the "02", in "ch2o"...but not all of it...and i believe this is the reason why, wood is mostly comprised of "h"( hydrogen), and "c"( carbon), in the tree's trunk, and branches...


summary--

    the way i feel a tree produces "o2", is that "c" is removed( pulled), from the air, via absorbing "co2"), to make "ch", after the sun evaporates "h2o", from "ch2o", thus separating the "o2" from "h2o"...and the "02" from "co2"

   --a tree makes "o2" two ways, and they look good doing it--


best wishes, john kruschke--

  (cs)

--exponential geo-sync degredation forces--

   i saw something on tv today...a russian bird came home...
very rare, and making quite an impact--

  some math to predict when to put out the "bird-feeder"--


the heart of the matter--

    well...when a bird( satellite/craft), is in geo-sync orbit, there is neither force pulling it
to earth, or force throwing it away, the foot-pounds are 0, coming, or going--

an epiffany--

   this concept shows why trying to force objects, or satellites, to fly a flight-path that is wrong for their weight, does not work( they come home early), thus objects that are too light, would orbit in a geo-sync path, that is too close to the atmosphere, and they burn-up...a lighter satellite might need the correct amount of ballast, added to it's total weight, to keep it from coming home( using "distance-to-geo-sync" math, to calc the amount of weight to add)--

   also, i might suggest, that for each pound of weight, that is put on the international space station, the more ballast must be removed( to maintain geo-sync orbit, and "fly" in the range desired), or, the distance from the earth must be increased( due to a heavier bird), to "fly" at the proper geo-sync distance, and prevent a "bird-feeder visitation moment", from arriving unpleasantly--

calcing hours/min/seconds to bird-feeder--

   i suggest, that if the orbit of a 2 ton object, degrades 1 foot, then it has one pound of thrust, pulling it towards earth, i calculate there would be 114.9cm traveled towards the earth, the first minute...then the numbers would have to be re-crunched again, because the pull is "exponential", (1 foot-pound of pull, added per-foot out of geo-sync orbit), 60 re-calc's in an hour, ect...until touchdown number is crunched-out...

  --( the math for this calc, is to be found on the "distance to geo-sync" post)--


another way to crunch the numbers--

      114.9 seems like a very fine point being put on the problem, but, not enough, as both the problem, and the "margin of error", are "exponential"...here is as fine a point, as i can put on the problem( i want "wil-e-coyote" to be able to put out the bird feeder, the very moment before the feeder has a visitor)--

      --( here are the not-so rough numbers to crunch this one)--

  geo-sync degradation calc--

 ( foot-pounds)       ( lbs)            ( feet)
     (  force)   -      ( weight)  =  ( distance)
         1         -        2000     =    -1999

  as the number is a negative number, convert feet to meters( the system they use "on the other side of the pond")-- 

   feet to meters calc--

  ( feet) x 0.3048 = ( meters)

    ( feet)                           ( meters)
  -1900    x   0.3048  =   -609.2952

  calc for meters to decimeters  =  bang the decimal over, 1 spot to the left--  ( left, due to number)
                                                                                                                       ( being negative)

  calc for meters to decimeters--

      ( meters)             ( decimeters)
    -609.2952   =      -60.92952

  calc for decimeters to centimeters = bang the decimal over 1 spot, to the left again--


  calc for decimeters to centimeters--

    ( decimeters)             ( centimeters)           
    -60.92952       =       -6.092952                       

     the number is still a negative, the calc must go to mm--


    centimeters to millimeters calc--

   ( centimeters)    =        ( millimeters)            ( this gets us back to a whole # )
    -6.092952               - .6092952      or       + 0.6092952 mm per-second     
       

note--

   if the value is still negative we may need to go to "micro-meters"...in this case, once all the numbers in the value are on the right side of the "decimal point", we can consider the value to be "positive"...and no longer a "negative number"--


millimeters to micrometers calculation--

(millimeters)  =  (micrometers)
 -.6092952            609.2952


note--

  as we can see above, i have purposely moved the "decimal points" in the inverse direction of the traditional manner, each time i reduced the increments of measurement, that i converted the values to, this was done to move the "negative value", to a "positive value", in an equal way( "congruent"), i am aware that the numbers would normally increase, deeper into the "negative values", each time the unit of measurement gets smaller, but, this is new math, so, i am "scrapping" some "math traditions", in "the name of progress" here, the point is, that an "inch-pound" is less than 1 full pound, and in this regard, the value is "negative", or, "off the scale"...meaning, that i suggest we may view each conversion to the next smaller system of measurement, as one "decimal place" moved to the left, closer to a "positive value", instead of to the right, further into the negative values( in the traditional manner)--

  this completes the first calc...happy-time :o) Dancing is permitted, depending on venue--

note--

  we may now add 609.2952 micrometers, to the next calc's "exponent"...if we choose to proceed with micrometers--


the values(calculation-1)--

1 foot = 30.48 cm
1 foot = 304.800 mm


the skinny--

millimeters per-second object moves, after force is applied, x 60 = "total movement per-minute"( if force was not "exponential")...


