Gravity is a Magnetic Function
Author: Johnny Earl Faust, Jr.
Address: 8 Brookside Dr.
Phenix City, AL 36869
email:TruBlu4AU@yahoo.com
Abstract: Mass and the amp meter are equivalent. As a
result of this I will demonstrate that gravity is a result of
magnetism due to the magnetic fields of the particles associated with
matter(protons, neutrons, and electrons). Their magnetic fields,
particularly the one of the electron since it is much larger than the
other two gives a value when plugged into the proper magnetic field
equation that matches the acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface.
Objections that magnetism is responsible for gravity are expected.
Therefore, I will deal with the two main objections raised that seem
to imply that magnetism couldn't be responsible for gravity
immediately after the calculated result. The first objection deals
with the inverse square law and the second deals with the monopole
nature of gravity. After answering the objections, I will
demonstrate the meaning of the gravitational constant as it relates
to magnetic units and further support that mass and the amp meter are
equivalent.
Mass Equivalence
Let's look at two
magnets which are aligned to attract to one another. Let's also
assume that these are very strong magnets which require us to hold
them apart from one another or else they will go towards one another
and meet. Now, currently we are holding them apart and assuming
nothing else is impeding them from going towards one another what
will happen when we release the two magnets from our hold? Will
they...
a)stay
in place? Obviously not. They are attracted to one another.
b)move
away from one another? Obviously not. They are attracted to one
another.
c)move
towards one another until they meet BUT
do
so at a steady unchanging rate of velocity? In other words their
velocity never changes as they approach one another. This obviously
cannot be true either because they start at speed of zero relative to
one another so a change in velocity which is acceleration is taking
place before they meet. We can also easily see magnets under these
circumstances continue to gain velocity from the standstill.
So we're left with only
one possibility.
d)The magnets
accelerate towards one another (i.e. picking up velocity as they
approach one another).
Anyone who has ever
experimented with magnets under these conditions observes this each
and every time. The magnets always accelerate towards one another.
They start at a velocity of zero relative to one another and continue
to pick up velocity as they approach one another until they meet.
You see, acceleration
is defined as a change in velocity. Magnets definitely undergo a
change in velocity under these conditions and are in fact gaining
velocity constantly on their way towards one another. You can even
verify this in slow motion with a video and measuring tape.
The real question is,
what is the cause of the acceleration? Is it because some invisible
pink unicorns are on either side of the two magnets pushing them
together? Did magic cause it? Well, I hope we can agree that notions
of this sort are silly.
Therefore, in the
absence of other phenomenon the only conceivable entity that could be
causing the acceleration of the magnets must be the only thing there
accompanying the magnets. That is the magnetic field in between them.
There's no other logical conclusion that one can arrive at except to
accept that the magnetic field between the two magnets causes the
acceleration.
Taking note of this
simple observation, it logically follows then that the field between
the two magnets must be a field of acceleration otherwise the magnets
would never accelerate towards one another like this. In other words,
it's not possible to have an acceleration like this without the field
being an acceleration in and of itself. Deduction demands this.
Therefore, it follows
again that since this field between the two magnets is an
acceleration then the unit we use to measure this field must also be
a unit of acceleration. This is evidenced by the fact that you can't
measure an accelerating field with a unit that isn't an acceleration.
Gravity works the same way. It is a field of acceleration and
therefore requires units measuring it to be given as an acceleration.
This is the whole point of little g in Newton's equation of g=GM/r2.
Little g is an acceleration unit. Therefore, it is sound reasoning to
conclude that the unit we use to measure this accelerating magnetic
field between the two magnets must also be a unit of acceleration
just like our little g is.
Now, the unit that we
use to measure this magnetic field between those two magnets is the
tesla(T). Under the SI system the tesla can be described in many
different ways, but the main equivalent I wish to place my finger on
is that it is equivalent to N/Am (Newtons per Amp meter). The tesla
and N/Am are one and the same. It's just different ways of describing
the same unit of measurement. In other words, T=N/Am.
Since the tesla must be
a unit of acceleration which we just deduced, then by consequence the
unit N/Am is also an acceleration because it is equivalent. Now hold
onto to that last thought for just a moment. We'll get right back to
it briefly.
Let's look at a famous
equation given to us by Sir Isaac Newton which deals with
acceleration. The equation is as follows,
F=ma (Force equals mass
times acceleration.)
Normally in this
equation we are solving for force, but we can also algebraically
rearrange this equation to solve for acceleration as so,
a=F/m (Acceleration
equals force divided by mass.)
Now force is measured
in units we call newtons and mass is measured in the standard unit we
call the kilogram. So according to the equation, a=F/m, an
acceleration is simply your newtons divided by kilograms or N/kg. In
other words, it is correct to say a=N/kg.
Now let's get back to
our earlier thought. We saw previously that an acceleration is N/Am
or a=N/Am. We also know thanks to Newton that an acceleration is N/kg
or a=N/kg.
Therefore, since
acceleration equals acceleration (a=a) we can express the following
equation N/Am=N/kg. “A” is equal to both N/Am and N/kg. It's not
as if there are two different types of acceleration. No, acceleration
is acceleration is acceleration is acceleration. Our equation then,
N/Am=N/kg is a legitimate expression.
Since the equation,
N/Am=N/kg , is mirrored on both sides by the newton and the only
thing different is the kg and Am on each side then it becomes clear
that kilograms and amp meters must be equivalent units as well. In
other words, the expression kg=Am must also hold true as a result of
N/Am=N/kg. This is just a matter of simple algebra. Solving that
equation for kg leads to that that result.
Now why is it important
to note that connection? The reason why is because current thought on
gravity is that mass is what is responsible for gravity. This holds
true whether you adhere to Newtonian physics or Einstein's
relativity. Mass is seen as the culprit for gravity either way. Under
Newton mass has the property of attracting other masses. Under
relativity it curves space-time which causes gravity. Obviously since
the kilogram which is mass equals the amp meter then according to
both Newton and Einstein, the amp meter must be responsible for
gravity.
Now what exactly is the
Am? The amp meter is simply your coulombs per second(C/s) times a
meter unit(m). When you multiply C/s times the meter you end up with
this expression Cm/s.
Now coulombs are what
we use to measure charge and m/s is how we define velocity. In other
words, an amp meter is simply the charge times its velocity. The amp
meter is therefore a charge moving at a certain velocity. That is
exactly what magnetism is. Once you have a moving charge you have a
magnetic field. It follows then that magnetism is what is ultimately
responsible for mass and therefore gravity since Am=kg.
This is further
supported by understanding that one of the principles of General
Relativity is that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.
This is known as the principle of equivalence. Since two magnets
accelerate towards one another then according to Einstein the field
between them must be equivalent to gravity. Mathematically that would
be akin to saying gravity field=magnetic field.
Now I know you're
skeptical right now even though all of the above was deduced from
sound logical principles, sound math, and sound inferences. Right
about now your biggest objection to being confronted with this
revolves around the dipole nature of magnetism vs. the monopole
nature of gravity. That's completely understandable at this point.
