[iseason]

a short while ago i started to talk generally about a theory and then felt that i should look more closely at this line of thought offline before discussing it further....
i have since decided that although it may not be the unified theory it may act as a pointer to one. the problems i have encountered are that it questions a number of long-entrenched conceptions in science and shows some behavioural observations to be false and that they have made certain investigative directions unlikely....
to the guts of this theory......
like attraction says that all matter is made up of atoms that have their own resonanceor 'sound'....each atom knows where every other atom of it's own kind are throughout the universe....the method of contact are specific pathways available which are ubiquitous...gravity behaves as such.....

the elements contained on the surface of the earth are also contained in far greater quantity within the greater mass of the earth.
there is also a far greater quantity of the same matter in the rest of the universe.....

when i throw a ball...as long as i overcome inertia...the universal gravity provides the "lift" that allows the ball not to instantly travel to earth and so give us the parabola ....
like attraction says that the elemental table shows the weights of matter according to their universal quantities in relation to the quantities of the same element here on earth......
for light gasses the rule is thus....that hydrogen for example is in far greater quantities in the rest of the universe and so is much lighter and "wants to join the greater mass of itself........when the gravitational 'pull of the element here on earth equals that of the same element 'relative distances taken into account' all the gasses that make up our atmosphere reach equalibrium....that is our atmosphere according to 'like attraction'

that light both visible and invisible is the carrier of these signals according to spectronomy...remembering that all light in the universe is always there and always "connected"
that magnetism is relative....that means that the makeup of matter is dictated by the direction of the facing of many "poles".....for example....if i took a hundred bar magnets and bound them together....i could change just one in any arrangement and get a rather large number of different answers to measurements using the same magnets....
i would welcome comments on what i have posted before i go on....cheers

[AntonioLao]

the force of gravity is attractive.

electric force can be attractive and repulsive.

magnetic force can be attractive and repulsive.

the combined force of electric and magnetic is the electromagnetic force and it is radiative (neither attractive nor repulsive but always expansive).

the strong nuclear force is attractive but only acts at very short distances. The shorter the distance the weaker is the strong force but at distances comparable to the atomic nucleus, the strong force becomes almost infinite.

the weak nuclear force acts at even shorter distances than the strong force and it seems to be repulsive causing radioactive decays of various elementary particles.

[Guille]

Let's see if I finally manage to understand this.

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

the force of gravity is attractive.

Shouldn't this be a wrong definition because gravity doesn't physically pull objects? It just makes them move or fall by the curvature of space-time.

Also, as scientists accept Dark Energy, which is repulsive energy, shouldn't gravity said to be both atractive and repulsive?

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

electric force can be attractive and repulsive.

Is the electric force really a "force"? Does this mean that photons atract and repele me?

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

magnetic force can be attractive and repulsive.

Shouldn't this impply that there is no difference between the electric and magnetic force, that they are the same?

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

the combined force of electric and magnetic is the electromagnetic force and it is radiative (neither attractive nor repulsive but always expansive).

What does "expansive" mean here? That it is bigger and bigger? Shouldn't the EM force be 2 atractive and 2 repuslive as the sum of the E and M force?

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

the strong nuclear force is attractive but only acts at very short distances.

Shouldn't then this force be taken as gravity for short distances? We say gravity is very weak at these distances, shouldn't it be because somehow in a process ( I could design it) the gravity force starts becoming the strong nuclear force at shorter distances, and vice versa at bigger distances?

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

The shorter the distance the weaker is the strong force but at distances comparable to the atomic nucleus, the strong force becomes almost infinite.

This is a contradiction. Isn't atomic nucleaus distance small? Then, how can it be bigger, whiles you say the force is smaller at smaller distances? Isn't it smaller at big distances? (until it dissapears).

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

the weak nuclear force acts at even shorter distances than the strong force and it seems to be repulsive causing radioactive decays of various elementary particles.

Finally, Shouldn't this be seen as that the weak nuclear force is the opposite to the strong nuclear force, then both becoming one only force, which is atractive and repulsive. (Also, I could make a theory where to show that the strong force becomes the weak force in smaller distances than atomic, and vice versa in bigger distances until atomic. This could the explain that SNF, WNF and G are the same force just that different domains?).

