Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Unifying Framework Of Physics

ToE Theoretical Physics General Relativity Quantum Field Theory

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 03:27 PM

This is a forum to discuss my approach for building this framework. More than that, it’s an attempt to complete it. The construct of this model, and how you can help, will be exemplified in my first post (to immediately follow this introduction).

 

Before I start off please be sure to reference some the more basic discussion points of what I am talking about; Theory of Everything (ToE) and Theoretical Physics (TP). According to these to references they are related. For all intents and purposes I am attempting to define the ToE as it is referenced, but I prefer to call it a Unifying Framework of Physics, for it is both a theory and a framework (and it probably can’t cover everything just yet). Even I am not naïve enough to say that encompasses everything in our physical universe (observed or not) for I am quite sure there are observations (predicted or actual) that I haven’t read about or seen yet. That’s where I hope you all come in.

 

To which the model that I am about to discuss has taken into account all that I have seen, read about or heard about to date. I am by no means omniscient, but over my last 45 [adult] years I have tried to keep up with it all. But as most of you will attest to, even the people that make a living out of developing or teaching this kind of stuff haven’t seen it all.

When I say ‘taken into account’ I mean that it has satisfactorily explained what has not been satisfactorily explained before, explained predicted & observed phenomena that I have come to be aware of [since I built this framework], and given a physical description to an observed cause & effect hereto only previously described in equations.

 

I will also build this construct in the most basic, accepted actual physical observations, properties and definitions I have come across. That being said, I don’t think that most of you are interested in the history of each construct so I will spend as little time as needed to give you my frame of reference. However if you are interested in more detail please ask.

 

Please don’t ask me to immediately stop and explain an observation if my framework makes the observation intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, or give you a formula or equation for it (although almost every part of it has a proven equation to match), or if my framework doesn’t immediately encompass the observation you reference.

However, the latter of these observations are the ones I am most interested in, so as we go along if you have a real, legitimate observation that you wish to bring up to see if it fits within my framework by all means please do so! However, please don’t ask me to solve for a predicted observation based on a different theory or hypothetical framework.

 

Also, please don’t expect me to offer an immediate reply with a ‘test fit’ of the framework before proceeding if it detracts from the thread’s course. Likewise, if any of you (the readers and participants in this thread) can help me make the framework fit these observations PLEASE chime in. (I’ll give you an example of that in a post to follow.) If the correlation you ask for is coming in due time, don’t worry I won’t blow you off; I’ll let you know that it’s in there, eventually. However, trolls will not be tolerated. And please, no equations or formulas. I’ll bring them in as needed. I know this may sound counter-intuitive to this type of discussion, but a good construct only needs them to back up observed and predicted physics, and a good framework (for what we are talking about) doesn’t need them. This means that [for many of you] this framework might appear too simplistic for what I am trying to build, but hang in there…it goes deep is some places.

 

Last, I consider myself an expert in the real, observable physics and dynamics of this universe and understand the physic equations that govern these observations, however I base this statement on the extrapolation that the universe physically behaves way out there in the same manner as we here observe in our solar system, even if what we’ve seen [so far] ‘way out there’ is different than what we have seen in our own back yard.

 

With that, I’ll jump in with my first thread...



#2 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 03:36 PM

I’ll start this thread with an example of a straw model for a framework that I quickly put together in another forum:

 

I’m not an expert in Fire, but if I developed a Unifying Framework for the physics of Fire I would start with this simple theory:

Fire is the side product of the reaction with oxygen, therefore oxygen must be present in order to produce Fire.

 

One of the Administrators (Eldritch Horror) responded in perfect harmony:

“not to be a pedant, but fluorine is better at making fires than oxygen. ”

 

My response was appropriate:

Great post GAHD. To your point [researching the new knowledge that you presented] Physicsforum.com tells us: 

Fire can (and does) exist without the presence of oxygen. All that is required is a strong oxidizing substance. There are other substances, like fluorine or chlorine that can be good substitutes for oxygen

So now, all we need to do is change my Unifying Framework of Fire to say:

Fire is the side product of the reaction with oxidizing substance, therefore an oxidizer must be present in order to produce Fire.

 

The point made in this example is that while I am not a ‘bona fide’ recognized expert in Fire, my education and experience as a scientist allowed me to make a pretty good stab at my Unifying Theory of Fire. A more knowledgeable scientist on Fire then gave me the word changes I needed to make the theory into a very robust framework. That’s what I am hoping to achieve with this thread.

 

None of us is as smart as all of us.

 

Before I delve into my UFoP I need to frame this discussion with the historical reason why I came up with this UFoP. (You will see why it is important that I frame this discussion.) It was not, and never has been my desire to develop the UFoP (especially to the point I have), but in order to solve a particular problem I needed to; I developed it to solve a predicted observation that nobody has [satisfactorily] solved using modern physics as we have defined it; not even close.

I am a problem solver by nature (and I have many patents to my name to prove it) because I like to solve them. Over the years I have solved a lot of problems of my own volition for my own edification, but I’ve spent most of my free time trying to solve this one problem.

 

I started building this framework because of what I perceive to be the single biggest problem in physics: Superluminal space travel. Einstein didn’t think it was possible but I, for one, believe it is possible.

On a personal note, besides the obvious prediction by some of the most historically famous physicists of the previous century that “It can’t be done”, I have observed that almost every prediction from even the most educated & intelligent scientifically based predictions older than 30 years have been proven false. And, I for one, have seen and firmly believe that [with rare exception] most science fiction work has become (or soon will be) science fact in a matter of time.

 

In overcoming the assumption that the Photon will forever remain the speed-king of the universe I was forced to construct this UFoP, one piece at a time, until it withstood the power of test and observation. (To which, if my framework proves stout enough, superluminal velocities for objects of mass are just around the corner.)

 

In summary, I developed a UFoP based on proven & observed physics phenomena in order to support a theoretical means by which to produce an observable response to a predicted physics event. So I’ll start describing the construct of this framework from that reference point.

 

The physics of the universe is fundamentally only about two properties: Mass (Matter) and Energy, and the first structure in my framework relies of the fundamental observation that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. They can (and do) interchange with each other every second of the last 14+billion years, but all that is out there is all that is out there. This is the base structure for my framework.

 

In order to build from there I needed to define how they interchange. How does Energy form Matter, and how does Matter become Energy? This piece of the framework happens to be the toughest to construct because even today most scientists will tell you that it’s still under construction, and nothing has yet to be accepted as fact (other than what Matter consists of: Protons. Electrons and Neutrons). So, in order for my next structure to fit in the framework it had to redefine some of our most basic (but unproven) assumptions about what forms Matter. And it came to me with no surprise that our most basic theories are at complete odds against each other because of these assumptions.

I am talking about the two theories upon which all modern physics rests: General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT).

 

GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc.

 

 

(If you have seen this statement before it’s because you read it in the links I gave you in the first thread.)

 

However, in accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right. (Once again, from the same article).

 

Right from the beginning of the inception of QFT I worked on trying to understand its incompatibility with the earliest frameworks of my model. The reason for this incompatibility is neatly worded in the same Wikipedia article: QFT successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces: strong, weak, and electromagnetic force.

 

But what if one (or more) those forces in the Standard Model are suspect? Not real? Only hypothetical, and therefore may be in error… Would/could this account for the incompatibility? Yes it would. Mathematically it would be like having a sub-formula or equation that erroneously divides by 0 (zero). If the Standard Model is based on an Informal Fallacy the QFT model would not be structural enough to withstand tested observations.

(IMO there are a myriad of reasons for this conflict, but the single largest reason for this conflict arises their postulates that in order to prove some of QFT’s most basic assumptions the model destroys the evidence. Such constructs as WIMPS and Quarks come to mind.)

 

The second structure in my framework is that - of the four ‘accepted’ Fundamental Forces in the universe (Gravity, Strong Nuclear, Weak nuclear and Gravity) - only Electromagnetic Force(s) are real in its origin, observed (and observable), completely accounted for its origin, and quantifiable in its properties. That doesn’t mean that the rest don’t exist, it’s just means they may not be Fundamental Forces; they may actually be resultant forces. These remaining forces are subject to speculation as the evidence of what causes their existence and is still purely hypothetical. Of all of the structures in my construct this is the most controversial, because to accept this construct you must be willing to question the validity of what we have come to describe as Fundamental Forces. (If you don’t accept this construct allow me a little bit more time to make you feel otherwise.)

 

The third structure in my frameworks comes from the difference in old school physics’ definitions and modern physics’ definition of Space. When I was in school I was taught (and believed) that space (I’ll refer to space as the Void) is comprised of Matter, Energy and Nothingness (the Void of space), and that the universe is comprised of fixed percentage of [atomic] Matter (last time I checked it was about 4%) and Electromagnetic energy (about 23%)…and nothing else.

 

In the last few decades (long after I left school) we have come to think that the rest of the universe may actually be the Aether that Einstein (and many others) hypothesized to exist; only we now call this Void (about 72% by volume) Dark Matter, or Dark Energy, or Void Energy, or … take your pick. I will not go into the evolution of Dark Matter to Dark Energy for the sake of brevity, only that it fitted nicely into my model BUT not in the same way it fits most others.

 

Therein lies the next fundamental structure in my framework: There are only two states of existence in the universe: Matter and Energy. There is no ‘void’ (or nothingness of space) as many of us where taught years ago. (I’m not the first to arrive both empirically & mathematically to arrive at this conclusion. For a good mathematical explanation of this structure please read Dr. Scott Tyson’s book The Unobservable Universe.)

 

In review, I have built a framework that is structurally based on several observed, or recently discovered phenomena. Let’s review these constructs:

  • Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed;
  • There are only two states of existence in the universe, Matter and Energy.
  • And, of the four ‘accepted’ Fundamental Forces in the universe, only Electromagnetic force(s) are real in origin, observed (and observable) and quantifiable. The rest may or may not be really Fundamental Forces.

 

That last one is a show-stopper by most accounts, however I managed to take the first two pieces of framework and (over the course of building my framework) I used them to explain the other fundamental forces of the universe. This made my 3rd piece of the model’s structure an absolute.

