Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

WhiteMountain said:
To be honest, I don't think Terrance actually knows what he is talking about. Here is a prime and easy example of something said by someone who does not understand the science:

"But the next electric wave is coming, so it gets pushed out, and as it's pushed out, it gets to the vortices, and that's some on those pieces, those vortices.
Now, instead of it spinning northeasternly, centripetally, it's forced to spin centrifugally, and it spins southwesternly and it expands itself out.
It decays.
It keeps decaying until you get four magnetic waves that hit each other at 120 degree angles."

There is no such thing as an "electric wave" and their is no such thing as a "magnetic wave." There is only an "electromagnetic wave" which consists of the electric and magnetic fields oscillating perpendicular to each other as predicted by Maxwell's equations. Remember magnetic fields are only resulting from the movement of the electric field - the two literally are tied together, at least as we currently understand physics (which conceivably could be wrong if we find the real GUT). Literally any time a charge moves, the perturbation of the field is perceived as a magnetic field propagated as an electromagnetic wave (unless you are discussing quantum mechanics where stuff gets weird; then photons are only released with an energy level change despite the charged particle motion). Maybe you could have something in terms of scalar potential waves, but I am pretty sure you probably get the electric and magnetic fields tied together somehow their too because of the nature of their interrelation, or maybe you just get a compressional wave that is just electric (with no standalone magnetic component or "magnetic scalar wave" possible) with the B field cancelled out; or vice versa. I have not studied scalar wave solutions in that much detail to say for sure.

I personally was never impressed by Walter Russell. I was told I should read him many years ago and bought all his books but never even got through one because the whole impression of what I was reading was sort of like what I get when reading what Terrance is quoting above - gibberish from people that really never looked in detail at the physics and what we knew about physics. If I remember right, I believe what finally turned me off was reading a sentence I knew to absolutely wrong scientifically.
Click to expand...
That guy is drunk or on drugs and I see that as I who don't know anything about physics or mathematics.

A lot of words to say nothing.
 
WhiteMountain said:
... I personally was never impressed by Walter Russell. I was told I should read him many years ago and bought all his books but never even got through one because the whole impression of what I was reading was sort of like what I get when reading what Terrance is quoting above - gibberish from people that really never looked in detail at the physics and what we knew about physics. If I remember right, I believe what finally turned me off was reading a sentence I knew to absolutely wrong scientifically.
Click to expand...

I don’t know, I think he is onto something. I watched the Joe Rogan interview and followed it very well actually.

Essentially, Terrance is saying our understanding of current science started on the basis of linear thinking and the original mathematical models we use today were created when it was assumed the earth was flat. Sure, the science has been adjusted over the years to include new understandings, but the foundation of it all was incomplete and faulty. (according to him). He also notes, scientifically speaking, we took a wrong path in the 1860's when scientists started to ignore and dismiss the "ether".

Again, I don’t know if I agree with it, but I certainly think his theories are as sound as many other cockamamie mainstream theories trying to explain the physics of our realm.

I don’t know if the following is factual about Einstein and Russell but it is interesting if true:
Ben Novick had known Albert Einstein intimately and confirmed the reports Lao has often heard that, in his last years, the great Einstein had expressed regret that he had not followed through with his study of Walter Russell's new science. Einstein had been one of the first recipients of "The Universal One" on its private publication in 1926. Mr. Novick told Lao that Einstein had told him personally that even then he intuitively knew that Walter Russell possessed new scientific knowledge so desperately needed by the world.

Written by J.B. Yount III, excerpt from his book “Remembered For Love”
Click to expand...
 
Wandering Star said:
That guy is drunk or on drugs and I see that as I who don't know anything about physics or mathematics.

A lot of words to say nothing.
Click to expand...
IMO, that’s a pretty ignorant comment to say. To many people outside this forum, many of our understandings and discussions we have here, could be interpreted the way you described Terrance.
 
neema said:
IMO, that’s a pretty ignorant comment to say. To many people outside this forum, many of our understandings and discussions we have here, could be interpreted the way you described Terrance.
Click to expand...
No.

My comment is very ignorant, however I maintain that what this man Terrance said is gibberish.
 
