## The REAL ANTIGRAVITY and RELATIVITY

Written by Charles Douglas Wehner

Continued from page 1

So hand of a child can spin a spinning-top (the energy required is small). However, can hand of a child put Universe into orbit around that spinnin-top, and at several times or several hundred times per second?

Spin-orbit duality breaks down somewhere.

One can use "Law of Conservation of Energy" to avoid such absurd notions as a child setting Universe in motion. However, we must consider RELATIVITY.

Newtonian mechanics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Einstein's relativity says that energy can be destroyed. If there is MATTER, such as an ELECTRON, it has REST-MASS. Here we must already say "AT rest - RELATIVE to what"? However, we will leave this point unanswered, because this article is very general.

According to Relativity, a tiny increase in speed from rest of that electron will give it energy HALF M (V squared), where M is rest-mass. This energy will be destroyed by being incorporated into mass of electron. So using M2 (C squared), we can compute M2.

As electron goes faster, by an identical tiny increase in speed, its energy is HALF (M+M2) (V squared), then HALF (M+M2+M3) (V squared) and so on.

When Moon is travelling at 65 thousand miles per hour, this compares with light travelling at 669,600,000 miles per hour, approximately.

Light travels therefore at a speed about TEN THOUSAND times faster than Moon.

The change in mass is proportional to C-squared, just as energy of motion is proportional to V-squared. So speeds of one ten-thousandth of that of light (four places) will deliver energy equations that are accurate to EIGHT.

It would be nonsense, however, to use my antigravity equations to TWENTY places of decimals and to expect all places to be valid.

We see relativity creeping in, and upsetting mathematics - but in Earth-Moon system it is still imperceptible. That is why I used "Law of Conservation of Energy" to derive results - errors are still small.

The Moon is a quarter of a million miles away from Earth. So is we multiply this by ten thousand we get TWO-AND-A-HALF THOUSAND-MILLION miles. This is about 26.8 Astronomical Units. At this point, orbital velocity is similar to speed of light, and Einstein says that mathematics breaks down.

So if we consider hand of a child spinning a top, and INSIST on conservation of energy, we must adjust expression HALF M (V-squared) as we move away from child's top.

Either mass M of bodies must be adjusted to become less and less, further away we go (RELATIVITY MASS), or velocity V of bodies must become less and less as we move away from spinning body (RELATIVITY VELOCITY).

It makes a kind of sense to choose to alter V. However, this is composed of two fundamental units, distance D and time T, where V=D/T.

We cannot alter distance, because it is Pi times diameter of "orbit". So if D cannot diminish, T must INCREASE.

What this means is that a perceived time T is actually LONGER at that distant place than we had known.

So we need TIME DILATION to deal with breakdown of spin-orbit duality at relativistic speeds.

Fortunately, linear particle-accelerators have successfully slowed down time until mesons that lived for just a microsecond could be studied for SECONDS.

So Einstein's time-dilation has been PROVEN.

The conundrum of spin-orbit duality breakdown has delivered a similar result. Einstein has been vindicated again.

Charles Douglas Wehner

Charles Douglas Wehner was born in 1944. He was a technical author, a design engineer and the manager of a photoelectrics manufacturing company.

## Eugenics and the Future of the Human Species

Written by Sam Vaknin

Continued from page 1

Modern eugenicists distance themselves from crude methods adopted at beginning of last century by 29 countries, including Germany, The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Venezuela, Estonia, Argentina, Norway, Denmark, Sweden (until 1976), Brazil, Italy, Greece, and Spain.

They talk about free contraceptives for low-IQ women, vasectomies or tubal ligations for criminals, sperm banks with contributions from high achievers, and incentives for college students to procreate. Modern genetic engineering and biotechnology are readily applicable to eugenic projects. Cloning can serve to preserve genes of fittest. Embryo selection and prenatal diagnosis of genetically diseased embryos can reduce number of unfit.