[AntonioLao]

GUILLE,

those were the facts about the fundamental forces. And the better theory of explaining these facts is QED and the Standard Model of the Electroweak force. But QCD is still not unified with QED or the Standard Model as a GUT theory and after that the GUT still has to be unified with gravity into a QG. Some called QG as a TOE. I call it TQS. Still others call the TOE as M-theory.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

Shouldn't this be a wrong definition because gravity doesn't physically pull objects? It just makes them move or fall by the curvature of space-time.

You are absolutely correct from a general relativity point of view but not from a quantum field theory POV. But scientists are trying to merge the two theories.

Originally Posted by GUILLE

Is the electric force really a "force"? Does this mean that photons atract and repele me?

photon is a valid concept of quantum field theory and not for continuum theories of both linear special and nonlinear general relativity.

Originally Posted by GUILLE

Shouldn't this impply that there is no difference between the electric and magnetic force, that they are the same?

the electric force is the product of scalar charge and the electric field, while the magnetic force is the outer product of scalar charge, its velocity and the magnetic field. These are completely different phenomena and verified by experimentations.

Originally Posted by GUILLE

What does "expansive" mean here?

always move away from the source and not inward back to the source.

SN force is ruled by asymptotic freedom and infrared slavery.
WN force is ruled by spontaneous symmetry breaking.

[iseason]

cheers guys...thanks for the replies.......in respect to magnetism.......i refute that a repulsive force exists.....for several reasons.....but cheifly that nature is concervative and repulsion requires the waste of energy.....

here i explain it instead.......science has long added a 'psudo-force'....repulsion....on the one hand they acknowledge there are four forces ..but talk about a fifth.......

a magnet has a flux that runs from one pole to the other.....i will use a bar magnet as my model (although the possible designs are infinate)....in a bar magnet the energy is DRAWN by the negative pole.......when you place two positive poles together they do not repel.....in fact the magnet changes not.....in order to create a force then it must actively do something....

the magnet only wants to conserve itself at the negative end......putting UNLIKE poles together is like putting two hoses together at full blast....not a magnet......the fACT THAT YOU CANNOT ENTER THE FEILD IS BECAUSE YOU ARE PREVENT THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE FROM ACTING ACCORDING TO IT'S NATURE

when we deal with light .....it would be exeptional that we would recieve light from a star that was made up wholey of matter that we didn't already have.......the light ....as i have stated is constant and always there ......science has long ignored the "particle" portion of light when trying to understand it......

my observations put light in the same feild as curcuitry....where all the stars interact with each other via space....the universe is not so remote if you concider this.....once again science adds a repulsive force ....light is DRAWN much like eletricity.......remembering that we are always connected to the star......this is interactive ......the star also RECIEVES from us.....

comments

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

SN force is ruled by asymptotic freedom and infrared slavery.

Doesn't this mark a connection between SN and EM?

Now, what is the Electroweak force? (repulsive, atractive, both, expansive...?)

[AntonioLao]

GUILLE,

it only indicate that SN is a short range force and EM is a long range force.

the electroweak is rotative force, it goes around in circles. Circles within circles. But their motion can be clockwise or counterclockwise and in 3D rotations becoming H+ and H-.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

GUILLE,

it only indicate that SN is a short range force and EM is a long range force.

the electroweak is rotative force, it goes around in circles. Circles within circles. But their motion can be clockwise or counterclockwise and in 3D rotations becoming H+ and H-.

From the Hadamart matrices: then a graviton and an "anti-graviton" (as this particle has NO charge, then some of the gravitons are H- and some H+) would form an electroweak particle? (which are the electroweak particles?).

Does rotative mean just expansive but in rotation¿?

[iseason]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

From the Hadamart matrices: then a graviton and an "anti-graviton" (as this particle has NO charge, then some of the gravitons are H- and some H+) would form an electroweak particle? (which are the electroweak particles?).

Does rotative mean just expansive but in rotation¿?

most of what you've stated is just theory since no evidence of the gravitron particle has been found......by the way....

is it usual for you two to highjerk another persons post to the point that no-one could possibly remember what it was they originally stated ....all the while ignoring the posts that the original poster places.....there is a chat room here......kindly remove your arguments in favour of yourselves and let others comment on MY points......cheers.....iseason means no offence....