Unfied field theory

[valerysom]

Hello I am Valery new and not up to speed yet reading all the insightful posting. The reason I have joined this and other groups is to see who is thinking and what their thinking. I hope to find people out here asking the correct questions and keeping open mind thinking thru things as I do. I have a working unified field theorem and am currently defining and documenting the Valery certainty principal the opposite of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This entails a new periodic chart of elements which includes each element Magnetic Moments. This chart and the already known movements of the sub-atomic structure will enable me to begin my cold diffusion experiments of H2O. Any and all are welcome to pick my mind clean of this knowledge I intend to give it all away. Valery

[valerysom]

Let me throw out something to the astronomers or astrophysicist to ponder. In Kepler’s laws of planetary motion planetary orbits are ellipses with the sun as a focus. Einstein special relativity related mass and energy to get us closer to but not exactly explain what’s really going on. I.E. even Einstein Equations could not explain both the orbits of mercury and Pluto still anomalous.

What Einstein postulated was that space is curved and in simple terms the more mass a body ha s the more space time is bent. I only wish he was still around so that we could share the corrected data and /or theories. You see my work on the sub-atomic particle is rapidly clear up many of the question he took to task. My research is far enough along to start the debates. 1st
It is not space that is curved, gravity’s on nature creates the curve. My work has show me that gravity is a temporary monopole magnetic moment. What I have found is that what is above is the same as what is below. ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE IS SOLELY THE PRODUCT OF MAGNTISM AND MOTION. Let me try to explain it as I would to my daughter 15 yr of age. If we took a magnet and could break it in half so as to keep only the north pole reaction (mono-pole) magnet
and than we could make all other matter south pole reaction only we would have an exact duplicate of how gravity is suggested to react. Pull only but the truth be known we observe that gravity does in fact not only pull but pushes as well. The answer for me lied in final understand what’s going on at the smallest level. The atom is a perfected matter / anti-matter balancer. It is the yin yang, it is duality. The process that starts in the atom creates the VESICA PISSCES AND PHI mathematically speaking one does not exist with out the other. When I refer to matter and anti-matter I am speaking of the nucleus and the electron. The nucleus big the north pole reaction momentarily only (momentary mono-pole attract only) and the electron being the purely opposition (momentary replies only Mono-pole magnetic reactant) this cleans up a lot of big problems with the mathematics in physics for one it final confirms the best models that state that when matter was created there should have been equal portions of matter to anti-matter created.

Enough physics for the moment, let’s get back to planetary spacing and Phi. It is quite clear to me that modern physics has made wrong turns in the path to knowledge. I.E. take the work done by Titis and Bode they worked out the phi relationship to planetary spacing within just a few percent. What was not known at the time of there work was that the planets that didn’t quite fit in there model where trying to tell them something. THE AMOUNT THESE PLANETS VARIED DETERMINES THAT PLANETS ICLINATION OF PLANE ( planetary tilt) In laymen’s terms the amount a planets spacing varies from the phi conjunction idle determine how much the planet is tilted toward that phi ideal conjunction. There theorem was not incorrect just incomplete any one of you at home can easily do the visual math. Take a rather large piece of paper 32” x 32”; and read up on how to create a right phi spiral next do the opposite create a left originating at a common centre. Next pick one of the inter-most conjunctions where the lines cross and label it mercury. Then from the centre draw a line to that point and move 7 degrees left or right. Use a compass to determine the distance from the centre to mercury convert that in to known A.U. and then use those conversions to calculate out to other planets. As you plot the known A.U. s for the other planets keep in mind the elliptical orbits and continue to note the compass settings.

More when I have time Valery


Valery

[junglelord]

Hi, nice to meet you, and welcome!


I made a new post two days ago, about Kepler and PHI.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =10&t=2306

[D_Archer]

Hi Valery,

Welcome to the board.
Interesting ideas, although many of it sounds familiar, there are a lot of theories out there! But if you have found a way to quantify/qaulify your idea's, that is great, looking forward for more..

You may find the Hotson papers interesting, they are about Dirac's equations and the negative counterparts (negative energy) required for his equations to work.
I added them to the references in the Wikipedia entry > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

Kind regards,
Daniel

[valerysom]

Valery,

Hello and thanks for sharing your work.

Your mind is working well!

If you actually split magnets in half there are two outcomes.

If you split them between the poles you will get two magnets with two
blotch walls at their centers and the magnets will attract.