 

Now, it’s up to me to show how these structures, in their simplicity make the rest of the UNoP work and how they can account for all that we observe and verify. Let’s stop there for now and let that sink in (plus it will give me time to rebuild 45 years of observations into a single train of thought). I will leave you with a spoiler alert: so far I really have only one construct in this theory that is hypothetical by definition, BUT 100% plausible in its existence, and its existence is testable, physical, mimicked and duplicated in everything you have observed in the physics of our universe.


  • Bradpitt4 likes this

#3 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 26 April 2019 - 11:51 AM

(Sit down for a spell, this is a long one)

 

I had just started being active on this forum when I came across one of the most oft repeated postulates in physics:

Little Bang, on 24 Feb 2018 - 11:20 AM, said:

It would help if we could take gravity out of the equation because it may be a function of another property of the Universe?

 

I had seen this statement many times, and (as I made to reference earlier) A LOT of scientists have long since speculated that this may be the key to solving the ToE. So, in my efforts to solve Superluminal travel I ended up working gravity out of the equations, both literally and figuratively. I say work it out, but in all honesty gravity just kept falling out. Dr. Scott Tyson did the same in The Unobservable Universe, and his book is entirely about those efforts. However he went on to explain it away in a direction that didn’t fit my [young] model.

Several years back I ended up talking to him about his theories [and his book] and while we had both came across this adjustments to our equations from totally different approaches, the mathematical results were almost the same.

 

In my model I had to account for every physic equation that referenced Mass and the force of gravity, AND through conventional means explain what we can feel and measure here and across the cosmos. I won’t spend any time on going through the equations (Dr. Tyson did a great job of that but it took him 300+ pages) but it’s enough to say I wasn’t the first scientist to mathematically prove the force of gravity is not a Fundamental Force and I am very sure I won’t be the last.

 

The force of gravity behaves almost identically to the electromagnetic forces of magnets. The formulas that describe the magnitude, direction and variations in this force are very similar as well. Both are dependent the distance between the masses (r2). In a nut shell each of these forces are described by the Mass (Matter) and distance between these Masses.

Albert E was before my time, but I was not surprise the learn that [according to history] Albert E went to his deathbed still trying to meld the two force into his GR postulates. I know that’s an over simplification of his efforts, but none the less I think it’s worth noting at this time.

 

According to numerous postulates and equations, if Gravitational forces are not Fundamental Forces then they must be resultant forces. The force of gravity is real, observable and measurable ... but is it what we think it is?

 

The main stream scientific community has long since contented that it is an attractive force created by (or a by-product of) Matter (Mass) (like Electromagnetism), and all efforts to define it have been biased towards that effort. I looked it another way. I hypothesized that the force of gravity is a repulsive force, or lack thereof. In other words, when two objects of Mass are in close proximity to each other they are pushed together. The closer they get, the harder they get pushed.

 

The PRIMARY driver for this assumption is the first construct in the framework: Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. IF this construct is valid, then how can stable Mass create Energy and not loose Mass? To which Magnets lose Mass as their magnetic field is used to create work/force, as well as unstable Matter as it radiates energy. To which, if I add Mass to an object (make it more dense) how can it increase its Energy signature (force)? It’s like double dipping at the Energy – Matter buffet line.

This train of thought suddenly answered a myriad of unanswered question, but the big one for me was this: If all of the Matter in the universe can (and will eventually be) compressed into a Black Hole, then why after 14 Billion years are we not one big Black Hole? If not one big Black Hole, then why [after 14 billion years] isn’t every galaxy that has a Black Hole at its center still observable? Shouldn’t it be a Black Hole by now?

 

At this juncture in my constructs the answers to the origins of the force of gravity became overwhelmingly simple. All I had to do was look around at the tools that physics has given us to create my construct. I started modeling my answers to look like what we know to be valid, provable and definable then pick the right tools. That part of the construct took quite a while. I went through several major iterations, and when I finally narrowed down the construct of the model, it got even far simpler than I imagined.

 

The next significant construct in my framework was that the force of gravity was based in particle physics. Not a big deal one might say, after all - over the last 30 years science has generally tended towards the postulate that most of our physical universe is particle-based, in both GR and QFT.

 

I then used known, proven particle dynamics & definitions to validate my hypothesis. As I built this construct I hypothesized that the particle(s) would physically behave as every other particle we have proven in existence. Light particles (photons), electrons, protons, radiation,… - the whole gamut; These particles had to behave like every other known particle. After several iterations I came to some definitive physical characteristics and made them fit contemporary physics and current observations concerning Mass in the universe. (I’m not stalling here, I’m compressing a number of years’ worth of efforts into my conclusions.)

 

My next construct in the UFoP was this: The Void energy is comprised of these particles, and it is its own unique particle. This particle behaves as every other particle in physics behaves, and interacts with Matter in the same manner as every other particle does, but unique to its own size and property. It does mimic many particles in these interactions, and not like many in other ways.

 

Is this particle a Graviton? Yes, in the sense that it is responsible for the force of gravity. But, No, it is not as defined in current theories being discussed in GR and QFT. In my modeling construct I usually referred to it as the Graviton, but that recently put me in a pickle with the US Patent Office, so in this forum I don’t want to label it as a Graviton; herein I’ll call it GravX. (I literally just made that up J )

 

One of my first definitions of the GravX particle is that it has an opaqueness to Matter (Mass) based on the density of the Matter and that it has energy (it is a charged particle). (Later on I went to define this energy as Electromagnetic in principle; GravX has a negative charge).

 

I proved the validity of this definition by just running a simple, hypothetical experiment: If the GravX behaves like every other charged/energy particle then all I had to do was mimic its reaction to Matter using a similar, known energy particle that interacts with Matter by observable means. I chose the Photon, because while all Matter is not opaque to the Photon (glass, clear liquids, etc.) Matter can exist in a state opaque to light (metal, plastic, organic, etc.).

 

My hypothesis was this: if the Void was completely full of GravX particles, it should behave as the Photon does when encountering opaque Matter since the universe is completely full of Photons too.

 

The experiment:

I took two dark blue plastic balls [about 10” dia.], painted them with several coats of ultra-flat black paint and hung them in our test lab’s photography booth. (I say ‘booth’ but it was actually a purpose-built room with industrial lighting on all surfaces). The booth was lit from every surface (wall, ceiling and floor) but in case I found a dark area (using a very sensitive photoelectric meter) I increased the lighting as necessary such that all of the direct and reflective light measured the same in all but the corners. (I made sure the lit area was as close to a square cube as I could.)

 

I hung the flat-black spheres from the ceiling, at the exact same height, about 3 inches apart, in the dead center of the room from very, very thin clear monofilament lines on a pair of PLC-driven test lab-grade linear track drives. I mounted linear drives in the ceiling through a linear slit the translucent lighting panels. I hung the thinnest photoelectric cell [I could find on the open market] using micro-electrical wires right between the two spheres.

 

I then moved the spheres together at a several incremental rates of speed (starting at .1” per minute) until I had measured and recorded the luminary drop between them as they drew closer and retracted away from each other.

 

The results were as expected; the measured Lumens dropped at a ratio of r2 as I brought them together [until they touched the cell], and the opposite was true as I pulled them apart. Try this experiment at home, on your kitchen counter, with a couple of opaque hemispheres under a lot of light in a well-lit room. As you bring them together a shadow will form between them.

 

In summary, the next major construct to the UFoP is that the Void is a particle-based energy field, comprised of GravX particles that are not in the construct of stable Matter.

Since the GravX is negatively charged it may lie within the realm of Electromagnetic Forces (more on that later).

 

Therefore, if the Void is an unrestrained, measurable energy field, constructed of similarly charged energy particles, it must have pressure and density, and that we can measure this pressure and density.

 

Since I have defined the Void as a particle-based energy field, and that the interactions of these particles must mimic the behavior, and known properties, of any [or all] of all of the other known energy particles when interacting wit Matter, I was able to construct a simple mechanical model to describe the force of gravity using GR physics:

As two objects of Mass (Matter) approach each other [even to the point of contact] the density of the Mass in this Matter determines the density of GravX particles between them. Then, as the volume of the space between these objects of Mass decreases so does the density of the localized Void energy field between them by a ratio of r2. As the density decreases in a stable field of Void energy so does the localized pressure of Void energy.

 

In simple terms, the force of gravity is the resultant force measured from the pressure differential between the exterior surfaces of two objects of mass in close proximity, and it can be measured and recorded on any conventional scale (like pounds/in2 – PSI).

 

In summary, at this point of the thread the major constructs of this UFoP are:

  • Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed;

  • There are only two states of existence in the universe, Matter and Energy;

  • Of the four ‘accepted’ Fundamental Forces in the universe, only Electromagnetic force(s) are real in origin, observed (and observable) and quantifiable;

  • Gravity is not a Fundamental Force;

  • And the Void is an energy field comprised of charged particles.

 

In the next thread I’ll explain how this framework explains many observed physical phenomena, including Newton’s Principia; Newton’s Laws of Motion. (If you read this last post thoroughly, and if I didn’t leave anything out, you will readily surmise how it does.)


  • Bradpitt4 likes this

#4 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 29 April 2019 - 07:36 AM

Before I continue with this construct (as promised in the previous thread) I feel this is proper time to supply a mental framework for my methodologies so as to avoid repeated arguments to this UFoP.

 

I fully understand the significance of observation, verification and validation of any portion of any construct, and that in altering (or replacing) the fundamental bases for previous hypothetical constructs (such as GM and QFT) cannot and should not be undertaken without a direct, one-for-one replacement of ALL aspects of that construct, and that that replacement(s) needs to fully and complete encompass altered (or removed) constructs to a level of acceptance at or above these previous constructs.

 

In layman’s terms, I don’t replace those current constructs (especially those that most [accredited] scientist believe to correct) with constructs of lesser validity unless one is able to back up your construct(s) with a better, more valid one. This especially holds true for those constructs that have evolved more recently (within the past 100 years or so).

 

In alignment with the above statement I would also postulate the opposite is true; scientist should not accept (and offer in argument) the observation, validation and verification of any construct based on previous experiments that they themselves do not either duplicate & verify using current and more thoroughly vetted methodologies OR research these hypothesis that previous constructs were trying to validate to ensure it is the same construct being replaced.

 

In other words, the very nature of the previous construct(s) that you are citing in support (or lack of) in current constructs may not be of similar definition to the new construct.

 

In the context of my discussions regarding the UFoP I am referring to the [famous] Michelson – Morley experiment of 1887.

