Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Gravity is a Magnetic Function


Author: John Faust
(Auburn University/Southern Adventist University)
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 equation that coincides with 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 speed 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 ruler.
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 think we all know that notions of this sort are silly.
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 supported 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 fair to say a=N/kg.
Now let's get back to our earlier thought. We saw previously that an acceleration is N/Am. We also know thanks to Newton that an acceleration is N/kg.
Therefore, since acceleration equals acceleration we can express the following equation N/Am=N/kg.
Now some may be thinking that you cannot set up an equation like that where a=a and hence, N/Am=N/Kg, because they may be confusing degree of acceleration with acceleration. Let me explain what I mean. Let's say you have 1 kilogram of mass as well as a 9 kilogram mass. The fact that there are two different degrees of mass doesn't change the fact that mass is still mass. Only the amount changes. By the same token, just because there are degrees of acceleration doesn't change the fact that acceleration is still acceleration. Therefore, our equation N/Am=N/kg is a legitimate expression because acceleration=acceleration just like mass=mass.
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 it 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 since kg=Am.
Now what exactly is the Am? The Amp meter is simply your coulombs per second or C/s times a meter unit. 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 argument. 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 moment 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 process.


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 in other words goes from 0 to 1.
As a result, in order to find the value of our for a total field equation rather than the maximum field of the first equation, 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 1/2 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 1/2 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,
 
Now μ0 is normally defined as 4π × 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 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 difference between the first and second equation and give you the evidence that it is indeed correct. The only thing different between the two equations is that the first is μ0 divided by 2π whereas the second equation for the total field is μ0 divided by 4π. Is that correct though for the second equation? Yes indeed it is. Please note that, if you divide Coulomb's constant(k) by you end up with the speed of light squared. Yes indeed all units precisely cancel leaving us with that result. Therefore, Is 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. 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 being replaced with a different letter and the subscript 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. So, let's use the earth as a target body for this equation to see if it is a legitimate gravity equation.
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:
Element       Fraction            Number
                      of the Earth      of atoms
Iron              0.35                 2.26x1049
Oxygen        0.30                6.75x1049
Silicon         0.15                1.92x1049
Magnesium 0.13                1.93x1049
Sulfur          0.02                2.24x1048
Calcium      0.01                8.98x1047
Aluminum  0.01                1.33x1048
                                          SUM 1.33x1050
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. 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.
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 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! Something is wrong. We're 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. But why?
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 substances. 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 substance 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 this equation 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 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 figure in the initial equation with the earth's permeability 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=9.82T
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, 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've got serious objections in the way right now. So let's deal with those.
The Objections
More or less these objections usually fall into two main categories.
  1. The cubed distance in the denominator of the equation. This usually raises red flags over the nature of gravity being an inverse square law.
  2. 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?
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 calculation 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 noncoincidental 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
Magnetism 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 incomplete information 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 isn't as 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.
However science currently has a huge unanswered problem that is very much related to this inverse square law. 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 the 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 observations don't support the law.
The problems are numerous here and all the scientific community can do is fancy footwork. 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 approached.
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. You can read about it briefly here.
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. 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 one small area/instance. How can this be?
The following understanding should help.
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. 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 diagram 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 second 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 around 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 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 angle variation. 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 the outside magnet orbit the center magnet in a 3600 arc while it remained parallel to that z-axis. Would that affect anything as for as repulsion vs. attraction?
No, in fact we end up again with the preponderance of angles leading to attraction vs. repulsion. So once again it is rarer to see repulsion from this particular orientation as well. You could even flip that outside magnet so that north is on top and south on bottom and do it again. The result will be the same. The majority of angles favor attraction.
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. It won't matter though the majority of the angles lead to attraction. Very few are repulsive ones. We just end up with a process where 99% of the time the angles favor attraction.
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 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 twisted around in the brain. Sorta like divers training for the Navy Seals when they are dumped into a pool upside down and must orient themselves right. They have wrongly assumed that there is a 50/50 chance of repulsion vs. attraction and thus concluded that both reactions would counter one another and could not possibly be the cause of gravity. The reality is that magnets attract the majority of the time because they have a higher chance of attraction due to more angles leading to 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.
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.
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 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.
It is a rare case where the angle to repulse is already dead on and in equilibrium which leads to repulsion. This situation just doesn't happen due to magnets aligning this way on their own. Repulsion angles only occur in nature due to the sheer amount of electrons and their multiple orientations to one another. Probability alone says 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. We just don't notice the repulsive part because it is dwarfed by the attractive part. Electrons tend to attract everything roughly 99% of the time while only repulsing at a rate of less than 1% due to repulsive and attractive angle percentages.
Hopefully now you understand the monopole nature of gravity. It's not actually monopole but appears that way.
Having answered the biggest objection, let's now deal with the gravitational constant.
The Gravitational Constant
The very nature that I'm postulating 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.
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 simply 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
Let's solve here for kilograms.