If you split them longwise through each pole, you will get two magnets
with two blotch walls that will repell.

A magnet has attraction running vertically and repulsion running
horizontally.

Due to field coherence, you cannot split a magnet at any size and come
out with only one pole.

Further magnetism is a distance cubed force and drops off far too fast
in space to account for gravity which drops as a distance squared force.

Gravity is most likely an Electric Tempic field without a magnetic
component of any notable strength.

Gravity can bend the path of a light beam, magnets cannot.

Have you studied the strong force? Where it originates? How it converts
weight to energy. This is the first place where we see a gravity change
for the sum of the parts together weighing less then the sum of the
parts seperated. I believe this is the greatest clue as to where gravity
comes from and how it manifests.


To Valery :
What is the difference beetween an intelligent woman, and the Yeti ???
the Yeti has been sighted
but after reading your post i am not sure about this statement anymore.
Joking apart, i have a different theroy than yours, i believe gravity is another kind of particle
and that magnetic monopoles are really a particle which travels from north to south inside a magnet.
How do you feel about the gravity being considered an high amount of static charge ?
Wellcome in this forum

Genders as science is all about observation and to the search for knowledge; trust me one must keep an open mind the so called scientific facts (know n stuff) should all ways be questioned.
I just recently returned from a visit at Fermi Lab were they been speeding 400 million a year not considering argon national labs budget and they to are still search with big toys to identify the Higgs boson (so called God particle). Unfortunately I found a vary closed mind group who were not even familiar Michael Faradays Paradox all thought they did admit to using his equations on a daily basis. When I explain the paradox to one of the directors of the magnetic particle accelerator I thought I was going to be removed from the site. He suggested Faraday Paradox was against all the laws of physics and that I was misstating the observation. If your not aware of this paradox please visit some websites and acquaint yourself with a 178 year old mystery about magnets and there properties.
If you would ask I’ll give you my solution. I have only found one other person thus far in 2 years to get it write. Why don’t you give a try mr. man just joking the other person is Vanja Janezic in Sovania. Any how the people at Fermi and the Harden collider are not asking the correct questions yet. Now to your Question about another particle traveling inside a magnetic field which has the ability to generate a static charge. Your surly on the right track with the static charge. I we observe a static charge and its ability to pickup otherwise known non-magnetic materials. Your starting to get it. The truth be known what is a static charge. I’ll tell you what my work has shown me. A static charge is nature ac it frequencies are unknown as of current technologies can not measure what travels between 1 – 7 times faster than the speed of light. In non-magnetic materials the alternation from positive to negative happen in self canceling waves. Like helium inert.


But if we can excite (force electron to change energy levels) in another non-magnetic material for example plastic comb with static charge we can now use it just like a magnet and attract and repel objects that are know not to be magnetic. So what happening is we are extending small bands of magnetic energy outside these non-magnetic structures but more importantly the self canceling ac polarity(static) in its excited (momentary state) is changed (inverted). Now these magnetic moments are properly polarized to be attractive.


Let’s look at the moon for a moment. The moon controls our tide system what is going on there is the moon is lifting salt water. And where high tide occurs is always 90 Degrees (at a right angle to the moon position) In other words if the moon is straight over head high tide is experienced 90 degrees away from that position. The magnetism law right angles. Physics has a truly sad explanation for this and the coriolis effect.

But if we return to static’s and look at the sub-atomic structure of Saltwater Non-magnetic structure We find that NaCaH2O Forms what is called a anion /cation structure. What’s that well it defined as a polarization of elements that when the element from into molecules they do so in manner that force positive and negative to all line up.

So as the moon orbits the earth the magnetosphere of the earth reacts with the magnetosphere of the moon. So that again a forced polarization is at work. We call it the effects of gravity but an observer has to note it at 90 degrees. If you still need to cling to that static’s reactions that’s fine. I moved past electricity all together. To me electricity is simple just another term to express magnetism. Thank you for the welcome. Valery
To: David L

I like the great chief Geronimo (apache) believe to give dignity to each man is above all other things. Do unto others as you would wish they would want them to do unto you. Author unknown? Thanks Dave L for taking time.

Your observation about splitting magnets are nearly correct. In examining magnetism in the macro world; large groups formed into a crystalline lattice your think is correct when we separate one portion of the lattice a new bloch wall is formed. But one small correction is needed to correct your statement. When the permanent magnet is sub-divided a polar reversal is experienced.
So if we called this a visual add i.e. NNNNSSSS and we slice it in two we get

NNSS / SSNN
You see once the division is made the magnetic polarity is inverted this becomes important to note in later discussions. In other words once the magnet is cut the portion of the magnet that fit together before now repulse from its original attachment.