the idea is to see how long it takes, to reach 1 foot, and then re-calculate( and add one more "foot-pound of force", to the previous amount of "foot-pounds of force")--


note--

if it takes less than one minute( sixty seconds), to reach one foot, then adjust seconds to less that sixty...to calc "seconds to one foot", divide "millimeter per-second" by the "re-calculated time", and then add each "re-calculated distance", and seconds, together...to get the problem "crunched out"--


geo-sync degradation calculation (continued)--

   multiply 0.609252 mm by 60, to get "millimeter per-minute"--

(millimeter per-second)  x  (seconds) =  (millimeter per-minute)
        0.609252                          60                36.55512


note--

"1 foot = 304.800 mm"


calc continued--

304.800  %  36.55512 mm per-min = 8.33093 minutes to 1 foot( if motion was a constant)--


  --(the amount of time to reach one foot is needed, in case one foot is reached before one minute has passed...the point is, to calc until one foot is reached, in one minute)--

--it takes longer than 1 minute to reach 1 foot--


note--

   if millimeters per-minute is greater than one foot, in distance...calc for the number of seconds it takes, to reach 1 foot( in millimeters)--

( 1 foot in millimeters)  +  (millimeters per-second)  =  (seconds to 1 foot) 
        304.800                            0.609252                              500.2856

re-phrase terms--

(millimeters per-second)  x  ( seconds to 1 foot)  =  (1 foot in millimeters)
    0.609252                               500.2856                       304.800









from this point, i have completed this calc in my book, i will revisit this post soon..john kruschke--
________________________________________________________________________________

   1 foot  =    30.48 cm
   1 foot  =  304.800 mm

the skinny--

    mm per-second object moves after force is applied, x 60 = total movement per-minute( if force was not exponential)...the idea is to see how long it takes to reach 1 foot, then re-calc( add 1 more foot-pound of force to the previous amount of foot-pounds of force)--

note--

   if it takes less than one minute( 60 seconds),  to reach 1 foot, then adjust seconds to less than 60... to calc seconds to 1 foot, divide mm per-sec by( re-calc time), then add each re-calc distance, and seconds, together...to get the problem crunched out--
  
 --( the amount of time to reach one foot is needed, in case 1 foot is reached before 1 minute has passed)--

  multiply 6.09252 x 60 to get mm per-min--

    (mm per sec)      (sec)
      6.09252       x    60   =   365.5512 mm per-min

       (1 foot)       =     304.800 mm

       mm per-min is greater than 1 foot... calc for number of seconds it takes to reach 1 foot--
    
       calc for seconds to 1 foot--

      divide1 foot in mm( 304.800), by the "mm per-second"( 6.09252), to get the seconds it takes to reach 1 foot( in mm)--

      ( 1 foot in mm)        ( mm per-sec)           ( seconds to 1 foot)
           304.800      %      6.09252        =           50.02856 

      ( mm per-sec)        ( seconds to 1 foot)         ( 1 foot in mm)
         6.09252       x          50.02856            =       304.800

  ( mm per-sec)      ( mm traveled)    ( does total mm traveled almost = 1 foot in mm)
  6.09252 x 50  =     304.626       304.626( mm traveled)  =  304.800 ( 1 foot in mm)-- ( acceptable)

      info to add to next calc--

       add 304.626( mm traveled) to the next "mm traveled" value from the next calc, to get the "total mm traveled" from all calcs--

      add the seconds to reach 1 foot, from each calc, to the seconds of the next calc, to get the total seconds to "bird-feeder"--
     
       re-calc--                                                           

        2   -     2000   =    -1998

       -1998 x 0.0348  =   -69.5304( meters)

         ( meters)          ( millimeters)
        -69.5304   =     +6.95304

  this re-calc process continues( ad nauseum), for about 333 calcs( feet), at this point, 1 foot is reached in 1 second-- this means we can add 1 foot, and 1 foot-pound, per second, there-after--