However, stay with me for the duration of this paper. I think you may
be pleasantly surprised later on.
Now how do we define a
new gravity equation from this understanding that magnetism is
actually what is at the heart of gravity? The next section of this
paper shows the magnetic field equation which is responsible for the
gravity we experience here on earth.
The Gravity Equation
The
National Institute of Standards and Technology [1]
lists the magnetic moments of the three main particles which form
matter as follows:
Proton
1.4106067873 x 10-26
J/T (or Am2)
Neutron
-0.96623650 x 10-26
J/T (or Am2)
Electron
-928.4764620 x 10-26
J/T (or Am2)
Each
of these three particles produce a magnetic field in other words. We
sometimes call that a beta field. What we wish to know is the total
beta field produced by these particles as a result of their magnetic
fields over the entire range of their influence. The equation that
defines the maximum field as seen in some physics textbooks is as
follows.
Where:
μe
= the magnetic moment
of the particle, in this case an electron,
=
1 , due to the angle being 900
that produces the
maximum field(some textbooks may leave this out of the equation since
1 times anything is just itself and list the equation without it. But
I include it here for ease of understanding later.)
μ0
= the magnetic
permeability of free space.
β(z)
= the magnetic field measured in tesla's (T)
The
above equation gives us the beta field at its maximum value for a 900
angle. This illustration describes the situation.
This
represents two electrons aligned to give the maximum field from the
magnetic moment of the electron where
angle θ equals 900
. That is the angle
for unit vector in the above equation that produces the maximum
field where is defined to have a value of 1 due to the angle..
One of the electrons is exactly
900
oriented to the field of the other.
What
we wish to know, however,
is the value of over all angles so we can get a total field equation.
In other words, what if one of the electrons was positioned
differently giving a different angle oriented to the field? For
example, what if one of the electrons was at the 500
angle instead? The initial equation doesn't answer questions like
that as it's concerned only with the maximum field.
You
see, the first equation only gives us the maximum field value at 900
where sine 900
equals 1. However, there are minimum fields which occur at 00
and 1800
where sine of 00 and
1800 equals
0. All angles in between remain in the range from 0 to 1. In fact,
going from 00
to 900
our sine value for gradually increases from 0 to 1. This is
mirrored for each quadrant of a full 3600
arc representing
all angles. Each quadrant, 00
to 900,
then 900
to 1800,
then 1800
to 2700,
then 2700
to 3600
each range from 0 to 1.
As
a result since all four quadrants are just going from 0 to 1, in
order to find the value of our for a total field equation of a 3600
arc rather than the
maximum field of the first equation only concerned with the 900
angle,
we simply add 1 + 0 and divide by 2 for the average of all the angle
values for at any given point on the 3600
arc.
Therefore,
has a value of ½ over
the full range of angles to cover the angles that an electron could
possibly be positioned as in orientation to the field of the other.
Since
we now know what is for the total range of angles, our equation can
then be rewritten for the total field as follows where we plug in ½
for instead of the 1 used in the first equation which is again only
concerned with the maximum field. When we do that our equation
changes slightly.
Here
we have just substituted ½ for .
Since
we are now multiplying the denominator by 2
we simply combine 2π
with 2 and simplify the equation
to,
The
only difference between this equation and our initial equation is that
the maximum field equation is μ0
divided
by 2π
whereas
the total field equation is μ0
divided
by 4π.
Now
μ0
is defined as 4π
x
10−7
kg
m/s2A2.
However, since we are now dividing that constant by 4π
the two 4π
's cancel leaving us with just 10−7
or
expressed another way, 0.0000001 Kg m/s2A2.
(SIDE
NOTE: Now just for anyone who may doubt that I formulated the second
equation correctly, I point out the evidence that it is the correct
formulation by noting that this new constant, μ0
/4π,
evenly
divides into.
Coulomb's
constant(k) leading precisely to the speed of light squared. Yes
indeed all units precisely cancel leaving us with just that result.
Therefore, μ0
/4π
s
indeed the correct formulation for the second total field equation.)
Here
is the correct equation again with the terms in it defined so no
confusion arises as to what you're looking at..
The
terms of this equation are defined as:
=
0.0000001 Kg m/s2A2
(the magnetic permeability of free space)
μe
= Is the magnetic moment of the particle
z
= the radial distance in meters
This
equation now gives us the total beta field from the magnetic field of
a particle over a distance z rather than just the maximum field value
of the initial equation.
However,
I want to make two more small modifications to this equation which
don't affect it in anyways but rather help the equation look more
presentable. We will replace μe
in the equation
with μesum.
μesum
is just the total sum of all particles of a particular magnetic
moment. In other words, if we're dealing with 10 electrons μesum
would be 10x the electron's magnetic
moment. It's the same thing the only difference now is we're taking
the total magnetic moment of all particles instead of just one. Also
we will replace z with r due to most people using r to denote
distance variables in equations like this. Our equation is the same
only now it looks like this due to a variable(z) being replaced with
a different letter(r) and the subscript(e to esum) changed in one
place for clarity purposes,
Now
what is the importance of our equation here?
I
firmly believe this is the true equation for gravity and the equation
that will unify the standard model to include gravity. But, we need a
little more evidence than just my word. It's one thing to say
something like that. It's another thing to prove it! So, let's use
the earth as a target body for this equation to see if it is a
legitimate gravity equation. The result we get for using the equation
in calculation for earth's gravity is our evidence in other words.
In
order to do that we need to know how many particles we are dealing
with when it comes to earth. You see, our μesum
value in the
equation is determined by the total amount of particles times their
magnetic moment.
It
may initially sound like a daunting task trying to figure out just
how many particles there are comprising the earth, but thanks to
Jefferson Lab[2]
we can get a good estimate on the total amount of particles
comprising the earth.
Below
is a table from Jefferson Lab that shows the breakdown of the
fractional amount of the earth for the most abundant types of atoms.
According to their estimate, there are about 1.33x1050
atoms in the world and their breakdown in terms of which elements are
contributing is as follows:
These
are the elements which comprise the majority of earth's mass. The
other elements occur in trace amounts and thus will not affect our
estimation by any considerable amount. By looking at the periodic
table and atomic numbers for these elements we can then estimate the
total amount of electrons, protons, and neutrons based on this
Jefferson Lab estimate for the number of atoms in the world and the
elements responsible for them. When we do that estimate, it turns out
that there are about,
1.69909x1051
protons, 1.69909x1051
electrons, and 1.79082x1051
neutrons comprising
the earth. Feel free to verify on your own that these are indeed the
correct numbers for the particles by cross referencing the above
table with the periodic table for these elements.
In
fact, other scientific organizations like Fermilab have made similar
estimates for the numbers of atoms. The bottom line is that the
figures for the numbers of particles comprising the earth are in the
correct ball park as there is agreement from both Fermilab and
Jefferson lab that these are close to the actual numbers for the
atoms. Both estimates put the numbers of atoms in the world at about
the same. I just prefer Jefferson Lab's estimate because it's a bit
more detailed. Fermilab's estimate essentially made earth analogous
to a huge ball of iron and went from there. Regardless both estimates
lead essentially to the same numbers of atoms in the world which in
turn would indicate that the amount of particles comprising the earth
is on target.
