Back to written word Graphic Model and adjunct project here Have a comment, say it Author info Take the Challenge A Discourse on the Unified Field by Jeffrey C McMahan A Physics and Solar Dynamics revisited Previous section title Genesis revisited, or; ‘From Madness to Method’ That’s the reason for the confusion in the opening sentences. Ahh, yes, here I am using the word genesis to signify the beginning of this discussion. Any other alliteration, allusion, or confusion, to any other beginning will not be tolerated. Okay, in the beginning there was something, this something did not require Dr Stephen Hawking to account for it’s somethingness [if nothingness is valid, so is somethingness, down spell check, down] and–if the truth be known–still does not require the aforementioned brainiac; to continue to exist, or continue to not exist, as Descartes may retort, if he was still around that is. So this something may not be the same as when Descartes set down in his kitchen, but then again it may be the same; what can be said is that, I am not sitting hunkered down next to Descartes on a cold morning, moving to noon, moving to supper, then bed-dy bye sweet prince; so, some thing has changed. Therefore, things change, in order to talk about change, the concepts of space and time must be elucidated. If only three things exist, I could use a two-dimensional object to illustrate these concepts, a piece of paper perhaps. More then three things exist, unless I’m sadly mistaken. There can be four things on a two dimensional plane, but if I knock one of them so that it falls on the floor, I either have to invent a religious concept about it, or acknowledge a three dimensional construct. A three dimensional construction is generally referred to as occupying space. eureka  So, now we have something, and we have a place to put it, now we can push it around and talk about motion, or just knock it off the table, at least. Motion can be described as linear; as in falling to the floor; or cyclic, as in falling to the floor, being picked up, put back on the table, so as it can be knocked off again. Cyclic movement can be rotational, like a wheel; or periodic, like a pendulum; and can also move in a linear fashion, in a waveform; for example, radiation, radiation is just that, which is moving away from something, when, that; which is moving away, was produced from the inherent characteristics of the ‘object in question.’ (Or, the object which set that in motion). I do hope you are not thoroughly confused; as I was for a moment or two, and I still am confused about the state of confusion I may, or may not have produced in you, or any English grammarians, that may, or may not be, presently smacking their brows and rolling their eyes, and speaking in exclamation marks, even. Well that was plenty of ado over something, anyway, so I’m pleased. Okay, so now I’m going to discuss time. I will first relate that time, as a concept, is an abstraction. A construction that devolves from movement! There is only one time, and it is always present, it is presently the present, it will never be anything else but the present, the whole present and nothing but the present; I would say if I was giving testimony in a legal action. The only reason we have clocks is because things move. The only reason we talk of the past is because something moved before we did. A human for example! The only thing clocks ‘mark’ (or measure) is movement. The only particular use for clocks is to: measure movement; get paid the right amount of money from that guy, or gal, that has said they will give you money for working–moving in a specific way, according to instructions; picking up that gal when she expects you to, to take her out dancing; getting exasperated over waiting for some other gal to finish getting that strand of hair perfectly placed, you know, that strand of hair, so you can take her out to dinner; so, you see we should really bag the whole clock thing, we’d be much more serene and peaceful, we really would. Don’t worry gals I work in something ludicrous about guys shortly. So now that I got time, and its’ number, I’ll dispense with wasting yours, relating something else. Now I am going to speak about Energy. All we know is that energy begins with hydrogen–ha, bet you didn’t see that coming Hawking’s–and it’s a good thing too, as Hydrogen happens to be the first atomic element; and I would be the first one to say, “dear me”, if some other atomic element was found that had to be placed before Hydrogen. Heh, could you imagine? So, the radiation that hydrogen emanates will take the form of a regular sine wave. Or, if you wish, think of two Pi radians–or, four Pi radians?–perhaps! For you geometarians.