“The Michelson-Morley experiment became what might be regarded as the most famous failed experiment to date and is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the existence of the luminiferous [A]ether. Michelson was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1907, becoming the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Physics.”1

1American Physical Society; aps.org

 

Even Albert E struggled with the conclusions that this experiment appear to validate because he, along with almost every other learned scientist [that has considered] this postulate, has stated that in order for GM to work it has to be there. Indeed, many scientists grappled with these same conclusions and, over the course of the next century duplicated & modified the experiment to meet more contemporary definitions with better instrumentation. To which many of these repeated experiments did not draw the same conclusions, nor to the same level of certainty.

 

I bring this up because the reference to the Michelson – Morley experiment of 1887 has continually been bantered about as conclusive proof that there is no Aether, the substance previously hypothesized to fill the Void, however many scientist (including myself) have said the Void is not empty and something has to be there; it just may not be the luminiferous Aether as previously described or investigated.

Indeed, this very experiment was cited by the US Patent Office in one citation against [me] being awarded a patent in which I was referencing the Aether as Void Energy (for the sake of clarity).

 

I will continue the UFoP framework discussion in the next thread.



#5 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 April 2019 - 12:17 PM

As I referenced in my previous post I have always felt it incumbent upon me, as well as every other scientist working in the realm of theoretical physics, that if you are going to put forth a new theory one had better have a good reason why yours in better and be able to back it up with good, solid proven observations; bettering those that can’t do the same.

 

I need to bring forth and present some observations and physics that are still not being adequately explained in GM; to which these observations did, in part give rise to QFT. The one such construct of GM and QFT is the principle(s) of Inertia.

Inertia plays such a significant role in GM that it has been hypothesized that Inertial (like Gravity) is a property of Mass, it is the cause of the gyroscopic effect, and some models hypothesis that it may even be the root component in gravitational forces.

 

With the inclusion of Void Energy as a major construct it was but a small leap of logic to use it to explain any number of observed phenomena, including Inertia. If I place an object of Mass in a steady state field of uniform particles, and if that object of Mass reacts to those particles in a predicable manner, and if that manner is 100% within the realm of GM then it can [with a very high degree of certainty] be used as a base reference for any combination of Mass and particle interference. The ‘thought experiment’ for the proof of this observation is simple, and the actual tests for said interference are being conducted on such a timely scale that we can say they are being done virtually non-stop. For example:

 

To test for Newton’s Laws of Motion in the context of my construct we need only to conduct the following experiment:

 

If we take a stick of solid Mass and use it to stir a localized area of particles in liquid form we expect resistance forces to the stick as we apply forces to it to move through the liquid. This is why a body [of Mass] at rest tends to stay at rest.

 

With the continual application of a variable force (such that velocity remains constant) eventually the force required to stir the stick goes to 0 (zero); the localized area of liquid will begin to accompany the stick and eventually its velocity will match that of the sticks. And if we let go of the stick while the liquid is still in motion it will continue to remain in motion around the center of rotation for a determinate length of time. The body [of Mass] is now at rest again relative to its localized area.

If we change the parameters of the experiment, and just pushed the stick through the liquid in a linear direction (instead of stirring it in a circular motion) at a constant velocity we would be 100% confident that the observations of this variation to the experiment would be repeated exactly as previously conducted; when we let go of the stick it would remain with the particle field in motion around it.

 

Conversely, if we then attempt to arrest the motion of the Mass, while still surrounded by a localized area of particles in motion, the particles will react to the Mass and cause a resistive force against it. This force will decrease in time as the localized particle fields’ velocity normalizes with the surrounding area particles. This is why a body [of Mass] in motion tends to stay in motion.

 

We can now repeat this experiment with any combination of Mass properties of the stick (shape, density, porosity, angle of incidence, etc.) and physical properties of the liquid (chemical makeup, viscosity, etc.) and the observed results will be the same; even if we turn the liquid into vapor and the stick into paper it will behave the same. If we conduct the experiment in a closed, sealed container filled completely with an incompressible liquid, and a body of Mass in this liquid we would expect the results of the experiments to be the same, however we would expect the amount of force required to put the body of Mass in motion would be substantially more that if the liquid was allowed to move out of its way (as in an open container; forming bow-waves). The shape and porosity of that object of Mass would also greatly affect the outcome (in this closed container) as well.

 

The values for the Newtonian formulas will differ (M & V) but the results will always be the same: A body at rest will tend to stay at rest, and body in motion will tend to stay in motion.

 

This ‘thought experiment’ was designed to test the validity of the construct that Mass in not completely transparent to the GravX particle, nor is it completely opaque to the GravX particle.

I call this a ‘thought experiment’ because as I started piecing together experiments that would validate (or negate) my theories I chose experiments where I was testing for a known, observable reaction that did not involve hypothetical, unproven reactions. I also realize that all scientific inquiries through the ages have either conducted these experiments or based there explanations of these theories on these experiments. (Consider the apple falling out of the tree, or dropping two different weights at the same time off the Tower of Pisa.)

Accordingly, I don’t expect those of you reading this forum will actually feel the need to go and set up this experiments to validate these observations and conclusions. (If you do need to run them you obviously didn’t help out in the kitchen long enough when you were a kid, or you didn’t play in the swimming pool very much either.)

 

This example of direct corollary experimentation (of real or mental construct) proving the correlation of Mass and particle dynamics lead me to this fundamental construct of the framework: Mass is translucent to the GravX particle, and that density of the Mass is a direct correlation of its transparency to the GravX particle.

 

This simple observation about the Conservation of Momentum can them be extrapolated to help define several more properties of the GravX particle. As I looked around and considered how the interaction of Mass might be affected by the GravX particle I began to consider the different physical properties that define this particle, what other particles in physics can prove to be a direct correlation and how these correlations & observations can be made through conventional (and unconventional) experimentation.

 

As I mentioned before, I have determined that the Void is constructed of an energy field made up entirely of known Electromagnetic particles and GravX particles, that the GravX particles have an Electromagnetic charge and react to Mass in a non-hypothetical [observable] manner, and that this energy field of GravX particles has pressure and density. In order to derive these constructs I continued defining the experiments that would indicate confirmable observations to these properties.

 

In other words, I need to keep putting my framework and its constructs to the test to further describe this particle and answer those questions that needed to be answered; questions like : “If Gravity is not a Fundamental Force in the universe, can I correlate the other two Forces (Strong and Weak Nuclear) to this theoretical framework?”


  • Bradpitt4 likes this

#6 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 02 May 2019 - 01:49 PM

I wanted to start this section with a discussion of Strong and Weak Nuclear Force. Just as the Force of Gravity has evolved from String Theory & 9 dimensions to what we now describe as QFT, I have witness the birth AND discovery of numerous sub-atomic particles and the theoretical physics behind them over the years as well. I resent this caveats because the arguments for these solutions get stronger and stronger with each passing introduction of each new hypothetical particle and its hypothetical properties (such as Gluons, Quarks, Higgs Boson, etc.) as do the efforts to validate their existence. It’s been like fighting an uphill battle where popular opinion controls the tilt of the hill.

 

However, I have to interrupt myself…

 

Since this conversation is strictly linear (and I cannot go back and clarify previous posts) I need to go back a bit and discuss the force of gravity.

 

I was just involved in another conversation along the subject of gravity (and how I accounted for it). One part of that conversation that gave me cause for an abrupt pause is that as I explained the UFoP foundational theory on Gravity, and that is not a fundamental force in the universe, it did not occur to me that anybody who would read that statement would assume that there are still gravitational forces out there; that would be wrong. When I state that the force measurements & equations (that based their values on the force of gravity) are looking for gravitational forces, and that these efforts to do that, are based on an informal fallacy, I mean just this: There are NO attractive gravitational forces in the universe. Period. None; empty set; null; Zero...

 

What we see when we put a force-measurement device between two object of mass (that are exerting a measurable force against each other) is only the magnitude of that force. What causes that attractive force will forever be up for debate because it doesn't exist. I’ll say it again: There are NO [attractive] gravitational forces in the universe. In other words, what others’ seek is simply not there, and they are barking up the wrong tree trying to define it. That's why noting can agree with each other when it comes to gravity.

 

What I can state with 99.9% certainty is that if we put a rigid load cell between two steel-based magnets, stuck together, we can see the magnitude of their attractive forces when measured against the hard points of contact between them. And I can state with 99.9% certainty is that this measured force is cause by Electromagnetism.

 

When measuring [what others call] gravitational attraction they make the same assumption; gravity is a stand-alone force and, regardless of what we think causes it, it is an attractive force. What I am saying is that when you measure the force of gravity it is not based on ANY attractive force at all; it is based on an exterior-based pressure (force) differential that is pushing the objects of mass together, and that the pressure differential is greatest at their point of contact.

 

Think of it as described in the magnet experiment above, but instead the steel-based structures have no internal or external force field generators (like electromagnetism, or radioactive particles). Ordinarily they would rest against each other, and the load cell between them would show 0 (zero). Now, if we put them in an energy field that always repealed mass, and proportionally lowered the density of that field between them (at the point of radial contact), they would be squeezed together with a measurable amount of force. That measured force may or may not be caused by another Fundamental Force, but it would always mimic what time has referred to as gravity.

 

No gravity, or gravitational forces involved, just plain old PSI, lbs/in2.

 

Whimsical, fantasy, strictly hypothetical…you might say? What about dust particles in a statically charged field? Or any negatively charged particles as it comes in close proximity to any other positively  charged particle or surface; rigid or not? If I back one of those particles against a rigid load cell on a firm base it will show me the force of repulsion of the energy field against my particle of mass on the opposite side of that repulsive force. What if we put a piece of metal up against a solid wall, put a chock against one side of that metal object and put a load cell between the wall and the piece of metal? You can hit that piece of metal with a hammer, you can heat it up with a torch, you can use a water cannon against it...you can impart any number of pressure differentials against the exterior of that object of metal and in each instance you will measure a force between the wall and the object of mass. And if you were not accounting for the exterior pressure differential you might think the force to be attractive (like electromagnetism).

 

When I state that in my constructs (and theories) that gravity is not a Fundamental Force in the universe, and that it is measured as a resultant force between two object of Mass, I mean just that: it doesn’t exist as a force at all, anywhere. It is a byproduct of other repulsive force(s) against Mass. Mass cannot create the force of gravity because it doesn’t exist.