EricLux said:
@ScioAgapeOmnis : This is an excellent initiative, because it's time to ask the right questions in this area. We need to be aware that with electromagnetism (EM), we've only just scratched the surface of a reality that's... hyperdimensional. Indeed, the way we look at Maxwell's EM, more or less modified by his successors, is the way we interpret it through our 3D terrestrial scope. More precisely, my intuition is that Maxwell's equations are, by nature, hyperdimensional and that our 3D interpretation is merely the precipitate of a multidimensional chemical process. We therefore have an extremely limited view of a multidimensional reality of which we are not even really aware, at present, since our only reality turns out to be our 3D reality.

So the relationships you mention between electricity and magnetism describe their 3D dynamics. It's a question of understanding how gravity fits into this equation. The Cs mentioned that the graviton (gravity particle) is an electron in NULL time. This should put us on the way to understanding where gravity hides in the EM equations. The fact that electricity and magnetism are energetic expressions of gravity comes from the fact that they are temporal expressions of an atemporal process. Time NULL being synonymous with OUTSIDE of time.

To help you refine the questions you may need to ask the Cs in future sessions, I'm sharing a few ideas/questions on the subject :

- Why is a magnet a magnet? What allows two opposite polarities living together at the same time? Do we need the TUF (Theory of Unified Field) to understand it?

- The dynamic between the two opposite polarities is the movement inherent in interdimensional magnetism and which has nothing to do with an extensive 3D movement, which is of an intensive nature? Then, to understand it in its true nature, we need to take into account a new dimension, the internal dimension of phenomena, processes and this occurs by discovering the new spatial reference which is the 4th dimension allowing us to understand, simultaneously, the exterior and the interior. This happens through interdimensional magnetism?

- The magnetic field we are talking about in classical and quantum electromagnetism is a 3D dimensional magnetic field coming from the 3D electric field?

- By reversing the perspective, by changing dimension, would there exist an interdimensional magnetic field of which the 3D electric and magnetic fields would be manifestations?

- Why when physicists study the magnetic component of light do they need to act at the nano level? Is it not possible to highlight this magnetic component in a macro way?

- What is special about this magnetism? How is it connected to the 4th dimension of space and the inter-dimensional waves that we must discover to have a clear vision of quantum?

- Would the magnetic component of light be its interdimensional aspect and the electrical component its 3D aspect?

- During a session, you said that in the oscilloscope, we could perceive the magnetic pulse. However, an oscilloscope reveals a sinusoid : does this mean that the magnetic pulse reveals something that we have not perceived or taken into account within the sinusoid?

- What’s the reality behind a magnetic monopole? Is graviton a magnetic monopole?​

Don't hesitate if you have any questions :)
Click to expand...
Have you posted these questions in the "Questions For The C's" thread?
 
WhiteMountain said:
Physicists have been trying to figure this one out for over 100 years. The whole electricity and magnetism connection inspired theories like Kaluza Klein geometry (basically throwing in an extra dimension with time), quantum field theory, string theory, etc trying to unify everything in a similar manner. And they were shockingly successful in linking the weak force with E/M - if you have ever seen the original derivation it is quite creative and even more so amazing it experimentally predicted the W particle. That probably inspired more confidence everything can be linked together in one grand unified theory - just no one has cracked it yet.

I am sure Ark probably would have more interesting comments on this as I imagine he has spent a good portion of his life trying to figure out stuff like this, and the C's obviously do not seem like they want to just hand the answers to him, only hints. It will be interesting to see their answers to these questions.

I think the one interesting thing about gravity is that the hyperdimensional physicists claim that you can dramatically reduce its effect on an object by rapidly rotating an object. Supposedly this is how secret space craft like the TR-3Bs work (rapidly spinning mercury in a cyclotron in the center of a craft increasing the angular momentum inside it; interestingly enough years after I heard of this concept I saw a patent coming out of the armed forces describing exactly such a system couching in obscure and completely unnecessary jargon clearly trying to hide what they were saying from the general public). I think this has more to do with lowering the effective mass of an object (also allowing the craft to accelerate much faster under a given force due to lower inertia), than a direct interaction with gravity, but you have to fit this behavior into whatever model of gravity you have.

Also based on what we know about ancient technologies long lost (except for Coral Castle and whatever is done behind black projects) you have to explain the sound frequency resonance phenomenon someone else mentioned above. I wonder if that is somehow linked to the angular momentum TR-3B phenomenon as well since sound waves are also some sort of physical movement of air. I wonder if anyone has thought to try to link those two phenomenon; although perhaps it is different if you get actual levitation through sound waves instead of just reducing the mass to zero so it is just easy to lift. Too bad the guy at Coral Castle never gave up his secrets :(.

