A Unified Field Theory
A summary of the Unified Field Theory
The Aether Hypothesis
A summary of the Unified Field Theory
One of the first and most fundamental postulates of this Unified Field Theory is that 'space' does
not exist as a separate and independent entity. This is to say that the universe does not 'exist in
space' (as though there was a 'empty void of the vacuum of space' which somehow existed before
the 'universe' existed, and into which the universe then 'expanded' after some 'big bang' caused
the universe to explode into this 'vacuum of space' (it was therefore real handy that three
dimensional space existed since it meant that the universe had lots of room available for such
explosive expansion, given all that 'empty space' that was just sitting there waiting to be
I get the impression from my research that it is the commonly held belief that there exists this
'space' (an independent entity) which has certain peculiar properties such that it might it resemble
a trampoline, and onto which bowling balls of 'masses of matter' can then be dropped, which then
'curves and warps this space', much as a bowling ball stretches and warps the surface of a
trampoline. You see, there was this space onto which you can drop bowling balls, and apparently
this space has certain elastic properties that cause it to be warped when you drop heavy objects
onto its trampoline like surface. You can see evidence of this type of thinking in the
'Schwarzschild solution' of the equations of General Relativity, where apparently one finds 'zero
vacuum energy' in the space around some mass, since all the energy is concentrated in the
The Unified Field Theory, as it is being developed here, can be thought of as type of problem
solving method. The fundamental a priori assumption of the Unified Field Theory is that the field
is a single, unified field, and so therefore any 'Unified Field Theory' must reject the existence of
any 'disunified field' which allegedly has the property of being 'an independent entity' (which
would suggest that such a field could not be included in the Unified Field, for it existed separate
and apart). This 'warped three dimensional space field' is the largest visible field in the universe
and therefore it must be incorporated into any 'Unified Field Theory' which is being constructed
based upon this methodology being employed here.
A radioactive substance loses energy, and we can consider the example of a radioactive rock
gradually being transformed into a lump of inert lead, losing mass in the process (which would
mean that the lump of lead would weight less than the radioactive substance at the end of the
process, for the loss of energy resulted in a loss of mass).
After we entered the 'nuclear age' people did get used to the idea that E equals MC squared, and
that therefore a baked potato or some clump of uranium was composed of a massive amount of
energy, which, if released, would generate a tremendous explosion or if allowed to slowly leak
out of some unstable mass, would generate radioactive decay and a slower release of energy.
People have gotten used to the idea that mass and energy are equivalent (one example of the
principle of a Unified Field). However if we suggest that
the same chameleon, this energy field, could also go in for a costume change and then reappear
again, this time in the form of a 'warped three dimensional space field', for some reason this idea
is dismissed as ridiculous. However it will remain one of the fundamental postulates of this
Unified Field Theory that an equivalence exists between 'energy' and 'space' and that this space is
not a trampoline but rather this space is just an 'extension' of the energy encapsulated in a mass
For the purposes of this Unified Field Theory we will call the one field 'the momentum
field' and the reasons for this conclusion will become clearer as we move
The Momentum Field
It has been said that there are 'four fundamental force fields' (this according to the 'disunified
fields theory' we have inherited in a piecemeal fashion from classical physics). These are
'gravity', 'electromagnetism', and the 'strong' and the 'weak' nuclear forces. It has always
puzzled me why it would be the case that there were not five fundamental force fields, for we are
told that a mass in motion at a certain velocity has 'conserved momentum'. Momentum is a
description of an energy state, which is somehow attached to a mass field, or as it was called in
Einstein's physics, momentum is
'the relative mass', for a gain in energy ((which then is expressed as 'momentum' and motion
through the field) was equivalent to an increase in 'inertia' (objects gain
'relative mass' as they 'gain momentum' with the result being that they become 'heavier' and
harder to push). 'Conserved momentum' is the description of an energy field, and for that reason I
wonder why it would be the case that 'momentum' was never included as some sort of 'fifth force
As things stand now the 'momentum field' remains an undefined concept in modern science. You
find this out quite early on if you were to set out to do some research on this subject. It is
enigmatic and is simply accepted as a given, and not much more is to be said about it at this
If we begin to think deeply about this phenomenon of 'momentum' and the 'motion through the
field' which occurs when any mass 'gains relative mass' it soon becomes clear that Einstein's
Special Relativity incorporates inconsistent contradictory postulates (unproven assumptions that
are simply accepted as being true and which are like foundation stones and steel beams supporting
the theoretical structure).
According to classical Newtonian physics, we must put objects into motion by slamming them a
mallet, this 'action' then generating the 'equal and opposite reaction' of a thumped forward motion
through the field. Examples of this would include the infernal combustion engine in an automobile
where tiny fiery gaseous mallets are used to thump and pound on pistons, and the general schema
has not changed in centuries (an automobile being the direct descendant of some old steam engine
from centuries past). First you rub two sticks together to start something on fire and then you
pound away with mallets. This is motion. In this way we can see that launching rockets into space
is very similar to playing a round of golf, for rockets are set in motion after having been pounded
by little fiery gaseous golf clubs and then rise up and fly through the air much like a clobbered golf
This concept is so deeply entrenched in the human mind that according to Carl Sagan, on the
program Cosmos, the Newtonian rocket concept will have to be our 'engine to the stars', here
assuming that anyone would seriously consider traveling the universe, or even the local
neighborhood by employing such a primitive and unsuitable device. You see, there is no other
way to generate motion other than treating space craft like golf balls and then trying to achieve a
hole in one by smacking that rocket with a mallet causing it to roll onto the green beside the star
next door. It's the only way. Motion is the 'equal and opposite' thumped forward motion reaction
to the action of being pounded by a golf club. That's how that works and it is the only way it can
I would suggest here that anyone who thinks that this meaningless Newtonian tautology actually
explains anything at all has not spent enough time thinking about the problem, for I can think of no
good reason for objects to move because they were struck by a golf club. The fact that they were
smacked by a golf club is irrelevant and in no way explains why golf balls must move when
smacked by golf clubs. That mallet smacking and motion are seen to be intertwined is an
anthropocentric human projection onto the universe (it all began when you were a small baby and
received the gift of your very first toy mallet, at which time you became a budding young scientist
and learned to make things move by smacking them with a mallet).