Also you are correct that there is no and never will be a mono-pole magnet.

However there is absolutely a potential for a momentary mono-pole. Let me define my term if we were to mount two magnets on a gear driven device that forced two magnets to run on a revolving track. And we timed their motion so that each and every time the to magnetic fields came together that they were ether purely attractive or purely repulsive. Would that not mimic a mono-pole? In other words its all about timing and controlled motion.

Your 3rd notable point is that magnetism as we can currently measure it drops off fast and simple could not possible be responsible for the glue that holds the universe together.
Well let talk briefly about gravity’s effects and its mysterious anomalies.
Let’s suggest that gravity is a constant pull let’s leave out a little bit for rite now. Some of the dirty little explanations of current physic i.e. the (corrals effect), (tidal locked) and lets question some of Newton’s laws particular his 2nd law, and we really shouldn’t let Kepler of the hook ether. In fact let start with Kepler and look at our closest examples of the effects of gravity in our solar system. At first glance Kepler’s work is truly brilliant and simple and as it should be. But with a little digging we find problems. That why Einstein attempted to correct it but was only 95% successful. Which leads us to the anomalies in both mercury and Pluto’s orbits? Kepler theory over simplified is that the plants are falling into the suns gravitational pull and that there orbits like the swing of a pendulum experience acceleration as they approach or turn in the direction of gravity source and decelerate as they move away from the gravitation source. And this would account for elliptical orbits. All wonderful until thru actual observation turn out to be in correct. What Einstein then worked to correct was what was being demonstrated by the next planet out Venus. It’s orbit is for all matters is 99% circular showing little or no acceleration and deceleration thus Einstein created special relativity and suggest that space actually becomes deformed and I think most people have seen models of that I need not elaborate on that. Einstein’s problem was that in finally fitting set of anomalies in to a nice neat box. Both Mercury and Pluto had fallen out. In simple terms if special relative is correct then all the orbits should have fall into place with Einstein’s special relativity, but instead it created a new problem with mercury’s elliptical orbit. Mercury’s orbit shows the largest percent of eccentricity a whopping 20% of devotion from being circular. Then we have this problem of tidal locking. All explanation of this effect are unintelligible to me and anyone that buys into them I seriously question there intelligent thought process. So back to point if Kepler is correct which didn’t prove out than special relative is wrong which also doesn’t prove out completely. Then we have more recent data that disprove Newton 2nd law at least as far as planetary motion is concerned. The fact that the earth gravity owns our moon but it’s is moving 1.5 inches away from us per year. Attempts are made to explain this away by the gravitational effects of both the sun and other planets in the solar system but nothing adds up. i.e. when the moon is positioned to the sun where gravity should pull it away from the earth it does not. The moon according to the NASA data (laser distance detecting devises) have given us a wealth of new data. Which I have incorporated in my on study of the moons orbit conducted form an equatorial location. What I found is regardless of where the sun or other planetary objects are the moon distance is completely driven by its dual orientation to the earth’s equatorial plane and the sun’s equatorial plane. Its literal bouncing back and forth between these to points as it does its monthly orbit. I have data that shows how phi is incorporate into this whole mix. As simple as I can say it as the moon reaches it furthest north orbit measured at an equatorial lactation to simplify the mathematics’ its about 296 degrees in our sky. At that point the moon is as close to the earth as it comes.
If you can in vision the earths magnetosphere curving gentle inward as you approach the north pole its following it. Then as it moves southward later in the month it follows earths magnosphere (I just make up a word sorry) moving the moon farther away from earth. Once its orbit reaches the earth equatorial plane (farthest position on earth’s magnospere) its then grabbed and drug for the rest of its cycle till it reach just past the sun’s equatorial conjunction, at that point the earth tugs it back again. Like a ball bouncing it stats the next cycle of tug of war with the sun.

Well A.D.D.H. Some time gets me off point.

Briefly the luminiferous aether is lateral swarming with something that is currently invisible to our current technological abilities just to keep it quick and simple my believe is that what’s out there is moving between 1- 7 times the speed of light a frequencies that we have not postulated a method of even measuring. In fact most likely it will be a new purely theoretical solution with some real teeth that will solve it.

Appreciate the moment.

Valery