PART I

INTRODUCTORY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCES

Gravity

Concerning gravity Feynman asks, “What is the law of gravitation?  It is that every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force which for any two bodies is proportional to the mass of each and varies inversely as the square of the distance between them. This statement can be expressed mathematically by the equation F = G mm'/r²” [1].  The formula is succinct, clear, and concise, yet still we know very little how it operates.  Newton described what it did, but, as Feynman noted: “No one has since given any machinery” [2].

If we have two bodies one million miles apart and measure the strength of gravitational attraction, then again, when they are two million miles apart, we would find the second measurement would be one fourth the strength of the first. What is the underlying basis of the inverse square law? Present theoretical physics splits the electromagnetic inverse square law from the gravitational inverse law, then mentions it as coincidental. Probably, the reason for not looking for a common origin, is that: “Electric forces exceed gravitational forces by a factor of more than 10⁴²” [3]. This website's hypothesis is that within the atom itself we have a positive field with its potential, and a negative field with its potential.  Together they make up a balanced neutral atom. In attempting to measure negative attraction, physicists may be getting readings just on the negative electron spin.

The similarity between electromagnetic and gravitational waves is recognized by those attempting to discover gravitational waves.  A recent article by physicists working on gravity suggests resemblances between wave types.   “The generation of gravitational waves is similar in some ways to the generation of electromagnetic waves.  Gravitational waves differ from the more familiar static gravitational attraction in the same way that light and radio waves differ from static electricity and magnetism.  A moving charged object radiates electromagnetic waves with amplitude that is proportional to the electric charge and acceleration of the object.  The gravitational charge of an object is its mass, and so the amplitude of a gravitational wave should be proportional to the objects mass and acceleration.  But the law of conservation of momentum require that isolated systems have no net acceleration; for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction” [4].

Einstein's work determined that gravitational forces travel at the speed of light. As this work implies, the magnetic (negative field) is the source of gravitational attraction.  The Circular Model of the Atom has the necessary negative field mass and the field strength is transmitted by the negative vector portion of the electromagnetic wave. This mass to mass transfer of attractive forces is a necessary component of gravity.  The search for gravitational waves to transfer gravitational forces is unnecessary, because we are already accomplishing the force transfer by the negative magnetic vector portion of the present electromagnetic wave.

This website's hypothesis is that all matter, including the atom, is a duality. If we start with a two component atom, then square a duality, the result is four. What does four represent? It is two separate bodies, both with positive and negative components, acting on each other. Body A's positive field is interacting with body B's negative field, and vice versa.  This is why increasing the distance of the bodies from one million miles to two million miles results in only one fourth the gravitational strength.  The four components (positive and negative fields) of the two bodies are lessening their gravitational interaction, not just two bodies doubling their distance.

Gravity, and electromagnetism were the first two forces discovered in nature.  Both forces had an inverse square law basis for determining strengths, but the magnitude difference is the stumbling block. Over the centuries the laws governing electromagnetism were developed and finally formalized with Maxwell's electromagnetic equations. The union of gravity to the other forces of nature, has made very little progress since Newton's gravitational laws were formulated. At the present time gravity continues to be perhaps the most mysterious of the fundamental forces of physics.

One of the consequences of Newton's laws of motion is the relationship between work and energy.  If an external force acts upon an object like a football, the amount of work done by the force shows up as kinetic energy.  The kicker of the ball has transferred energy to the football with the ensuing loss of energy to him, thus conforming with conservation of energy laws.

If we take two balls joined by a spring and stretch them apart, we have potential energy that becomes kinetic energy when we let loose and the balls are pulled together by the spring.  In Newtonian gravitation, when we have two masses, A and B, at rest a certain distance apart, they will move towards each other with gravitational attraction.  As in the football example, they will acquire kinetic energy, but the kinetic energy arises at the expense of the potential energy.  Unlike the football, there is no limit to the amount of gravitational potential energy.  Why is it?  It is because gravitational potential energy is negative.  As mass A and B approach each other closer and closer, they acquire more and more kinetic energy, but the gravitational negative energy becomes even more negative.

All of the forces except gravity have positive energy sources that eventually become depleted, but gravity's reservoir seems to get stronger as masses get closer and closer together.  This is because body A's positive field mass is acting upon body B's negative mass, and will continue to do so, right to the subparticle level.  There are no point particles. Existence is a duality of opposites.

Why does the accumulation of matter result in increased gravitational attraction?  Understanding this question is the very basis of a unified theory of gravity with fermion buildup of electrons and nucleons in an atom.  This hand-in-hand increase in mass and gravity is a result of precise geometrical particle placement building up in a negative and positive field background. This is in contradiction to the approximations and statistical probability approach that quantum theory provides.

By moving toward a certitude approach, rather than a “uncertainty approach” to physical reality, even if initially we do not have all the answers, gives us the incentive to find out ‘why the patient died.’  This contrasts with the statistical smoothing over that occurs in both physics and the actuarial approach to reality.

The question in regards to gravity and certitude is ‘how does the patient live’?  What gives it increased strength? Can we have materiality without gravity?  No we can't.  Yes, we know the basic constants and inverse square law, but how does that fit into the structure of the atom?

Gravity is the result of three different interrelated factors.  First is the negative field of the Circular Model. There is in matter, fields originating from light's electromagnetic wave. Each have positive vector components and negative vector components. In light, we have the electric component vector and the magnetic segment vector which in matter is analogous to the negative matter field or gravity.

Second, the negative one half spin of the electrons in the negative field portion of the atom contribute to the gravitational field.  This is the source of the weak readings of gravitational attraction in neutral atoms.