I spent months and months studying the problem of mallet smacking and motion in an attempt to
make some sense out of that meaningless tautology and couldn't get anywhere. The
problem is compounded by the fact that there would appear to be two different types of motion
described by this Newtonian physics, the equally and opposite thumped forward motion and then
there is the left over conserved thump motion, where an object just keeps moving and only seems
to require an initial thump by a mallet to get is started, and after that is just keeps sailing along and
is in motion without requiring anymore mallets.
When NASA sends rockets through space, the rocket engines are only burned until the rocket
reaches a certain velocity, at which time the rocket engines are shut down and the rocket is then
left to coast through space because the rocket has 'conserved momentum'. This leaves me to
wonder what 'special property' is possessed by this 'space' such that when objects have this gain
in 'relative mass' (extra energy and increased 'inertia') such an object must then be in motion
through this spatial field.
According to Einstein we need assign no such 'special properties' to this space. As far as
'momentum' is concerned this space is homogenous and isotropic which means that it is the same
in all directions and would appear to be a neutral stage upon which motion is seen to occur and is
not an active participant in the motion of such objects through the field. For this reason the
'Schwarzschild solution' of the equations of General Relativity assumes 'zero
vacuum energy' in the space around some mass for there is no 'aether field' in space which is to
say that space itself is not an energy field.
These assumptions seem contradictory and unreasonable, for we know that an object must have
'conserved momentum' in order to move through space and this then suggests that space is not a
neutral stage but rather an active player in the motion of mass, and that space must therefore be a
constituent element of the energy field (and therefore the largest visible field in the universe, this
three dimensional spatial field is just one more field to be incorporated into any Unified Field
It is worth remembering that Albert Einstein spent most of his life playing the role of Don Quixote,
tilting against those scientific windmills while conducting a fruitless futile search for the holy grail
of science, a Unified Field Theory. If we wish to have better luck than Einstein we must not make
the same mistakes he made, or we will achieve the same null result.
Space as an Energy Field
A well known equivalence exists between a mass field and an energy field, as illustrated by the
two equivalent graphs displayed above. On the left we see illustrated the momentum or motion of
an object falling into a gravity field and on the right we see the same path followed by an object
falling into an electromagnetic field. All things being equal, both graphs are identical, for both
fields are known to obey the requirements of 'the Inverse Square law', which is an exponential
function which describes the distribution of energy in an energy field. The field is at peak density
at the center of the field and then the density of the field drops off with 'distance' according to the
ratio of the inverse square of the distance. What this means is that at 2 times the distance, the field
intensity is 1/4 (for the inverse of 2 is ½ and then the square of ½ is 1/4). At the 3 times the
distance the intensity falls to 1/9th, at 4 times the distance to 1/16th field intensity, and so on. The
Inverse Square function is an exponential function that has a steep curve falling towards field
center, which then flattens out an begins to approximate a linear function at increasing
This distribution is consistent with the idea that a mass field does not end at its visible boundary
('visible' as interpreted by the human sensory system attached to the human brain), but rather a
extends to a theoretical infinity, and given that E equals MC squared it then follows from this that
'space' cannot possess 'zero vacuum energy' for the mass field, being an energy field, has a
distribution of energy corresponding the distribution of the inverse square law, and so therefore
much like an electromagnetic field, any mass field has an energy distribution that extends outwards
at increasingly small densities spread out over vast distances. Given that the density distribution
of the mass field obeys an exponential function which is flat and linear at a distance and then
warped and curved closer to the center of the field, it just logically follows that what we might
interpret as 'the space around the mass field' would have the property of being a 'warped three
dimensional space field', for the warping of this space is just a consequence of the exponential
energy distribution of the mass field itself (which is to say that 'warped space' is just an extension
of the energy of the mass field itself).
The reintroduction of this lost 'aether field' is one of the fundamental postulates of this Unified
Field Theory, for it is next to impossible to make any theoretical progress without bringing back
that missing 'aether'.
Space as an Energy Charge
'Hot gas expands'. A 'Bose Einstein Condensate' is represented in the upper right corner of the
image above. When all energy is removed from a collection of atoms (the temperature approaches
'absolute zero') all 'space' that separates individual atoms disappears and the atoms form a clump
with properties resembling that of one single atom. As the atoms gain energy (the temperature
rises) the 'space' separating atom increases (the result is very similar to that of a repulsive
charge). Here we can see a visual discernable representation of the energy distribution 'attached'
to a mass field, for as the energy increases, the 'space' generated by the mass field also increases.
It would appear that the energy encapsulated in the mass field is fixed and immobile while the
energy associated with the 'momentum' or 'space' is 'free energy' which is mobile and able to
come and go (that this energy can be thought of as 'momentum' is illustrated by observation of
'Brownian motion', referred to as the 'increased kinetic energy' of the gas as the energy
increases, and also by the fact that 'hot gas rises', since it would appear that to become a hot gas
produces a result equivalent to that of a rocket ship 'gaining momentum', which also rises in the
A 'Warped' Field
The Inverse Square law is an exponential function which describes a distribution of energy that
increases near field center and then becomes more diffuse with distance. We can represent this
distribution using a gradient bar of decreasing density at increasing heights over a gravitating
We can visualize this density distribution as being like a concentrated point of energy that
gradually comes to resemble a diffuse cloud further from the center, as in the image on the left.