 

Now I will continue…



#7 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 07 May 2019 - 08:15 AM

I have previously listed the major constructs of my UFoP:

  1. Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed;
  2. There are only two states of existence in the universe, Matter and Energy;
  3. Of the four ‘accepted’ Fundamental Forces in the universe, only Electromagnetic force(s) are real in origin, observed (and observable) and quantifiable;
  4. Gravity is not a Fundamental Force;
  5. And the Void is an energy field comprised of charged particles.

 

In the UFoP I have accounted for the measured force previously attributed to ‘gravity’; #4 above is now redundant to #3 so I will remove it. In this thread I will account for the other inferred Fundamental Forces in #3; Strong and Weak Nuclear to continue my construct.

 

In previous discussions I have likened the Void energy field to those properties described in the Aether and Dark Energy. And while the concept is nothing new, in previous and current descriptions the behavioral patterns of Dark Energy and [the] Aether we have not affiliated them with energy fields that we know, observe and accept as accurate descriptions when it comes to regarding their interface with Mass (Matter). Accordingly, in the UFoP I describe the Void energy field (as it interfaces with Mass) exhibiting properties identical to almost all other charge particle fields that have pressure and density. Accordingly, I do not restrict the behavior of the Void energy field to mimicking only that of charged particles, but also to those of any particles that [when confined] create pressure and density; e.g. a fixed volume of gas. That is not to say that Void Energy behaves in accordance with the Perfect Gas Law, however it does mimic it in many, observable attributes without violating any laws of physics.

 

For the sake of brevity and the ease of comparisons I will compare the properties of the Void energy filed interacting with Matter by using Earths' atmosphere as a model for my construct. The Earths’ atmosphere is not comprised of a field of charged particles; it is mixture of several gases composed of compressible gasses. However, in almost every physics models these gas particle behave virtually identical to like-charged particles when constrained in an enclosed space.

If you are not familiar with the physical properties of gas and gaseous particles please explore this area of physics briefly before proceeding.

 

If we construct a 3-dimensional model made up from of individual pieces of non-porous matter, assemble that matter into an air-tight construct, then remove the air from the interior of that construct, the assembly will stay together. The vacuum created in the interior of the construct will create a pressure differential between the interior and exterior surface of the assembled object of Mass and, as long as the atmospheric gasses are constrained from entering the interior of the object (or dispersing from around it) the atmosphere will continue to expert pressure to the entire exterior of the object and hold the object together as a solid construct.

 

This pressure is caused by the compressibility of the gas particles [that make up the atmosphere] against the exterior surface of the construct. Unconstrained, the atmosphere surrounding the object would eventually disperse; the gas particles exerting pressure against each other would continue move apart until they no longer affected each other or the solid construct they are holding together (due to the pressure deferential). Eventually the object of mass would then be allowed to break apart into individual pieces.

 

If we electromagnetically charge all of the non-porous matter in this construct with the same electrical charge (positive or negative) the unified pieces of this construct [being held together by atmospheric pressure] will exert repulsive forces against each other and, like the compressed atmospheric particles of gas surrounding it, the non-porous solid object will attempt to disperse and the construct would disintegrate back into individual pieces.

 

As long as the atmospheric pressure surrounding the construct exceeds the repulsive value of the individual pieces that comprise the construct, the object will remain intact and behave as a single object of mass. When the force of repulsion of the electromagnetic charge exceeds the atmospheric pressure holding it together the object will break apart.

 

In a fixed system, where the electrical charge density per particle cannot be increased, the only other way to increase the electrical charge of the construct is to add more charged elements to the construct. Accordingly, in a single-layer construct once the electromagnetic repulsive forces of the object overcomes atmospheric pressure the airtight seal between the particles will be broken and the gas particles are then allowed to permeate the once-solid structure. The individual pieces are no longer restricted in movement (relative to each other) and the repulsive electrical charge of these individual pieces will cause them to accelerate apart from each other immediately and with substantial force.

 

We can also induce the same destruction of this stable object but imparting additional energy into the individual pieces using kinetic energy to break the seal between the pieces. If we impact the solid object with enough force to disrupt the airtight seal between the individual pieces then the surrounding gas particles will then permeate the interior of the once-solid structure and the results will be the same; the repulsive electrical charge of these individual pieces cause them to accelerate apart from each other immediately and with substantial force.

 

The above scenario describes a single layered construct (like a hollow sphere) where the only force holding the construct together is the pressure differential between the interior and exterior layer of the construct. If we had more like-charged layers to the exterior of the construct, and add then in such a manner that there was no atmosphere pressure trapped under these layers, then (like the previous layers) they would be stuck against the construct due to the pressure of the atmosphere on the exterior of the object. If we keep adding these layers eventually the repulsive forces between these layers would not allow the construct to be stable and any additional layers would not stick to the construct.

 

Conversely, if the atmospheric pressure against our stable object [formed from charged particles] decreases at a fixed rate, then one-by-one the individual like-charged objects that make up the single construct would accelerate away from the construct and with substantial force. We call this phenomena Radiation.

 

What I have described, in all of its simplicity, is the construction and destruction of the nucleus of the atom that makes up stable Matter (Mass). The identically charged particles that make up Mass are the Protons. A single Proton can exist by itself (hydrogen) however two Protons (helium) cannot co-exist without a 3-dimensional construct to apply surface area pressure against to keep them in close proximity (if not touching) each other. That is why helium is 4 times as dense as hydrogen: has 2 Neutrons at its nucleus in order to remain as one solid construct.

 

As Mass increases its density (an increase in Protons/in3) the surface area of the Proton nucleus increases, however the localized Void energy field surrounding the Proton nucleus does not. So, as the interior pressure of the nucleus increases, it will eventually exceed the localized surface pressure that the Void energy field. When this happens Protons are expelled from the nucleus until the sum of the forces equal zero (0) again. As the Void pressure decreases over time the densest matter becomes more unstable and continues to expel Protons from the nucleus.

 

In summary, I have defined a physical characteristic of the Void energy field not unlike most other energy fields [with pressure and density] and I have defined it such a manner consistent with the laws of physics. However, in order to exhibit these characteristics I also have to define the size of the charged particles of the Void such that they are too large to exist in between a continuous construct of Protons and Neutrons when in contact with each other.

 

Accordingly, the laws of physics tell us that if we create a single-charged object (like the nucleus of the atom) it will immediately attract particles of the opposite charge: the Electron. It will attract them in such a manner consistent with the laws of physics. If, during the approach of the electron, its velocity vector is such that it will not impact the nucleus directly it will either curve around the nucleus and get expelled from orbit or it will enter a stable orbit around the positively-charged nucleus.

Please bear in mind that the speed of the electron traveling in the Void is the same as most other charged particles in the universe: the speed of light.

The nucleus will continue to attract electrons until its overall electrical charge is balanced (neutral). Each additional electron will continue to orbit at near light-speed velocities.

This also explains why the orbiting electrons appear as a shell, only appearing as a particle at the point of touch.

 

Since we have not seen the nucleus of a stable atom constructed from electrons it is fair to surmise that the size of the Void particle is smaller than the electron as well, but not so small as to allow it to be expelled from the interior construct when 4 or more electrons are assembled in contact with each other.

 

I have not performed experiments to determine the charge of the Void energy particle (GravX) however I can form a strong hypothesis as to whether it in negatively or positively charged based on its interaction with Mass and other charged particles (like the Electron and the Proton) within the confines of the laws of physics. Accordingly I suspect that the GravX particle will have a positive charge for the following reasons:

  1. Electrons do not slow down as they traverse the Void of space. This means that they do not encounter a resistive force opposite to their velocity vector. Instead, they are continually attracted by the opposite charge in any direction they go.
  2. Since Mass is translucent to the GravX particle, and its opacity is based on its density, this means that the plan-form profile of electrically-neutral, stable Matter is almost entirely based on the size of the nucleus, a positively-charged construct of determined size and surface area. This means that the larger the positively-charged nucleus of Matter, the more resistance is sees to the GravX particles as it increases its velocity through them.
  3. Since the orbital altitude of any two electrons cannot be the same, and in almost every construct of stable Mass there are an equal number of protons and electrons, this means the overall positive charge of the nucleus AND its electromagnetic field must be slightly higher than just the nucleus alone in order to balance out the identical attractive forces between the electrons and protons despite the higher orbits of the outermost electrons. This also means that the pressure density of the Void energy field is greatest around the nucleus of the atom and decreases with r2 from the nucleus.
    1. To postulate is made valid through the observation on any gaseous atmosphere surrounding any celestial object. They physically behave the same, albeit not from the same dynamic point of view.

 

In summary, I have maintained the following framework and strengthened its construct through the explanations and observation of the most factually based characteristics of physics and dynamics:

  • Void energy is comprised of GravX particles
  • GravX particles can account for almost all physical and dynamic description of stable Mass (Matter) in the known universe, including the movement, interactions and formation of stable matter in the Void energy field.
  • Void energy can account for almost all physical and dynamic characteristics of the charged particles comprising the Electromagnetic spectrum as well as those comprising unstable Matter.
  • Strong and Weak nuclear forces can be described, measured and accounted for using Void energy in harmony with the GravX particle.

 

Based on these postulates I have made several predictions over the years and [so far] most have come to fruition. Within the context of this thread I will divulge one, and why I made this prediction:

After I assembled the construct [as described above] concerning the formation of stable Matter, the very nature of this construct says that Mass can be assembled through any means conceivable (electromagnetically or dynamically) to be heavier [more dense] than the heaviest naturally occurring element on the Periodic table (Uranium 238), however the local pressure density of the Void energy surrounding that particle here on earth will not allow it to remain stable (intact) for very long.

 

To which, as we used particle accelerators to construct and deconstruct the atomic nucleus it came as no surprise to me that with each heavier element that we assembled its shelf life as stable element grew smaller and smaller. In other words, we may have packed on additional protons to the nucleus of an atom to increase its density, and added a few electrons to stabilize the net charge of the atom, but none of these man-made heaver elements have survived more than a split second.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that I have not adequately described the physical attributes of Void energy to explain odd, unusual or random events that others have observed or tested for without my knowledge of such events. I am not omniscient in the physics of the universe to say otherwise. However, that basics of this framework can indeed be used to explain a myriad of other observations and speculations that we surmise with great certainty to be true. In the following posts I will show how the model fits what we have observed and what we will observe in the coming years.