With
those figures now for the total number of particles, let's calculate
the total magnetic moment for each particle type and sum it all up.
This would be the μesum
in our equation.
To
find μesum
we simply multiply the total number of each
particle type by its magnetic moment and sum the figures from all
three particles into one final figure.
(Particle
numbers)(magnetic moment)
In
the proton's case μpsum
= (1.69909x1051)(1.4106067873
x 10-26 J/T)
or
23967478862335570000000000
J/T from our protons
In
the neutron's case μnsum
= (1.79082x1051
)(-0.96623650 x
10-26 J/
T)
or
-17303556489300000000000000
J/T from our neutrons
In
the electron's case μesum
= (1.69909x1051)(-928.476
4620 x 10-26 J/T)
or
-15775650718195800000000000000
J/T from our electrons
When
we add/subtract the sum of the magnetic moments from one another from
all three particle types we end up with a remainder summed magnetic
moment skewed heavily in the direction of the electron's magnetic
moment due to its much higher value.
Essentially
we subtract the proton's magnetic moment contribution (since it's
positive) from the electron's(which is negative) and then add the
neutron's magnetic moment(since it's negative) to the electron's for
the following figure.
23967478862335570000000000
J/T(from the protons)
+
-17303556489300000000000000
J/T (from the neutrons)
+
-15775650718195800000000000000
J/T(from the electrons)
equals
μesum
= -15768986795822764430000000000
J/T
Most
of this summed magnetic moment again is due solely to the electron's
contribution as the neutrons and protons add or subtract little from
it. Hence, that is why I gave it the subscript of μesum.
So
now that we have the sum of the magnetic moments of all the main
particles comprising the earth, let's plug it into our total field
equation for μesum
.
Our
equation again is,
Where:
r =
the radius of the earth which we will cube. Earth's radius is 6371000
m.
=
0.0000001 Kg m/s2A2 (the magnetic
permeability of free space)
μesum
= -15768986795822764430000000000 J/T
Plugging
those numbers into
leads
to,
β=(
0.0000001)(-15768986795822764430000000000/63710003)
as
a result of the calculation,
β=
-6.09791T (the negative sign here in front of the result just means
it's an attractive field. We can drop it for later calculations)
6.0979T?
Wait a moment, isn't the acceleration of gravity at earth's surface
roughly 9.8? I thought I said this was a legitimate gravity equation!
Well, it looks like it's time for me to pack up my bags and quit
wasting your time. But wait a moment first. Was there an error
somewhere in the calculation? Yes there was! Something is wrong here
but it's not the equation's fault or the values' fault. The equation and values are correct. We're
awfully close here since we learned earlier that a tesla is an
acceleration, but we're missing the mark by about 3.7 from gravity's
acceleration at the surface of the earth. So what is the problem?
Let's
look at
in our equation because that is
where the problem lies. We must recognize that this constant of
proportionality is for a vacuum.
It's the magnetic permeability of free space. It's 0.0000001 kg
m/s2A2
in the equation and it's not correct for our purposes here. Why you
may ask?
You
see, magnetic fields permeate differently through different mediums.
Magnetic fields permeate really well through, say, something like
iron and less so through, say, something like glass. The value,
0.0000001, is how well a magnetic field permeates through a vacuum.
However,
the earth taken as a whole body clearly is not a vacuum and would
have a different magnetic permeability than that. We need to account
for that in the equation in order to get an accurate result. In
other words, 6.0979T is not
accurate due to this. That is the figure for a vacuum
calculation. That is the reason why the calculated result was off in
our first calculation.
So
what exactly is the earth's magnetic permeability as a whole since
the vacuum permeability isn't correct for our purposes here? That may
sound difficult to figure out because the earth is composed of a
myriad of materials, substances, elements, etc.
If
for example, the earth was a huge ball of iron. No problem. We look
up the magnetic permeability for iron and plug that into our
equation. Or, if the earth was just silicon, we just look up the
magnetic permeability of silicon and plug that figure in. But, the
earth isn't like that. The earth is a conglomeration of many
different materials occurring in differing amounts. So how do we
calculate the magnetic permeability of earth as a whole with all
those materials? Each of those materials have their own specific
magnetic permeability which combines and averages with the other
material amounts for a total permeability rating for earth. Sounds
difficult right?
Well,
getting the answer to the question of “What is the earth's magnetic
permeability?” isn't as tedious as one might expect. We have a way
of quickly estimating it algebraically based on measurements taken
concerning the earth's magnetic field (the other magnetic field
thought to be caused by circulating iron at earth's core).
For
example, we know that the standard strength of the earth's other
magnetic field averaged over the surface is about 0.0000498T[3]. We
also know the earth has a magnetic dipole moment of about 8 x 1022
Am2.
You
see, earth's other magnetic field must permeate
through the earth and produce that tesla reading and that dipole
moment. Because of that, with just those two measurements alone we
can obtain the earth's magnetic permeability by solving for it with a
simple algebra calculation. We can plug 0.0000498T and 8 x 1022
Am2 into the
equation below and solve for the earth's magnetic permeability.
Where:
β=0.0000498T
=
the earth's magnetic permeability(which we are solving for)
μEd
= Earth's dipole moment(8×1022
Am2)
r =
the earth's radius(6371000m)
When
we plug those figures into the above equation and solve for
we
find that
=
0.00000016103 kg m/s2A2
This
is the magnetic permeability of earth as a whole conglomerate
substance. As you can see it's a little larger than the vacuum
permeability of 0.0000001 kg m/s2A2. Yes,
indeed the magnetic field will permeate through the earth better than
it would a vacuum. So, we're about to get a different result from our
previous calculation of gravity.
So,
let's try our earlier equation one more time only this time let's use
the correct magnetic permeability as it relates to the whole earth
rather than the vacuum figure which wasn't correct for this specific
instance.
would
then be expressed as...
Here
we are just replacing with vacuum constant in the initial equation
with the earth magnetic permeability constant instead.
Where:
=
0.00000016103 kg m/s2A2
(the earth's magnetic permeability)
μesum=15768986795822764430000000000
J/T (the summed magnetic moments of all particles comprising the
earth)
r=6371000m
(earth's radius)
When
we plug in and do this new computation we end up with
β
= 9.82 T !!!
Right
on target! That matches the acceleration of gravity on earth's
surface. Earth's gravity acceleration at surface is calculated via
Newton's equation to be about 9.82. Since we know a tesla is an
acceleration from our earlier deductions in the introduction to this
paper, then our result matches the acceleration of gravity at earth's
surface as calculated via Newton's equation. I think this is firm
evidence that I am indeed correct that gravity is coming from
magnetism. But, you're not quite convinced yet. You may be thinking I
made a mistake somewhere or used wrong figures, or the equation is
just wrong. In addition, you've got serious objections
in the way right now preventing you from accepting what was just laid
out to you. So let's deal with those problems right now.