(Ha ha, I coined a word) And now I can talk about Light! (Another gotcha moment for dear Stephen) Yes light began with Hydrogen. Not visible light that humans can perceive of course, yet, I tell you if something could absorb the radiation from hydrogen, that something would ‘luminance’ from the impact from the radiation; and if that something could ‘reflect’ that radiation from hydrogen; a sensor; whether, electrical, mechanical, or biological; would be able to perceive, or image that object. So starting with hydrogen, the electro magnetic spectra begins! It ‘practically’ ends with the most recent atomic elemental discovered. When I say that I don’t mean, it just about ends there, I mean, for all we’ve discovered to the present moment. This is Energy; movement! The reason it moves is because it has somewhere to go. (see laws of thermodynamics) Light visible to the naked eye of a human is a very narrow and discrete part (sub- spectra) of Energy. Just because something can be seen, or perceived; it does it follow that, it is full of energy; viz. contains all, or most of the electro magnetic spectra, or hardly any, for all of that. Our Sun is full of it; luckily; quite full I would presume. I may be presumptuousness, yet, I’ve never had the pleasure of sitting around with a bunch of others, listening to someone go on and on about how things do what they do; what I’ m saying is I’ve never been lectured at so I could get a paper that says I could work somewhere and make a decent wage, yet, since most likely most of you, that are not spam bots, haven’t either, please continue to be amused on my behalf. eureka So now I have elucidated on the nature of Energy, and got around to talking about light; I will now; at the present moment; discourse on Astronomy, as observed by the naked eye. Yes, I will be getting down with the sickness, as they say. First things first, that bright thing in the sky during the day is a Sun; it’s quite large compared to the points of discrete light we see at night, which we also think of as suns; or groupings of suns, viz Galaxies; or some other astronomical event–which will not be discussed because I fear them. (Alliteration to James Thurber) And If we do not see it, it most likely is not there–unless it’s a Black Hole, and no I’m not being racist, I fear Black Holes also, but since we have a pretty good ‘day’ light I feel pretty safe in this part of the universe. Ouch. So, excluding Black Holes and Galaxies, and other Astronomical characters; I would like to present to you, my observations. First, light travels at a constant rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 186,000 miles per second; not clear if I should say per second, per second, yet, as it is a constant, and per second, per second, indicates a rate of change, or acceleration , I’ll just go with per second. (sorry, my observations follow) Now, our Sun is large, and it is also close to us, some 93 million miles close, and the radiation that we receive here on the Earth; some of which we perceive as light; takes about eight minutes to make the commute.(have not observed that either, or should I say measured it) So with that I will relate to you, in the present, my observations of the night sky and the white things in it, which are presumably, suns, galaxies, other astronomical events, along with what I dread–that which can not be seen, because it’s not there. Heh. My first observation is that they are all small, much smaller then our sun; in fact, the largest one, that can be identified as a sun; is not much bigger then all the rest. One would think that with probability, chance, and chaos, figured into the statistical analysis of what should be; that one could suppose that at least ‘one’ would be one-fourth of the size of the sun–as we see it (our sun), and with the naked eye–but no, they all are small dinky little specks of light, with the smallest, not being much smaller then the biggest. (naked-eye observation) I can tell the difference between the larger galaxies and individual suns also, unless they are all galaxies, in which case the largest galaxy is not much larger then the smallest one (as observed by the naked eye). Hey man, it all galactic, see! As if! Now, of course the current model of those white specks is that they are all very far away. This seems to be rational when you magnify them with a telescope. Yet, magnifying something will always make it appear bigger, you see; so the demonstration of looking through a telescope does not add much. The demonstration that they are small because they are far away does not quite cut the ‘grey poupon’ either; it’s this; they are far away, so they are small; they are far away because they appear small. They could be small, and really close. Really, I mean, when someone tells me a micrometer is graduated, I say, lucky something is! With the observations I can make with my eyeballs, “they all are far away, except the ones that are smaller in actual size, which may be closer; along with the ones that are even farther away, and bigger in actual size–then the ones that are far away.” So we have a mean distance, which is far away; and a scatter graph of suns, that are smaller and perhaps closer, and larger suns that may be farther then far; along with everything else, out there; and, perhaps as Descartes would say–that which is not out there. I’m sure Voltaire would say it also–if he happened to question why he would say such a thing. eureka Since radio Astronomy is a more recent application I will first speak of Optical Astronomy, as it’s been in vogue since about the time of Galileo. While Radio, well, they may have had spark transmitters during the American civil war, unfortunately they did not have spark receivers; and as I’m to lazy to do any research on this I’ll leave you with: Click Here,  see, lazy, indeed! As I have noted, optical telescopes just enlarge what hits the front lens, called the ‘objective’ lens. They do not get any closer then that, I would be shocked if they did, and as I did not get shocked, it must be so. eureka