further simplifying...




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 a further affirmation 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 which only reaffirms 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


It is estimated that 1 gram of antimatter has a cost a anywhere from of 60-100 trillion dollars. Why is that? Well it is incredibly costly to produce and rare. It is mainly being produced at large facilities like CERN or Fermilab or DESY at the cost of tons of energy and money. It is also costly because we have been meticulously collecting this stuff for decades now and yet if the entire world pooled our antimatter 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 billion years at current rates of production to even get a gram of it! This stuff is so expensive because of its energy potential, rarity, and the money needed to produce it. It is the most expensive item in the world by far. 1 gram of this stuff has enough energy potential in it to equal the same energy that a nuclear bomb detonation would. 1 gram has enough energy potential to power the entire energy needs of the U.S. for an entire year. We could even possibly use it for an antimatter engine at NASA, experiments, clean energy, you name it. There is so much potential here. That's why it is so expensive.

Now suppose for a second that I knew exactly how to procure this stuff at a much faster rate and also at a lesser energy/money cost. Suppose I knew how to procure a gram of it within a matter of months instead of a billion years. How much would that information be worth to you? If the current going rate is 60-100 trillion a gram and I show you how to get more than a gram in a reasonable amount of time wouldn't that be worth at least 1 trillion dollars? Absolutely! Given what we know that is a fair asking price. I realize that asking 100 trillion or even 60 trillion is a bit of a stretch as most governments would break under that asking price, but 1 trillion is doable. Very doable. Considering the U.S. government handed the auto industry $700 billion, I certainly think it's reasonable to ask for 1 Trillion for something far far more valuable. So that is my asking price for this bonus material. Wink.

Let's begin.

Currently in science particularly in the field of quantum mechanics there are two misunderstood events. 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(that's antimatter) come together, they annihilate with one another and release a bunch of energy in the form of two photons. They're wrong about this and I'll explain the true nature of what's 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 has no clue what is going on. So what am I talking about? Current scientific understanding is that occasionally an electron and positron will “pop” into existence ex nihilo. This is known as quantum foam yada yada yada, but who cares it's wrong. Anyways, this particle pair apparently like to break scientific law(thermodynamics...yada yada yada). Magic in other words! Again the scientific community got it wrong here too. Laws in science do not get broken no matter how much you would like for that to be the case. And if anyone questions it, most will just quote Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or play a semantic game about open and closed systems. Sweep it right under the rug that a law was broken and smooth it over in other words is the usual response.

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's really going on with an analogy from of all things, MAGIC!

You see, 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. 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 done over and over. Now 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 named the “Prestige”. You should see it some time. It's really cool with a good twist at the end of it and it even has some sci-fi teleportation stuff in it. 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. Magic! And we're all amazed wondering how such a feat could be.

Now either these magicians know more about science than scientists do or either they are pulling the wool over our eyes. Well I can assure it's just an illusion. Don't worry your jobs are safe.