#8 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 12:49 PM

(Dear readers, I would ask that as you read this post please allow enough time to understand and comprehend it, because of all of the posts in this thread this one discusses the most fundamental and controversial subject in physics: Black Holes and all of the ramifications of defining them)

 

The postulate of using the density differentials between layers of particles to bend light is considered sound physics. However the historical postulate of the Aether was not needed to bend light, it was theorize as the medium of which light traveled in (or on, depending on your point of view). We have also [historically] considered the speed of light to be a universal constant, however we have had to amend that constant based on new definitions normalized (or uniform) space. To accommodate observed changes in this velocity we have employed variations of the Space-Time continuum theories. This has allowed us to experiment for, and account for, variations in gravity and its effects on the speed of light. In each case these variations have always had something to do with the density of the medium in which light traverses. To which we have tested this hypothesis to the point where we have changed the density and refraction of different transparent materials to slow light down to less than 6 mph.

 

Many contemporary SR theories serve to bolster the need for the an ‘Aether’ to be a carrier of light, only most SR theories (as discussed in previous posts) refer to it as Dark Energy coming from Dark Matter. I have been in complete agreement [with many of the scientist over the years] in that light, like every other electromagnetic particle in the Electromagnetic Spectrum, needs a medium by which to travel through. However I theorize that Void energy, and Void energy particles, are this medium. I bring this theory back out only because there exists an observed physic phenomena that has caused impassible conflicts between GR and SR theories as well as GM and QFT theories; Black Holes.

 

The history and definition of a Black Hole has evolved over the years, and I will not elaborate on these changes, however several postulates about the physics of Black Holes, and their existence, have persisted; namely those postulates of intense gravitational pull due to Mass and that this intense pull (which has morphed into a gravitational well creating a Space-Time Curvature) is so intense that [not even] light can escape. However recently we have observed the signature of Black Holes thorough the escape of radiation through the axis of rotation of the Black Hole. This of course defies the very definition of a Black hole; a gravity source so intense that light cannot escape (that’s why we can’t see them). Like many others I asked, how did the radiation escape?

 

Likewise, we define Gravitational lensing as the bending of light through the gravity field in close proximity to large, dense objects yet we have observed (and confirmed) the existence of a Black Hole in transit across a field of stars lightyears behind it, however it did not bend the light around it; it only appeared as a black spot blocking out the stars’ light behind it as it passed between the stars and us.

 

Once again we see two non-contagious theories in conflict Gravity and Light. The UFoP can tie these two together by explaining both of them within the laws of physics.

 

To the UFoP the most obvious solution to these conflicts is the density and pressure properties of the Void energy field. If the measure maximum sustained speed of light (appx 300M m/s) as that speed measured through a homogeneous transparent medium (such as the void of space), and we know that we can slow light down, or change its direction by changing the density of the medium in which it is traveling, then we can extrapolate (with a high degree of certainty) the theory that we can slow it down to the point of non-observance by either changing the medium by which it is traveling or removing the medium altogether.

 

This hypothesis aligns itself to several theorems that we have verified over and over again. For instance, sound waves create noise through the oscillatory motion of solid, elastic particles of mass propagated by a rapid change in pressure against those particles. The speed of the sound/pressure wave is based on the density and elasticity of the particles with which the pressure wave travels. In other words, the physics of creating sound is strictly based on the physical properties of the affected particles of mass and how these particles interact with each other. The speed of sound (sonic velocity) is measured to be much faster through water than air, and even faster through metal than water, however it slows down in air while traveling through the lower density of the atmosphere at altitude; to which its speed becomes zero (0) because it cannot propagate in a vacuum at all.

 

The same can be said for long-since hypothesized (but only recently discovered) gravity waves. We believe we have recently measured gravity waves from the beginning of time (appx 14B years ago). If this is correct, this pressure wave has taken 14B years to reach us, and we are not even at the edge of the universe. Since Mass is affected by Void Energy it must therefore affect Void energy and Void energy particles in the same magnitude and in the same manner (Newton’s Laws).

 

We know that when an object solid Mass impacts another object of solid Mass, the denser the Mass the faster the pressure wave propagates through the Mass. Newton’s Cradle is a good example of this. The Hertzian wave solution tells us that pressure wave of sound through steel is about 5,000 m/s, however the pressure wave caused by the first steel ball striking the second steel ball travels to the last ball in the line of balls travels at about 500 m/s. This pressure propagation change is due to the change in pressure medium from sound as well as the impact energy due to the kinetic energy transfer, elasticity and momentum between the steel balls. The laws of physics, particularly particle interactions between dissimilar particles, still applies.

 

Simply put, the pressure waves of Void energy particles in the UFoP can accommodate and account gravity waves without modification; they are due in part to both the impact and expulsion of Mass in the Void, and are seen as the resultant pressure wave created in the Void energy particle field. Like pressure waves (sound waves) traveling through an elastic medium (air particles), the force of pressure degrades rapidly as the density of the elastic medium does. (However its speed does not degrade nearly as fast.)

 

The extrapolation of these theories, facts and observations in the framework of the UFoP allows the UFoP model to state that Black Holes are a localized low-pressure area of Void Energy due to a lack of Void energy particles. This would account for the most common and current observations of a Black Hole:

  • Light waves do not propagate though a Black Hole at the same speed as they do though normalized Void space. If they transit through a Black Hole they will slow down to a lower speed correlating to the pressure of Void energy in the Black Hole. This velocity will affect the visual observation of light transiting through (or reflecting off matter in) the Black Hole, and therefore it may not be visible for an extended length of time (if ever) depending on the distance of the observer from the Black Hole.
  • Stable Matter is formed based on the localized pressure and density of the Void energy field [of particles]. If the pressure/density of the Void energy field is lowered, then the stable Mass (Matter) formed within this field will become less dense. To which if the density of the localized energy field is lowered below a minimal value then even visible, stable matter will not exist. A Black Hole may have Matter within its confines, however if that matter is gaseous in nature (e.g. hydrogen or helium) or does not exist in sufficient quantities [at this lower scale of atomic mass] to be even visible, you won’t see it, nor will the light reflecting off it be seen (if not for a very, very long time).
  • Conversely, if the electromagnetic particle exiting a Black Hole can be observed by other means (other than using the visible light spectrum), then you would see them escaping (if they did).
  • The formation of a localized region of lower Void energy pressure (a Black Hole) would result in a migration of any Mass (near this local region of space) into the Black Hole due to the pressure differential of the Void on both sides of the object of Mass.
    • It would not be sucked in (as by gravity); it would be pushed in (like an air pressure leak into a vacuum).

If this resultant velocity vector (trajectory) [due to the acceleration of the Mass towards the Black Hole] does not result in a stable orbit of the Mass about the low-pressure area then the Mass’s orbit will either degrade towards the center of the Black Hole, or it will ‘slingshot’ around the Black Hole and depart the area at a deceleration rate that matches it approaching acceleration. Once again, this rate of acceleration is strictly based on the density of the Mass approaching the Black Hole.

  • If the object of Mass’s approach velocity and trajectory results in a stable orbit around the Black Hole it will remain visible and orbit the Black Hole in a cyclonic fashion. As more Mass approaches the Black hole, if the Mass does not approach the Black Hole at the proper trajectory it may collide with any Matter circling the Black Hole and either get knocked into the Black Hole or be forced to establish a more planer orbit. Eventually, if the Black Hole is big enough, and does not dissipate quickly (but remains intact long enough) all localized Mass near the Black Hole will establish a planer orbit around the Black Hole and appear as a spiral galaxy.
    • The laws of physics support this theory 100% as this observation is the exact same definition of visible and invisible matter in a hurricane or particle-based cyclonic storm of any kind.

 

In summary, nothing regarding the observation and confirmation of the existence of Black Holes has changed; only the physics explaining them has. And nothing in the physics behind these explanation is theoretical nor has it been changed; everything within this construct of the UFoP regarding the physical interactions between particles of mass and energy has acted in accordance with the known laws of physics.



#9 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 06:19 AM

If the previous theories and observations supporting these theories are true (factual) then in accordance with the laws of physics the opposite reactions of these postulates must be true.

  • If the kinetic energy of Mass, and its interaction with other objects of Mass [in the Void], can create pressure waves and localized pressure differentials in the Void (both high pressure and low pressure) as well as change the localized density differential of the Void, than Mass can create not only Black Holes, it should be able to create pressure variations of a different physical characteristic as well, and those variations should be common in nature. Accordingly, the interactions of Mass with the Void (and with other objects of Mass) should be able to create cyclonic, linear disturbances as well.
    • Just as the kinetic energy and pressure differential of the earths’ atmosphere (comprised of gaseous particles as well as solid particles) creates hurricanes, it also creates tornados. Scientists have hypothesized that just such disturbance may exist; they are referred to as Wormholes. By definition a Wormhole is actually a linear cyclonic disturbance with an area of extreme low pressure at its center.
  • If a low pressure area of the Void results in a Black Hole, and this Black Hole causes an acceleration of Mass towards the center of this area of low pressure, then the opposite must be true; a centralized area of high pressure will result in all stable Matter accelerating away from this centralized region. To which, we have seen and measured this observation across the universe. The mass of the universe is accelerating away from itself.
  • As Mass accelerates its kinetic energy level increases, as well as the resultant forces in Void pressure waves and differentials, when interacting with Void particles as well as other objects of Mass. (F=MA)
  • If an object of stable Mass is surrounded by a uniformly dense field of Void particles, then the Mass will remain intact as long as the pressure against the atomic structure of the Mass remains constant. If the localized pressure gradient of the Void energy field begins to decay (a reduction of force) this means that the Void energy field is being allowed to expand outwards to meet its constraints (Ideal Gas Law). Unrestricted it will continue to expand unabated.
  • If allowed to expand beyond the point of having enough pressure to contain stable Mass at the atomic level, the Mass will then begin to decay and destruct into smaller and smaller objects of Mass, and these smaller objects of Mass will have a lower density. Given unrestricted Void expansion all Mass in the universe will eventually destruct to the only stable Mass that does not need Void energy to remain intact as stable Matter: Hydrogen.