They do not see into space, they just enlarge what I see with my eyeballs, naked or otherwise. And what I see here on Earth, happened some time ago, billions of ‘Light’ years, in some cases, unless they happen to be really small, and really close, that is. I must now talk about the nature of visible light a bit. As light travels, it moves in a linear fashion, away from that which projected it, (or caused it, a sun perhaps) it moves in a straight line, until it hits something, which may allow it to pass through, or block it; if it blocks it, and the nature of what blocked it is willing, the blocking object will absorb the light, and possibly reflect the light, in a manner that will take into account the characteristics of the absorption of the light, and the nature of the object. This is what accounts for color. The full spectra of white light hitting something that can absorb all of the spectra of visible light, will appear to be black, as perceived with these human eyes I have. There are three things that can be done with light: it can be refracted, absorbed, and reflected. There are only a small number of ways to produce light. One; destroy an Atom, like suns do,–hmm, sounds like a quirky pop song–two; heat something hot enough to cause it to luminance, three; use chemicals that can glow under certain conditions, fluorescence, ie, neon, mercury vapor, inert gases, combined with electrical spark, four; things that are by nature phosphorescent, rotting swamp gas, and other rotting things, five; bio-luminescence, fireflies, some bacteria; other natural phenomena, a few more ways; lightning, oxidization in certain conditions. Of all of these we can be sure to get the full spectra of light–of indeed, energy–from the sun. This is the basics for Optical Astronomy. The spectra of visible light, combined with the refractive nature of light--provides astronomers with the observations--that they make their pronouncements thereof. To illustrate this I will ask you to review the album cover art from, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon’ by Pink Floyd; why, because it has a Prism on it that illustrates the Spectral Display of the refraction of white light; no surprise, it breaks up the white light that hits it–with the prism aligned in the appropriate position–into the colors of the rainbow. The triangles featured on the album are only representative of the concept of prisms, and the nature of refraction, and give an illustration of the spectral display which Astronomers are very happy to analyze, along with Chemists, Physicists, Agent Muldur, Bones, and other CSI personal, seen on television, or not. This is how it works; white light from the sun is a range of spectrum that is propagated along with the electro magnetic radiation, caused by atomic elements being crushed by the awesome and fierce force of gravity–what attracted all the mass in the first place is still unknown. They would say an extremely huge, incredibly larger then even the first adverb/adjective, cloud of hydrogen, and perhaps Helium, existing in the void of the universe, began to gather itself together, and shazaam, a star was born. When asked why, they would say, a star died in a cataclysmic explosion called a Super-Nova; the shock wave traveled through the void of space and started to push the harmless hydrogen cloud about, and the hydrogen cloud circled the wagons to protect itself from the interloping shock wave from the dying sun. And the circle of life begins once more, soon to be a Disney Movie on DVD and Blue-ray, don’t wait for others to see it first. Now I’ll get back to the spectral display of white light and spectroscopic analysis of same, and refraction which makes it all possible. For the propose of illustration I am going to ask you to visualize white light as a parallel sided beam with the individual colors of the visible spectra stacked up, with, Ultra-blue, (not so visible) to Blue, on the bottom; proceeding up through the visible spectra to, Red, then Infrared.(not so visible) Now, the refractive nature of ‘Light’ stipulates that when it strikes a translucent substance whether it be, gas, atmospheric, or otherwise; a liquid, atmospheric or otherwise; a solid, such as a glass Prism; the substance the light struck will cause the light to change its’ direction. How the change is determined is due to the physical structure of the substance, and the angle the light struck it. Water falling as rain, produce rainbows, atmospheric gases in the void produce lensing, and Earths atmosphere can produce, Lens Flares, admired by amateur photographers as evidence of UFO’s (Sorry Boys and Girls) Now when a Prism is positioned correctly, with the ‘base’ parallel with the beam of light–this (base) is the internal reflective surface of the prism–now visualize that beam I told you to; it strikes the face of the side of the Prism, it refracts down to the internal reflective surface at just the exact angle to reflect at a ninety degree angle, up to the internal face of the opposite side where it is refracted once more, thereby leaving the prism. Now, that Blue beam, it is on the bottom and does not have to travel quite as far to strike the internal reflective face, while the Red on top has to travel farther, yet, nothing slows down, as the linear movement, of light, moves through the prism, it must enter, reflect, and leave the prism, at