So how does he do it? 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. The sides, but usually the bottom 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 ruler and went up on stage at this moment you would ascertain the truth quickly.

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, she 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 deceived 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 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 what exactly is going on in these two events then?

Event #1
When an electron and positron are coming together their speed increases fast until they get in close proximity to one another where 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 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, they're not being emitted at all. The two photons are the electron and positron. 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!) electrons and positrons don't “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. 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. The particles were already there. You just had no clue what they were. They pulled a “switcheroo” on you.

But wait, I know what you're thinking, I'm just pulling your chain right? Either that or I'm a crackpot right? I just stated some things which seemingly contradict Einstein(SR). No way I am right huh? Think with me for a moment.

What is AC current? It is light propagation. Why does it have waveform/frequency? Because it is going back and forth between positive and negative polarity. If one form of light propagation is doing this then it stands to reason the others are following the same principle. Get it? This is how you solve problems by making connections. Now why would light do that if it was indeed neutral?

The reason why light has wave/particle duality is because it is actually two particles with one another that produces the frequency and/or waveform that light propagates as. The hills and valleys of the waveform are just oscillation between positive polarity and negative polarity because of the two particles composing light. Since the particles are actually oppositely charged particles they just go back and forth. Light actually has dual polarity as a result of this that we normally assume is a neutral entity.

Now I know what you're thinking.

“BS! Photons are neutral, massless, spin 1 particles and mass can't hit light speed. Electrons and positrons are neither of those things. Look, I even have the evidence to back that up!”

But what if they are? What if your objections aren't as sound as you think? What if your evidence has been misinterpreted?

So how do I explain those objections of yours?

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 have measured 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 mistake photons as neutral particles is because the two particles are in tandem with one another.

Photons have spin 1 – Whenever you take two particles that each has spin ½ and have them working together in unison as is the case with the oscillation of light, they appear as one and their spin values are added together. ½ + ½ = 1. Therefore, photons are considered spin 1 particles even though it's actually two particles working together in unison.

Photons are massless – Think of the electron classically as a spinning ball of charge. You see, the charge of the electron is spinning around it in one direction. This causes its 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) value since Am=Kg. You see the Amp meter is just your coulombs times the velocity. The electron's coulomb value is negative. That leads to a -Am result. Yes all observed mass other than antimatter is negative mass! The same is true with the positron only the situation is reversed. It's 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 and positive mass of equal value they exactly cancel with one another leaving us with 0. Hence, photons are perceived as massless particles.

Due to this when light transmits as a wave, 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. 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.

You want to bend light with magnetism? No problem. All you have to do is get a laser of certain frequency operation. Then construct an electromagnet designed to pulse back and forth between positive and negative polarity at the same frequency as the light source. In other words, half of the frequency time of the magnet will be spent in negative polarity mode and the other half in positive polarity mode. Both modes add together so that the magnet is actually pulsing between the two at the same frequency as the light source.

Like this - positive,negative,positive,negative,positive,negative, etc, etc.

That's how the electromagnet needs to operate and it will be doing this very fast because frequencies of laser beams tend to be high. So, you're going to need to construct that electromagnet with something like AC current running through it that has been stepped up in frequency quite a bit to match that of the light source. AC current causes the polarity to change of an electromagnet. Normally you don't use it in creating electromagnets as direct current is better. But for this application you need to. DC current heads one way steadily. AC current changes direction causing a polarity shift.

This will cause the magnet to get in sync with the light frequency and catch the hills and valleys of the wave at the right moments. By doing this you attract or repel both the electrons and positrons at the same time with the magnet. This causes light to bend.

The reason why you haven't noticed magnetism bending light yet is because a steady magnetic field of one polarity doesn't do it. The degree it would pull the electrons for example in the light is exactly countered by the degree it would push the positrons. Therefore, both cancel since the two particles are in tandem with one another. Light does practically nothing in the presence of a steady magnetic field. You have to oscillate with the magnet between negative and positive to catch the polarity shifts of the light at the right moment. This is how you bend light with magnetic fields. In fact, related to this Faraday noticed that you can twist the wave function of light with magnetism. This is known as the Faraday effect. You can't bend the light but you can twist the wave function with one magnet of one polarity. You need oscillation between two polarities to bend however.