I don't think you are going to get anything special around a conductor as to the first question. The way I understand magnetism works is that it is sort of an illusion of a force that happens in a moving electric field - essentially breaks in the electric field at right angles as the source of the field moves creating the perpendicular pseudoforce of magnetism. So essentially you have an electric field that appears as a completely separate force when it moves. You do have gravitational waves when large masses move, similar to electromagnetic fields with the electric force so there probably are some similarities in how the physics works, but it is really hard to detect those phenomenon experimentally because gravity is such a weak force - you are limited to looking at the effects of really large masses moving rapidly in space. But I suspect if you could do those experiments you might see some of the similarities you suggest.
Click to expand...
@WhiteMountain It's a very interesting post ! As @JGeropoulas has invited me to do, I'm going to respond to the various messages so as to amplify the networking and bring out questions that could be put to the Cs at future sessions, or even at the next Q&A that @SoFloJayC would like to set up with @Laura and the Crew.

In view of the information given by the Cs on this subject, we can say that working towards the UFT necessarily involves awakening consciousness : it's true that this leads to questions about the UFT. Even if Einstein didn't officially find it, the Cs let us know that UFT has been obtained through the work of various teams and, who knows, perhaps also thanks to the intervention of ETs. One immediate question would be whether it's possible to access the UFT with a 3D consciousness? Can such a consciousness do anything with it? Or does obtaining the UFT require a certain awakening of consciousness and so one possible pathway would be the intervention of forces "external" to Earth in order to go beyond terrestrial 3D consciousness? Or has the UFT been obtained on Earth without the people working on it being fully aware that they have the UFT in their hands? Don't forget that UFT allows us to understand how Gravity and Consciousness mirror each other.

Does this mean that, for these beings, the UFT would remain a technology, whereas for beings who have awakened and modified their consciousness, the UFT would be an everyday reality that they would have to live with? It would no longer be an external theory but an internal practice. Thanks to a change in their state of consciousness, they would be able to free themselves from gravity, to play with the laws of terrestrial or other physics, and even to be in several places in one or more realities consciously.

Another facet of the UFT that would be interesting to study is the "intellectual" way of accessing it : since we're talking about a unified field theory, we should be able, through it, to access all possible mathematics and laws of physics. In other words, we find ourselves at the heart of a living multi-dimensional physics because taking into account several dimensions, at the same time, and therefore several laws of physics other than terrestrial ones, simultaneously, must certainly translate into a variable, and therefore living, physics. We can see how, almost immediately, consciousness comes to the fore, because life, whether universal or not, means consciousness, more or less asleep. The question is : from the mathematics and physics of the Dimension to which the scientific researchers in question belong, what is the simplest way to obtain the UFT?

It's easy to understand how relative this answer is, since researchers from different dimensions and dimensional realities will inevitably have a different mathematical reference base. As far as the 3D terrestrial path is concerned, the one we're most interested in following from our current conscious incarnation, this question can be translated as follows : is it simpler to access the UFT from Maxwell's equations themselves or from the search for a reconciliation between its two childrens (general relativity and quantum mechanics)? For me, the question deserves to be asked, as we quickly realize that the mathematical level is not the same between Maxwell's 4 equations and what has since been derived from them. Of course, this type of questioning is related to the way we look at reality, if that way of looking is more or less disconnected from observed reality. In other words, is the observer's perception, more or less conscious, linked to his or her state of consciousness?

Here we come back to what you mentioned at the beginning of your answer: the Kaluza-Klein geometry. As it happens, this approach, called "flawed" by the Cs, is based on a quest for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, without realizing, of course, that the fact that gravity IS electromagnetism was never envisaged by the researchers of the time. It was a separate, isolated view of reality that initiated such a process of unification, resulting in the emergence of a new dimension external to space, a 5th dimension. The approach was all the more biased in that it was also based on the consideration of time as the 4th dimension of space... which is not the case, as the Cs have repeatedly pointed out.

So, rather than looking for new, external dimensions to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, another possible path would be to pursue the idea, or awareness, that gravity IS electromagnetism. Even if, at this level, we're not yet talking about multidimensional Gravity and Electromagnetism but simply 3D (at the level 3). This could then be translated into the highlighting of dimensions residing within the 3 dimensions of reference space as resonant modes of vibration. In this way, the 4th dimension of space would not be time, but another way of looking at 3D outer space, the container, taking into account an internal dimension, specific to the 3 external dimensions, which would translate into variability, into an internal dynamic within the 3D container hitherto considered as static and constant.

This would enable us to take into account the 3D container (exterior) and the 4D content (interior) at the same time, through the body's own resonant frequency (a frequency we could identify with a 4th dimension of space). In this sense, we would be joining the various clues provided by the Cs on the true nature of the 4th dimension of space... And this view is one of unity, unified because we would be addressing all states of matter within a single reference space.

Thanks for your message, which gave me the opportunity to reply to you with these few words.
Hoping to have helped lift the veil.
That's all for tonight :)​
 
WhiteMountain said:
It is interesting that you mention Maxwell's equations. The version of Maxwell's equations that we have in the physics books today are not actually Maxwell's original equations. Those are actually the condensed Heavyside equations, which reduce the original equations to the four vector differential equations most are familiar with today.

Maxwell was actually the first to posit hyper-dimensional physics. His original equations were based on the idea of their being 4 dimensions, not three. He used quaternion algebra to formulate it - think complex numbers with not just an i, but a j and k as well, describing a four dimensional topology. If I remember right the original equations were very complex 20 equations and 20 unknowns, so you can understand the rationale for the Heavyside simplification. But the condensed equations eliminated certain solutions like scalar waves (most electromagnetic waves are transfer, scalar are more similar to sound compressional waves and can theoretically be produced by winding wire around a magnetic core in both directions).

I actually tried to find a first edition of Maxwell to compare the 20 equations I found to the original formulation. I found an electronic copy online but it was very strange. The introduction mentioned and apologized for the use of quaternion algebra, that most people were obviously not familiar with. But I did not find a singular instance of what appeared to be quaternion algebra anywhere the rest of the text. I need to probably resume that search since it was long time ago I tried to find that and there is a lot more stuff open source online now. But the impression I got from reading it was that someone clearly modified the text I was viewing if the quaternion algebra was gone yet mentioned in the introduction. Supposedly Tesla circuits can only be explained through the original equations.

As to the comment on the graviton existing in null time that confused the hell out of me. What is exactly does it mean for a graviton to be outside of time, practically? It sounds profound abstractly, but when you get down to brass tacks it seems to make no sense. I mean we know that gravitational waves exist. They propagate through time from some binary star system to be measured at earth, for example, theoretically at the speed of light. So if they propagate through space, that graviton by definition has a time component that is necessary to measure its location in history along with the three cartesian coordinates.

So do they have a completely different definition of time? I mean time has to be multidimensional in their framework (I believe Ark or someone else even asked them about this) because while our density is timeline to us, it would appear that they are existing in their own time dimension. For example if you say you are a 6th density entity etc. communicating from the future, and they will eventually evolve to the seventh dimension, their speech pattern alone indicates their own temporality. Otherwise they would say "we are you from all dimensions simulatneously, or across time, or something like that." So maybe the rule is 4th density can have access to all 3rd density timelines simultaneously, but exist in their 4th density time progression...and so on for each density. Might the graviton being in zero time mean maybe it is linked amongst the different temporal dimensions? Although that does not sit right with me as well. A graviton on 3rd density will have multiple positions throughout its lifetime.

To me to say something exists in zero time would mean it is completely stationary and independent of time, unmovable. But then, it can still be measured across time...but in any case this would not describe a graviton.

Maybe they mean zero time in the sense a photon itself, IN ITS REST FRAME, exists in zero time - time does not progress, according to special relativity. But a photon from our vantage point still has time.

It is also curious they say it is an ELECTRON in zero time. Why not a POSITRON in zero time? For that matter why not neutrons, protons, mesons, or quarks. Are positrons in null time, antigravitons (antigravity carrying particle). There needs to be some clarification like "What is a positron in zero time?" "What is a proton, or its component quarks in zero time?" "What is a neutrino in zero time?" Do these lead to other fundamental force carrying particles like photons or gluons?

MIght it be that other spatial dimensions be hidden in that movement in them can only be perceived in other temporal dimensions that only higher densities can perceive? And does a zero time electron fit in that paradigm.

Or might this just be one of the things where there is a "transmission error" from the C's, that might be leading us down rabbit holes? That is always something to consider. BTW I have a theory on how the transmission errors might work, but that is probably a discussion for another thread.

