Gravity and The Unified Theory

The Physical Means of How Gravity Works and at last, The Unified Theory

Home Page - December 25, 2005
The last obstacle to developing The Unified Theory has always been solving the mystery of how Gravity works. This site is the result of 33 years of observation and reflection of how things work and why they work the way they do. The gravitational explanation contained is correct and thus, allows for the rest to logically follow. (It is a "work in progress".)
Updates:
Subspace (Revised) 6/20/2009
Credit for overall development of this site must be shared with Walter Babin of Rodney, Ontario and
in the gravity area, David Tombe of Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Gravity Quick Version

Author: Eric Sabo East Haddam, CT
Dec 25, 2005

Updated Oct. 17, 2008

I estimate that 99.99% of the people on this planet of 6.6 Billion are totally unaware that the mechanism of how gravity works remains to be explained. To most, you drop a pan on your foot, and it hurts. It’s a sad statement.

Today, everyone is a specialist, concerned with their own particular area of interest. Being a jack of all somewhat fairly technical trades and master of none, I have always been concerned with and observant of all things around me. Gravity has always been a mystery and it seems ridiculous that in 2005, now 2008, that nobody has a clue. This being unacceptable, I took on the challenge and here it is;

Observe how thin the atmosphere is compared to the Earth's diameter. Gravity is not a very strong force after all.
Photo Courtesy of NASA's Visible Earth

Gravity is the weak electrostatic attraction between atoms.

Gravity is a simple Electro Mechanical System.
The attractive forces are greater than the repulsive
between atoms because the attractive work together.
It's like two against one.

To experience the effect, get two magnets and push
the two N together. Notice how they deflect.

Now try N to S and you will see they are always
locked in because they work together.

Electrostatics behave in the same manner.
The attractive are always greater than the repulsive.

Most will disagree with my assumption that attraction
is greater than repulsion. I received this argument;

“Orbits are an equilibrium of forces. One aspect of inequality is mass differences,
but the forces are equal and opposite in Newton's mechanics”.

That is correct inside any particular atom, but when outside the atom and other atoms are involved,
things change. Because the electromagnetic (electrostatic) range is infinite,
there is a very slight attraction between atoms.
I think that nothing can be discovered when trying to look at the atom from a Quantum Mechanical perspective.

One must be mindful that Q-M remains to be the underlying operating system.

For simplicity sake we will have to start with some Hydrogen atoms.

Observe this example of a two, three, and four Hydrogen Atom gravitational system;

Now, multiply this concept to equal the number of atoms in the Earth and everything on it, and there you have it! Gravity. Every atom in a system is interconnected. All atoms have different gravitational properties depending on their atomic number. It becomes a random additive field.

Because the attraction decreases by the square as the distance doubles (from the collective source), the atoms closest to you under your feet are having more effect than those on the other side of the planet. If you are driving your car from say, New Haven, CT, to Ocean City, MD, a whole group of different atoms are taking over as you travel along.

And, as you travel away from the Earth, it all appears as a point source.

I have been selling this idea for over two years with little success. One trusted and valued colleague offered it as a “residual”. I like that viewpoint. When I asked him “Why does no one see this mechanism as a viable explanation?” He offered;

“Whether it’s a vested interest or Pavlovian response, they cling to their beliefs like religious zealots.”

Those are powerful words that reflect a truthful perspective. I, myself think two things;

1. Nobody actually cares to give it a thought, and if you do, you’re considered “crazy”. Most are concerned with getting through daily hassles and would say “Some rocket scientist will come up with the answer.”
But, in my experience, most rocket scientists might be good at rocket science but are specialists. When all that is really required is a bit of common sense with an objective perspective.

2. The current thinking in this area is built on 17^th century thinking. This different perspective has been simply overlooked based on what has been en-grained in current curriculum. Thinking in this area has always been left to those who can afford to do so. This is common in all areas of human endeavor.