The 'geometry' of such a field can be depicted as a 'warped distortion' with the low density regions
of the field represented by wider concentric rings and the high density regions near the center of
the field represented by narrower rings to symbolize the increase in field density (a pattern seen in
electromagnetic fields (such as the familiar bar magnets).
The spherical 'lines of force' (which actually resemble surfaces of two dimensional spheres
surrounding the magnet which creates a disturbance in a three dimensional space) are more
densely packed near the center of
the field and then dilate (or spread out) with increased distance. This distribution then creates a
'warped field geometry' around a magnet for objects follow a curved path as they fall into the
field and they accelerate as the density of the visible field lines increases.
Objects which fall into either a 'gravity field' or an 'electromagnetic field' follow an accelerating
curved path as the field density increases, with the increase in field density in both cases
expressed in the form of 'warped space' (a curved path falling towards the center of the field)
accompanied by an increase in momentum (the objects accelerate as the field density increases,
such acceleration symbolized in the diagram above by the contraction of the ring diameters nearer
In the images above an attempt is made to visualize the effects of motion through such a 'warped
and distorted' field. If a path is described which lies at '10 O'Clock' on the spherical surfaces, an
object in motion through the field must follow a 'curved path' through the field in order to 'remain
on course' (this 'curved path' then becoming much like a 'straight line path' through the field). As
the density increases the object must 'accelerate' to 'remain on course' (given the change in the
field geometry and the 'decreasing distance' defined by the compacting field). Such 'field
acceleration' effects are required if an object is to 'conserve momentum' given an increase in
'field momentum' which is the result of increasing field density (the geometry of the space defined
by the field changes and so both the path and the motion of the object must
Archimedes' Principle and 'Gravitation'
Archimedes was asked to find a way to confirm that a gold crown was made of pure gold and that
the gold smith was not pilfering small amounts of gold and replacing it with some other element,
such as silver.
Archimedes discovered that a crown, similar in all respects, would displace an
amount of water equivalent to the density of the material employed. A silver crown would
displace a certain specific amount of water, a gold crown a certain predictable amount of water,
with the difference in displacement related to the difference in density that exists between gold and
silver. If a gold crown included some silver, this would be detected by a change in the amount of
From this we can conclude, given that E equals MC squared, that a relationship exists between
energy and space such that only so much energy can exist within a certain specific space and that
when this is exceeded displacement must occur. When we consider the energy distribution
described by the Inverse Square Law we can also conclude that just as you cannot have to much
energy in a 'space' you can also not have to little energy or 'replacement' will
In the above graphic we imagine both iron and hydrogen or helium being 'dropped' into a 'gravity
field'. The iron 'falls down' in the field, accelerating as it falls, and the hydrogen or helium 'falls
up' when dropped into the field, decelerating as it rises.
When the densities of the elements on the periodic chart are graphed the result is a function of
increasing densities which resembles a linear function. We see hydrogen, the least dense of the
atoms, followed by helium at position number two, and so on.
We can also represent this density distribution by comparing the increase of density of the
elements as 'orange horizontal bars' on the left, while representing a 'field density' by shades of
white, grey and black on the right.
The graph above is not intended to be completely accurate, and is only intended by to 'suggestive'
for the purposes of illustrating a point. We imagine that the horizontal green line draw through the
graph represents the surface of the earth. We see hydrogen or helium on the left rising in the field
and we see iron falling in the field, until such a time as the iron impacts the surface of the earth, at
which time it experiences a constant acceleration and remains in 'virtual motion' through the field
(it attempts to continue to fall and remain in motion through the field but its progress is blocked by
the presence of a debris field). Given the equivalence between mass and energy, it should not be
considered unusual that a 'mass field' (or a 'gravity field') is a sorted field, with masses with
lower densities properly sorted at the low density region at the top of the field, while a higher
density mass, such as iron, is only properly sorted at some position below the visible surface of
the gravitating body (giving rise to this perpetual acceleration force which is interpreted as 'the
force of gravity').
A hammer and a feather and helium are all dropped into a gravitational field and the hammer and
the feather 'fall down' in the field (experiencing an identical acceleration which is independent of
their differing densities) while the dropped helium 'falls up' in the field. All the helium present in
the earth's atmosphere is found in a thin layer at the very top of the atmosphere, as symbolized by
the dots in the image on the left. Hydrogen rises so high in the field that it eventually interacts with
the solar wind and is blown off out into space.
We also see a 'helium filled balloon' parked at a
certain density position in the field, somewhere lower in the field than the free helium which has
been sorted in the lowest density region of the sorted mass field, located at the very top of such a
field. The helium filled balloon decelerates and comes to a full stop at a 'compromise' position in
the field since apparently the sorted position is a composite function (determined by the 'up' of the
helium and the 'down' of the higher density basket which when combined results in what the field
interprets as a composite density composed the higher density of the basket from which is
subtracted the lower density of the helium).
Based upon these observations we conclude that given the equivalence between mass and energy
(E equals MC squared) and given the sorted density arrangement characteristic of the energy field
(the equivalence between a gravitational field and an electromagnetic field as dictated by the
density distribution described by the exponential function known as the Inverse Square Law) it
then follows from this that a 'gravity field' must be a sorted mass field, and that the direction that a
mass will 'fall' when 'dropped' into such a field is entirely relative to location within the field,
for objects can either 'fall down' ('attraction') or 'fall up' ('repulsion') dependant upon the
density of the mass relative to the density of the field as dictated by the requirements of a properly
sorted mass field.
'Conserved Momentum' as 'Field Buoyancy'
If we accept one of the fundamental postulates of the Unified Field Theory (the return of the once
rejected 'aether hypothesis', for space is an energy field) then we must ask why it would be the
case that when a mass gains energy (an increase in relative mass) such an object, having 'gained
momentum' is then seen to be rising into low density regions of the field rather than falling down
and becoming sorted in a higher density region of the field (for such an object has 'gained energy'
and therefore it might seem logical that it should be properly sorted in a lower and thus higher
density region of the field).
'Hot gas expands'. The effect is very similar to that of an increase in repulsive charge and the hot
gas now occupies 'more space'. 'Hot gas rises'. At the same time as the hot gas expands and
occupies more space it also acquires a lower density and begins to rise towards a lower density
region higher in the field.
The internal guts of a Newtonian rocket is pounded by gazillions of tiny fiery gas mallets,
resulting in the transfer of momentum energy. The rocket experiences an 'increase in relative
mass' (it 'gains momentum'). If we accept the aether hypothesis of the Unified Field Theory
(space is not a stretchable trampoline onto which you drop masses like bowling balls, but rather
space is an extension of the mass field itself) then it logically follows that an increase in 'relative
mass' results in an 'increase in space'. An increase in this relative mass generates an equivalent
decrease in density, much as we see when 'hot gas' has 'gained momentum'. The Newtonian
rocket has become 'buoyant' and displacement begins to occur in the direction of lower density
regions of the field (for as we can see by observing such phenomenon as the rise of helium atoms
to the top of the field, this is a sorted mass field, for a mass field is just an energy field and energy
fields are sorted fields).
'Conserved Momentum' and 'Horizontal Displacement'
If an object is tossed 'horizontally' into a gravity field and another object is dropped 'vertically'
into a gravity field, both objects will impact the surface at the same time. The object in 'horizontal
motion' will experience no change in momentum (it 'conserves momentum' covering an equal
distance in equal times, as illustrated by the white lines denoting these intervals). Both objects
will experience an equivalent 'gravitational acceleration' as illustrated by the increasing distance
covered in each time interval indicated by the yellow lines.
The 'global field' works to arrange field density according to the density requirements described
by the Inverse Square Law. The field also operates 'locally' to maintain field equilibrium, such as
when a current of energy flows from the surplus towards the deficit region of a
Along the 'vertical axis' the field cannot be described as 'homogenous and isotropic' for the field
is a gradient with decreasing field density at increased heights. Hydrogen or helium rise when
dropped into the field and decelerate while rising while iron falls when dropped into the field and
accelerates while falling. We illustrate the 'momentum field' of hydrogen or helium transferring
energy to the surrounding field, on the left of the diagram above, and iron receiving energy from the
field on the right of the diagram.
We know that the transfer of momentum which occurs when an object is in vertical motion through
a gravity field is a real absolute transfer of momentum, for NASA employs the technique of
'falling' (the flyby maneuver) as an effective substitute for rocket fuel when accelerating spacecraft
for deep space flights. Such a rocket leaves the 'gravity field' carrying away 'conserved
momentum' (it has accelerated). We have also seen that comet fragments that are dropped into the
field of Jupiter gain energy and impact the surface with such violence that scars are left behind the
size of the diameter of the earth. Therefore we can be quite certain that iron behaves like the
deficit cell in a battery and that 'a current of momentum energy' flows from the surrounding gravity
field which behaves like the surplus cell in a battery, while the opposite would be true for rising
hydrogen or helium, for the transfer must occur in the opposite direction. Such transfer is required
to maintain the required local field equilibrium.
However no transfer of momentum occurs along the horizontal axis (where there is no change in
the field gradient and therefore, we must conclude, no 'momentum voltage state' exists when
motion occurs along the horizontal axis for there is no potential difference to generate such a
'current of energy').
It would seem correct to assume that answers to any questions we have concerning 'horizontal
displacement' must come from the field of particle physics (since such questions involve 'field
architecture' (the structure and behavior of the field itself) and the behavior of particles of mass
within such a field). According to my working hypothesis at this time, horizontal displacement is a
polarized phenomenon (it has a directional component) and so therefore the displacement must
involve an inequality. There is an inequality in energy distribution associated with the 'three
quarks' in the particle physics model. In the simple diagram above we see a polarized
displacement represented by the white arrow. The quarks are represented by small blue dots and
the energy inequality that exists between these three quarks is illustrated by the difference in
'relative mass' resulting in an inequality in which these three quarks cause an 'elastic field
displacement' (represented by the concentric rings intended to represent tension and distortion on
the surface of the field).
If the field is composed of concentric two dimensional spheres (such as is suggested by the field of
the bar magnet) we could consider the distortion created by these quarks to be a distortion limited
to the surface of two dimensional spheres and that the displacement generated by this tension is
therefore polarized along the horizontal surface (no transfer of momentum takes place because no
'voltage state' is present, rather there is a distortion of the surface of the sphere). We could
therefore think of the motion of these three quarks along this two dimensional surface to be similar
to that of squeezing toothpaste out of a tube.
Equivalence Between an 'Electromagnetic Field' and a 'Momentum Field'
If the one field is a Unified Field, then it logically follows from this postulate that there can be no
real difference between 'the relative mass' increase experienced by a mass when such a mass
'gains momentum' (the description of additional energy becoming 'attached' to the mass field,
when, for example, such a mass field is pounded by one of those Newtonian mallets) or an
increase in 'relative mass' experienced by such a mass when this mass is enveloped by and
becomes cojoined to a powerful electromagnetic field. In both cases the mass has 'gained energy'
which then always translates into 'gaining momentum', for masses that experience such an increase
in 'relative mass' are always found to go into motion through the field.