 

This last postulate does indeed support the Big Bang Theory. Hypothetically, at one instance in time all of the protons [that comprise stable matter] may have been assembled in a solid construct, and the Void energy field around it could theoretically had enough force (Area pressure) to keep it all compacted together in one place. (This would be acceptable within the laws of physics, and the first construct of this UFoP, that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed).

 

If the Void Energy field constraints were removed, and the Void energy field was allowed unlimited expansion, as the field expanded its pressure/density around this solid construct of Matter would begin to decline at an accelerated pace. This pace would match the deceleration rate of the universe. It would not be a ‘big bang’ but the resultant affect would be the same; Matter would begin to destruct, break into smaller clumps of less dense, stable matter and began to push away from each other as a rate that matches the rate of pressure decay in the Void energy field. In essence it would not be an explosion that forced Matter to spread out against the cosmos, it would be repulsive force of Void energy starting from the inside of the solid construct that pushes it outward. And this force would not be instantaneous (like that of a chemical explosion) it would be continuous (like magnetic repulsion).

 

There is 100% conservation of energy, and the only energy needed for the acceleration of the Mass in the universe is the latent energy of elasticity of the Void particle, GravX. As this latent energy is expended, and approaches zero (0), the kinetic energy of the mass of the universe is expended (at the same rate) as Mass density approaches zero (0). With this postulate we can write the one equation that unifies the physics of the universe:

F=MA

Where F = FV + FM + FE

Where M = the known Mass of the all stable and unstable Matter in the universe

Where A = Av + AM + AE

FV = the Force of the pressure/density differential of the Void energy field

FM = the Force [energy] of Mass (E=MC2)

FE = the Force [energy] of the Electromagnetic Spectrum

                FE = FES + FER

Where FES = the Force [energy] of Electrical Energy

Where FER = the Force [energy] of Radioactive Energy

Av = Acceleration of Void energy [particles]

AM = Acceleration of Mass [particles]

AE = Acceleration of the Electromagnetic Spectrum [particles]

AE = AES + AER

Where AES = the acceleration value of Electrical Energy

Where AER = the acceleration value of Radioactive Energy

The corollary to that equation is that in a balanced equation the sum of the forces must equal 0.

F = 0

This hold true for even the first construct of this UFoP; Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This means that they can only trade places.

Accordingly, if we sum up the forces in this equation as each approaches 0 we find that M remains constant and A approaches 0 at the same rate.

 

I have stated that as the universe expands the pressure/density differential of the Void Energy (FV) is the force behind that expansion, and since there is a positive value to F, there is a positive value to A. And while M remains forever constant, FM does not. However, as the universe expands FV decreases with the change in distance between Void energy particles by r2. So, as the distance between the repulsively-charged GravX particles gets greater FV approaches 0.

 

As FV approaches 0, so does FM; for it is the energy of FV that determines the density of M. As FV decays so does the atomic construct of stable Matter. There will always be the same number of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons in the universe (those elements that comprise stable matter) however FM is not based on total Mass, it is based on the latent energy of the density of Mass; the amount of energy in Mass is based on the repulsive latent kinetic energy between like-charge Protons. If E=MC2, where M is based on the kinetic energy of the number of repulsive protons in the nucleus of the atom, Matter can go from the lowest positive value derived from the Helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons) it can deconstruct to a value of 0 when it breaks apart into hydrogen (1 proton and 1 electron).

 

As the universe expands Av approaches zero (0) because the acceleration forces of Void energy are decreasing with the change in distance between Void energy particles by r2. And, as Av approaches 0 so does AM; the UFoP construct tells us the energy of the Void is the force behind any change in velocity of Matter, so as Av approaches 0 AM approaches 0

 

As the values for FV, FM, AV and AM approach 0 we can substitute them in the equation:

            (FV + FM + FE) = M (AV + AM + AE)

            (0 + 0 + FE) = M (0 + 0 + AE)

            FE = M (AE)

 

Since the electrical forces of the Electromagnetic Spectrum are neutrally balanced we can substitute 0 for FES as well.

This leaves the radioactive energies of the Electromagnetic Spectrum (FER) that are not based on electrical forces, but are based on atomic forces (radioactivity); these radioactive forces are based on the decay of unstable Mass. However, like the kinetic forces of Mass the radioactive energies of unstable mass can be deconstructed to a kinetic force (energy level) of 0 based on radioactive decay (matter deconstruction) however their radioactive energy levels cannot; FER must have a positive whole number value: 1. Therefore FES = M (AES) and FER = M (AER) are valid equations however they describe a different relationship between Mass and Energy.

 

Conversely, the force of energy derived from the acceleration of mass in the equation FES = M (AES) comes from the property of Mass in that equation, and if the particle from the Electromagnetic Spectrum has no mass (it is a massless particle; as are most particles in the Electromagnetic Spectrum) the AER for that particle is of no value for MER = 0.

 

Therefore F for stable Matter and Electrical Energy = ∑ (FV + FM + FEE) = 0

 

Since the product off all Matter and Energy in the universe can never have a 0 value (it must always be positive), the product of the two must always have a positive value as well.

 

So when M (AV + AM + AER) = 1 (0 + 0 + 1) = 1 (1) = 1

 

You will note that M (Matter) had survived to its lowest value, that of hydrogen (since it cannot be destroyed) it must remain a positive whole number, and since the acceleration of massless particles will forever remain positive, the acceleration forces due to radioactive energy (AER) cannot approach 0; it must remain a positive whole number as well.

 

This also means that if

FER = M (AER) where FER, M, AER and all have a positive value of 1, then the equation is still balanced, even when we complete the above equation (where the sum of the other forces = 0).

FER = M (AER)

1 = 1 (1)

1 = 1

 

Thus completes the major constructs of my Unifying Framework of Physics. I am currently working out the mathematics of my postulates and will discuss those efforts shortly. I sincerely hope some readers chime in with what I need. I will also spend the next few posts discussing the major and minor ramifications of this framework and why I built it in the first place: future predications and observations I had hoped to see in my lifetime.



#10 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 09 May 2019 - 12:16 PM

For many scientists the proof can be in the results or the proof can be in the numbers. I’ve been of the mindset that the proof is always in the results, and the numbers are just the icing on the cake. This mindset isn’t based on education, logic or personal psychology, but based on reason. I have learned [and seen] a multitude of manmade equations predict naturally occurring physics time and time again, however the scientific history of the physics behind those equations tells us that the physic is born of reason, and not of mathematics from theoretical equations. Theoretical equations produce theoretical results, and while most theoretical equations are derived from observed and proven physics (we call this reality), and many of the same have become fact, far more of them have not. Conversely, the usual failure of theoretical equations are not based on the observations, but on the numbers derived in these equations do not correctly define the physics.

 

Carl Sagan once said: It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. I think you can substitute ‘mathematics’ for ‘the universe’ and it would still hold true.

 

I am not ignorant of the fact that mathematics are the ultimate proof of concept and proof of fact, for I know that if you can explain the physics mathematically [using real numbers], and then replicate (or change) the physics by using any combination of variables and constants, with 100% certainty time after time, then the theory behind the physics far more supportable into becoming a fact. I have learned historically that scientist create theories to explain observations. Then, when the theory becomes accepted by themselves or others, they derive the equations to create the change/create the physics they need to suit their purpose; this is the nature of progress.

 

I had my reasons for piecing together this theory together the way I did (and the education, logic and personal psychology to help piece it together as I went along). As I built this framework I discover that by its very construct I only needed a few fundamental equations to prove it mathematically. To which, I am at the point where need the mathematical values for these equations to ‘mathematically’ prove I am right. The bad news is that those numbers and derived values are still beyond my education. The good news is that I can learn or derive them myself if need be.

 

For those of you that want to see the equations and the numbers I need to prove my UFoP I submit the following thread. I know that ultimately this mathematical proof will bear me and my theories out, however because my reasons for constructing this UFoP was not to seek mathematical proof of its validity, but to predict and observe theoretical physics that I believe to exist (and be true), I am still moving forward and try to physically prove my theories before I mathematically justify them.

To which I may never get the chance to conduct the one, last experiment I need to prove my theories, but I’ve proven too much of my theories to be true to give up on them just yet. So I’ll either be successful in putting the experiment together or die of old age first.

 

The actual values needed to prove this theory right are actually quite few in number and easy to plug in, because (as I referenced earlier) the universe is a balanced equation between Matter and Energy and neither can be created nor destroyed. So all I need to start with is calculating the Force of the Void and the Force of Matter.

 

For a while I could simply look them up on the internet. However since the introduction of QFT the modern definitions of these values keep changing. However, based on GM the actual values will not; and while I have seen them before I did not write them down when I saw them.

 

Here is what I need:

 

If FV (Void force) is the force of acceleration that the Void energy is exerting on the Mass of the universe to accelerate it, I need to find this value. Since we measure the acceleration of the universe as a positive it will remain that way.

 

If FM is the amount of force needed to keep Matter stable, I need to find this value. Since this force is exact opposite of FV I will label it as a negative value.

 

Here’s why I need them:

 

My UFoP is based on the construct that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and there are only two states of existence in the universe (matter and energy), the Void is energy, and there is energy in Mass, AND the sum of the forces in a balanced equation must equal 0. So my proof is simple: these two values should be the same but opposite signs.

 

FV + FM = 0

FV = - FM

 

To find FV we know that the universe is accelerating (A), and we know that Mass (M) is constant, so all we have to do is solve for FV = MA. Here is the part that history has escaped me: the value of FV and the value of A. When we first discovered that the universe was accelerating the numerical value of A gave us a value of FV that was too hard to believe so we changed everything to fit our [erroneous] models. (This was also the birth/acceptance of Dark Matter/Dark Energy). I read this value, grasped the magnitude of this value, and based my whole UFoP on that value. And here’s why:

 

I was taught in school that Albert E’s postulate that the stored potential energy of an atom was based on its mass (M), and that if its potential energy was ever converted to kinetic energy it could be described in the kinetic variable in the standard energy (force) equation: E = Mc2.

This formula also gave us a number of frightfully high but believable values so we theorized the output of the atomic bomb on these values.