The Objections
More
or less these objections usually fall into two main categories.
- The cubed distance in the denominator of the equation. This usually raises red flags over the nature of gravity being an inverse square law.
- The dipole nature of magnetism (attraction/repulsion) as opposed to the monopole nature of gravity(only attraction). How can gravity be coming from a dipole source? This is by far the biggest objection out there.
It's
understandable that these objections will arise. These are fair
objections. However, I believe there are legitimate and logical
answers to those objections the likes of which are covered here in a
moment. But, I need to say a few things before we embark upon these
objections.
First
of all, you need to know that I do not “cook”
equations. The equation formulations are legitimate. Any
mathematician experienced in these magnetic field equations can
confirm that these are indeed correct formulations for the magnetic
field equations. Anyone who chooses can also check to make sure no
fudges have occurred in the usage of values in determining the other
data. The values for the magnetic moments of the particles all came
from the NIST government website and are accepted values. The
Jefferson lab values for the numbers of atoms in the world can even
be cross referenced with an estimate made by Fermilab. In other
words, the estimate for the amount of particles comprising the earth
is on target. The same could be said of both values used to determine
the earth's magnetic permeability. Both came from published physics
works and are on target based on measurements.
I
did not invent any numbers and/or values to force a result upon the
community in an effort to hoodwink people. They are cited and in the
appendix. I have also checked and rechecked my math to make sure that
no errors in computation have occurred. Feel free to do so yourself.
The
bottom line is this, 9.82 is being arrived at legitimately. Arriving
at the correct figure is just too coincidental to just brush off
as crackpot or pseudo science as I'm sure most will want to do when
hearing that gravity is coming from magnetism. Something is going on
here that the scientific community needs to reassess . Furthermore,
once you hear me out on the matter, your objections may not be as
sound as you think.
I
firmly believe this is indeed what the cause of gravity is. The
scientific community just needs to understand why now. Let's not put
our heads in the sand on this and become dogmatic because of certain
preconceived notions that quantum gravity breakthroughs must come
from string theory, M-theory, etc. I believe we have the simpler
answer here which is in accordance with Occam's Razor while the
current approaches to gravity are just adding complexity upon
complexity which violates the spirit of Occam's Razor.
So
having spoken my mind, I will deal with the two main objections now.
Number
1
Gravity
is an inverse square law. This is one you will usually hear from
concerned scientists. So it is a legitimate objection. However, we
will find out that it is due to a mistake on the part of science.
This objection is mainly due to misinterpretation of evidence as well
as a determination purposely or not of some to hide relevant data
and/or sweep it under the rug.
In
order to get to the heart of this issue I need to point out the
problem in understanding first.
For
a single source such as an electron, yes, the magnetic field will
decay as an inverse cube law. However, with the disposition of
multiple sources this can result in a magnetic field which doesn't
follow this rule immediately or at least is perceptible right away.
The 1/r3
rule for magnetic fields arises in the case of being really far away
from static (unchanging) magnetic fields. Up close the magnetic field
would appear to follow an inverse square law.
This
is why all the experiments have seemed to confirm an inverse square
law. Gravity of earth for example does look like an inverse square
law up close.
We don't notice it as an inverse cube law until we get a considerable
distance away from the earth. Then we see the problem.
Very
much related to this is a huge problem science currently has. It is a
problem which can't be resolved with the inverse square model at
least not legitimately without equation cooking! It involves the
Tidal Force. The Tidal Force holds the key to who is right on this.
Rather
than bog my paper down with an in depth discussion on the matter, it
may be best to let Miles Mathis, who has already taken the scientific
community to task on the issue explain what the problem is in depth.
I will of course explain briefly here but this problem needs to be
addressed more in depth than my paper allows. So what I will do here
is link his paper on the matter that I suggest you read so you can
understand this huge eyesore on the physics community at present.
They cannot reasonably explain it without resorting to cooking
equations and other such nonsense which Mathis points out eloquently.
Here is the link to his paper.
And
now I will briefly describe the problem.
The
Tidal force tapers off by the inverse cube of the distance not the
inverse square as you would expect it to if it were coming from
gravity. Also, since we know the tides are caused by the moon because
they follow the lunar cycle we run into another serious problem.
They're supposed to be a result of the gravitational pull of the moon
on earth. Even NASA can't help but admit that. If gravity for example
is an inverse square law then you can probably see where the problem
is if you are at all aware of gravitational equations. You see, the
sun not the moon presents a greater gravitational pull on the earth.
As a result tides should mainly be a function of the sun not the
moon. According to the inverse square law the sun should have an
effect on the tides about 190 times that of the moon which would of
course make the moon tides appear invisible as they would be dwarfed
by the sun's gravity instead. That's what an inverse square law
demands but the data doesn't support the law. The moon not the sun
indeed does cause the tides and we're left with a major problem.
No
one can legitimately explain the problem away. Even Feynman walked
away from the problem. The current approach is just to ignore it,
cook equations, or resort to illogical attempts at rationalizing the
problem away. NASA won't even touch it except to ambiguously say, the
moon causes the tides and hope no one really investigates further.
It's an embarrassment when the true nature of the problem is
logically ascertained.
However,
I've got a much simpler solution. How about no equation cooking as
has been done on this issue by the scientific community and how about
we reassess gravity as an inverse cube law.
ALL
of the problems with the Tidal force disappear that way. The inverse
cube law fixes every little issue with Tidal forces and everyone can
go home and relax. It explains why the Tidal force decreases by an
inverse cube law rather than an inverse square law. If the Tidal
force is a result of gravity and it is, then its decay of 1/r3
falls right in line with gravity as explained in this paper. An
inverse cube law also explains why the moon has a greater effect on
the tides than the sun does. By the time the earth feels the sun's
gravity it has decreased more due to an inverse cube distance
relationship than it would with an inverse square distance. This
resolves why the moon which is closer but has considerably less
gravity would affect the tides and not the sun.
No
more equation cooking. No more irrational attempts at explaining the
problem away. Everything becomes right as rain.
The
point I'm making here is that I fully believe the evidence supports
an inverse cube law for gravity rather than an inverse square law. In
fact, when Newton was originally deciding on how to describe the
motion of the planets he worked with an inverse cube force in
Propositions 43–45 of Book I of his Philosophiæ
Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
He abandoned it unfortunately when he should have kept going.
The
Tidal force just throws gasoline on the fire here that was thought to
be extinguished long ago.
Number
2
The
second objection and perhaps the biggest one involves a
miscomprehension of magnetism's dipole nature. Admittedly, I need to
take a bit more time on this and include some visual examples so
you're not confused because currently scientists are utterly confused
here.
Scientists
have a hard time rectifying the fact that magnetism is
dipole(attractive/repulsive) whereas gravity appears to be
monopole(only attractive). This is by far the best objection and I'm
not going to take scientists to task on it because it's a difficult
thing to understand at first. However, by the time I'm done here this
objection too will fall.