the same time. This is similar to the Gas Laws of Bernoulli’s as they apply to aerodynamics, an extension of Newton’s Laws of Motion. Instead of violating a natural law, what comes from the prism is observed, when it strikes a backdrop positioned at an optimal distance is a Spectral Display, a phenomena of the refraction of light. This phenomena is used by Chemists in Spectroscopic Analysis, admired by Physicists in their pursuit of confusion, and most admirably by Astronomers to determine if a light–which very well may be a sun–they spy with their enlarging device in the night sky, which they consider to be perhaps billions of light years away, is moving toward them as they peer through their devices, or away from them, and how fast, to boot. So what they see here on earth, which may have happened millions to billions years ago, excite them so that their enlarging device is not the only thing enlarging. Ouch! To be continued mar 4 2013 So it was night, I slept, and now it’s three thirty in the morning of the day following the period which I wrote most of the above. The second paragraph onwards to be succinct! Unlike Descartes I climb under blankets to warm myself. Also, as I’ve only read his Discourse, on his Method, I am woefully ignorant on what he related in, ‘The World’ or, ‘A Treatise on Light’ (chapters one through seven) I know of it because I read the table of contents included in his Discourse of Method. Yet, that which appears above, as a discourse, includes everything I know, that I knew prior to last Friday. Also, unlike R.D. I understand, that which is, a priori, or, that which came before, is valid, and a valuable aid in discoursing on what is known, and demonstrating what is known to people who think themselves too educated to listen to you. (paying homage to D.D.) (and several other personages) (I could name a few, but I won’t) With all that said, I will continue my discourse, ‘In the nature of it,’ concerning Light, and people that look at same. Before I go on any more about Optical Astronomy--and the people that observe light in the heavens, and then discourse on what they observe–called Astronomers. I must first discourse on Spectroscopic Analysis and how, but not why, it applies to Optical Astronomy. To due this I will present to you, I very fine piece of pure iron, cast into a rectangular solid, sitting at a temperature comfortable to humans.(more homage to D.D.) Now just sitting there with me looking at it, or you looking at it, if you have joined into the discussion, you would not see it if the lights were turned off and there was no other source of light. So, turn the lights on, and take a burning flame and heat the iron bar, at some point: which is dependent on the mass of Iron, and, how well the surrounding ‘medium’ is able to accept the heat radiating from the iron bar; it will become incandescent, or luminous, or be in a state of luminance; also you would be able to see it when the lights were turned off once more. The reason for this is that the heat (aka energy) becomes intolerable to the iron, and as–and, or if–it can not radiate–or transfer by convection, or conduction–it fast enough, the energy radiation produces visible light. Or to say it another way; the hotter something gets, requires, that something, to release that heat (energy) at a faster rate, in order to maintain its’ characteristic state. Which the iron does, by releasing photonic energy, viz Light. Why this is important to know in this discussion concerning spectral displays and astronomy follows… Okay, so the spectral analysis of Iron heated to white hot will; when the light from the photonic display is focused, sent through a prism; produce a spectral display that is ‘specific’ to iron. Which is a good thing for Chemists, Physicists, and CSI folk regardless of whether seen on television or not; as they can identify an unknown substance using this method, by comparing the unknown substances spectral display, to a catalog of known substances; spectral displays. This is Spectroscopic analysis. Regardless of whether the substance is an iron bar, or something burnt in a Bunsen burner, with only the color of the flame being observed with the un-aided eye, this is the process of Spectral. Analysis.–this process has been known and used for some time now. Now for the Astronomical implications! As suns most definitely are an example of photonic displays; atomic decay, producing the energy; the nature of the sun is that it casts off this energy in the form of electro magnetic radiation, which includes the sub-spectra of visible light; this is the method (S A) that produces the data in which Astronomers make their inferences and deductions thereof . It is all about Energy, Movement, and the rate of the movement, or the velocity of the energy release. Now a discourse of astronomical proportions! The sun is many things, so many things we do not know how many–we know many of the things, which are included in the ‘periodic table of the elements’; and we know the characteristics of many of those things–yet, as to the composition of the sun, and the precise order and percentage of the various atomic elements; well, not so much. Herein lies the ‘crux’ of the matter. Just because we have a sun living right next door to us; and can study it more closer then we can study other points of light in the universe; does not make a demonstration