We understand that these values are simply based on the potential kinetic energy of the mass of the atom if it is deconstructed at once. Albert E also knew that the theoretical values for the gravitational forces of mass were not enough to keep protons together (and I was in school when we proved this). So he theorized that if ‘whatever was keeping atoms together’ instantly went away, AND knowing that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, the energy conversion of potential to kinetic would be catastrophic on a universal scale. (This moment was also birth/acceptance of QFT.)

 

In simple terms, I stated that if Mass and Energy are constant, the forces that create them and hold them together have to be that same as well.

 

I have stated that Void energy (and Void energy alone) is responsible for universal acceleration, so the force of the Void = FV.

 

Finding FV was simple: FV = MA. We know M and we measured A.

 

I read this value once, but cannot easily find it anymore among the continuing growth of clutter surrounding SR and Dark Matter/Energy.

 

To find FM I could go to E=Mc2 to find the potential energy equivalent of the atomic structure (FM), and see if it is the same as Void energy, however because E=Mc2 has never really been proven I want to keep this value with the realm of GM. (To do otherwise may be committing an informal fallacy.) To calculate FM we just have to calculate how much pressure (N/m2) it takes to keep the heaviest atom (U238) stable.

 

FM = FA x AA

Where FA is the internal force of repulsion (N) of the protons in this atom, and AA is the outer surface area of the nucleus of the atom (m2).

 

For FA, I need a numerical value the force of repulsion for 92 protons in immediate contact with each other.

 

For AA I need to know the surface are of the nucleus of the U238 atom.

I know this is variable since it can contain between 141 and 146 Neutrons, however I would consider using an average of 144 neutrons to start with.

 

In summary, if I can determine the force of electromagnetic repulsion in the nucleus of this atom and the surface area of the nucleus I can determine the [current] maximum stable pressure the Void is exerting on the largest stable atom, then compare this force FM to the force of universal acceleration FV and see if they match. If they do I am more proper than anything else out there that has not moved out of the realm of hypothesis.

 

And this is far as I have gotten; almost complete but I need to plug in the values. And since I am a betting man I would bet in my favor, and that these numbers will match.

 

But as I said, this is not my reason for the UFoP. I built the UFoP to go faster than light…much, much faster.


Edited by MikeBrace, 09 May 2019 - 12:17 PM.


#11 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 07:11 AM

(Authors’ warning: this post is more personable and less scientific than the previous posts. I felt that if you have no just criticism of my work on the UFoP by now then I should show you the man behind the proof and let you decide if your time has been worth it).

 

I will work on the equations (as I referenced a few posts back) and when I have the mathematical proof I will post it as well. It may be on this forum, it may be on another. However, I feel it is incumbent on me, as the scientist that built this UFoP, to explain my motivation for building it. I didn’t do it for recognition, or just to prove I am right. I did it because I knew I could.

During conversations on my reasons for undertaking this effort, and why I did not do it for the obvious reasons, I like to quote Jimmy Buffet: Good times and riches and son-of-a-bitches - I’ve seen more than I can recall.

 

I had to build it for one specific problem and one specific problem only: the quest for superluminal drive. And I did it by taking lessons learned from the Kobayashi Maru.

 

Like many detectives and innovative personalities I like to solve problems. For me, the bane of my existence is my obsession with solving problems. Over the last 40 years I have solved a lot of them, some for commercial reasons others for just self-edification. Some I spent very little time on, some took me years and years, but to my own satisfaction I have solved all that I have come across and chose to take on. I say this because superluminal drive is the last, and longest running problem that I have been working on, and this UFoP offers me the technical solution I came up with.

 

I for one believe in extraterrestrials. As an explorer, scientist and historian I have come across, through my own volition and investigation, too much hard and narrative evidence to say we are not the first technology based, sentient beings to inhabit this planet. This certainty has also been bolstered over the last few hundred years with the notion and discussion of space travel to the stars.

To which - I think you will find that almost every aspect of science fiction (not science fantasy) has either come to pass, currently on the test bench or currently on the drawing boards. Despite Albert E’s postulate about the speed of light not being broken, and even considering all of his most devote followers, I don’t think you will find a scientist alive today that will say with 100% certainty that it is not possible.

 

The idea of superluminal travel as being possible for the sake of technology was not, however, my primary driver for knowing it is possible. To convince myself that it has to be possible I relied on the knowledge that IF another advanced civilization has visited our planet that they have to had gotten here at superluminal speeds. I state this observation because psychology has taught us that no society or social organization survives in isolation from the parent society for the duration of more than a generation or two; especially if that society is technologically based and has a social conscious. (Nor could this isolated society hope to survive on its own without near or immediate support.) And since the closest inhabitable planets are light years away, that means that IF extraterrestrials are real THEN superluminal drives have to exist.

 

If you have read this far, and if you are interested in the technical solution to superluminal propulsion, then please continue to the next post. If you are, on the other hand, dead set against the notion of extraterrestrials then stop right here; if you have a had any doubts about my reasoning and motivation behind the UFoP then nothing I can write after this would change your mind…and I have no desire to do that.



#12 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 01:59 PM

(Authors’ warning: this post is more personable and less scientific than the previous posts. I felt that if you have no just criticism of my work on the UFoP by now then I should show you the man behind the proof and let you decide if your time has been worth it).

 

I will work on the equations (as I referenced a few posts back) and when I have the mathematical proof I will post it as well. It may be on this forum, it may be on another. However, I feel it is incumbent on me, as the scientist that built this UFoP, to explain my motivation for building it. I didn’t do it for recognition, or just to prove I am right. I did it because I knew I could.

During conversations on my reasons for undertaking this effort, and why I did not do it for the obvious reasons, I like to quote Jimmy Buffet: Good times and riches and son-of-a-bitches - I’ve seen more than I can recall.

 

I had to build it for one specific problem and one specific problem only: the quest for superluminal drive. And I did it by taking lessons learned from the Kobayashi Maru.

 

Like many detectives and innovative personalities I like to solve problems. For me, the bane of my existence is my obsession with solving problems. Over the last 40 years I have solved a lot of them, some for commercial reasons others for just self-edification. Some I spent very little time on, some took me years and years, but to my own satisfaction I have solved all that I have come across and chose to take on. I say this because superluminal drive is the last, and longest running problem that I have been working on, and this UFoP offers me the technical solution I came up with.

 

I for one believe in extraterrestrials. As an explorer, scientist and historian I have come across, through my own volition and investigation, too much hard and narrative evidence to say we are not the first technology based, sentient beings to inhabit this planet. This certainty has also been bolstered over the last few hundred years with the notion and discussion of space travel to the stars.

To which - I think you will find that almost every aspect of science fiction (not science fantasy) has either come to pass, currently on the test bench or currently on the drawing boards. Despite Albert E’s postulate about the speed of light not being broken, and even considering all of his most devote followers, I don’t think you will find a scientist alive today that will say with 100% certainty that it is not possible.

 

The idea of superluminal travel as being possible for the sake of technology was not, however, my primary driver for knowing it is possible. To convince myself that it has to be possible I relied on the knowledge that IF another advanced civilization has visited our planet that they have to had gotten here at superluminal speeds. I state this observation because psychology has taught us that no society or social organization survives in isolation from the parent society for the duration of more than a generation or two; especially if that society is technologically based and has a social conscious. (Nor could this isolated society hope to survive on its own without near or immediate support.) And since the closest inhabitable planets are light years away, that means that IF extraterrestrials are real THEN superluminal drives have to exist.

 

If you have read this far, and if you are interested in the technical solution to superluminal propulsion, then please continue to the next post. If you are, on the other hand, dead set against the notion of extraterrestrials then stop right here; if you have a had any doubts about my reasoning and motivation behind the UFoP then nothing I can write after this would change your mind…and I have no desire to do that.

 

Just this comment: Time flow measurement is a human construct. Have you ever considered that our obsession with years-light is strictly linked to our

short lifespan of less than 100 years?

 

What IF another lifeforms out there live, say, an average of 1 million years of ours?

 

We have the trend to project our human properties and developments across the entire universe, and we have the

arrogance that our "constants of nature" like: G, c, h, are valid billion of years-light far away. (c as calculated from permittivity and permeability).

 

And if this isn't true?



#13 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2715 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 05:15 PM

...we have the arrogance that our "constants of nature" like: G, c, h, are valid billion of years-light far away. (c as calculated from permittivity and permeability).

 

And if this isn't true?

If untrue, then the universe is even stranger than fiction than we'd assumed. Particularly with C: AFAICT there'd be really weird spectroscopy flying at us as emission and absorption moved out of tested bands, and the observed CMBR clumping would need some complex new math to explain.
For variable G: might explain the galactic rotation dragging and superluminal jets better the current models, and IIRC there's a few GUT that hinge on G being variable/polarized based on another force(Usually electroweak, EG "electric universe" tomfoolery or otherwise some variant of spontaneous reemergence of inflation energy) 
For other constants, I haven't run the rabbet holes deep enough to know the warrens.


  • rhertz likes this

#14 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 13 May 2019 - 10:17 AM

If untrue, then the universe is even stranger than fiction than we'd assumed. Particularly with C: AFAICT there'd be really weird spectroscopy flying at us as emission and absorption moved out of tested bands, and the observed CMBR clumping would need some complex new math to explain.
For variable G: might explain the galactic rotation dragging and superluminal jets better the current models, and IIRC there's a few GUT that hinge on G being variable/polarized based on another force(Usually electroweak, EG "electric universe" tomfoolery or otherwise some variant of spontaneous reemergence of inflation energy) 
For other constants, I haven't run the rabbet holes deep enough to know the warrens.

 

Thank you for offering the answer that was on the tip of my tongue (fingertips?)

 

And now, for the conclusion...



#15 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 13 May 2019 - 10:29 AM

Final post on the UFoP; the Superluminal Drive.

 

The speed of any object of mass is governed by the physics of two things: the force by which the object is accelerated and the medium through which it is traveling. If the object of mass [from herein referred to as the projectile] is born of the electromagnetic spectrum (ES) then we know its force is derived from the same, and its final steady-state velocity is the speed of light; 300M m/s (c).

(I, for one, have always found it odd that the only projectiles we see (and measure) to be traveling at (or near) the speed of light are those projectiles that are born of the electromagnetic spectrum.)