Man I really want to get a copy of that first edition of maxwell now!!!
Click to expand...
@WhiteMountain
I'd get back to you by starting to draft a reply, but it's not completely clear in my mind yet and replying to your message is going to take us into ideas that might turn out to be a bit crazy for a 3D mind. After all, it's kind of the point of the game if the quest is UFT, I'd even say UF as I'd rather live it than have it remain a theory.

As soon as I have all the ideas, I'll get back to you :)​
 
whitecoast said:
One interesting thing I've learned is that all the laws of physics which describe gravity as a force still technically function just fine if you plug in a negative mass for an object. This opens speculation about if negative mass can be achieved by some method.



This is so fascinating. What hyperdimensional physicists are you referring to here?
Click to expand...
Yeah, as @whitecoast I'd like to know what hyperdimensional physicists are you referring too? Thanks :)
 
WhiteMountain said:
By the way, in case anyone is interested here are the 20 original equations with some history about their development. https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/kkieu/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2019/01/Orig_maxwell_equations.pdf

Also worth mentioning, Maxwell's original equations were 4 SPATIAL dimensions, so in the sense that people started counting time as a fourth dimension after Relativity, Maxwell's equations would essentially define a 5 dimensional physics including time.
Click to expand...
As I see it, Maxwell's equations are a very, very good starting point for our approach to quaternions. They should enable us to sense, if not understand, the very structure of space on which these equations are based, if Maxwell's equations don't themselves define space, time and even what is out of the space-time (NULL time). Keep in mind that Cs said that there was quaternions and something more... No more questions to the Cs on this point have been asked to the Cs since many years. Maybe it's TIME :-) (if @ScioAgapeOmnis has the occasionto ask the question next time).​
 
Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to... information? I think of the way an AC signal can 'ride atop' a DC level in a circuit. Perhaps unstable gravity waves can ride atop a stronger, constant gravitational pull. Can unstable gravity waves be nevertheless periodic and regular? Wireless electromagnetic waveforms transmit information of a sort, (light/radio waves), and the waveform must be processed based on this or that protocol that matches the signal. Perhaps gravity waves can also be used to transmit information, or that is their natural, primary purpose, in which case the protocol to convert the signal to information may be embedded in nature.

Of course, it may be an error to make correlations between light/radio waves and whatever unstable gravity waves are, and I know little about higher physics and math.
 
What's interesting about the question is that usually, people compare the gravitational force to the electrostatic force since they both vary with the inverse of the square of the distance, and then they ask whether there is an unknown "force" that connects to gravity similarly to the way magnetism connect to electricity.
 
EricLux said:
@WhiteMountain It's a very interesting post ! As @JGeropoulas has invited me to do, I'm going to respond to the various messages so as to amplify the networking and bring out questions that could be put to the Cs at future sessions, or even at the next Q&A that @SoFloJayC would like to set up with @Laura and the Crew.

In view of the information given by the Cs on this subject, we can say that working towards the UFT necessarily involves awakening consciousness : it's true that this leads to questions about the UFT. Even if Einstein didn't officially find it, the Cs let us know that UFT has been obtained through the work of various teams and, who knows, perhaps also thanks to the intervention of ETs. One immediate question would be whether it's possible to access the UFT with a 3D consciousness? Can such a consciousness do anything with it? Or does obtaining the UFT require a certain awakening of consciousness and so one possible pathway would be the intervention of forces "external" to Earth in order to go beyond terrestrial 3D consciousness? Or has the UFT been obtained on Earth without the people working on it being fully aware that they have the UFT in their hands? Don't forget that UFT allows us to understand how Gravity and Consciousness mirror each other.

Does this mean that, for these beings, the UFT would remain a technology, whereas for beings who have awakened and modified their consciousness, the UFT would be an everyday reality that they would have to live with? It would no longer be an external theory but an internal practice. Thanks to a change in their state of consciousness, they would be able to free themselves from gravity, to play with the laws of terrestrial or other physics, and even to be in several places in one or more realities consciously.

Another facet of the UFT that would be interesting to study is the "intellectual" way of accessing it : since we're talking about a unified field theory, we should be able, through it, to access all possible mathematics and laws of physics. In other words, we find ourselves at the heart of a living multi-dimensional physics because taking into account several dimensions, at the same time, and therefore several laws of physics other than terrestrial ones, simultaneously, must certainly translate into a variable, and therefore living, physics. We can see how, almost immediately, consciousness comes to the fore, because life, whether universal or not, means consciousness, more or less asleep. The question is : from the mathematics and physics of the Dimension to which the scientific researchers in question belong, what is the simplest way to obtain the UFT?

