[volantis]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

I do not need to read your site or book in its entirety to recognize you path of logic.

Wow, when I grow up, I want to be as smart as you. You don't even have to learn. You absorb knowledge.

State in 100 words or less the physical cause of gravity and I will buy your book and read it.

??? You already recognize the path of logic? Does that mean you are path of logical? Or is that pathological?

I don't want you to buy the book. All I want is a discussion on the merits of the theory.

The physical cause of gravity is the Gforce acting on the dimension of mass. That's fourteen words, much less than 100. I assume I don't need to explain the Gforce or how it was discovered, you already understand that. I'm sure you already understand that gravity is orthogonal to the strong charge as well, meaning that the strong force and gravitational force are exactly proportional to each other, so I won't go into detail on that either.

But if you already knew that Gforce acts on electrostatic charge to produce electrostatic force and acts on electromagnetic charge to produce strong force, then why did you need me to tell you that Gforce acts on mass to produce gravitational force? Even Newton knew that something had to act on mass to produce the effect of gravity.

We already know the effects, what is the real physical cause? What I read indicates that you simply believe that all you need do is explain effects with other effects. Charge is not a cause nor is it a property; it is an effect. Distribution of charge means absolutely nothing.

You didn't read anything. Charge is a dimension. It is not an effect, nor is it a cause. Charge, like mass, length, and time, is the bare bones "substance" of which non-material and material reality are made from. Charge is not a thing, and yet it can be measured. The same goes for length. There is a length between your eyes and your computer monitor. That length can be measured to a specific quantity. But what is it a quantity of? Length is a non-material dimension, but it is very real. The same goes for mass, time and charge.

I'm sure already knew this from reading my theory, but electrostatic charge is a function of resonance between forward and backward time. Electrostatic charge is created when an Aether unit is created, which is why each Aether unit is an electrostatic dipole and contains both positive and negative electrostatic charge. It is also why Naudin's lifter's can fly. The Aether is polarized and thus the Aether can act directly on the greater charged surface of the asymmetric capacitor. Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry and has a spin of 1.

Strong charge, on the other hand, is a function of angular momentum spinning within the Aether unit. Once the dark matter is absorbed it fills one of four different spin positions in the Aether unit, thus becoming an electron, positron, proton, or anti-proton. As the angular momentum spins within the conductance of the Aether, it produces strong charge. The strong charge, like the angular momentum, has half-spin and has steradian angle. But even if you multiplied the strong charge by two to equalize the spins, and multiplied the strong charge by 4pi to offset the steradian angle, the equivalent spherical strong charge would be enormous compared to the spherical electrostatic charge. The constant that reduces the magnitude of strong charge is the fine structure constant. Therefore, for the electron, the Unified Charge Equation is equal to:

e^2 = 8pi a e.emax^2

For those who haven't read the web site, e^2 is the electrostatic charge, a is the fine structure of the electron, and e.emax^2 is the strong charge of the electron. I'm sure you already know this, having absorbed all the knowledge, but the gravitational force is shown to be orthogonal to the strong force in the strong charge equation:

h * Cd = e.emax^2

where h is the angular momentum of the electron, and Cd is the conductance of the Aether. And since the mass of the electron is fixed and also part of its angular momentum, then there is a fixed mass to strong charge ratio. And as I'm sure you know, the mass to strong charge ratio is exactly the same for all subatomic particles, as well as for the Aether. Thus when the Gforce acts on mass, it acts proportionally on strong charge as well. The orthogonality of the gravitational force and strong force is seen in the single dimension nature of mass and distributed nature of charge. But I see no reason to explain this in detail, either, since you already understand the path of logic.

Save your salesman indignation method for those intimidated by your attempt to express apparent knowledge.

Actually, I intend to use my "salesman indignation" fully. You deserve every bit of it until you stop your mindless cynicism.

You seem to be convinced that you are the first to propose this type of idea;

Yes, I am convinced. If someone else had come up with this, the race for the Unified Force Theory would have been over already. Prove otherwise.

If you really believe your idea is new and unique, present it for science peer review.

I just happened to have a paper ready to go. It is being previewed by several scientists as we speak. One of them is a Cambridge PhD physicist. I thought I would be nice and stop by to give people here a chance to be in on the ground floor.

You will find that my opinions are not only mine.

I'm fully aware of the enormous challenge for presenting a new paradigm, let alone a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. That is why I spent a year writing the book first. It just isn't possible to present a completely new paradigm to someone who already thinks he knows everything, as you can see. There are many basics that need to be understood first. One of them is the ability to read, another is the ability to do math. After that, there are the foundations, such as distributed charge, the definitions of dimensions and units, quantum measurements, charge geometry, Aether geometry, angular momentum geometry, the nature of spin, the mechanics of time and frequency, and the nature of dark matter. All this stuff cannot be put in a paper 20 pages long.

So I had to write the book first, and have the full theory ready to go. Now I can write a 20 page paper with a fast track to the theory and reference the book for those who would like to fully understand the underlying concepts.

I do find your theory extremely better than "String Theory".

Wait until you understand how the strong charge equation turns out to be the real form of what Albert Einstein called his Field Equation.

e^2 = 8pi a e.emax^2
G = 8pi T

The above field equation is in the abbreviated form. But it is enough for demonstration purposes. The General Relativity Theory is not about mass at all. As I pointed out, mass is directly proportional to strong charge. And as I also pointed out, the distributed electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry. GR is not the about the equality of the tensors of the curvature of space-time and mass-energy, it is about the balance of spherical electrostatic charge to steradian strong charge. It is just luck on Einstein's part that mass and strong charge are directly proportional to each other. That is how he could mistakenly describe the curvature of space-time in terms of mass and come up with the correct numerical answer.

Anybody in their right mind must realize there is no such thing that can act on mass called "space-time curvature." But then, nobody else had an alternative explanation.

Yes, I'm an indignant salesman toward mindless cynics. But if you take a more scientific approach you will find I'm actually a respectful and gentle guy. Forget about the cynicism I'm going to receive from the rest of the scientific community as I present this theory. This is about you and me. You don't have to be a mindless cynic.

By the way; I read your web site long before you presented the link to TOEquest.

You may have visited, but you obviously haven't read it. Nearly everything I wrote in this post is available on the web site.