 

One of the earlier postulates of approaching the speed of light is that it can’t be done. Special Relativity (SR) tells us that, as something speeds up, its relativistic mass increases compared with its mass at rest (determined by multiplying its rest mass by the Lorentz factor) and every extra unit of energy you put into speeding up the object less effective at making it actually move faster. This doesn’t make sense in GM because physics tells us you can’t increase mass or energy, and if F = MA, then you should also be able to provide enough instantaneous F (force) to accelerate a projectile (M) to (or near) the speed of light.

 

If the universe is 14 billion years old, and we know that nuclear forces can instantaneously release enough energy [force] to propel a projectile at speeds approaching c, then why have we not seen any projectile (other than one from the ES) traveling across the universe at a velocity anywhere near c? From a physics standpoint the answer is straight forward: Regardless of its initial velocity every projectiles’ velocity will begin to decay at a rate based on its coefficient of drag (CD) while traveling through a medium. To which, the formula for the coefficient of drag tells us [among other things] that the force of drag (a decelerating force) is based on the frontal area of the projectile as well as the square of the projectiles’ velocity (v2). This means that the force of deceleration of any projectile is not linear and gets weaker as the projectile slows down. Using GM the opposite must (and does) hold true: the force of acceleration of any projectile traveling through any medium is based on that projectiles’ coefficient of drag (CD) increases logarithmically with v2.

 

Once again, SR is at odds with GM because of the physics governing the universe; and rather than assuming that every projectile traveling in space behaves like every other projectile traveling through a medium, SR disavows the medium and uses QFT to post a speed limit. I didn’t and still don’t buy it. So my solution to superluminal speeds for a projectile not of the ES is to lower the density of the medium through which it is traveling.

 

If we lower the density of the GravX particles in front of a projectile in motion, we lessen the force required to accelerate said projectile. We will always need to apply a force to accelerate to a velocity, and because of the projectiles’ CD, we will always need to a force to maintain a steady-state velocity through space. This force will always be dependent on the mass, not because of its overall weight but because of its atomic weight [density]. The opacity of the GravX particle is strictly based on the size of the nucleus of the atom through which it is traveling. Therefore since we cannot reduce the mass (frontal area) of the projectiles we need to lower its relative CD to the medium it is traveling through. The easiest way to do this is the change the density of the GravX particle field of the local area around the projectile.

(I am not saying anything new to those that have speculated that Wormholes exist and that they may offer a means of intergalactic travel at superluminal speeds.)

 

It’s important to note that in increase in velocity - achieved by changing the density of the medium through which you travel - does not change the measured velocity of the projectile in the medium by which it is traveling. Just as an aircraft actually shows a decrease in internally-measured airspeed as it gains altitude, it also shows an increase in speed relative to the earth (ground) below it. Accordingly I theorize that if the density of the Void energy field is lowered sufficiently that a projectile traveling through it can get from Point A to Point B at a velocity several times the speed of light when measured from Point A relative to Point B (or any other point other than the projectile itself).

 

At no time does the projectile measure its velocity superluminal within the confines of the projectile. Therefore any resistance through its [localized] lower Void energy field will be lower than any other projectile traveling through the average, steady state value of the Void energy field outside its range of influence. I have referred to this concept as a Relative Superluminal Drive (RSD) because at no time does the projectile measure superluminal velocities of itself; all superluminal velocities (d/∆t) are measure from a reference point outside of the projectile.

 

This concept also stipulates several GM properties seen while traveling through a compressible medium:

  • that the projectile never creates a shock wave traveling through Void energy;
  • that Newton’s Laws apply, but in a balanced acceleration through the Void corresponding to a balanced density change of the localized Void results in a conservation of momentum as the ∑F = 0 internal to the projectile. This results in an acceleration constant of 0 for the mass of the projectile;
  • and the resultant maximum velocity (VM) is logarithmically based on the change in Void density (VD) over the change in distance in front of the projectile.

 

Each of these postulates have ramifications of their own, ramifications that would allow for humans to travel at superluminal speeds, and these ramifications are not by accident but only by observation and design. I will not delve into the intricacies or possibilities of these ramifications in this thread but I would encourage any reader to open up a discussion with me as to what these ramifications mean to us.

 

I will not offer a mechanical solution without a mechanical means to achieve this solution, so I will end this thread with the mechanical means to [ultimately] prove this theorem.

 

Since GravX particles are electromagnetically charged particles, they are subject to the same laws of physics that govern every other ES particle in the universe: they can be manipulated in means unique to their properties. For instance, we use an X-Ray machine to condense and project ES particles, microwave guns to create and focus microwaves in a localized area, and antennas to manipulate radio waves. Because we can also manipulate a host of ES particles, as well as a host of other energy particles using mechanical means this means we can do the same for the GravX particles.

 

Because I am not [by trade] an expert on ES manipulation I do not know what the mechanics of this manipulation would look like; however my education, experience and observations gave me good cause for places to start. However, as I designed and devised experiments to prove each aspect of the theory I discovered that either I had been the first [that I was aware of] to design and conduct such an experiment, or someone else had already conducted those experiments and the results where as I predicted. That is not to say that the scientists conducting these published experiments proved what they trying to prove, they only observed results that I would have expected. Many such experiments disproved their original hypothesis because it was in conflict with GM or based on an informal fallacy.

 

What I found in my research was that many scientists were simply conducting experiment in physics for the sake of discovery; but, because they were not looking for their experiments to prove any particular theory in general, many of these published and observed discoveries went unnoticed, unwanted or unreceived.

 

One such aspect of the UFoP from early on was that the Void [energy field] was particle based. As such these particles should behave as all other physical aspects of every other particle in the universe. Accordingly I model the GravX particle like that of gaseous matter such that it should behave within the parameters of the Perfect Gas Laws. Since I started my study as an aeronautical engineer I started designing some of my first experiments along the Magnus effect and calculate the force of the Void using the Kutta-Joukowski Lift theorem for a cylinder. What I discovered in my research was that these experiments have been conducted over and over again under the title of Anti-gravity wheel. However, because the cause for these effects are based several informal fallacies they could not explain the conservation of mass and momentum where the ∑F must = 0 (since nothing is accelerating) as the rotating object begins to rotate at a fixed velocity about an axis normal to the horizontal axis. Nor could they produce a device where they could produce work; only defeat gravity. Please reference US patent US8066226B2 for the description of just such a device.

Accordingly, one of my first experiments that I am designing to observe an quantify the UFoP is just such that as described however describe the observed effects and measurements (many of which were done in previous experiments, but not in conjunction with each other) in a manner consistent with GM and the UFoP.

 

While the aforementioned experiment will help understand the UFoP better, it will not help achieve superluminal velocities of an object of mass. To do that I evolved a very different set experiments and tests to conduct. I envisioned a set of experiments to manipulate the Void enough to give results consistent with my UFoP and construct a RSD based on these results.

 

The other As the UFoP matured I theorized that since the Void is comprised of GravX particles and that these particles they have a charge, energy level and density, the Void could be manipulated by electromechanical means. I set about looking at what others had done to do this and recalled John Hutchinson and the Hutchinson Effect. I was aware of his efforts as I went through college and in an effort to construct my experiments then studied his efforts in greater detail. I came up with the following conclusions:

  1. Although John had the cart in front of the horse, he [unknowingly] proved my theory.
  2. Because he was not out to prove any [other] theory that I know of when he was conducting these experiments, he didn’t know (or realize) what he had discovered.
  3. He was not part of any recognized organization or educational institution so he never had the backing of such.
  4. Most of his work and discoveries occurred long before the informational age of the internet came into being, so he didn’t get the notoriety that may have gotten his wrok noticed.
  5. To date physics is still trying to explain and duplicate his experiments using SR and QFT, and this effort has continued to offer only theoretical solutions based on theoretical physics.

 

In conclusion, I still have yet to understand out how the Hutchinson Effect affects mass, and that in order to do this I need to conduct a more constrained series of electromechanical experiments and apply those findings to a secular device designed to manipulate the Void. However, such hurdles would not hinder a knowledgeable electromechanical engineer and scientist from designing and laying the ground work for the construction of just such a device, nor conceiving the mechanisms needed beforehand, should they discover the correct means to electromechanically manipulate the density of the Void. And I did that in 2015.

 

For the electromechanical means to achieve superluminal velocities for an object of mass please refer to US Patent application US20170051730A1. The abstract is shown below:

Relative Superluminal Propulsion Drive

Abstract

A Relative Superluminal Propulsion Drive that allows for the electro-mechanical means by which a vehicle of mass can be accelerated to and maintain a relative velocity greater than the universal constant C (299,792,458 meters/second, the speed of light in a vacuum) between two fixed points in space when measured from a third fixed point in space. The propulsion drive is an array of electro-mechanical antennas positioned on the forward and aft portion of the vehicle and provides for the force of acceleration to the vehicle by lowering the pressure and density of the energy state of the area in front of the vehicle and increasing the pressure and density of the energy state behind the vehicle through the collection and re-distribution of that part of the electro-magnetic spectrum responsible for maintaining the average pressure density of the void energy of space. In addition to providing propulsion the Relative Superluminal Propulsion Drive accounts for and negates the effects of the Newton's Laws of Motion during both the acceleration and deceleration portion of the travel.

 

The aforementioned patent DOES NOT give you the electrical means to operate the described mechanism, only the construct of the mechanism. I liken it to a car motor, for which there are many designs for, however each engine has a unique fuel and unique construction. The electrical means to operate the device are still a secret for me to discover, and now that I know where to look that will be the topic of another patent. (If you would like to help, let me know. At this stage of my life I can use all of the help I can muster.)

 

Conclusion to the UFoP thread:

Since we discovered the universe is accelerating, everything aspect of GM and observed physics has been defined IAW the UFoP. And, although this framework still falls under the realm of theoretical physics, I can say this with 100% certainty: with the exception of proving the existence of just one particle, no other theoretical physics is needed to be hypothesized in order to understand the physics of our universe, nor validate the proof of the UFoP.

(I realize that I have probably not convinced many readers as the validity of my framework for a more perfect ToE, however I would ask any readers who hold such mental reservations to look at all you’ve learned, observed and explained, then compare that to the timeliness and framework of other theories and explanations [that you hold true], and then ask yourself if what you understand to be true is a fact, theory, hypothesis, belief or a just fantasy, then judge the UFoP accordingly.)

 

This concludes this thread on the UFoP.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ToE, Theoretical Physics, General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory