A Composite View of the Gravitational Field

In the image above we see the Smith Hydrogen Cloud heading towards an impact with the Milky Way Galaxy in about 50,000 years for now. This cloud has been wandering through space for hundreds of millions or perhaps even billions of years and has never produced so much as one star, even though it has the potential to form a million stars or one very large blackhole. This is in spite of its enormous ‘gravitational mass' and the supposed ‘attractive force' that is said to exist between particles of matter.





In the image above we see the hydrogen atoms and molecules bouncing off each other like billiard balls within that Smith Hydrogen Cloud, the typical behavior of gases. If the gas is cooled to absolute zero, it no longer requires space and forms a clump known as a Bose Einstein Condensate. As temperature increases hot gas expands and requires more space, which once again prevents any ‘attractive force' to exist in the hydrogen cloud.





This image shows an electromagnetic whirlwind forming a new star. The image was taken by the Spitzer telescope. (Link: Space Tornadio). It would appear that this electromagnetic space tornado is the required missing element in forcing hydrogen to become ‘a gravitational mass' and then form a star.





On the left side of this image we see a matter based field, the warped space defining this field corresponding to the requirements of the Inverse Square Law and having a geometry identical to that of an electromagnetic field. We see a ‘green' photon as part of some passing EM wave bending through the curved space defined by this spatial field. Photons have a neutral charge and do not bend in electromagnetic fields and so we must assume that what we call a gravitational field must consist of a combination overlay of two separate fields. We show an electromagnetic ‘momentum' field on the right, which would then combine additively with this ‘matter field' to form a ‘gravity field'. We can assume that the Electromagnetic Field did not disappear but remains lurking in the background, because it is possible to generate electrical current by moving water through this three dimensional space, and since you cannot get something from nothing, and since it is unlikely that generating electricity ‘reduces gravity' or somehow results from the decay of a mass of matter, it is logical to conclude that it is momentum which is being converted to electrical energy, and momentum is a description of an energy state.





When we consider these two effects (a photon following a curved path through the geometry of a spacial field and a hydroelectric dam extracting electrical energy from an energy field) we conclude that the correct description of a gravitational field must consist of two composite fields, one a ‘matter based field' (which defines the three dimensional space surrounding the matter) and one an electromagnetic energy field (which is the momentum field, for when we speak of momentum (gasoline) this implies that a mass of matter must possess a momentum field (the gas tank).

Gaining Momentum

In this image we see a croquet ball ‘gaining momentum' by being hit by a mallet.





In this image we see iron (in red) falling down in the gravitational field, and experiencing an acceleration as it falls. Next to this we see hydrogen or helium (in blue) falling up in the gravitational field, and decelerating as it rises. We also see two other examples of objects rising in a gravitational field. The Newtonian rocket is being struck trillions and zillions of times by lots of very small mallets, and like the croquet ball the Newtonian rocket is ‘gaining momentum' and when an object ‘gains momentum' is experiences gravitational repulsion, and so the Newtonian rocket is rising in the field. On the far right we imagine our hypothetical electromagnetic propulsion. This craft mimics the gravitational field, and consists of a craft surrounded by a powerful magnetic field. According to this hypothesis simply embedding such a powerful magnetic field in the craft will suffice to increase the apparent momentum of the entire craft, and then like the Newtonian rocket the craft will experience gravitational repulsion and will begin rising in the field (it has ‘gained momentum' since the momentum field is an energy field, and can be thought of as being like an magnetostatic field bonded to the matter field, and this would be the remnants of the electromagnetic field that first formed the gravitational body).

This idea does make sense, for momentum is an energy field and therefore it should not be required that we work with an energy field using mechanical physical methods such as pounding matter with a matter based mallet in order to ‘transfer momentum' to some energy field.

We consider the matter component of the gravitational field to be only the warped three dimensional space associated with a field of matter, and for this reason no ‘gravitational force field' is required, for this space only defines a curved path through the field. Objects coast along this curved path in a manner no different than an object coasting through a spatial field on the way to Jupiter or the moon. Objects move through space because they have ‘conserved momentum', and this is not a ‘matter based' concept, but rather is an ‘energy concept'. It is for this reason that objects can follow either an ‘attractive' or ‘repulsive' path through the spatial field (and the repulsive path we could call ‘antigravity' if such a ‘force' as gravity actually existed, gravity being simply a path through a spatial field which was generated by the presence of matter, and not a ‘force field' at all).

It also makes sense that motion through the field is completely disconnected from the spatial geometry of some matter based field, for not only do objects move up and down in this field, but objects also experience a relative acceleration as they move deeper into such a field. We consider this phenomenon to be evidence for the ‘relativity of momentum' for motion through the field (conserved momentum) is a phenomenon caused by the interaction of energy fields and since the energy field also obeys the required distribution of the Inverse Square Law, with increasing density at deeper depths in the field, it seems logical that a momentum field would produce relative increases in momentum (acceleration) if momentum was caused by the interaction of two momentum fields (one associated with the body in motion and the other associated with the gravitating body, which is also an object in motion, and possesses a momentum field).

Any mass of matter would possess such an electromagnetic momentum field, and if we propose to artificially boost the momentum of an object with an embedded momentum field we would therefore only be boosting the apparent momentum of that craft while at the same time validating the fundamental assumption of the Unified Field Theory, which is that the field is a unified field (therefore there was an equivalence between a ‘momentum energy field' and an ‘electromagnetic energy field').

Acceleration and G-Forces

An object has conserved momentum and is therefore coasting through the spatial field (for this an energy field mated together with this spatial field generated by matter so as to form a composite field). The object coast to the surface of a gravitating body and then because it has ‘conserved momentum' it attempts to push through the blockade represented by the mass of that gravitating body, and the result is the generation of a perpetual acceleration force. If you are sinking down into the cushion of your chair while reading this, that is because your mass of matter is interpreted as a fixed quantity of conserved momentum by the momentum field (for E=MC2) and therefore you are in ‘virtual motion' as you attempt to push your way right through the seat cushions of that chair and continue on your interrupted journey. Therefore we can see that ‘conserved momentum' is wrongly interpreted to be ‘the gravitational force field' or ‘g forces'.

You can also experience these ‘g-forces' if you are sitting in a sports car and then you push down on the accelerator pad. You will feel yourself being sucked back into the seat of that sports car. What has happened here is that the sports car is gaining momentum but you are blocking the way forward, and so the sports car begins to push on you, because you are lagging behind and have not gained momentum yourself. Because of this lag time you will always be a little behind and so therefore you will continue to ‘gain momentum' at a slightly slower rate than the sports car, and therefore you will be sucked back into the seat until you stop accelerating and begin to coast at a stable velocity, for when momentum equality is restored there are no more ‘g-forces'.

So then the ‘g=force' you experience when sitting in a chair is just your ‘conserved momentum' pushing down on the chair cushion as you attempt to keep moving, thus generating this perpetual acceleration force, and the ‘g-force' that you feel when you accelerate a sports car is the car pushing on you because you are lagging behind in gaining momentum.





Both Jack and Sam want to exploit the principle of the relativity of distance so that they can both travel to the Andromeda galaxy in just a few months. This implies a tremendous gain in momentum. On the left, Jack is in a Newtonian rocket and is employing the more primitive matter based technique of transferring momentum by pounding the internal guts of that Newtonian rocket over and over again gazillions of times with the impact force of gazillions of small mallets. The tremendous ‘g-forces' being generated are crushing Jack to a bloody pulp. On the right, Sam, who is using electromagnetism to augment his momentum field is experiencing exactly the same rate of acceleration, but he is experiencing no ‘g-forces' for there is equality in the momentum field and so Sam never lags behind and never requires his spacecraft to aggressively try to push him out of the way as it attempts to accelerate. Sam is no longer employing the more primitive form of propulsion because Sam is no longer limited by the science of ‘physics' (the study of the ‘physical universe') and therefore Sam is no longer attempting to gain momentum by pounding some mass of matter with mallets. Sam is not limited to a very slow rate of acceleration as he travels the universe, for that idea turned out to be nothing but some matter based fallacy based upon an anthropocentric assumption concerning how things must work.

Using Particle Accelerators in Unified Field Physics

According to the assumptions being made by the Unified Field Theory, the ‘fourth dimension of time' is a fictional scientific construct that functions as a sort of leper colony meant to contain that bad case of scientific leprosy known as ‘the principle of relativity'. In this way classical anthropocentric geometry could survive the introduction of the principle of relativity, which means that classical physics would be found married and splitting a suite with relativity without any domestic disputes. If such disputes developed over the course of the century then the task of marriage counselor could be assigned to the string theorists.

Consider the following. According to Einstein's classical interpretation of the principle of relativity, John travels two million light years to the Andromeda Galaxy, and because the geometry of the universe is not relative, the trip would take him at least two million years. There was only one path through the field and that path was already described by a boson, such as those flying photons, and therefore, every fermion must follow the boson path, otherwise geometry would no longer be classical. However in the fourth dimension of time, it only seemed to take John two months to reach Andromeda, because the fourth dimension was assigned the task of being relative so that nothing else would be relative, and thus ruin classical geometry and classical physics at the same time. When John got home he found that his exact identical twin had long since been fossilized, having died over two million years ago, and the human civilization had long since vanished, having been replaced by a new intelligent culture of advanced lemurs.

Now according to the Unified Field Theory, time is just a product of motion through the field. Matter exists in a ‘decelerated state' and so therefore this generates ‘locality' and ‘distance' as well as generating time, for no mass of matter can move instantly, because it is a form of energy which exists in a state of deceleration. Even bosons experience this deceleration as field density increases, and therefore the quantum processes that underlay all reality take place much more slowly in a dense energy field, and therefore the clock does slow down, because transfer of information is required for these quantum processes to function, and when that slows down, everything slows down.

Therefore John gets into his spacecraft and travels to Andromeda in what seems to him like two months, and then comes back home, only to find that his exact identical twin was now somewhat older than John was when he left for Andromeda. You see the bosons in John's body were moving real slow in that dense momentum field, which slowed down John's clock.

However it did not take John two million years to reach Andromeda because that was the boson path, and no fermion ever follows the boson path. Fermions follows the fermion path. As field density increases, the fermion path grows shorter (the exact opposite to what happens to those bosons). Therefore if you were to drop a fermion (matter) into a gravity field it accelerates more rapidly in increasingly stronger fields. This effect should continue right up until you dropped a fermion into some blackhole, at which time that fermion would experience the most violent acceleration and impact the bottom of that blackhole in a second or two, this being the shortest fermion path in the universe.

Now according to Einstein the blackhole, as measured by some boson, like those photons, would be a hole perhaps ‘two billion light years deep', and so therefore the fermion would impact the surface of the blackhole in two seconds in the fourth dimension, while at the same time it would be restricted to ‘the speed of light' and therefore to an observer in a relative frame outside the hole, it would appear to take two billion years to impact the surface.





We can determine whether or not Einstein or the Unified Field Theory is correct by constructing a fermion gun, such as an electron gun, and then firing the gun at targets to see if it is true that no matter how much energy you impart to some fermion it always makes sure never to go past ‘the speed of light'. We include a very sensitive clock on the receiving end, and then we time the fermion as it crosses a distance at each energy level, and we confirm that distance is relative (and not the clock as in Einstein's classical interpretation of the principle of relativity). We could also confirm that Einstein was correct (which is very unlikely, given all the other evidence that he was wrong) by noting that no matter how much momentum energy you impart to some fermion, it never arrives any faster than a boson (‘the speed of light') for the clock would indicate when it arrived. This test is just a way to confirm the existence of ‘the fourth dimension' which would also confirm that the geometry of the universe is fixed, not relative, and that there is only one path through the field, such that every fermion would follow the boson path, or vice versa, since that one path was the only path and thus quite classical as classical physics requires. No test has yet been conducted to prove that this is true, and so it just remains a classical assumption that still requires experimental verification. If a fermion arrives ‘faster than the speed of light' this would indicate that it is geometry and distance that is relative, and not some fictional clock, for the fermion was following a shorter path as the energy increased.

What this means is that you could drop a fermion into a blackhole and it would experience violent acceleration and impact the surface in a second or two, having crossed that boson path of ‘two billion light years' in no time at all. An observer holding a stop watch outside the relative frame of that blackhole could make note of one or two seconds and then think to themselves ‘kaboom' because it would not take two billion light years for that impact to take place, but rather it would take one or two seconds, since the time was generated by the motion and the distance was relative and not some fourth dimensional clock, and so therefore a blackhole was the shortest fermion path in the universe. What this means is that you could travel to the Andromeda Galaxy and then be back in time for your mother's fiftieth wedding anniversary, for at a high momentum energy level, the path to Andromeda was very short and so the time required to cross that short path was minimal.

To summarize the point, the alternative to Einstein's classical interpretation of the Relativity of the Clock Dimension is the nonclassical principle of the relativity of geometry and the relativity of distance. Only one of these can be correct and when the high energy levels required to run this type of experiment becomes available the matter can be settled by means of experiment.





Now if Einstein was wrong, which does seem to be the case here (other evidence strongly suggests that he was wrong) then we would expect to produce a graph similar to the one above. This is the classical Einstein graph, but turned upside down. As we accelerate electrons (or any fermion, electrons are just lighter and require less energy) we would expect that as we increase the momentum energy the time required to cover the distance would fall. The graph remains fairly linear until you reach those troublesome high energy levels, at which time a field collapse occurs, and the distance between two points begins to shrink. The result is that the electron now travels ‘faster than the speed of light' (although given that the path is shorter, ‘faster than the speed of light' does not really mean anything here). What this exponential curve indicates is that no matter how much energy you impart to a fermion, you can never cover a distance in zero time, for what that would require infinite energy. Therefore motion through space always generates some time, even if that time was only a fraction of a picosecond.

Now we do not have such an electron gun, but we do have devices such as the Large Hadron Collider, which accelerates fermions in the form of ionized charged particles (only the nucleus of the atom remains and all the electrons are stripped off). Could we not use such a device to test this theory?

You have heard that E=MC2. Now if you add momentum energy (P) you can then think of the total energy as consisting of MC2 plus P. When you reach super high momentum energy levels the mass of matter becomes so trivial that you can just ignore MC2 and say that E=P (the momentum energy) because the momentum energy is so enormous that it dwarfs the mass (you can think of comparing a speck of dust, the matter, with Jupiter, the size of the huge momentum energy, and so for the purposes of calculation you might as well ignore the speck of dust and just calculate based upon Jupiter, because the dust speck, the mass of matter, has become irrelevant at these high energy levels.





A charged particle can follow a ‘spiral' path in an accelerator, and the path looks very much the boson path (an oscillating path) and it could be that as the momentum energy increases, such that P now dwarfs MC2 (the particle itself) the particle begins to attempt to behave less like a particle and more like energy, by following an oscillating (wave like) path. We then have to consider this path if we were to determine whether or not some particle appeared to be traveling ‘faster than the speed of light'. However, much worse than this is that it would appear that particle accelerators actually slow down fermions, for the fermion in an accelerator constantly releases electromagnetic energy (symbolized by the red wavelengths being emitted by the particle moving through the particle accelerator). This implies a constant release of momentum energy by the particle.

According to the interpretation of this phenomenon offered by the Unified Field Theory, the reason why a fermion would release these pulses of EM energy in a particle accelerator is because the fermion is being forced onto the boson path (which means that it is being slowed down by the particle accelerator, and so in order to remain on the boson path (the path followed by energy) the mass must release excess momentum energy in the form of these EM pulses. For you see, particle accelerators are designed according to the principles of physics defined by Einstein, and believing that there is only one path through the field, followed by both bosons and fermions, the design then became to employ those bosons and the boson EM field to drag fermions along to a high rate of acceleration. What actually does happen, since bosons and fermions follow their own separate path, is that the fermion regularly loses momentum energy so that it can remain on the restricted boson path. The fermion would like to move faster, but it cannot because it was slowed down by the design of the particle accelerator, for it had become as insignificant as a speck of dust when compared to the energy of the EM field in which it was embedded (it was a charged particle and thus became subject to the EM field), and so therefore the fermion is forced to constantly release momentum energy because of the collision that occurs between the fermion path and the diverging boson path through the field.





Now let's look at our proposed graph (the relativity of the distance) and examine what this means. The graph remains fairly linear and only becomes exponential at high energy levels when the distance begins to collapse (the universe begins to act like a resonant amplifier of momentum energy and the spatial field undergoes a type of field collapse so that the distance between two points anywhere in the universe begins to shrink exponentially). Let's say that your mother's house was one hundred kilometers distant and you traveled at fifty kph, such that you arrived in two hours. If you traveled at 100 kph, you would arrive in one hour. At two hundred kph you would arrive in one half hour, and so on. This function is linear, and therefore it causes us to believe that the distance between any two points is fixed and that is velocity that is changing thus resulting in relative change in the time required to cross the fixed and invariant distance.

The purple arrow points to the shoulder of the graph where the linear function collapses and the function suddenly becomes exponential (just as it does on a classic Einstein graph, where suddenly the fourth dimension of time undergoes those rapid field collapse, such that you could travel to Andromeda in what seemed to you like one week, or even one hour, if your momentum energy was great enough).

Now the question we need to ask is where does the fermion path begin to diverge from the boson path (the fermion path is becoming shorter than the boson path, thus requiring the fermion to releases momentum energy in order to slow down and remain on the boson path). At what energy level does a fermion begin to release EM energy, indicating a path divergence? According to the Unified Field Theory it should be true that at this energy level an electron gun should be able to create a path divergence that could be detected if the clock is sensitive enough to detect this divergence. What this means is that a fermion is following a shorter path and therefore it should arrive ‘early'. However at lower energy levels arriving early might mean arriving a picosecond to soon (a picosecond sooner than you would expect a boson to arrive, and thus just slightly ‘faster than the speed of light'). Therefore it should be possible to use classical particle accelerators to determine the energy levels required as a minimum energy level for such an electron gun as proposed in the experiment above.

It might also be possible to deduce the length of the actual fermion path in a classical particle accelerator even if the fermion is not following the true fermion path (and thus arriving earlier than expected) and it is possible that this could be calculated at different energy levels just based upon the amount of momentum that fermion feels required to radiate outward and lose in order to remain a properly decelerated fermion that remains on the boson path.

Relative Distance and Velocity Frames

What is implied by the Unified Field Theory is that the distance to your mother's house is relative. You might think that the distance to your mother's house is one hundred kilometers, and that it is your ‘velocity' that is changing, thus allowing you to arrive in a shorter or a longer time. However this was an illusion as the field collapse indicated, when some fermion at a high energy level suddenly caused the distance between two points in space to undergo a type of spatial field collapse, such that the fermion arrived at the Andromeda Galaxy in a couple of weeks, instead of taking two billions years minimum if it was forced to follow the boson path.

Now this might sound stupid, for someone might say that it is obvious that it is ‘velocity' which is changing, because you can see just how fast something is going when it has this ‘velocity'. According to the Unified Field Theory what you call ‘velocity' is actually an object moving along a shorter path, and this is true even at lower energy levels, but because the function is close to linear, no one notices the fact. It is only at very high energy levels that the fiction is exposed and it becomes apparent that it was distance which is relative. This seems to imply that there is only one ‘velocity' and all objects move with this same ‘velocity' while an increase in momentum results in a shorter path length (the relativity of distance) such that an object with that one single velocity can then move through that distance twice as fast as another object with the identical velocity, but which due to lower momentum, was forced to follow a longer path.

Because these ideas are so strange and go against the grain of normal anthropocentric human experience of what constitutes reality (or ‘simple common sense') it seems good to me to demonstrate how human perceptions of ‘distance' and ‘velocity' reveal an underlying relativity.

Let's consider an imaginary experimental setup. We have two maglev trains situated on two adjacent tracks. These trains run so smoothly that it is impossible to feel any vibrations. Into one of those trains we place one of those transporter beams from the Star Trek universe. We will use this transporter to beam our test subject onto the train.





Our test subject has been beamed onboard the train, and thus has not experienced any possible acceleration force that might indicate that the train was gaining momentum and moving. The subject looks out the train window and sees the people on the train on the adjacent track whizzing by at what appears to be 120 kph.





There could be three possible explanations for this effect. The train on the adjacent track is moving at 120 kph, while the train in which the observer is located is stationary, as in figure 1. Or it could be that the adjacent train is moving 60 kph and the train the observer is on is moving at 60 kph in the opposite direction, as in figure 2. Or it could be that it is the train the observer is on is moving at 120 kph, and the adjacent train only appears to be moving but is actually stationary as in figure 3. There are other possibilities, such as both trains could be moving in the same direction, while the observer train is traveling at only 10 kph while the adjacent train was moving at 130 kph, and so on.

The task of our observer will be to attempt to report how the trains are moving and to attempt to guess the velocity of each of those two trains. This would prove to be impossible given the careful experimental setup, with the vibration free train and the Star Trek transporter device, which prevented our subject detecting any acceleration force.






An observer looking through a window watches two illuminated objects pass by. Both objects appear to be moving with equal velocity. The task facing the observer in this test is to determine how far away the two objects are and to determine whether their velocity was equivalent or different. Once again the observer will find it impossible to determine the velocity without information concerning the distance nor would the reverse be true, for the observer would not be able to determine the distance of these two objects without information concerning the velocity. From the point of view of the observer both distance and velocity are relative when viewed from this reference frame.

There are three possible choices the observer could make (with the results produced by his guess resembling the outcome of any game of random chance).





The dimmer object is farther away. Because it is more distant it must also be traveling at a faster velocity than the nearer object, because it has the same apparent velocity when viewed by the observer from the observers relative frame of reference.




The brighter object is actually further away but only appears closer because of its greater luminosity. It also must possess the greater velocity.





Both objects are equally distant and both are traveling with an identical velocity, while one is simply dimmer than the other.