It's easy to understand how relative this answer is, since researchers from different dimensions and dimensional realities will inevitably have a different mathematical reference base. As far as the 3D terrestrial path is concerned, the one we're most interested in following from our current conscious incarnation, this question can be translated as follows : is it simpler to access the UFT from Maxwell's equations themselves or from the search for a reconciliation between its two childrens (general relativity and quantum mechanics)? For me, the question deserves to be asked, as we quickly realize that the mathematical level is not the same between Maxwell's 4 equations and what has since been derived from them. Of course, this type of questioning is related to the way we look at reality, if that way of looking is more or less disconnected from observed reality. In other words, is the observer's perception, more or less conscious, linked to his or her state of consciousness?

Here we come back to what you mentioned at the beginning of your answer: the Kaluza-Klein geometry. As it happens, this approach, called "flawed" by the Cs, is based on a quest for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, without realizing, of course, that the fact that gravity IS electromagnetism was never envisaged by the researchers of the time. It was a separate, isolated view of reality that initiated such a process of unification, resulting in the emergence of a new dimension external to space, a 5th dimension. The approach was all the more biased in that it was also based on the consideration of time as the 4th dimension of space... which is not the case, as the Cs have repeatedly pointed out.

So, rather than looking for new, external dimensions to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, another possible path would be to pursue the idea, or awareness, that gravity IS electromagnetism. Even if, at this level, we're not yet talking about multidimensional Gravity and Electromagnetism but simply 3D (at the level 3). This could then be translated into the highlighting of dimensions residing within the 3 dimensions of reference space as resonant modes of vibration. In this way, the 4th dimension of space would not be time, but another way of looking at 3D outer space, the container, taking into account an internal dimension, specific to the 3 external dimensions, which would translate into variability, into an internal dynamic within the 3D container hitherto considered as static and constant.

This would enable us to take into account the 3D container (exterior) and the 4D content (interior) at the same time, through the body's own resonant frequency (a frequency we could identify with a 4th dimension of space). In this sense, we would be joining the various clues provided by the Cs on the true nature of the 4th dimension of space... And this view is one of unity, unified because we would be addressing all states of matter within a single reference space.

Thanks for your message, which gave me the opportunity to reply to you with these few words.
Hoping to have helped lift the veil.
That's all for tonight :)​
Click to expand...
You know I thought about this subject a long time last night, and had some very interesting insights (including realizing one of the diagrams in my college E&M texts was basically wrong, and that is probably all over textbooks explaining how the magnetic field works). Probably would be a massive post to put up in detail, but one of the conclusions I came to was WE DEFINITELY DO NEED TO START FROM SCRATCH and WEED NEED TO TREAT THE EM AND GRAVITY similarly as you suggest. A lot of these ideas are probably not new, I just have not heard them elucidated like I am going to. There have been plenty of attempts to quantize gravity for instance. But I am just talking about how E and G fields really should mirror each other a lot.

For example, one thought experiment I had was what if you have a big positively charged body in space orbited by a smaller negatively charged body, so you get similar situation as the moon around the earth, etc. (you might have to put them at great distances since the E force is so strong, but that distance can also be attenuated by the sizes of the charge; leave aside for the moment if a stable orbit is possible due to photon emissions from the rotating body). In a macroscopic sense, gravity behaves just like electromagnetism in that it is an inverse square law. The only difference is the charge differences which can result in attraction or repulsion that complicates things. But if you just examine a system, of a positively charged macroscopic object and a negatively charged macroscopic object, the mathematics becomes identical except for the constant, with the electric force being a hell of a lot more powerful, and it will overwhelm any gravitational effect.

If you look at how Einstein actually derived general relativity via the equivalence principle, do not the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLES APPLY TO THE ABOVE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT? Am I missing anything? You will get a metric tensor, and the prediction that the electromagnetic charges in the thought experiment WARP SPACE TIME. Or maybe we call it electrospace time and the gravitational tensor gravitational space time. And if that is the case you should theoretically be able to build an Einstein Rosen Bridge aka wormhole (assuming that is even possible....just using as an example) much easier with electricity than with gravity assuming you have the technology to actually accumulate very large charge differentials in real life (that is also hard, but so is it with gravity).