   333  -  2000  =  -1666

   5.077969 mm per-sec

   5.07796 mm per-sec x 60 seconds = 304.6776mm, compared to 1 foot( 304.800mm)...acceptable--


    next calc--

      5.07796  x  the remaining 1665 feet to bird-feeder  =  8454.80434  ( sec to bird-feeder)

     8454.80434 ( sec to bird-feeder)   %  60  =   140.91339 ( min to bird-feeder)

      140.91339 ( min to bird-feeder)   %   60  =   2.34855  ( hours to bird-feeder)


       rough estimate from first 333 calcs--

      it took about 50 seconds per-calc to reach 1 foot--
      50 x 333 = 166650 seconds--
      166650  %  60  =  277.5  min
       277.5  5  60  =  4.625    hours

      add 4.625 hours, from first calc, to 2.34855 hours, from second calc  = 6.97355  hours to "bird-feeder"

conclusion--

      this suggests to me, that a satellite that weighs 20,000 pounds, flys at 333 feet above the
  atmosphere...

   taking the problem from mind numbing, in the beginning of the calc, to a comparative "no-brain-er"...
  --in an instant--
____________________________________________________________________________

the material below needs more work...but not today--  :o(
    
 
   5.07 x the remaining distance = total seconds...
   total seconds % 60 = min








    
   having fun with decimal points...  it seems the easy way was close( i lost that math, scribbled over it)--

    decimal putting procedure( bang decimal over left/right)--

    example--

      6.09 divided by 30.48=5.3  ( bang the decimal points over on both numbers being crunched, and proceed)...

    example--

      6.09 % 30.48 can be crunched as--    609.0 % 3048.0 = 5.3--   ("easy money")

 --time, and care, taken while deploying the decimal putting procedure, improves "short-game"...exponentially--

     --procedures to deploy if seconds to 1 foot are less than 1 second( nano-seconds)--
    example--





  re-calc continued--
    by adding together, how long it takes in seconds to reach 1 foot, after re-calcing for new foot-pounds value( 1 more foot-pound is added, after 1 more foot is reached, above the value of the distance of the previous "geo-sync degradation calc")...the total seconds of"geo-sync degradation process" can be known--
continue re-calcs...until bird feeder has a visitor--
















   as numbers get bigger, bang the decimal over 1 to change up to decimeters, then to meters, ect...
possibly re-calc back to feet(from the metric system)--

  out of time again at the library-- also, missing a page out of my note-book again..making things difficult...best wishes,  john kruschke--
  --this one is crunched, but needs  the nano-second calc stuff, and some tidying up...i will work on this one tomorrow--

--distance to geo-sync--

    i have been meaning to post this one, for a looong time, but the time was not right, until now...


    distance to geo-sync--


     (pounds)       (foot-pounds)               (feet)
     (weight)   -        (force)          =      (distance)
      2000      -         1900           =          100



  interposed distance to geo-sync--

   (pounds)          (feet)            (foot-pounds)
   (weight)    -  (distance)  =         (force)
     2000      -      100       =          1900


  distance to geo-sync inverted--

      (feet)            (foot-pounds)           (pounds)
  (distance)   +        (force)          =      (weight)
      100        +        1900            =        2000
 

   distance to geo-sync w/drag--


      (pounds)       (pounds % sq inches)    (foot-pounds)       (distance)
      (weight)   +   (weight % sq inches)  -      (force)        =      (feet)
       2000      +     2000 % 2000  = 1   -      1900          =        99


    distance to geo-sync for use within the atmosphere--

     some folks may have noticed, that there seems to be a "glitch", in "distance to geo-sync"... if you use different combinations of variables...here is the calc for objects within the atmosphere that are not in geo-sync in space( the lateral forces are a bit different than in space)--

    interposed distance to geo-sync--

       (pounds)          (feet)            (foot-pounds)
       (weight)   -   (distance)    =       (force)
         100       -       100         =           0              this is not correct--(if in atmosphere)

   atmospheric straight drop distance value principal--

   the distance( in atmosphere), of an object dropped straight down, always has the value of 1 foot--



    example--

     (pounds)          (feet)             (foot-pounds)
     (weight)   -   (distance)   =        (force)
       100      -          1          =          99


       lab experiment to verify interposed distance to geo-sync--

    pick-up a tork-wrench( with appropriate cert... from the chaps at "loyds of london"), use tork-wrench on the lug-nut of a vehicle( preferably at NASA), make sure the wrench is 1 foot off the ground...(humor, as all distances from the earth's crust "in atmo", are the value of 1 foot)...then balance two cans of soda( "coca-cola", or other), on the end of the tork-wrench, 1 foot-pound of tork should result--

best wishes, john kruschke--

   (cs)