Third, at the proton level, we get two up quarks and one down quark.  If we look at this as one charge positive, one negative, and the third as positive angular momentum, then positive protons have a portion of negative matter within their structure which is attractive.  Electrons are looked upon as point particles, but experiments in determining electron weight were based on movement between positive and negative charged plates.  We know that electrons have a magnetic moment, angular momentum, and charge opposite protons. If either positive or negative plates can impact the electron, then it is reasonable to consider electrons having a positive portion with angular momentum opposite protons.  This is in contrast to the singular negative point concept currently held. The duality concept conforms to Newton's third law of equal and opposite reactions having a positive or negative effect on matter.

The effect of the moon and tides has been explained in Feynman's Lecture Series as: “the pull of the moon for the earth and for the water is ‘balanced’ at the center.  But the water which is closer to the moon is pulled more than the average and the water which is farther away from it is pulled less than the average.  Furthermore, the water can flow while the more rigid earth cannot.  The true picture is a combination of these two things” [5].

An alternative concept impacting lunar tides is based upon the Circular Model of the Atom. Using Newton's law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction as a starting basis, then combined with Einstein's field concept of gravity, we get a gravity field based upon the distance between the moon and earth.  Combined with the circular periodic table/model of the atom, we have a situation where the gravitational pull of the moon's mass is affecting the negative or gravitational field and at the same time there is an opposite pushing effect within the atom.  We get tidal effects on the opposite side of the earth due to the Circular Model of the Atom conforming to Newton's third law.

Feynman’s Lectures on Physics Vol. I has a section on pseudo forces applied to gravity:

One very important feature of pseudo forces is that they are always proportional to the masses: the same is true of gravity.  The possibility exists, therefore, that gravity itself is a pseudo force.  Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system?  Pseudo forces can be illustrated by an interesting experiment in which we push a jar of water along a table, with acceleration.  Gravity, of course, acts downward on the water, but because of the horizontal acceleration there is also a pseudo force acting horizontally and in a direction opposite the acceleration.  The resultant of gravity and pseudo force make an angle with the vertical, and during the acceleration the surface of the water will be perpendicular to the resultant force, i.e., inclined at an angle with the table, with the water standing higher in the rearward side of the jar.  When the push on the jar stops and the jar decelerates because of the friction, the pseudo force is reversed, and the water stands higher in the forward side of the jar [6].

The pseudo forces suggested by Feynman can be explained, if the Circular Model of the Atom is used.  Depending on the direction of acceleration used in moving the container of water, there is a force originating from the specific field, positive or negative, opposite to the direction of acceleration. This force is always proportional to the mass the same as gravity. Feynman's Lecture Series suggests like forces.  “Einstein put forward the famous hypothesis that accelerations give an imitation of gravitation, that the forces of acceleration (the pseudo forces) cannot be distinguished from those of gravity; it is not possible to tell how much of a given force is gravity and how much is pseudo force” [7].  If accelerations are caused by electrodynamic forces, and are indistinguishable from gravitational forces in the above example, are they not the same?  The Circular Model of the Atom has the attractive-repulsive components necessary for gravitational attraction as well as conformity with Coulomb's and Newton's laws.

Einstein's principle of equivalence linked acceleration and uniform gravitation together.  It does not matter whether a mechanical experiment is performed in a sky laboratory or upon the earth, the results are the same.  However, at the poles of the earth, or any antipodal points, it acts in an opposite direction. This is in agreement with forces acting on the dipole moments of the circular periodic table/model of the atom.

The principle of equivalence used in the context of mass and inertial forces being equivalent was discussed by J. B. Marion and W. F. Hornyak: 

Newton was aware of this problem, and he conducted experiments with pendula to determine whether m = m'. He concluded that there was no difference between the two types of mass to within 1 part in 1000.  In 1890 Eötvös devised an ingenious method to test the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.  Using two objects made from different materials, he compared the effect of the Earth's gravitational force with the inertial effect of the Earth's rotation.  Eötvös was able to conclude that m = m' to within about 5 parts in 10⁹.  In recent years, Robert Dicke of Princeton University and V. Braginskii at Moscow University have improved upon the Eötvös experiment and have established the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass to within 1 part in 10⁴²[8].

There is nothing in Newtonian theory or in our experience that would lead us to expect gravitational and inertial mass to be the same. This is a remarkable result for which no one has a completely satisfactory explanation.  However, the hypothesis of the exact equality of gravitational and inertial mass is an essential ingredient in the general theory of relativity.

The hypothesis of the Circular Model of the Atom is based on an opposites factor being necessary for existence.  Therefore, a negative or gravitational field is inherent within any mass.  Here then is the negative field that Sir Fred Hoyle and his students claim is necessary for the understanding of gravity.  The reason you can not construct an object without gravity is that each atom's geometry has a negative and positive field component basis that is necessary for both to exist.

[1] Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M., 1963. Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I. Reading (Massachusetts): Addison Wesley, p. 7-1.

[2] Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M., 1963. Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I. Reading (Massachusetts): Addison Wesley, pp. 7-9 - 7-10.

[3] Kaganov, M. I. & Tuskernik, V. M., 1982. The Nature of Magnetism. Moscow: Mir, p. 15.

[4] Jefferie, A. D., Saulson, P. R., Spero, R. E., & Zucker, M. E., 1987. Gravitational Wave Observatories. Scientific American, 256(6), p. 51.

[5] Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M., 1963. Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I. Reading (Massachusetts): Addison Wesley, pp. 7-4.

[6] Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M., 1963. Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I. Reading (Massachusetts): Addison Wesley, pp. 12-11.

[7] Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M., 1963. Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I. Reading (Massachusetts): Addison Wesley, pp. 12-12.

[8] Marion, J. B. & Hornyak, W. F., 1984. Principles of Physics. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, p. 80.

previous

next