Obviously, formulating a metric tensor with oppositely charged particles is more complex and you cannot just lay it on Einsteinian space time. But you could create a base space time the forms the net potential that determines how a particle moves and space folds in general and then overlay a series of two extradimensional (outside typical 3D) topologies (the reason I use the terms gravitational space time and electrospace time), or fields, etc....some mathematical representations of the physics that interact to form the actual space time potential gradient that determines the motion of particles that we see in real life. You have to start from scratch to do that.

Maybe it is even interesting to consider the idea Einstein worked hard at that matter itself was not separate from the potential, thus warping the potential, but that the warp in the space time potential was matter itself. To me that would be a very appealing model, but not sure how it works in reality.

No one thinks of the above because no one thinks of EM in a macroscopic way. But the GUT you have should account for it and provide some symmetry.

Now lets look at quantum mechanics. Again assume you have isolated space with a neutron being orbited by a neutrino. There is no electrostatic interaction between the two neutral particles, only the gravitational force would apply. This is a small particle interaction and if you try to develop it like was done with the hydrogen atom, you literally are going to take the Langrangian with the kinetic energy on one side and the potential on the other, quantize it and you should get something that basically looks like the Schrodinger Equation with a different constant, because the field strength is different. I think this one is pretty obvious to physicists.

Now lets look at the gravitational field itself. As stated, we currently understand and electric charge in motion generates a break in its propagating electric field, at right angles, which we perceive as the magnetic field - and an electromagnetic wave. If gravity proceeds as field lines as EM does, at least in a more quantum field theory description, then moving a gravitational mass should by the same mechanism generate a right angle field, all it a transverse gravitational field (gravity analogy to the magnetic field), along with a gravitational wave. I know scientists believe in gravitational waves, so this transverse gravitational field might be part of their theory. I just have never heard of it before. But if it exists there should be a set of Maxwell like equations describing gravity! Including scalar and transverse gravitational waves and this transverse gravitational field. That should be included in an GUT.

Then how do planets have stable orbits? A positive and negative charge orbiting each other should decay theoretically because they release electromagnetic waves as they change direction, which should reduce their kinetic energy if energy is conserved, meaning the the charges eventually collide in a macro setting I described above. This is actually one of the problems that people wrestled with to create quantum mechanics when looking at the hydrogen atom which should not exit if this principle is true. So if planetary bodies are generating such gravitational waves, how are orbits stable? Well for one thing it could be the gravitational wave energy is really really low and orbits will decay over a very very long time. Or what if, we are completely wrong about this concept?

I started to think last night, how would I compute the energy of a gravitational or EM wave from a given orbit. It would probably be proportional to the frequency, but what is the frequency? From a macroscopic perspective, there really is no frequency, because it is a noncoherent movement. We can generate radio signals in wires, but we are consciously moving the electrons back and forth at a desired frequency. Not so with orbits. With quantum mechanics, frequency gets weird. The frequency is determined by the energy level change experienced by an orbital electron according to planks law. So an isolated photon can have a frequency in this matter. But this is sort of a special quantum case (well not so special as this process is responsible for much of the light we see :)).

What if at a macro level, if you have a noncoherent pulse in the EM wave, without a defined frequency - call it more a pulse than a wave - the EM pulse/wave has no energy. It is basically a random perturbation in the electric field that cannot be absorbed by an atom or otherwise perceived, except to the extent you have this magnetic / transverse gravitational field interaction - and that is just a consequence of the existing electric/gravitational field. To carry energy, in other words, the disturbance must carry frequency (quantum or macroscopic) or INFORMATION. I think I have seen similar concepts in physics in situations where causality is apparently violated in certain thought experiments but it is believed it is possible since you could only send random signals that carry information. By the way, this would also explain PRACTICALLY why an electron that is moving it its orbit within its energy level does not actually emit a photon. QM sort of just magically assume you solve the problem by creating the energy levels and hand waves the issue.

And if the gravitational field produces a transverse gravitational field, theoretically that could be measured (might be really really hard) and you could come up with your ACTUAL propagation speed for gravitational waves. Sure it could be c, but I strongly believe it probably it is not given gravity is a much weaker force. You would have to find the equivalent constant to the permeability of free space for transverse gravity to tell, but unless that is substantially lower than the number we know for EM fields, they actually probably travel slower than c. Or it could be they travel at c, and this is one way of deriving that much lower number. And it is even possible, but unlikely, the waves travel faster than c...oops! Then again, from what I understand scalar waves are supposed to travel at c^2 and I was never convinced that c was a speed limit on the universe (another discussion).