You
see, in magnetism there is always a north and south pole according to
Gauss Law. Like poles repulse and opposite poles attract. How can
monopole gravity be coming from a force that has two reactions
opposite but equal to one another? It's a legitimate concern but one
for which there is a legitimate answer. So let me get right to the
explanation.
It
starts with correcting the mistaken belief that 50% of the time
magnets repulse and 50% of the time they attract. This belief
underpins the entire objection. On the surface this belief would
appear to be a valid conclusion. Both poles are exactly opposite but
equal to one another so it would seem our conclusion here is based on
sound reasoning. But, it is not. Here's why.
The
overall tendency of magnets is that they attract. Repulsion only
happens in small area/instance angles. How can this be?
The
following understanding should help briefly until I unpack this
further.
Magnets
never align to repulse on their own! Magnets the majority of
situations do align to attract on their own!
You can even confirm this on your own at home with two
bar magnets. Try your best to keep two bar magnets from attracting
one another. Approach the two magnets from south to south pole or
north to north pole and see what happens. Leave one of the magnets
free to move while you do this. The magnets almost always swing
around and attract. You will never encounter a situation where the
magnets swing around and repulse one another on their own without
being forced into it.
In
the rare case where they do repulse and don't attract, it's because
you've gotten the angle of approach from two like poles just right.
If you're off just a hair on the angle of approach (to the left or
the right) from two like poles,
they immediately ignore the repulsion and attract. See this short
animation here to get an idea of what I am talking about in case I'm
confusing you.
If
you're still confused, the below diagrams hopefully will help with
your comprehension a bit more. Here we have two bar magnets with an
arc of 3600.
Each angle on the 3600
arc represents an approach vector of the outer magnet vs. the one in
the center.
Looking
carefully at the diagram you will see that the overall tendency of
the angles of approach is attraction. We have a 3600 arc
here in which the majority of angles on that arc result in
attraction. Repulsion only happens centered on the 900
angle. Obviously if you were to flip the outside magnet around and
carry out the same process you would again encounter the same
situation in which the majority of angles lead to attraction again.
The only difference would be that the repulsion angle would then be
at the 2700 mark. As a result of this there is a greater
preponderance of angles leading to attraction as opposed to
repulsion. Consequently, it becomes rarer that repulsion takes place
in this instance of angle orientation options.
In
fact, if you want you could take the above diagram and change the
orientation of the outside magnet so that it is performing the arc at
a different orientation configuration. What if, for example, you drew
a line heading straight up through the magnet in the middle and
called that the z-axis? Then you made you the outside magnet orbit
the central magnet in a 3600 arc while it remained
parallel constantly to that z-axis?
Would that affect anything as far
as repulsion vs. attraction in terms of the preponderance of angles? No,
in fact we end up again with the preponderance of angles leading to
attraction again. Two angles out of 360 led to repulsion. So
once again it is rarer to see repulsion from this particular
orientation as well. You may even be suspicious that that 890
angle or others similar to it on the arc lead to repulsion.
They don't. Moving that outside magnet's south pole closer to the
north pole of the central magnet is enough to send the magnets into
attraction mode. It takes some visual spatial skills to see it but
it's true. You could even flip that outside magnet(reverse the pole
orientation) and come at the arc again with the same process. The
result will be the same with only two angles leading to repulsion.
Those two angles are now just at 3600 and 1800
mark. The majority of angles will favor attraction again.
I could align that magnet to go around that arc in many
different configurations. I could perhaps make it so that the outside
magnet was perpendicular to that z-axis or any other possibility of
the multiple orientations in between like so.
It won't matter though the majority of the angles lead
to attraction. There are no repulsion angles from this particular
orientation configuration. Flipping the outside magnet won't change
that outcome here. I know you may be thinking that that 00or
3600 or 2700 or 900 looks
suspicious. You're probably thinking that since the magnets are
splitting the poles equally at those angles that that should lead to
a stalemate. It doesn't. Try it at home if you like. The magnets
attract there and everywhere else on the arc. Also as it goes around
the arc like this the distance between two like poles and two
opposite poles remains equal at all times. This too requires some
visual spatial understanding from you to see why. Attraction wins
every time here.
The point that I'm making with these illustrations is
that very few angle orientations lead to repulsion angles from the
multitude of angle orientation options whereas the vast majority lead
to attraction. Repulsion angles are at small angle windows compared
to the attractive angles. We just end up with a process where 99% of
the time the angles favor attraction no matter how much we twist and
turn that outside magnet.
In
other words, the mistaken belief that 50% of the time magnets will
repulse is wholly unfounded. No, the majority of the time magnets
want to attract. You have to get the angle orientation of two like
poles just right in order to see rare repulsion.
Failure
to comprehend this phenomenon is what has mainly led scientists to
dismiss magnetism as a possible source for gravity. It gets confused
in the brain. It's almost as if scientists believe the bottom half of
a magnet is all repulsion or that the top half is all attraction when
that isn't the case. Magnetism isn't dipole in that sense.
Scientists
have wrongly assumed that there is a 50/50 chance of repulsion vs.
attraction due to the two poles being opposite but equal and thus
concluded that both reactions would counter one another and could not
possibly be the cause of gravity. They fail to comprehend the fact
that both the north and south pole attract at the majority of
angles whereas both the north and south pole only repulse at a few
angles. They fail to understand that when magnets do repel it's
because you have two like poles in opposition at the exact right
angle. Any degree off and the magnets begin attracting because the
majority of angles lead to attraction.
The
reality is that magnets attract the majority of the time because they
have a higher chance of attraction due to more angles favoring that
result.
As a
consequence of this the tendency of a magnet is that it prefers
to only attract. This is why gravity appears
as a monopole attractive force. However, don't misunderstand.
Gravity is actually a dipole force, but due to the way magnets work
it looks monopole.
Have a look again at what happens even when we think repulsion should
be the outcome just so this understanding can be reinforced visually
again.
Now the electron according to our best techniques in
measurement is considered to be an almost perfectly spherical magnet
akin to a bar magnet. It is dipole. Due to the geometry that means
that you literally need to be exactly oriented/positioned at the
right angle of this sphere to achieve repulsion. Any degree off and
we're back to attraction as noted above.
In nature you're just not going to find many electrons
oriented to repulse compared to the vast majority of electrons at
angles which lead to attraction. This is just simply due to angle
percentages. Electrons are literally interspersed throughout matter
in a hodgepodge of angle orientations to one another. The
overwhelming majority of these orientations are attractive ones as
the instances of repulsion angles happen at small angle windows.
This is due once again to the fact that magnets will
never align to repulse. You will never see a magnet swing around to
repulse regardless of what angle you come at it from with another
magnet regardless of what that other magnet's orientation is.
In nature it is a rare case where the angle to repulse
is already dead on and in equilibrium which leads to repulsion.