The image above is a screen shot of the so called 'maglev frog'. A frog was enveloped by a
powerful electromagnetic field and the frog then began to experience effects similar in all respects
to 'zero-G'. The frog is floating just as you would expect a frog to be floating if such a frog was
filmed on board the International Space Station. The simulation is so convincing that if an
observer was shown two videos, one of such a frog enveloped in an electromagnetic field and
another of a frog floating on the International Space Station, it would be impossible for the
observer to determine which frog was out in orbit and which frog was experiencing this
'simulation of zero-G' within some laboratory down here on earth.
If we drop a frog into a gravitational field, the frog will 'fall down' into deeper parts of the field,
until such a time as the frog impacts the surface of the field, at which time the frog will experience
a constant acceleration force (the frog will be in 'virtual motion' constantly attempting to run the
blockade of a debris field, for the proper position for a properly sorted frog within such a field
lies somewhere below the visible surface of the earth). In the image above we show the proper
position of the sorted frog somewhere below the surface of the earth, and then we show the 'low
density frog' rising into a stable orbital position above the surface of the earth. Just as 'hot air
rises' as density decreases so we postulate here that the frog has 'gained momentum' and is now
suspended within a 'buoyant bubble' in a position just above the surface of the earth. We can think
of the combination of 'gained momentum energy' (the increase in relative mass) associated with
the energy of this electromagnetic field when combined with the composite mass density function
of the frog to produce a composite density similar to that experienced by a helium filled weather
balloon which comes to rest at certain orbital height within the field.
Within this bubble the frog experiences neither 'attraction' or 'repulsion' for it would appear that
when an object is 'properly sorted' according to its density relative to the surrounding field
density it will then experience no 'pushing forces' within the field.
The following proposal for an experimental test of this interpretation of the floating frog is
something I have not devoted a lot of time to, in order to see if my reasoning here holds together
and makes sense. The idea just occurred to me at this moment and so I am just going toss the idea
Astronauts on the space station are not 'experiencing zero-G' because they are 'outside the
influence of earth's gravity'. At the altitude at which the space station orbits the field acceleration
is 8.5 meters per second (an object dropped to earth from this height would begin to accelerate
towards the surface at this rate). This is just slightly lower than the rate of acceleration at ground
level, which is approximately 9.7 meters per second. Astronauts on the space station do not float
because 'there is no gravity', but rather the astronauts float because they are in orbital free fall
around the earth. The effect is similar to those experiments which simulate zero-G environments
for brief periods of time on board jets which cut engines and then are allowed to plunge in free fall
towards the surface of the earth, with the difference being that the space station is in a perpetual
orbital free fall.
A floating frog is not actually experiencing 'zero G' for a floating frog is in orbit around the earth,
for the frog is found parked at a fixed location within the field (somewhere in some orbiting
laboratory on parked on the surface of the rotating earth). The Earth's circumference at the Equator
is 24901.55 miles, and so if a frog were to be found in free fall (floating as it orbits the earth
around the equator) it makes sense that the orbital velocity of the frog must be about 1,000 miles
per hour, for the frog would make one complete orbital revolution in twenty four hours (the length
of one revolution of the earth around its axis).
We can see then that the frog is traveling at a much lower velocity than we would expect of an
object at such a low orbital altitude, where we would expect the orbital velocity to measure in the
tens of thousands of miles per hour.
Let's assume that the density of a frog was adjusted such that the frog went into a stable low
velocity orbit above the earth in a laboratory located at the equator. Let's assign the natural value
'1' to the electromagnetic field energy required to achieve this effect at the equator, such that the
frog was now orbiting the earth at 1,000 miles per hour.
Imagine that the same experiment was conducted near the poles of the earth where the
circumference of the earth was much smaller. The frog must now orbit the earth with a velocity
less than 1,000 miles per hour. Given that the frog will be in a lower velocity orbit near the
polar region does it not make sense that the amount of electromagnetic energy required to lower the
density of the frog and place such a frog into such an orbit must be more than the original value of
'1' assigned to the field energy required at the equator?
Transfer of Momentum and Field Equilibrium
One of the fundamental postulates of this Unified Field Theory is that the energy field is a single
('unified') field, and so therefore we should expect to see the field exhibiting similar behavior for
similar reasons in all of its chameleon like manifestations.
A local field is created within a battery cell, where one cell of the battery has a relative excess of
energy and the other cell of the battery has a relative deficit of energy. If a circuit is created
connecting the two poles of the battery, 'momentum' will be generated, and energy will begin to
flow from the surplus to the deficit region of the battery. Normally some device will be inserted
into the circuit to interrupt the flow of energy so that it can be put to some useful purpose. When
no more potential difference in energy exists between the two cells, current flow ceases and we
say that the battery is dead.
The image above is intended as an approximation of the behavior of 'a resonant circuit'. The
circuit consists of a region of high potential and region of low potential connected by a circuit and
into the circuit an electromagnetic coil (a winding of circuit wires) has been inserted. Energy
moves from the region of high potential towards the region of low potential but first must pass
through the coil. A magnetic field is generated when energy moves through a circuit, and the
purpose of the magnetic field is to work to keep the field evenly and equally distributed. A local
magnetic field is generated within the windings of the coil which generates 'magnetic impedance'
(the magnetic field of the coil attempts to keep the energy distribution across the coil equivalent,
and it accomplishes this by attempting to prevent the energy leaving the coil to reach the area of
low potential (low voltage). This behavior causes a temporary buildup of energy in the coil (the
local field) while the 'global field' continues to work to push energy towards the region of low
The net effect of these two magnetic fields (one local to the coil and the other global to the entire
circuit) is to eventually cause the energy to flow to what was once the region of low voltage (for
as energy leaks out of the coil, the local magnetic field must push energy forward through the coil
to even out the field in the coil, a pattern that repeats as leakage in the coil continues to occur).
The process then reverses as what was previously the region of high voltage has now become the
region of low voltage and so once again a global magnetic field is generated, only to fall into
contradiction with the local field in the coil. The result is that energy bounces back and forth
through the circuit like a ping pong ball (which is why this called a resonant circuit, and similar
principles are used to keep energy moving in a 'back and forth pattern' in the alternating current
power generation schemes in use today, for energy does no work unless it is in
We can see here that the energy field exhibits both 'global' and 'local' behavior, and while the
effect of the largest global field is to hold the field in the form of tension (am uneven density
distribution) as described by the Inverse Square Law, one of the effects of small local fields is to
maintain a consistent and even local field density (although it should be made clear that even
field disturbances, such as that generated by a simple bar magnet, generate a 'global field'
(relative to the bar magnet) which is held in a tension corresponding to the density distribution
described by this Inverse Square Law) .
Transfer of Momentum in a 'Gravitational Field'
If a basketball is tossed upwards in a 'gravitational field' the ball decelerates and for a moment
appears to come to a complete stop, and then the basketball begins to fall and it accelerates as it
falls. The basketball 'loses momentum' to the 'gravity field' for it would appear that a
'gravitational field' is some kind of 'momentum sucking field' with the ability to suck the
momentum right out of objects such as tossed basketballs. This leaves us to wonder just where the
'lost momentum' of this basketball wound up at the end of this process. If energy in the form of
this 'momentum' was removed from the tossed basketball by this 'force of gravity' then it logically
follows from this that the basketball 'lost momentum energy' to this 'gravity field' which would
mean that the 'gravity field' gained energy when the basketball 'transferred momentum' which
would then suggest that a 'gravity field' must be a 'momentum field'. If momentum is a description
of an energy state ('relative mass' as described by Einstein) then 'conserved momentum' must be
the description of an 'energy field' and therefore we must conclude that a 'gravity field' is
equivalent to the 'relative mass' of a the 'mass field', which is to say that the 'gravity field' is
equivalent to the 'momentum field' of a mass.
If a signal is sent to a satellite in space, the signal 'redshits', which means that the signal arrives at
the satellite at a lower frequency and longer wavelength than that sent up from the earth. Satellites
must be designed to receive these 'redshifted' signals if they are to operate properly. Similarly,
when a satellite sends a signal back down to the earth the signal blue shifts as it passes through this
'gravity field', which means that the signal has 'gained energy' and has a higher frequency and
shorter wavelength that the signal originally sent by the satellite. Receivers on earth must be
prepared to compensate for these 'blue shifts' in the satellite signal if satellite communications are
to operate properly. Masses dropped into a gravity field 'gain momentum' and accelerate as they
fall into the gravity field (which is to say that they 'gain energy' or 'blue shift' as they fall) while
those masses that rise in a gravity field decelerate as they rise, which is to say that they 'lose
momentum' to the gravity field, much like the tossed basketball (they 'red shift'). The energy
distribution described by the inverse square law is 'blue shifted' (with increasing density) deeper
within the field and 'red shifted' (with decreasing density) higher in the field as suggested by the
waveforms on the right side of the diagram above.
It is not only basketballs which lose momentum energy when tossed upwards in a 'gravity field'.
Scientists have developed the ability to generate single 'photons' (small particles of
electromagnetic radiation). The energy of a single photon is measured by sending the photon along
a horizontal path through the field. The orientation of the experiment is changed so that the photon
is now 'tossed up' in the 'gravity field' just like the basketball. The photon has 'red shifted' (lost
energy) just as the basketball experienced a loss of momentum, leaving us to wonder just what
happened to the energy lost by this 'red shifted photon'.
It is a characteristic behavior of this energy field to maintain a consistent density in a local field,
with energy moving from a higher density region to a lower density region until such a time as field
equilibrium is achieved.
We represent the density distribution of a 'gravity field' with the gradient bar. We assume that all
masses possess a 'momentum field' which occupies the 'space' around that mass. We show
hydrogen or helium falling up in the field and decelerating as it rises, losing energy to the gravity
field (much as the charged cell of a battery transfers energy to a low voltage region until field
equilibrium is achieved). We show iron accelerating as it is falling into higher density regions of
the field and gaining energy from the field ('blue shifting') as it falls.
We know that the energy gained by an object falling into a 'gravity field' is 'real' for NASA uses
the technique of causing rockets to 'fall' into a gravity field as an effective substitute for expensive
rocket fuel when accelerating space craft for deep space flights (the 'flyby maneuver'). A
'transfer of momentum' takes place between the 'momentum field' of the earth and the 'momentum
field' of the rocket, and since you cannot get something from nothing, the rocket gains 'momentum'
and it just logically follows from this that the earth 'loses momentum', such a transfer of
momentum between the earth and rockets being known as 'gravity assisted
Therefore we must conclude that since transfer of momentum occurs through the simple means of
motion through 'the warped space' around some gravitating body, it must be true that this space is
an energy field, and that since energy transferred by means of motion through such a 'warped
gravity field' is always expressed in the form of a change in 'momentum' we can conclude that 'a
gravity field' is the 'conserved momentum field' of a mass, for when such a transfer of momentum
occurs it can only occur in tandem with a loss of momentum from the momentum field of the donor
It is for this reason that when we look out at the so called 'vacuum of space' we are actually
'seeing the conserved momentum field' (for such a field is interpreted as being this 'vacuum' by
the operations of the human brain).
'Gaining Momentum' and Motion Through the Field
If a basketball 'gains momentum' by being tossed up in a gravity field, the basketball will be
drained of momentum by the field at a certain fixed rate of transfer, for it would appear that the
transfer of momentum is 'quantized', which means that it must occur in small discrete steps, and
for this reason it takes some time for the basketball to slow down to what appears to be a full stop
for a single instant, after which basketball will begin to accelerate as it falls back to earth (at this
point the basketball is now receiving a donation of momentum energy from the 'gravitational
When a rocket is launched the rocket must 'fight the force of gravity' as it rises in the field, for a
gravity field will treat a rocket much like a gravity field would treat a tossed basketball (the
momentum will be drained from the rocket at a certain fixed rate which is related to this value
referred to as 'one G force' near the surface of the earth). It is said that Newtonian rocket engines
are most efficient when the velocity generated by the forward thrust (the transfer of momentum to
the rocket) is exactly equivalent to the velocity of the wasted energy in the form of the exhaust. It
is typical for astronauts to experience an initial acceleration equivalent to 'one g force' upon lift
off and this suggests that a rocket must generate the energy equivalent to 'two g force' (one to feed
the beast, which will be draining the rocket of momentum, and one to feed the growing momentum
field of the rocket).
It would seem that there are many people who remain quite convinced (as was Carl Sagan) that
rockets are launched into space much like golf balls are launched over the greens (you pound on
both with mallets and in this way motion is generated). However if we were to snatch away the
gaseous mallets in mid flight, a Newtonian rocket would not immediately stop moving, rather the
rocket would continue to rise for a time, much as is the case with a tossed basketball, until finally
the gravity field has the time required to suck the momentum out of that rocket at which time the
rocket will come to a full stop and begin to fall. We illustrate this process in the diagram above,
displaying the increase in momentum as a red field surrounding the rocket. As we move to the
right the rocket engines have been shut down, and the momentum field is then drained before the
rocket then begins its plunge back to earth.
What this suggests is that objects are not in motion because they were pounded forward by mallets,
but rather smacking something with a mallet is responsible for transfer of momentum (not transfer
of motion) and the motion that results is properly understood to be a field effect. In this way we
reduce the apparent two forms of motion in the Newtonian schema (pounded forward and coasting
on conserved momentum) to one single form of motion (field displacement).
An Equivalence Between a 'Gravity Field' and an 'Electromagnetic Field'
Electromagnetic signals sent to a satellite in space 'lose energy' (red shift) so satellites must be
prepared to accept signals at these lower frequencies while signals sent back to earth by satellites
in space 'gain energy' (blue shift) in the gravity field, and so receivers on earth must be tuned to
accept these higher frequency signals. 'Photons' (the small particles of energy that make up
streams of electromagnetic radiation) behave like particles of mass, for a mass also gains energy
(accelerates) when falling into a gravity field and loses energy (decelerates) when moving up
through a gravity field (so then we could say that the mass momentum field either red shifts
(decelerates) or blue shifts (accelerates) when in motion through the gravitational field just as we
see occurring with photons (little particles of energy).
Particles of mass are 'accelerated' in the Large Hadron Collider using a pulsed electromagnetic
field, which means that particles of mass 'gain momentum' by 'gaining photons'. Between pulses,
particles in the LHC begin to lose energy ('decelerate') by emitting photons (high energy radiation
known as 'synchotron radiation').
Given that 'gaining photons' is equivalent to 'gaining momentum' (acceleration) and given that a
'gravity field' has the ability to accept the energy donated from such photons (red shift) (or donate
gained by photons (blue shift) this suggests that an equivalence must exist between a 'gravity field'
The return of the old and long neglected 'aether hypothesis' is required to properly explain these
effects, for if a 'gravity field' can exchange energy with an electromagnetic field this would
suggest that 'space' is an energy field, and that the 'momentum field' attached to some rocket, the
'momentum energy' encapsulated in some photon and the very 'fabric of space' itself are all
composed of the same 'substance', the tiny 'quanta of momentum', which we will represent in the
diagram above with small yellow dots.
Orbital Velocity and Field Inertia
We can continue to build a case in favor of this 'aether hypothesis' (space as an energy field) by
observing the behavior of orbital bodies. Given that an increase in energy ('relative mass') is
equivalent to 'momentum', if we conclude that space is not some separate or preexisting
trampoline, but rather an extension of the energy of the mass field itself, we can then go a step
further and assume that the warped space field surrounding some mass is the momentum field of
that mass (and therefore a gravity field is actually best thought of as being a momentum field, for it
is here that the 'conserved momentum' of a mass located).
A space craft can 'gain momentum' (accelerate) by doing the 'flyby maneuver' (so called gravity
assisted acceleration). If a space craft gains momentum simply by going into free fall through the
space around a 'gravitational body' such as the earth, and since you cannot get something for
nothing, it logically follows that a spacecraft gains momentum at the expense of the earth, which
must lose momentum. This suggests that a relationship must exist between the 'conserved
momentum field' of the earth and the so called 'gravity field' (or warped space field) surrounding
the earth, for it is a simple matter to reduce the earth's momentum by simply doing the flyby
maneuver through this warped space field surrounding the earth.
The Apollo Astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon off of which laser beams have been
bounced for decades, allowing us to get precise information on the moon's orbital pattern. It has
been discovered that the moon is gaining momentum from the earth and is rising into higher and
higher orbits at a rate of a little over 3 centimeters every year.
Kepler discovered that the orbital bodies in the solar system were all in elliptical orbits which
means that these bodies are all doing the 'flyby maneuver' and therefore they will be gaining
momentum and rising into higher and higher orbits, just as is the case with the moon.
Fossil evidence clearly indicates that the earth must have once been in an orbit much closer to the
sun for the North Pole was once a tropical rain forest where dinosaurs once lived. Millions of
years later, and the earth has gained so much momentum from the sun through these repeated flyby
transfers of momentum, that the earth is now in a much higher orbit and as a consequence of this the
climate of the earth is now much more temperate, as the polar regions have become covered with
ice caps, and the earth also experiences periodic episodes of glaciation. We can suggest that
transfer of momentum might have played a role in the disappearance of the dinosaurs and the
replacement of dinosaurs by furry coated cold adapted mammals.
The density of an energy field is corresponds to that of the exponential function known as the
Inverse Square Law, with greater density near the center of the field with the field density falling
off with increasing distance from field center.
As orbital bodies gain momentum, they rise into higher and higher orbits, which means that orbital
bodies rise into regions of the field with decreasing density. Orbital bodies are in a state of 'free
fall' and because the orbital path can be thought of as consisting of a 'horizontal component'
objects in such an orbit 'conserve momentum' (for it would appear that it is motion along the
vertical axis which is responsible for transfer of momentum, while objects moving in a
gravitational field along the horizontal axis experience no acceleration or deceleration effects and
instead 'conserve momentum' and move with a constant velocity).
Orbital bodies exhibit a momentum anomaly, in that we normally associate an 'increase in
momentum' with an 'increase in velocity'. However as orbital bodies gain momentum and rise to
higher orbital states, such bodies lose velocity. Objects in high orbit have lower velocity and
objects in close orbits have higher velocity orbits.
If we accept the existence of 'an aether field' (space is an energy field) and if we conclude that it
takes two to tango (both an object and the space in which an object is in motion play a role in the
movement of that object) then it becomes apparent that it is a loss of momentum in the spatial field
which is responsible for the decrease in velocity of objects in higher orbital states. We represent
the high momentum state of an orbital body in bright red, and the low density high orbital region of
the field by a lighter pink on the gradient scale. The field has lower 'inertia' (the field is weaker
and so its contribution to moving the orbital body is lessened) while the 'inertia' of the orbital
body has increased (it has 'gained momentum' and has become 'heavier' and harder to push). It
would then be both the weakness of the field (its inability to push) and the 'heaviness' of the
relative mass of the orbital body (it has become much harder to push) that taken together result in a
lower orbital velocity.
Such an effect is probably also responsible for the so called 'Pioneer Anomaly'. The two Pioneer
spacecraft were primitive tin cans hurled out into space. Computers were the size of rooms and so
the space craft included no sophisticated guidance correction systems as was the case with later
space craft. As the craft rose in the field, the craft began to experience an anomalous and
unexplained constant deceleration (the craft decelerate and fall behind by about 400,000
kilometers per year). The same anomaly is also found in the tracking data of other spacecraft
hurled up into the higher regions of the field, although the data is muddied by guidance correction
systems and the effects of thrusters. Only in the case of the Pioneer craft do we get a pure
unadulterated data set.
In the image above we show the Pioneer spacecraft experiencing 'gravitational deceleration'.
Objects hurled up into a gravity field behave like basketballs and experience a loss of momentum.
We depict this loss of momentum as the emission of red shifted photons (the assumption here being
that there is nothing special at all about 'synchotron radiation' emitted by decelerating particles in
a device such as the Large Hadron Collider, with only the magnitude of the effect being greater in
the latter case because of the much higher field energies of high velocity masses. We will make
the assumption that our space scientists understand that gravity is a momentum sucking field, and
that they have already accounted for gravitational deceleration effects, and that therefore what
remains is an unexplained momentum loss anomaly.
We can propose a solution to this enigmatic problem based upon the 'aether postulate' of the
Unified Field Theory. The Pioneer spacecraft resemble planets rising into higher orbital states.
The field inertia is decreasing, and since the field is also involved in the motion of masses within
the field, the craft velocity is decreasing. We can refer to this as the relativity of momentum, for
the craft are experiencing a relative loss of momentum (relative to the surrounding field, for it is
actually the field which is 'losing momentum' here, and not the two Pioneer space
The Flyby Anomaly
Anomalous field acceleration effects probably lurk behind the scenes in what has been called 'the
flyby anomaly. When spacecraft perform this maneuver sometimes they perform exactly as
expected (the acceleration is normal) and sometimes they experience an abnormal acceleration,
and at yet other times they experience a lower than expected acceleration. These anomalous
results point to an explanation that can only be found by a close examination of the field (which is
to say that the flyby anomaly cannot be explained without resorting to the once discreditable
'aether postulate' and the very fact that such an anomaly would be found bedeviling our scientists
is a strong indication that the rejection of the 'aether postulate' was a mistake).
We can imagine conducting a space mapping mission, by sending up a probe that perform the
'flyby maneuver' over and over and over again around the earth, so that we could build up a
dataset on the 'geometry' or 'behavior' of this momentum field around the earth (for it would
appear that there are 'potholes' and 'slippery patches' out there, and a map would tell us if these
were persistent features or transient features). However such a mission cannot be conducted for
the probe would spiral out of the earth's orbit, gaining momentum and rising higher and higher in
the field, until it became like a comet, returning once every one hundred years, if it returned at all
and did not just get flung out into space.
Let's imagine that we had a magnet suspended on a frictionless surface (such as one of those air
hockey floating surfaces), and let's imagine that the a conducting circuit (represented by the brown
bar) was interacting with this bar magnet. Now if a bar magnet is in motion near a conducting
circuit, a current flow will generated which could be used to illuminate a small lamp. If a bar
magnet 'gained momentum' by being pushed over such a surface, we would expect that the magnet
would slow down (lose momentum by transfer of momentum to the current being generated in the
circuit which then lights the the light bulb). Given this loss of momentum we would expect the bar
magnet to decelerate and coast to a stop before coming to a complete halt.
If it is true that an equivalence must exist between an electromagnetic field and a gravity field
(with the field of a bar magnet being nothing more than a localized disturbance in much larger
field) then we can imagine the design of a space mapping mission wherein the momentum donated
to the craft by the 'gravity field' is converted into electrical current, with the current generated
rising where acceleration would be the greatest. The flow of current would then be used to
generate the dataset describing the field geometry while the spacecraft remained in a stable orbit to
continue looping indefinitely around the earth (rather than becoming more and more like a comet
with each elliptical pass).