--planet formation--

     i suggest, that all planets are formed by asteroid fields, that arrange in order, around the largest asteroid in the field...in order, from the lightest( being the closest to the gravity of the largest asteroid), to the heaviest( being farthest away)--

    like the dynamic we see in the rings of Saturn, but with infinite degrees of rings, around the largest asteroid, to form a "sphere" of objects...that are arranged from lightest, to heaviest, from the "central gravitational body"( see "distance to geo-sync" post, for the math)...

    after this "sphere-like" arrangement occurs, there are large amounts of asteroid collisions, nearest the center( the largest asteroid), this causes friction, on the surface of the asteroid in the center, at some point, an impact rotates the central asteroid, a slight amount, and a "swirly" begins to occur( see "swirly post"), at this moment, all the other asteroids line up, in a vector with an apex( "swirly"), from the point of the heaviest asteroid( farthest away from the central asteroid), to the closest to the central asteroid( the lightest)--

  after the central asteroid begins to rotate, and the surface of the central asteroid begins to super-heat, going molten...from the friction of impacting smaller asteroids...there is a rock-tumbling action from colliding with the central asteroids surface, breaking them up, into tiny pieces, before being absorbed by the molten surface of the central asteroid( the "core")--

   this outer molten material, reduces the central asteroid to molten matter, and causes increased gravity, in a smaller space...as the matter is condensed( the "core" shrinks), from the low surface tension of being molten--

   if the core becomes large enough, the entire asteroid field is engulfed, and goes molten( see "sun formation" post), the larger the field was, before the core goes molten, the larger the planet that is formed...if the core is not gigantic, from the size of the asteroid field being so large, at the start( creating a sun), the outer layer of asteroids that were the farthest away, are pulled together, to form the crust of the planet, but do not melt( like they do when a sun is formed...see sun formation post)--

black holes--

      this concept is displayed very well by "black holes", that i believe, are the formation of a planet, or sun, with a "central gravitational pull" so great, that we cannot observe the "core"( due to light not being able to escape, from the enormous pull of the "black hole's" gravity)--

   the gathering, and melting of matter, continues in a "black hole", until it has no further matter to engulf, in it's area of space, snuffing the heat, and fire, of the "core" of the "black hole", to produce a crust, thus reducing gravity...from the planets crust separating the core, from outside matter( acting as a buffer), stopping the process, of the molten "core" gaining more, and more, mass...allowing "geo-sync orbit" to be possible, for celestial objects( moons)--

best wishes, john kruschke--

  (cs)

--the big bang--

   the "big bang"...

     i have a feeling, that the "big bang" is something that happens in a galaxy, there are many galaxy's( so there could be many "big bangs"), i also suggest, that when a sun is created( see "sun and star formation principals" post), and another was already present, too near by, that the smaller of the two,
begins to orbit the other--

    at some point, since, as we have noticed here on earth, all orbits tend to decay, in the direction of the "gravitational pull"( as far as i know...none of our birds have ever gotten away from "geo-sync orbit" with earth, but have instead, come home), eventually, the smaller sun's orbit completely decays, and the two make contact( the "bird-feeder" has a visitor)--

   when these two suns finally collide, a veery "big bang" happens... before this happened, all the smaller debris in the system were enveloped, into both the sun's, and thus, when the collision happens, the molten matter of the two suns are strewn, throughout space, like pieces of graphite, thrown across a clear sheet of plexi-glass...the pieces of graphite, are of different sizes, and there are varying "clumps", or concentrations of graphite, after the explosion completes, and motion subsides--


planet formation--

   at this point, when motion subsides, is when planet formation occurs, to display planet formation, and our solar systems "filling patterns", visually, a model is must be made, by securing a magnet, to the bottom of a sheet of plex-iglass, with one magnet in the position of each of the planets in our solar system, and then vibrating the sheet, we can then see the principal displayed, quite well--

   the graphite pieces would pull together( with the largest piece of graphite in the center of each magnet), and all the other pieces nearby, surrounding it, in order from lightest, to heaviest, in all directions, creating a "sphere" of a sort...( see "planet formation" post)--


summary--

    after the planets were formed, they would begin to orbit the sun, in our current "solar orbit", and things would be spiffy...for billions, and billions, of years--( Carl Segan rocks)--

best wishes, john kruschke--
 
  (cs)

--a beginning--

   something to keep track of the
silly stuff i think about--


  (cs)