This is what you're looking at with light to give you a visual understanding of how these electrons and positrons behave with one another. The red line represents oscillation between positive charge and negative charge. The blue line represents oscillation of polarity due to the magnetic field of the two particles. Electrons and positrons come together to transmit as a light wave like this.



This is the reason light has wave/particle duality. It's two particles working in concert with one another producing that wave function.

So what about that antimatter now? No problem.
Since you just learned that light actually consists of antimatter, then if you want to get at it, you simply pull the antimatter out of the light.
How do you do it?
Essentially the same way you bend the light.

You just pull the electrons apart from the positrons and collect your positrons into a containment facility with a process similar to the following.

You place two electromagnets, one on each side of the laser beam. One will pulse only negative polarity at half the frequency of the laser. The other will pulse only positive polarity at half the frequency of the laser. In addition the two magnets need to be configured to be in sync with one another. In other words, when the negative polarity magnet is pulsed on, the positive polarity magnet needs to be off and vice versa. The two magnets are just alternating with one another now as in...on,off,on,off,on,off, etc. That on/off sequence going back and forth between the two magnets gets in phase with the wave of the light again. The positive polarity magnet will catch the wave at the right moment and then shut off so the negative polarity turns back on to catch the wave at the right moment. The alternation between the two magnets catches those particles at the right moments which results in pulling them apart. Both magnets taken as a whole equal the frequency of the light in others words. It's just now that they are on opposite sides of the laser beam and are now pulling the light apart instead of bending it as would be the case with one magnet on one side of the beam.

When you do this with strong enough magnets, it pulls the electrons and positrons apart from one another. Use a strong enough laser pumping out as many photons per second as you can muster and it won't take but a little time to gather enough antimatter to produce your gram. If one setup isn't enough just make several of these stations all working in concert collecting your anti-matter. It won't take billion's of years to get your gram. No it can be done in a matter of months depending on how many of these collection stations you operate and vacuum chamber containment facilities you have.

Now the question is this. Can you afford to put your head in the sand on this? What if indeed I am right? It wouldn't take the scientific community much effort or money at all to confirm the truth of what I just stated. Grab an electromagnet and a laser and see if you can bend the light first using the electromagnet under operation as I specified. If it does bend with a magnet operating like this. Well, well, well, the community will have some major explaining and reworking of current theory to do.

As a side note:
Antiprotons which are another form of antimatter behave the same way with protons. They come together to form cosmic rays as a form of radiation. This is why antiprotons/protons come from cosmic rays. The proton and anti-proton don't annihilate either.

No laws are getting broken. Scientific law does not get broken ever even for a split second. Hypothesis may prove not to be true and theories may crumble when new evidence comes in to refute them but law is law. That does not get broken and these particles are not violating physics law. Regardless of what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says, or whether it's an open or closed system, or whether it happened for a nanosecond these particles are not popping into existence from nothing and they're not disappearing either. This isn't magic folks where things defy law. There is a reasonable explanation that scientists missed because they don't understand.

Now where's my 1 trillion dollars? I've got important things to do like sit on a beach somewhere and sip on a pina colada or watch some Auburn football or build an anti-gravity engine ran off of antimatter Maybe even a cloaking field since light is easy to bend with magnets. You know, mundane stuff. By the way don't steal my intellectual property here or think about building an antimatter bomb. You'll just kill yourself and others or get caught or sued by me.You may link to my paper in your discussions but please respect the hard work I did in figuring out what Einstein and the scientific community could not do. Please don't pander this as your own work. I ask respectfully that you properly cite me or refer others back to this link. You are more than free to share this with others under those stipulations.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)