Apparently, it has been difficult throughout history for new ideas to gain acceptance.
The following quotes seem to apply;

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them
see the light,but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it": Max Planck –

"First they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it; then they tell you you're right but it
isn't important; then they tell you it's important but they knew it all along": Charles Kettering –

So now all the below arises;
1. There is zero gravity at the center of the Earth.
2. Gravity varies by atomic number as demonstrated by the USGS gravitational surveys in Nevada and Afghanistan.
3. A gravimeter lowered down the deepest oil well will show a decrease in gravity.

The Gravitational Aether progresses in a spiraling manner creating the observed atmospheric events.

The moon creates the tides;

To me, all things are basically simple. Gravity is simple. It's incoherent magnetism.
In that each atom is a tiny weak magnet. (some better than others)
They are not all pointed in the same direction and can't be aligned to do so as in an Iron magnet.
You are walking around on this planet. You have to admit, it feels like a big magnet.
Bringing in a bit of Henri Poincare (April 29, 1854-July 17, 1912),
and a bit of Walter Babin (www.wbabin.net), Gravity becomes;
The Dynamical Chaotic Residual of the Incoherent Magnetism of
all the individual atom contained in a body or system.
A picture is worth a thousand words and maybe 100,000 math formulas.
Because gravity is a Dynamical Chaotic Residual, it cannot be discovered through mathematics.
Gravity must be visualized as a mechanical system that can be then generally described by mathematics.
The more atoms you have, the more gravity you have!!
See “The Unified Theory” on my site for more.

Thank you for your time

Albert Einstein and Gravity - a Commentary

Author; Eric Sabo, East Haddam, Ct.

Jan. 22, 2009

Einstein tells us that gravity is the result of a massive body distorting the space-time continuum. Yet, he fails to explain exactly why the massive body distorts the continuum. Enter my gravitational explanation. I refer to it as an explanation rather than a theory because my explanation is what gravity is and it can be nothing else. Anyone with the least bit of common sense can easily see that.

It becomes apparent that Einstein’s work is an expansion of Newton. It is a more complex mathematical expression that does not actually give the cause of gravity. It’s a different mathematical perspective on how gravity manifests itself as a curvature of space-time. To determine the cause, gravity must be first visualized for what it is, an electro-mechanical system. Then, mathematics can be applied to describe it. In the case of Gravity, Newton, and Einstein, it’s obvious that the proverbial “cart had been placed before the horse”.

This is not a problem in that all the mathematical work is completed. The cause becomes unimportant. But, maybe it is. Einstein’s expansion of Newton, gives us many important clues to the physical makeup of what exists around us. For example; Einstein tells us that as a body is accelerated towards the speed of light, it gains mass. The question becomes, does it really gain mass or just appear to? If the body does gain mass, where does it acquire that mass from? Enter my Subspace or CMBR speculations. It could even be a combination of the two.

Regarding the equation E=MC². The formula is developed in Einstein’s June 30, 1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. In reviewing the document, the actual formula appears as;

It seems to me that he was not directly stating that W (E) was what you get when converting matter to energy. But rather, how mass-energy increases with respect to the speed of light (c). If the mass is at rest, the second half of the equation becomes moot giving W(E) = mc². He clearly was not thinking of nuclear fission and seems he more unwittingly came upon the conversion that persisted more as rumor and speculation until the gadjet at Trinity. Personally, when I first looked at the formula , what immediately popped into mind was; If you accelerate a fission bomb to near light speed, the yeild would increase exponentially! If that is the case, you might want to get it up to speed in less than ten generations to avoid spontaneous supercriticality due to increase in mass of the device. We’ll have to wait some time to try that experiment.

Speaking of experiments, I have a simple relativity experiment that you can try for yourself.

The next time you are alone in an elevator, when going up or down, walk around in a circle. When the elevator stops, be prepared to grab onto something. From your perspective, you walked around in a circle. But you’re inner ear cannot be decieved. You actually walked around in a helical path and the effects of the conflict are quite pronounced. I’m not sure this experiment has any relevance.

(Persons with inner ear infection, balance problems, or dizziness should not attempt this. Also, you might not want to tell anyone you tried this if you did.)

Thank you for your time.

Eric Sabo