that has any validity about the other discrete points of light we see in the heavens. As, since we don’t even know the precise composition of our sun, we can make no inferences or deductions from observing the enlarged light, and or spectral display coming from suns that are very far away. You see, there is nothing at the center of the sun, it’s a void. Just above this void is the reactive layer. This is where the awesome and fierce forces of gravity initiate the atomic decay. This layer is in a plasmic state. It is comprised of the heaviest atomic elements known, and unknown. There is no light here, and no Hydrogen. Hydrogen, the lightest element would be where you would expect a lighter object to be, above that which is heavier. So, the energy produced in the reactive layer radiates up, or out and away from this reactive layer, until it reaches the photosphere, this is where light begins. Now, from the reactive layer to the region of the photosphere, includes, at least several other regions, starting from the reactive layer, one would presume the presence of the ionosphere, next, the magnetosphere, perhaps some exotic and un-worldly spheres; then when this energy reaches the photosphere it begins to radiate as a photonic display. Above this, one would suppose that the troposphere [see note at end as this term is used in planetary physics] is found. This is a short course in solar dynamics, which of course, will be, or may be-if anyone cares to-debated hotly. (at least I’m a good writer, that is a good example of pun-ery there, debating solar dynamics hotly, what a wit I have) The only reason I have related all this is so that I can say; Astronomers, with their; ‘red’ and ‘blue’ ‘Doppler’ shifts in the spectral displays of small specks of light, gathered with optical enlarging devices; are practicing foo foo science. Foo foo is a scientific term that means a load of crap. One, they do not know ***, and most likely have never heard of shinola; two, the composition of our sun–which no one knows precisely–makes no demonstration about other suns; three, no one even knows about the void in the center of the sun but me, and now you; four, the only reason they speak ‘Latin’ is so that others who will agree with them; and who they like as a result of agreeing with them; will nod their heads and give assent; all without reveling their ignorance to all of us ‘un-schooled’ individuals. So, from madness to method, back to madness! A note to Dr Hawking: the system below the level of an atom is a pair of systems that are coupled together; each one of the pair, have a pair of subsystems that are coupled (within the subsystem) also. So, with the pair of the first system, look for eight! In the subsystem(s), look for the two pair, that are coupled. (which are four) | Projection, and Attraction. That is all. Note Concerning the use of the term troposphere. The usage I put it to, is the region where heat and convection begin, and it is above the photosphere. The nuclear reactions in the reactive layer account for all of the suns phenomena. The Ionosphere, the Magnetosphere, and the Photosphere, are present because of the nuclear events taking place. Convection occurs first when heating, when more energy is applied then comes the photonic display, yet, in the sun, the Energy begins in the reactive layer, which is sufficient to create the necessary energy levels post haste. So, photosphere first, then the convective layer; which I have used the term troposphere to denote; so there; and no, MS grammar Nazi, go away, I will not consider revising.  3-4-13 Reviewed mar 5 2013 minor punctuation and word form changes, a few parenthetical statements added and or clarified jcmc reviewed mar6 2013 minor punctuation changes. Mar 12 revised grammar on MS behest, LMSO, Laughing my shirt off B Discourse on Singularities Amen, all gravitating bodies have a singularity associated with them. This singularity produces the phenomenon of gravity. Not all bodies are gravitating bodies, yet, all bodies gravitating or otherwise are subject to gravity. This is the only explanation that accounts for a ten pound weight and a one pound weight to fall at the same rate, and arrive at the same limiting surface in a vacuum, at the same time; in a gravity field. As we are assured they do. The two dropped objects are not gravitating bodies, they have mass, ye s yes, yes they do, they have mass, how about you; sorry; yet the two objects are lacking the singularity. If th ey did, and they were gravitating bodies, the ten pounds would have the higher gravity field, and it wo uld accelerate faster in a gravity field. Regardless of whether it was in a vacuum or not! | [Amen! Actually, this does not qualify as the 'only explanation', there are not a few other explanations that would fit the observation. I thought that, in the interest of credibility I should make note of that fact. Therein rests my 'mea culpa'. I now return you to my confusion, already in progress. ] Annotated 5-10-2013 jcmc C Discourse on Unified Field Gird your loins for a big one. Many of you will be saying; “A void at the center of the Sun, well you lost me!” Think again! My above stateme nt on Singularities will explain why. If anything is, everything is. If there is Conservation of Energy, every thing must obey it. If there is Anti-Matter, every thing has an Anti component. Conservation, Singularities, Gravity, s ee. The Anti-Gravity of Gravity is repulsion. That is what accounts for the conservation of Gravity, its’ oppositi on, or that which opposes it, to keep it in equilibrium, which provides for the conservation of Gravity. And that is why there is a void at the center of gravitating bodies. The Mass of the material is compacting the Anti co mponent, until equilibrium is achieved, thus, what is left, is a void, and the Singularity (The suns void and sing ularity sic). How big is it; it may not be much bigger then zero. The Singularity also has an Anti component. B efore I can tell you about the Singularity of a Gravitating body I need to present a framework to demonstrate it . | First, it’s Aristotle’s first principle; it is one thing, the Absolute Singularity. The two important characteristic s of this singularity are Projection and Attraction. This singularity was before its’ counterpart, the Universal Singularity. They are coupled together, as, the U-Singularity shares the same main characteristics as the A. Singularity. As one Projects; the other Attracts. This is what couples them together. The U Sing. is what keeps things firm, and orders the whole Universal ex perience. Is it in the Universe, is it below the Universe? I would say it is, inside, the insides of the universe, an d leave it at that. For the reason, that we must look at the A Sing for a moment. (why I left it at that) It establish ed the U Sing. Then an image of it formed, then divided into a pair, then the attributes of Projection, and Attr action, devolved to each one of the pair. When this happened it also happened in the U Sing., spontaneously . Why? Conservation of Form! What I have described to this point; in the case of the U Sing; is still inside, th e insides of the Universe. Wait for it a moment, I first need to say that this pair, of pairs; viz that which devolv ed from the A Sing, and that which evolved from the U Sing; are also coupled together, each one of the pair coupled with the Anti component counterpart of the other (The pair from the A Sing to the pair of the U Sing). As in, the left of the A Sing, coupled with the right side of the U Sing. [Visualize one of the pair sets, as a squ are seen edgewise, such that the corners are superimposed, so, four points, two visible, the other two straig ht back from the visible two. (also see model)] Next thing is that the U Sing reached out from the inside of the universe, and planted the four (the pair with two attributes each); on the sphere of physical existence. And as such, as it is the U Sing that orders the physical universe, the same happened from the pair from the A Sing. So, we now have physics, from these two sets of pairs, which are coupled, spring forth all that is, and all that is not. The interaction of these two reach out towards each other and form a pair; two things; one of which is by the main Projective, with a minor Anti component which is attractive, the other is by the main Attractive, wi th an Anti component which is projective. And they alternate you see [As the A Sing and U sing are coupled and alternate also]. The main of one, while the Anti of the other is dominant.[?] So, while the projection of one is pushing to the other(s), attractive; it is attracting, from the others projective.[?<] And the nexus which is be hind (or supports) every single physical body is established. The sphere of existence, which we experience, i s made possible by these ten things–(which devolve and evolve from; without, and from inside the insides; of the Universe) [From the A Sing to the U Sing the count is twenty]. It is mar 5 2013. The last time I related this concept was in sept 2012 (published on this blog). The time before, aug of 2006. Which is published here o n this site, and is titled; ‘The Sublimation of Vapours’ ; And now instead of using the term Sublimation you wil l use the term Endothermic Phase Transition, if you will please do so I will be content. copyright mar 5 2013 Jeffrey C McMahan All Rights Reserved. Notice; the three parts of this discourse which began mar 3 2013 appear as: [Genesis revisited. or: A Discourse on, From Madness to Method.] [ A quick note on the singularity of gravitating bodies] [“A longer discourse on everything] on, 'Dead Monkey Society Shouts' All three will be put into one document posted on this blog and on the site this blog resides on.[which being this page] This is a creative literary work, as such the literary form falls within applicable copyright requirements. There are no cites, abstracts or extracts in this manuscript. jcmc copyright and trade right reserved Published as full manuscript form; mar5 2013 on Dead Monkey Society Shouts ©Second full manu. pub [see here]. Jeffrey C McMahan All rights reserved. First full manuscript publication mar 5 2013 [rev. mar 6 2013 minor edit for clarifying] [Drawing 001 is a concept illustration, Final version is 004 which will remain private at this time. Review mar 8 2012(N/A in this pub)] mar 8 2013 review minor changes [review mar 11 jcmc] [mar 12 review removed graphics. Installed links to demonstration adjuncts.] and [Have a comment, say it.] Mar 12 created this page. 3rd publication, copyright and trade rights all reserved by jeffrey c mcmahan Mar 22 review; added hot links for references, removed some annotations. jcmc May 10 review added annotation to 2nd section. jcmc