Anyway if you start to look at all these similarities and just start from scratch treating E and G as the same, except for the charge, you might get a more interesting theory. And what if....you had a charge in gravity, except like attracts like and opposites repel? Maybe dark matter, if it exists, is completely separated from most galaxies because it is an opposite flavor or gravitational "charge." And since the electroweak force derives from the EM field, you might come up with a W particle that is involved with gravity. Who the hell knows what is going on with the strong force - it is weird and is prone to infinities that have to be renormalized out :)

Yeah, I probably wrote too much on that subject; more than intended.

As to a GUT in general, I am guessing there are several GUTs. What do I mean? We are constantly refining our theories over time. You can have a general GUT that actually describes your known universe, what you can observe, but does not provide all the specifics. Those get introduced in later and later GUTs - all of which can be correct yet incomplete because the experimental data does not exist to fill in the holes. So if we have a valid GUT now it could be valid, but not as detailed as what is available in 4D where they can carry out more meaningful experiments. 5D will have more refined equations. 6D will be even more defined. And 7D and maybe the end of 6D existance on the journy to 7D - well you get the final chapter.

Most physical phenomenon, even dimensions we do not perceive probably can be described mathematically. Consciousness could be incorporated in a valid model at this level - with less specificity - as some sort of mathematical plug (sort of like Einstein's cosmological constant he just threw in there). You might not UNDERSTAND consciousness, certainly at 3D and maybe not even until 7D, but you can put in a vector, tensor, function or whatever that explain its interaction with the world. And as your understanding of consciousness increases your GUT gets more specific. Consciousness itself is pretty abstract, and I absolutely would not be surprised if you do not get a true grasp until 7D. Hell conscious literally could be the hypothetical perturbations in the gravitational potential (or more complex potential system I described above) itself that Einstein hypothesized - in which case an electron (or any matter) in zero time could be referring to that field itself, quantized as a graviton. That is the closest I could make sense of that statement. Does not completely make sense though since gravitons will propagate outward from the electron/mass. But that could be a clue lost in translation as maybe they were trying to say something without just giving away the game.

Finally I think if we are going to get a quantum theory, departments at academic institutions need to collaborate more because the same subject can be viewed QUITE differently. For example, I literally took Complex Analysis in the Mathematics Department and Advanced Engineering Mathematics from the Applied Mathematics Department. I am probably the only person who took both because it is basically the same subject (not entirely but close). But completely different experience, and I am really glad I did it. The former was all about the theory and properly deriving the math. The latter was about actually using. I sat in class watching the Applied Mathematics professor "derive" stokes theorem in a lecture (something that took around 3+ lectures in the other course), and me and my roommate were literally commenting to each other in real time how everything he was saying was completely wrong (and he did not even take the other class). On the other hand I remember on the final exam in Complex analysis they literally gave us some easy problems from Applied Math (we had not really done REAL applications in class) and a lot of people probably had no idea what to do with those questions. Perspective helps. My Quantum Chemistry (Chemistry) and Quantum Physics (Physics) class literally used completely different notations for the Schroedinger equation and the content and presentation was meaningfully different so you get very unique insight from seeing both.

For example, one of the questions I would want to ask the C's is "Why is it that an atom prefers to have its electron shell filled up to the full p level (i.e. octet for outer shell for small atoms except hydrogen, basically entire energy level filled) and will go out of its way to do this?" Chemists use this basic principle all the the time, but I have never actually heard a really compelling theoretical explanation. It sort of just is. Is any physicist who might be better equipped to answer this question in constructing a quantum model theoretically even asking this question? Maybe there is one or an explanation, I am just not familiar with it. But constructing a model that actually answers that question, might further the purpose of building a GUT because you have unique insights.

Another question, "What EXACTLY is electron/particle spin?" We mathematically add this to our theories as a property of a quantum particle, but I have never seen a really compelling explanation of how this works. I think you have to dig deeper on this with creative thinking to get a compelling GUT. We are sort of the like Applied Mathematician that uses this in our mathematics, without a really good understanding of how it works. It is related in any way to the rotational mass reduction theorized in the hyperdimensional physics mentioned before. Is the rotation of the electron mass actually reduced by the spin? Is that important for the theory? For that matter does that same principle influence the relationship between the two main constants of Maxwell's equations since the B field is at a right angle could be an element of rotational motion (I don't really believe so for reasons stated above, but it is possible)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom