return to homepage
As a lead-in
to this solution I will show some interesting facts, so far
uncompiled in the correct way, but related to the solution
revealed here. The first, surprisingly enough, is a quote by
Jonathan Swift. As a matter of science, Swift is most famous (or
notorious) for making strange and precise statements about the
moons of Mars, statements that turned out to be very near true.
Somewhat less well known in our own time is a statement he made
regarding gravity and his friend Newton’s efforts to explain
it. In Before I prove
this with math, I would like to show some data that pushes us
where we are already going. In the 1940’s the Dutch
geophysicist and ocean explorer F. A. Vening Meinesz showed that
gravity is very slightly stronger over deep oceans. This
phenomenon has never been explained, although Vening Meinesz
attributed it to continental drift and the standard model how
tries to explain it as an outcome of plate tectonics and isostasy.
Using the offered mechanics of isostasy and plate tectonics, the
solution is both fuzzy and unverifiable. Proof would require
measurement of large sections of deep earth that we simply cannot
measure. And even then the postulated mechanisms are farfetched
and everchanging. A similar
phenomenon is explained in much the same way. In the 1850’s
J. H. Pratt showed that the Himalayas do not exert the expected
gravitational pull. They do not deflect a plumbline. This result
was so surprising that the scientific world has really never
gotten over it. They have never explained it either, except by
more desperate theorizing. The astronomer G. B. Airy came up with
the idea that there are “reverse” Himalayas under the
ones we see, buried in the sub-crust magma like a mirror image.
There is no way to prove or disprove that, short of a lot more
digging than we are prepared to do, but the reverse mountains
wouldn’t solve the problem anyway. This was basically the
invention of isostasy, but isostasy doesn’t solve the
problem of the Himalayas. True, the plumbline would then be
affected by both the upper and lower mountains, but the upper
mountains should still deflect the plumbline. The whole fix is
absurd and counterintuitive, since it was never thought the real
mountains were sitting on a void. They were assumed to be sitting
on a huge mass already, a mass called the Earth. Putting reverse
mountains down there doesn’t solve a thing. Even if the
reverse mountains were made of lead, the real mountains would
still be expected to affect a plumbline, according to the given
theory of gravity. The mountains have a huge mass, and talking
about masses underneath is not to the point. The only new
mountains that could offset the plumbline would be mountains
directly behind the plumbline (assuming the real Himalayas are in
front of it). Dr. Airy needed to postulate very heavy ghost
mountains behind him no matter what way he turned. Now that I
have shown a couple of experimental proofs of my assertion, let us
look at the mathematical proof. We will start with Newton’s
equation. Newton’s famous gravity equation is a heuristic
equation, and Newton admitted that from the very beginning. I
have now un-unified Newton’s classical equation of gravity,
showing that it is a compound equation of two force fields (or one
force field and one acceleration field). But I have some work left
to do, since in order to create a completely updated and modern
Unified Field Theory, I have to include Relativity. Meaning, I
have to express the time differential in my equations above. I
will not do this with the tensor calculus. I will do it in the
same way that I have solved other major problems of General
Relativity: I will solve by keeping that acceleration vector
pointing out and by looking at the absolute time separation
between events provided by the speed of light. If you don’t
know what I mean by that, I recommend you to my papers on bending
of starlight, Mercury’s
perihelion, and the Metonic
Cycle, where I solve GR problems very quickly, without
tensors. I said above
that I would show that my E/M Field Equation got the right answer,
and now that I have all my numbers I can show that. We found that
the total E/M repulsion created an acceleration of -.151m/s Let us move
from the Moon to the Earth. We have famous experimental proof of
my number for the Earth's foundational E/M field. The number
.009545 m/s Now that we
have made some progress in refining the gravitational field, let
us return to the E/M field. If we look for equations to compare
our new equations to, we don’t find any. I said earlier that
I would have more to say about QED, but now the we get here, you
will find that it is mostly of a negative sort. [For a more
positive answer, you may now go to my paper on gravity
at the quantum level and my paper on Coulomb's
equation, both of which explain how the unified field works at
the quantum level.] I have nothing at all to say about matrix
mechanics, which, like Planck, I find "disgusting." But
Schrodinger's wave equations don't give us anything either. This
is because QED is not interested in describing the field as a
whole, and it is especially not interested in describing the field
in simple mechanical terms. It is mainly concerned with describing
statistical interactions of quanta. And even when it gets beyond
statistics, as with Schrodinger, it is concerned with the motions
in a given field. QED mainly accepts the field of Maxwell, but
adds some novel postulates that allow it to track the motions of
quanta. This has many experimental uses and benefits, but
theoretically it is a nearly total wash. No, it is even worse than
that. QED, looked at theoretically, is worse than Maxwell's
equations, since it is even more opaque. If this paper was
useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or
more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to
continue writing these "unpublishable" things. I have
joined the boycott against Paypal, and suggest you use Amazon
instead. It is free and does not enrich any bankers. AMAZON
WEBPAY |