But even these innocuous variants of eugenics fly in face of liberalism. Inequality, claim proponents of hereditary amelioration, is genetic, not environmental. All men are created unequal and as much subject to natural laws of heredity as are cows and bees. Inferior people give birth to inferior offspring and, thus, propagate their inferiority.

Even if this were true - which is at best debatable - question is whether inferior specimen of our species possess inalienable right to reproduce? If society is to bear costs of over-population - social welfare, medical care, daycare centers - then society has right to regulate procreation. But does it have right to act discriminately in doing so?

Another dilemma is whether we have moral right - let alone necessary knowledge - to interfere with natural as well as social and demographic trends. Eugenicists counter that contraception and indiscriminate medicine already do just that. Yet, studies show that more affluent and educated a population becomes - less fecund it is. Birth rates throughout world have dropped dramatically already.

Instead of culling great unwashed and unworthy - wouldn't it be a better idea to educate them (or their off-spring) and provide them with economic opportunities (euthenics rather than eugenics)? Human populations seem to self-regulate. A gentle and persistent nudge in right direction - of increased affluence and better schooling - might achieve more than a hundred eugenic programs, voluntary or compulsory.

That eugenics presents itself not merely as a biological-social agenda, but as a panacea, ought to arouse suspicion. The typical eugenics text reads more like a catechism than a reasoned argument. Previous all-encompassing and omnicompetent plans tended to end traumatically - especially when they contrasted a human elite with a dispensable underclass of persons.

Above all, eugenics is about human hubris. To presume to know better than lottery of life is haughty. Modern medicine largely obviates need for eugenics in that it allows even genetically defective people to lead pretty normal lives. Of course, Man himself - being part of Nature - may be regarded as nothing more than an agent of natural selection. Still, many of arguments advanced in favor of eugenics can be turned against it with embarrassing ease.

Consider sick children. True, they are a burden to society and a probable menace to gene pool of species. But they also inhibit further reproduction in their family by consuming financial and mental resources of parents. Their genes - however flawed - contribute to genetic diversity. Even a badly mutated phenotype sometimes yields precious scientific knowledge and an interesting genotype.

The implicit Weltbild of eugenics is static - but real world is dynamic. There is no such thing as a "correct" genetic makeup towards which we must all strive. A combination of genes may be perfectly adaptable to one environment - but woefully inadequate in another. It is therefore prudent to encourage genetic diversity or polymorphism.

The more rapidly world changes, greater value of mutations of all sorts. One never knows whether today's maladaptation will not prove to be tomorrow's winner. Ecosystems are invariably comprised of niches and different genes - even mutated ones - may fit different niches.

In 18th century most peppered moths in Britain were silvery gray, indistinguishable from lichen-covered trunks of silver birches - their habitat. Darker moths were gobbled up by rapacious birds. Their mutated genes proved to be lethal. As soot from sprouting factories blackened these trunks - very same genes, hitherto fatal, became an unmitigated blessing. The blacker specimen survived while their hitherto perfectly adapted fairer brethren perished ("industrial melanism"). This mode of natural selection is called directional.

Moreover, "bad" genes are often connected to "desirable genes" (pleitropy). Sickle cell anemia protects certain African tribes against malaria. This is called "diversifying or disruptive natural selection". Artificial selection can thus fast deteriorate into adverse selection due to ignorance.

Modern eugenics relies on statistics. It is no longer concerned with causes - but with phenomena and likely effects of intervention. If adverse traits of off-spring and parents are strongly correlated - then preventing parents with certain undesirable qualities from multiplying will surely reduce incidence of said dispositions in general population. Yet, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. The manipulation of one parameter of correlation does not inevitably alter it - or incidence of outcome.

Eugenicists often hark back to wisdom garnered by generations of breeders and farmers. But unequivocal lesson of thousands of years of artificial selection is that cross-breeding (hybridization) - even of two lines of inferior genetic stock - yields valuable genotypes. Inter-marriage between races, groups in population, ethnic groups, and clans is thus bound to improve species' chances of survival more than any eugenic scheme.

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

<Back to Page 1