Repulsion angles only occur in nature due to the sheer amount of
electrons and their multiple orientations to one another. Probability
alone states that a small percentage of them will find themselves at
the right angles for repulsion, but it is rare compared to the whole
and ends up being so negligible that it doesn't affect the overall
nature of gravity being an attractive monopole force.
As a result then, that leads to an overwhelming magnetic
phenomenon of just attraction. The angles for the electrons in matter
resulting in attraction far outweigh the angles for repulsion. Due to
this, gravity's overwhelming preference is attraction and is the
reason why it appears as an attractive monopole force despite coming
from a dipole source. Electrons tend to magnetically attract
everything roughly 99% of the time while only repulsing at a rate of
less than 1% due to repulsive and attractive angle percentages. There
are literally 129,600 (360 x 360)whole number angle orientations that
electrons could be positioned relative to one another. Of those only
a very small percentage of them are repulsive angles. As a result,
electron magnetic fields become additive with one another and lead to
what we observe as a monopole gravity field because of this.
Hopefully now you understand the monopole nature of
gravity. It's not actually monopole but appears that way. Nikola
Tesla was right when he said gravity was coming from magnetism.
Scientists just got confused over the nature of magnetism and
mistakenly dismissed the claim. How fitting that his name is now
synonymous with the unit of measurement for the magnetic field.
Having
answered the biggest objection, let's now deal with the gravitational
constant.
The Gravitational Constant
The
very nature that gravity is a magnetic function should mean that the
gravitational constant can also be expressed in magnetic units. Is
this possible?
What
I will attempt to demonstrate here is the gravitational constant as
it relates to magnetism. The gravitational constant is normally
expressed with units of meters, kilograms, and seconds. However,
since I am saying that gravity is a magnetic function, we need to see
the gravitational constant expressed in magnetic units.
How
does one do that? Again, the problem isn't that difficult.
Let's
start with what we've learned.
1)We
know that the equation I formulated gives an equivalent result for
gravity expressed as a magnetic function. 2)Knowing this equation is
equivalent to a Newtonian calculation for the acceleration of gravity
for earth we simply set Newton's equation equal to mine and solve for
G in the instance of earth.
Newton's
equation for the acceleration of gravity is,
Setting
Newton's equation equal to mine leads to this equation,
The
gravitational constant can then be solved for algebraically giving us
its value in terms of magnetic units. Now let's define the terms for
this equation.
G=6.674
x 10-11 m3/kg s2 (the gravitational
constant)
M=The
earth's mass(5.972 x 1024kg)
r=The
earth's radius(6.371
x 106m)
=0.00000016103
kg m/s2A2(the
magnetic permeability of earth as a whole substance)
μesum
= -15768986795822764430000000000 J/T or Am2
(the combined
magnetic moment sum of all particles comprising the earth)
Now
let's plug those values into the above equation and solve for G on
the left side.
Isolating
and solving for G can get a bit messy but here is the start.
I'm
not going to go through every step here in the algebraic
simplification. Just know that when you simplify and solve for G on
the left side of this equation all units cancel and the result
reduces down to the following. Feel free to check my work here to
verify for yourself that I am telling you the truth.
6.674
x 10-11 m3
kg-1
s-2 = 6.674 x
10-11 m2
A s-2
or
G=6.674
x 10-11 m2/As2
When
one looks at units expressed that way, one might come to the
conclusion that they know of no magnetic units expressed in such a
manner. It's not until one realizes that webers are expressed as
kg·m2/As2
that one sees what is being shown. The result is telling us that
6.674 x 10-11
m2/As2
is the same as the amount of webers you have per kilogram. The two
kilogram units in the numerator and denominator cancel leaving us
with just the m2/As2
that we see.
The
gravitational constant expressed in magnetic units is 6.674 x 10-11
Wb/Kg (webers per kilogram). Webers are the SI unit of magnetic flux.
In other words, the amount of magnetic flux you have per mass is what
the gravitational constant means when it comes to magnetism.
Now
as it turns out one can also do something else with this result. One
can solve for units as well. The result again...
6.674
x 10-11 m3/kg
s2 = 6.674 x 10-11
m2/C
s
(I'm
just writing As2 as
Cs here so you can see the cancellations better. Both are equivalent)
Let's
solve here for kilograms.
Now
solving for the kg...
which
is...
Since
Cm/s is just another way of expressing the Amp meter one can see once
again that kg=Am which is just further evidence that what was
revealed in the introduction of this paper is indeed sound.
Conclusion
In
conclusion I believe gravity is a result of the magnetic fields of
the particles comprising mass, mainly the electron. The equation
formulated for gravity based on this understanding agrees with the
gravitational figure for earth. Objections to this understanding are
then legitimately addressed explaining how the inverse square law
doesn't fit observed data, and how magnetism overwhelmingly appears
monopole. As a result of this, the gravitational constant can also be
expressed in magnetic units and mass is shown to be equivalent to the
Amp meter. This only further substantiates what was revealed in the
introduction of the paper. Therefore, I conclude that gravity is
indeed simply a magnetic function.
Appendix
1
- The National Institute of Standards and Technology website where
these values are located is found here:
2
- Jefferson Lab's work can be accessed here:
Author:Drew Weisenberger
Their work can be cross referenced
against Fermilab's estimate found here:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/atoms.html
Author:Dr
FermiGuy
3
– “Magnetic Field on Earth – The Physics Factbook”
Editor:
Glenn Elert
(here
is where the figure for the tesla reading on earth's surface comes
from. The dipole moment of earth is found in numerous places.)
BONUS MATERIAL
(The above about gravity I am certain about, however take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. It is something that needs to be investigated at the very least. It could lead to a major breakthrough with anti-matter if true)
It is estimated according
to NASA that 1 gram of antimatter(anti-hydrogen, a positron and
anti-proton) has a cost of about $60 trillion dollars. 1 gram of just
positrons(the electron's counterpart) is also estimated to carry a
cost of 25 billion dollars. Gold, platinum, diamonds - none of those
things even come close to the value of antimatter. It is the most
expensive item in the world by far. 1 Gram of anti-hydrogen is
so expensive that even wealthy industrialized nations like America
couldn't afford the cost of it. The entire world only has a net worth
of $60 trillion so in order to afford it everyone would have to pitch
in. 1 gram of just positrons
although much cheaper is still very expensive. Even
Bill Gates would have a hard time reasonably affording the cost.
It is mainly being
produced at expensive facilities like CERN or Fermilab or DESY at the
cost of tons of energy and money. It is costly because we have been
meticulously collecting this stuff for decades now and yet if the
entire world pooled our anti-matter stores together, we wouldn't even
have a gram of it. We wouldn't have anywhere near a gram! At most the
amount we have been able to get so far after decades amounts to only
18 or thereabout nanograms. Yes, that little. In fact,
it is estimated that it would take literally a hundred thousand years
to millions of years at current rates of production to even get half
a gram or a full gram of it!
