Gravity and Electromagnetism Unified via Negative Mass Field

  • Mark Ridler

    "we have no way of explaining why the proton and neutron in particular are stable, while pretty much everything else isn’t.
    At this point, it might be tempting to go looking for the meaning of life in the bottom of a beer glass.

    What we need is another bit of inspiration..."

    You could try here .. also ..there is an explanation for gravity as electromagnetics... the electron g factor... ... inter alia…ics-Main-achievements.pdf

  • According to Ockham's razor, a theory is worthwhile if it reduces the number of concepts by one. In this case we are unifying gravity and electromagnetism, albeit at low speed, so the simplification is achieved. It comes at the cost of negative mass, but that is a generalisation of an existing concept rather than a new one.

  • there is a guy, that did a lot of ground work on this topic. made videos, handed out the basics and was obliterated to the point no one will study any of the work. just another guy that may like a little vindication like all the others .

    but it seems the clamps are still on.

    Sometime its helpful to revisit heavily scrutinized science ..

    when they tell you not to look.. you look.

  • According to Ockham's razor,

    Occam's Razor dates back to Aristotle.

    "“We may assume the superiority, other things being equal, of the demonstration

    which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.”"

    it is a philosophical assumption.

    Nature is not guaranteed to have parsimonious explanation.. so Occam's Razor is a weak and unreliable tool.

    especially in biology which is complexity rich.. and where horses have been found not to be fertilised by an Aristotlean wind.

    but by a complex fusion of 64 chromosomes...

    As for the electron proton, neutron .. the superior explanations are those that deliver accurate explanations for the physical constants..

    QED has the famous legitimate birth of the Lamb shift.. delivered by Bethe calculation on the train..

    "In 1947 no one knew how to calculate the fine structure of spectroscopic levels of a real electron

    making transitions in a real hydrogen atom—except Hans Bethe."

    according to Dyson ..2006// ..but not according to 2020

    That is,
    Bethe’s fantastic calculation is based on data that was calculated later, data that Bethe could not have known on his train journey.

    It is a value that was entered ad hoc to match the theoretical value with the experimental value.

    In the field of physics,

    this illegitimate trick is known as a fudge factor."…n-in-the-state-of-QED.pdf

    Sorting out which explanation is not fudged requires considerable skill.. but the current explanations of dense nuclear physics by QED/QCD cannot deliver very much accuracy or simplicity... the proton sea of swimming gluons quarks virtual.. and real .. is complex..but inaccurate.. unless fudged..


  • I speculate, as did Lee Smolin, that photons and neutrinos may be symmetric aspects of the same thing. So where a photon chooses to interact, a neutrino dodges out of the way. It doesn't explain the spin half property though.

    Perhaps I should write a letter to Cern saying please would they be on the lookout for Negative Mass 😁

  • I speculate, as did Lee Smolin, that photons and neutrinos may be symmetric aspects of the same thing. So where a photon chooses to interact, a neutrino dodges out of the way. It doesn't explain the spin half property though.

    Perhaps I should write a letter to Cern saying please would they be on the lookout for Negative Mass 😁

    I'm reminded of Santilli with his antimatter, negative energy, negative gravity attraction, negative index of refraction light which is detected from distant antimatter galaxies by a telescope with concave lenses. From http://www.santilli-foundation…-telescope-2013-final.pdf

  • I'm assuming Santilli was working on an assumption of a universe with a 50:50 distribution of matter and antimatter.

    I am looking for a further 50:50 distribution of positive and negative mass. So 25:25:25:25 positive charge positive mass, positive charge negative mass, negative charge positive mass, negative charge negative mass.

    I don't know whether you'd expect a whole galaxy out of each of these types. If I was inclined to speculate I'd go for galaxies made out of the mixture.

  • Why are proton and neutron stable ??? To begin with, I will answer about the proton ... The proton is a rotating structure with a huge magnetic field - in the geometric center of the proton, the magnetic field strength is about 10 ^ 14 Tesla ... Neutron ... The erroneous opinion about the neutron among physicists ... The fact is that physicists investigated the neutron only in a free state ... In this state - when the neutron is absolutely free - for example, it flew into the horizontal channel of a research reactor of the IRT-MEPhI type, the neutron is capable of rotation ... But it does not have the ability to rotate independently like a proton ... Why is that...? The proton is just a product of a rotating neutron, which photons make to rotate ... After separating a small rotating part called an "electron", the proton retains its rotation just like the electron according to the law of conservation of angular momentum ... The proton stably maintains its rotation for all the time life ... It keeps its rotation in stable nuclei and atoms ... But a neutron in a stable nucleus does not have the ability to rotate ... It is this circumstance that makes it stable in a stable nucleus ... But there are so-called "radioactive" isotopes and nuclei ... In these nuclei, an "unstable" neutron has the ability to rotate ... Why is that? But because in stable nuclei a neutron has 2 or more bonds with its neighbors, neutrons and protons, and in an unstable nucleus, an unstable neutron has only one bond and only with one neighboring neutron ... Having the ability to rotate for this reason, the neutron untwisted by photons decays ... Models of atomic nuclei -

  • In leu of data I've observed concluding that the electroweak force and gravity/mass/inertia perhaps overlap on the picoscale is wildly realistic. Neutrinos relative to photons, could be a self contained particle of magnetic mass. But small wavelenth gravity waves and electroweak affects could have amplified interactions on a particular scale due to overlapping "reasonant balancing or reinforcement". The motion of the sun and moon apparently affect beta decay, idk dense electron and proton constructs also seem affective as well. What is the relation between neutrinos, electroweak forces and pico-atomic scale gravity? partially rhetorical question. That would enable accelerated stabilization of isotopes, relatively low energy/mass gravity wave based tech (communication, energy defusion, active reactor detection) effective straight through entire planets. Probably the ability to set off or neutralise weapons without an electromagnetic connection. These are conclusions gathered from multiple research published articles, educated guessing, strange events some could clarify with this and personal pattern analysis. Just following God's crumbs if you will. If this is impossibly would love if one could tell me.

    That would be a negative information density in the space time, according to the great Italian one.

    Info can be organised in reverse but can't be truly negative.

  • Be extremely cautious with the octopus...

    it would have been better to have left it alone but its no longer redundant

    no matter what I have to say.

    By the octopus are you refering to this wholy intreging gravity wave/beta decay/EM pico-chemistry overlap possibility or are you refering to particular organisations or conglomerates? I would prefer safely engaging these avenues with respect at the appropriate time. Posted an article link on related content for the media section. Point taken I guess ✌🏽🙏🏽.

  • the gravity wave/beta ,,

    the post was old but relevant in todays search but ignored in the media for now.

    its a complicated mess with the science as is but I don't think it will take that long to change out the current vocabulary to something sensible.

    that's why I don't think its worth talking about just yet.

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми Вы написали - "Is this your own original theory? It is fine if it is but you should preface your description with a disclaimer to that effect. Especially when explaining as if it were an undisputable fact."

    В таком случае у меня к Вам вопрос - "Тело протона имеет вращение ?" С моей точки зрения , начиная с 1933 года - год открытия собственного магнитного момента у протона, физики знают - протон вращается... Вопрос к физикам - "Какова причина вращения протона после распада нейтрона ???" Ответ "на поверхности" - нейтрон обязан был иметь вращательное движение перед своим распадом... Никакого волшебства и никаких фантазий !!! Это простая логика ! Но и этого мало... Вопрос - "А какие силы разрывают нейтрон таким образом, что всегда отделяется одна и та же маленькая часть - 1/1836 массы протона ???" Более глубокий вопрос состоит в том, что нам необходимо понять - как генерируется СИЛА, которая разрывает нейтрон... Там нет и не может быть волшебства - там действуют обычные классические законы... Логические размышления приводят нас к ВЫВОДУ о том, что именно вращение нейтрона генерирует ЭТУ СИЛУ ! Логика и анализ атома водорода, в котором как мы знаем всего два тела находятся - и оба они вращаются - протон и электрон - собственный магнитный момент электрона был открыт в 1947-1949 годах... Анализ говорит, о том, что первичное магнитное поле этих частиц взаимно притягивает их к друг другу... Но ведь электрон не падает на протон... Почему ? Анализ и логика говорят о том, что этому препятствует вторичное магнитное поле и протона и вторичное магнитное поле электрона...

  • If you were to use the other avenue it would be like accepting the current seismic activity as a direct view of incubation pain as the gravity wave of the radio "octopus can transmit" information.

    its best to through out the Anno Domini generation gap view in 2020 and start with true science.

    see what I mean... it sounds stupid.