We can think of ‘objects’ as being ‘closed energy systems’. In the illustration above we have two ‘closed energy systems’ (commonly referred to as being ‘masses’ which are interpreted by the human brain as being composed of ‘matter’). In the two examples above we can see how the center of gravity of a closed energy system can be located relative to the energy distribution within the system.
In the image above we see a closed energy system, the common bar magnet. The magnet has a positive pole through which it constantly loses energy, and a negative pole through which it constantly gains energy. As a result of this, even though the bar magnet is continually ‘losing mass’ it is at the same time continually ‘gaining mass’ and so its center of gravity remains undisturbed.
It is difficult to imagine a bar magnet failing to create a disturbance within the surrounding electromagnetic gradient of the gravity field, but at the same time it is difficult to imagine how a bar magnet, the best candidate I can imagine to be employed as a detection device within a ‘densitometer’ could actually function as a densitometer, because the bar magnet must not only create a disturbance in the surrounding field but it is itself a closed energy system and thus must remain balanced at all times. If it was a simple straightforward matter to employ a bar magnet as a gravitational field densitometer, you would think that someone would have noticed something over the course of the last few centuries when people were investigating the properties of such bar magnets.
However, all hope is not lost, for while people did play with bar magnets, they did not know that they were playing with bar magnets within a gradient electromagnetic gravitational field. Therefore hope springs eternal, and it should be possible to see something that they might have missed for that very reason. The image above shows the way that charge distribution accumulates in falling body and a rising body (with the direction of fall (whether falling up or falling down) being indicated by the position of the build up of positive charge.
A body falls in a gravitational field because it has a net negative charge with respect to the positive (attracting body) but due to the gradient of the surrounding energy field it has a slightly more net negative charge on the leading edge. An object rises in a gravitational field because it’s density is less than the differential in the density of the surrounding field, and this causes a net positive charge to develop on the upward leading edge, as well as causing a net negative charge on the trailing edge. In this way the charge distribution within an object rising in a gravitational field resembles the charge distribution upon a bar magnet with the difference being that the object is the donor and is losing energy to the surrounding field as it rises, while a bar magnet is constantly maintaining its density (which is why if you were to rotate a bar magnet in the vertical direction with the positive emitting pole (‘the South Pole’) pointing upwards, the bar magnet does not lift off and being accelerating into space.
Bar Magnet Densitometer
Now let’s make the assumption here that perhaps people did miss something over the years, and that a bar magnet can, therefore, be employed as a densitometer in order to measure the density of energy in the gradient field.
It would be hard to imagine a bar magnet not creating a disturbance in the surrounding energy field. Therefore we could run a few simple experiments to determine whether or not the current of energy which flows through a magnet changes with altitude on the earth (with the energy density, following the distribution dictated by the Inverse Square Law, being greater at lower altitudes, and less up on some mountain top). We could check to see if the force generated when two similar poles are placed together varies, and we could also do the iron filings check to see if the shape of the field changes when it is deeper within the surrounding gradient energy field as opposed to its shape when the field is less dense (higher up).
Einstein’s Geometry
The above methodology could only be viable if it turned out that people did not notice a difference in the past, or, if they noticed the difference, and then explained that difference the wrong way for some reason.A second method, a mathematical method, of describing the energy gradient would be to reinterpret the geometry of ‘curved space-time’ described by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity as a measurement of the gradient in the density of energy field, since according to the Unified Field Theory, the ‘curvature of space’ that is described by these equations is actually the description of the energy field which was unrecognized as such by Einstein, and everyone else, which then explains why Einstein was unable to succeed in his ambitious goal of finding such a Unified Field Theory over the course of the following four decades. If you are seeking a ‘unified field’ then you must begin with the premise that the field is a unified field, and ‘curved space time’ and the idea that gravitation results from the geometry of space is incompatible with the premise of the Unified Field Theory. As well Einstein, and everyone else afterwards, continued to accept that the letter ‘M’ in his famous equation, E equals MC squared, actually referred to ‘masses’ of ‘matter’, a way of looking at the world which is also incompatible with the Unified Field Theory, for it presupposes that ‘gravitation’ is a physical phenomenon when the Unified Field Theory describes a universe where there are no ‘physical phenomenon’ but rather everything is described as a manifestation of a single energy field. Therefore there are no ‘physical’ explanations for anything in the universe and everything must be interpreted as an electromagnetic phenomenon. If this fundamental theorem is not accepted you cannot have a ‘unified field theory’.