1 gram of antimatter has
enough energy potential in it to equal the same energy that a nuclear
bomb detonation would(roughly 43 kilotons of TnT detonation – 3
times the power of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan). 1 gram has
enough energy potential to power entire large cities for extended
periods of time. We could use it for an antimatter engine at NASA,
experiments, run our cars on it, provide electricity to our homes,
get off fossil fuel and instead use clean energy, and even free
energy for the world if we could produce it faster and at a much
cheaper energy cost than current. You name it. There is so much
potential here and yet so little of this very valuable item.
Hopefully you understand why it carries the price tag it does.
Now suppose for a second
that I knew how to procure this stuff at a much faster rate
and at a considerably lesser energy/money cost than we currently are
capable of. Suppose I knew how to procure a gram of it (in the form
of positrons) within a matter of months instead of the ridiculous
time frames we're currently capable of. How much would that
information be worth to you?
If the cheapest current
going rate is estimated at $25 billion a gram for positrons and I
show you how to get more than a gram in a matter of
months to a year shouldn't that information be worth at least $25
billion dollars? Sure, that information would be worth at least that
much given the current value of antimatter. After all, you would then
have the capacity to not only get 1 gram but as much as you desire. That's pretty fair isn't it?
Let's begin.
Currently in science
particularly in the field of quantum mechanics there are two
misunderstood events in my opinion that are causing confusion as to nature of anti-matter. I'll elaborate on the current scientific
understanding of what's going on in these two events.
EVENT #1
Current science
understanding is that when an electron and a positron come together, they annihilate with one another and
release a bunch of energy in the form of two photons normally. In other words,
our electron and positron cease to exist and we're left with the
energy from the annihilation. In my opinion scientists may be wrong about this and I'll
explain the true nature of what I believe is going on later but for now let's
move on to event #2.
EVENT#2
Well what do you know, the
same particle pair again. Yes sir, the electron and positron
are about to get at it again and once again mainstream science may be mistaken on what is going on. I don't believe it's a coincidence that it's the same
particle pair. So what am I talking about? Current scientific
understanding is that occasionally an electron and positron will
“pop” into existence ex nihilo. That means that they come into
existence from nothing. This is known as quantum foam to the physics
community. They also believe that shooting gamma rays into matter
causes this particle pair to pop into existence. Anyways according
to main stream science, this particle pair apparently like to break
scientific law (Thermodynamics/Law of Conservation of Energy).
According to main stream science things are now disobeying physics
law. Magic in other words. Again the scientific community may have gotten it
wrong here too.
So anyways if the
scientific community has both of these events wrong, what is actually
going on? Well since I mentioned magic, I think it would be best to
explain what I think is really going on with an analogy from of all things,
magic.
Now don't get me wrong. I
actually enjoy watching magic and magicians/illusionists at their
trade. I enjoy watching shows from Penn and Teller, Chris Angel,
David Blaine, David Copperfield, etc. Now I don't like or watch magic
because I think it's real. I know better. No, I enjoy watching it for
the discovery process. I like to figure out their tricks while they
do them and plus many of them are downright entertaining like Penn
and Teller.
Now inevitably if you
watch as much magic as I do you're going to start coming across the
same magic tricks over and over. Each magician may add his or
her own personal touch to their tricks but they're all essentially
the same.
One trick in particular
that you're going to come across in these large stage shows is a
magic trick that I'll just call the “teleportation” magic trick.
In fact, this trick is so cool they even made a movie about it
starring Christian Bale. So how does this trick work? Well, it goes
something like this.
Initially, the magician
will bring two containers out onto the stage. He'll place one
container on this side of the stage and place the other container
clear across the stage on the other side. Then what he'll do is show
off the containers to alleviate any suspicions of yours that
something amiss is going on. He'll usually show you all sides of the
containers and even open them up so you can peer inside and see that
they are indeed empty.
Now once he has
accomplished this he will usually motion for his lovely young
assistant and place her in container #1 on one side of the stage. At
this moment both containers are closed and he begins his magical
incantation. It may be a few words, some wand waving, or even a
choreographed dance. Essentially he's invoking the gods of magic to
perform a miracle. So, after he's performed his incantation, he
returns right back to the very container that we just saw him place
his assistant in. When he opens it up, the girl has vanished! It's
completely empty! So where did she go? I bet you already know.
He then walks across the
stage to container #2. When he opens it up, she pops right out of
container #2. This girl just literally popped out of existence in one
place and popped into existence in another place. Hmm, that sounds an
awful lot like what scientists currently believe our
electron/positron particle pair are doing – popping in and out of
existence. Quite bewildering.
Could it be that these
magicians know more about science than scientists do? Well,
scientists can breathe a sigh of relief. It's just an
illusion. So how does our magician do it then? I'll explain the trick
and then tie it all back into our two misunderstood events in
science.
Initially, when the
magician brings those two containers out onto the stage, guess what?
They are anything but ordinary containers. You see, they are
constructed in such a way as to present a perception illusion to your
eyes. Their dimensions are deceiving particularly around the edges.
Usually the bottoms of the containers are thicker than your eyes
initially tell you. In other words, there's a hidden compartment in
these containers that doesn't look like it's there due to perception.
If you had a measuring tape and went up on stage at this moment you
would ascertain the truth quickly. The bottom of the containers have
more room in them than the edges outlining the bottom initially
register to your eyes.
So, when our magician
motions for his assistant and places her into container #1, the
reason why he performs that incantation is because he's stalling for
time. You see, these are trained professionals. He knows exactly how
much time it takes for her to hide away in the hidden compartment.
Now when he returns to the
container and opens it up and it appears empty, it's not. She's still
in there. You just can't see her contorted and hidden in the secret
compartment.
So you may have a question
right about now. How then does he walk clear across the stage and
open up container #2 and she pops right out?
Well, here is where the
“real” magic takes place. The girl who comes out of container #2
is not the same girl who went into container #1. You see, girl
#2 had been hiding in container #2 this whole time even though to our
eyes it looked empty at the beginning of the trick. In other words,
the way the magician fooled you is by pulling an old trick which I
just call “the switcheroo”. He wants you to think that the girl
who went into container #1 is the same girl who came out of container
#2. The reality is that girl #2 is usually the identical twin sister
of girl #1. Magic!
Now in science I believe a similar
thing is taking place in these two events. A “switcheroo” like
our magician pulled has taken place right in front of these
scientists and they are none the wiser. So, I believe they are mistakenly
assuming these particles are popping into and out of existence. So
what exactly is going on in these two events then?
Event #1
When an electron and
positron come together they oscillate around one another very fast.
At this point both particles hit light speed. Now don't misunderstand
light speed is not being broken immediately by particles with mass.
More on that in a moment. Anyways, remember the two photons that were
thought to be emitted as a result of the annihilation of these two
particles? Well, I don't believe they're being emitted at all. The two photons
are the electron and positron in my opinion. Switcheroo! The electron
and positron did not cease to exist. They are still there only now as
photons.
Event #2
Since the laws of
physics do not get broken(hello thermodynamics!), I don't believe electrons
and positrons “pop” into existence from nothing! No,
instead they were already there. Photons which are all around us even
in what appears to be empty space will occasionally separate. Also in
the course of sending gamma rays(more photons) into matter,
collisions and field interactions will happen separating the
electrons from the positrons. At that time these photons will take
off their masks and show us what they really are – the electron and
positron. No laws are being broken here in my opinion. The particles were already
there. They pulled that
“switcheroo” on us again.
But wait, I know what
you're thinking. I just stated some things which seemingly contradict
Einstein(SR) as well as what we know about charged mass particles
like electrons and positrons. Follow along
with me for a moment. We're about to get to the bottom of this little
mystery and see if I can answer some objections about this little mystery.
Some common objections:
- Photons are neutral.
- Photons are spin 1 particles.
- Photons are massless.
- Electrons and positrons are none of those things.
- Furthermore, mass can't hit light speed.
Those are some great
objections and it would appear that I'm not correct right about now. Let me see if I can offer some answers to those objections.
1) Photons are neutral –
Whenever you bring two opposite but equal magnitude charges together
as is the case with electrons and positrons, their charge values
cancel exactly leaving us with what we think and may have assumed in
error as neutral particles. Understanding this is akin to
understanding the hydrogen atom which is also neutral despite being
composed of two oppositely charged particles. The reason why
scientists may be mistaking photons as neutral particles is because the two
particles are in close tandem with one another canceling charge
values.
2)Photons have spin 1 –
Whenever you take two particles that each have spin ½ and have them
working together in unison as is the case with the photons, they
appear as one and their spin values are added together. ½ + ½ = 1.
Therefore, photons could be considered spin 1 particles even though it's
actually two particles working together in unison.
3)Photons are massless –
Think of the electron as a spinning ball of charge. You see, the
charge of the electron is spinning around it in one direction. This
causes its rest mass which is a result of its magnetic field from the
motion of the charge. Amp meters=kg. Remember? (read my paper on
gravity again and this will become clearer)
An amp meter is a charge
times a velocity, a charge in motion. Since the electron's charge is
a negative charge in motion we end up with a -Am value which
equals a negative mass -kg. You see the Amp meter
is just your coulomb value times the velocity. The electron's coulomb
value is negative. That leads to a -Am result. In my opinion electrons are
actually negative mass in other words. The same is true with the
positron only the situation is reversed. It's coulomb charge is
positive moving like the electron's. That results in an
exactly opposite but equal positive mass value relative to the
electron(+ Am which equals +kg). When you have a negative mass
particle and positive mass particle of equal value they exactly
cancel with one another leaving us with 0 as the mass. Hence, photons may be perceived as massless particles.
4,5)They can travel at the
speed of light because their mass values were canceled with one
another. Don't worry Einstein is not rolling over in his grave. Mass
didn't hit light speed. The mass was canceled by opposing Am values.
In reality when the electron and positron get together like this to
form photons all of the objections that we think are sound
objections may be easily addressed.
Due to this when light
transmits as a wave, I believe it is really going back and forth between
positive polarity and negative polarity due to the particles that
make it up having positive and negative charges and magnetic fields.
This is what you're
looking at with light to give you a visual understanding of how I believe these
electrons and positrons may be behaving with one another. The red line and
blue line represent oscillation between positive and negative
polarity. I believe electrons and positrons come together to transmit as a
light wave like this.
This is the reason light
has wave/particle duality in my opionion. It's two particles working in concert with
one another producing that wave function. Polarity oscillation
happens due to this causing a wave function.
What this possibly means is that
you can bend light with magnetism. I believe there is evidence that it can be done. Cornell University apparently believes that magnetism can bend light. You can check out a brief article about it at the below link.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/09/defying-physics-engineers-prove-magnetic-field-light
In my opinion , related to this
is the Faraday effect which is sometimes also referred to as the
Faraday rotation. You can't bend the light with a magnet of one
steady polarity but you can rotate the wave function as the opposing
polarity shifts of the light wave align with the magnetic field of
the magnet. I believe that means that light does
respond to magnetism but not resulting in a bend but rather a
rotation of the wave function. If light waves are indeed rotating to
get in line with the magnetic field then yes the light is being
affected by magnetism.
So what about that
antimatter now?
Since I postulated
that light actually consists of antimatter, then if you want to get
at it, you could attempt to pull the antimatter out of the light.
How would one do it?
Quite possibly we may be able to do it with magnets configured a certain way. Before we discuss that further let me show you what I believe is happening with our electrons and positrons with a diagram. I believe they form a toroid like so,
This oscillation between our particles causes our wave function as mentioned earlier.
I believe if we can configure magnets right we may be able to separate the electrons from the positrons in the light due to this. Our electrons and positrons should be coming together like this and magnets structured in this way might pull them apart.
We may be able to cause a separation with the following setup and begin extracting anti-matter if I am correct about what has been discussed above.
Now
currently scientists are working on a quantum theory of gravity. I believe they may be headed in the right direction in one place. It's called “Loop
Quantum Theory”.
Remember
our electrons and positrons in oscillation with one another producing
those photons? Well I believe they form a loop, - a toroid. You see, according
to loop quantum theory space can be viewed as an extremely fine
fabric or network "woven" of finite loops. These networks
of loops are called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network
over time is called a spin foam. The predicted size of this structure
is the Planck length, which is approximately 10−35
meters. According to the theory, there is no meaning to distance at
scales smaller than the Planck scale. Therefore, LQG predicts that
not just matter, but space itself, has an atomic structure.
You
see, those loops in quantum loop theory I believe are the same thing as our
electron/positron toroid I just mentioned. You could also look at
them as two oppositely charged particles orbiting one
another(oscillation) forming our photons. You see, photons are
responsible for the magnetic field also.
Now let's look at Einstein's famous equation.
Einstein's
equation, E=mc2 is a very good way to look at light speed. All you have to do is solve the equation for c2.
C2=E/M.
C2 is nothing but velocity in two directions. It is an
area velocity. A square velocity. Normally we
can only think of velocity in terms of one direction. Have a look again at the red and blue arrow lines.
This
is why C2 is the constant in Einstein's equation for
energy. There are two velocities in two different directions which
equals the C2.
Let me
expound some more. In my paper on gravity remember I told you
coulomb's constant (K) is divided by and that equals the speed of
light squared. Well here I am going to show you why. You see, this
wave function represents oscillation between the electrostatic
portion of e/m and the magnetic part of e/m.
Coulombs
constant is the permittivity
of free space and deals with the electrostatic part of EM...
Ke=
8.9875517873681764×109 N·m2/C2
(newtons are just kgm/s2) so we can rewrite as
Ke=
8.9875517873681764×109 kg·m3/C2s2
The
vacuum magnetic permeability is...
=0.0000001
Kg m/s2A2
(amps are just C/s) so we can rewrite as
=0.0000001
kg m/C2
When you divide Ke by
all units cancel leaving us with
89875517873681764
m2/s2
which
is the speed of light squared.
As I said earlier anti-matter may be at stake here. I don't believe experiments to confirm this would be that difficult. It just a takes a few scientists with enough curiosity to take a look at what I have presented in this bonus section.