Mel Winfield Biography| The Hutchison Effect| Gravitation| Media Events| Order Book| View Mel Winfield's Levitation Video Clips Press the F5 Key to Refresh Content and View the Latest Additions One concept in modern physics, superstrings, is making a comeback. It is thought that it may unite quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. There are pros and cons in this regard. The idea that basic energy units are minute ringlets of energy and straight line units is getting closer to the concept herein that etherons are basic particles moving in a spiral path with circular and linear components [mass and size are calculated on page 6]. Etherons are described herein as forming the first double vortex capable of emitting pressure waves that can join to other vortexes [particles]. This first particle is called, herein, a kaytron [a 3K particle recently measured to be 2.7 degrees K] It has been shown, herein, to be the dark matter or the "missing mass" of the Universe. It has also been shown herein that energy is nothing more than motion. Motion is nothing in itself. It is only a characteristic of a particle. When one particle strikes another, motion is passed on from one to the other. That which is passed on by one is subtracted from it and added to the other. Thus motion in the Universe is constant as a whole. Thus the concept of energy being indestructible holds true and the concept herein that there is a basic particle in motion [containing energy] is the most logical. The idea that these basic particles become organized by forming vortexes, one within the other, right up to the Universe itself and that these vortexes connect to one another by means of spiraling pressure waves emanating from an inner vortex precessing around within an outer one to create standing waves that cause a pattern of vortexes to become more complex particles answers a lot of questions. This includes how vortex flow can provide the force necessary [known as the strong force] to maintain the position of the protons within a nucleus and provide an explanation for inertia [p. 45]. It is stated in Introduction to Physics by Bueche [p815] that nuclear binding energy [the strong force] equals the difference between that of free and of bound nucleons. In a vortex, the linear velocity of the vortex flow, or of the particles within the flow, is c, the speed of light, because that was the speed when they were part of the medium. The total energy [kinetic plus potential] was found to be [p123] equal to m X c squared or m X v squared. This energy, behind the force of the vortex flow, directed inward by the curvature, holds the etherons or nucleons in place. This is the strong force. It is less than the total energy of the free nucleons because part of the energy is used to maintain the curvature of the nucleon orbital path from the normal straight line motion. i.e. it has gone into the spin which creates the curvature of its path when spin energy becomes greater than linear energy. Superstrings are also said to contain a multitude of frequencies. This is another similarity to etherons and groups of etherons, that travel in a spiral path which creates wavelengths between wave crests and thus frequencies. Frequency is also applied to the constituents of a vortex that orbit a number times per second and emit spiral pressure waves of this frequency due to the oscillation of its core. Superstrings are said to require eleven dimensions, ten of them space dimensions. However, the dimensions are not plausible as being rolled up minutely unless curled up strings of energy are thought of as being emitted from a particle in the form of a vortex [i.e. pressure waves spiraling outwards]. Then, just as our Universe is composed of vortexes, one within the other, with the waves of energy making up our electromagnetic spectrum, other Universes, or dimensions, may be vortexes that are above or below our spectrum and that are either too big or too small to detect or measure. Dimensions are described herein [p188-189] as extensions of the electromagnetic spectrum of frequencies. We and our instruments can only measure a certain distance down and about the same up before the waves become either too large or too small to measure. This is our octave of frequencies. The next octave up would be of a higher energy and shorter wavelengths. Any being at the center of this octave would see a different Universe. Everything would be too minute for us to see or measure but to beings in this octave everything would be as large, compared to them, as this one is to us. The high energy in the next octave would compact the etherons into very dense, relative to us, particles that would be very minute. The down side to the idea of the string theory uniting the theory of relativity to quantum mechanics is at least twofold. First it is assumed that everything in relativity is correct. It has been shown herein, i.e. the boxcar mind experiment, that this is not the case. Secondly, the string theory is said to cancel the infinities [1/0] of previous attempts at unification of quantum mechanics and relativity. It has been shown herein that 1/0 does not produce infinity but only nonsense such as the example given that 2 = 1. The expression or equation that contains 1/0 just does not apply to the problem at hand. The one used to show that light speed is a limit to velocity, for intance, is not applicable and the one given herein should be used. E = m X c squared, a variation of that used, and is thus shown to be in error except for at light velocity or for a particle at rest [vortex velocity at light speed]. Explanations for many experiments, for gravity, for the 20 year cycle for light velocity measured on Earth, etc. substantiate the premises herein. The replacement of Newton's gravitational formula and the extension of Kepler's formula greatly improves the accuracy of planetary distances and solar system mass relationships and thus is an added bonus. The explanation and proof of how the solar system was formed from an interaction of waves was another bonus. The atom is shown to be a vortex [p. 120] that abides by the same laws present in the mechanics of the solar system or vice versa. Another verification that the microcosm and the macrocosm are both made up of vortex systems is the fact that in the same system, in either, the square of the orbital radius of one satellite divided into the square of the radius of another is equal to the ratio of one gravitational force to the other, i.e. [r2/r1]2 = F1/F2. Also, in the same system, in either, the orbital radius times the velocity is a constant for any single satellite regardless of its orbital radius [p. 120] which is one of the characteristics of a free vortex. This, in essence, unifies quantum mechanics and the laws of the Cosmos as outlined herein. The common denominators are the vortex and gravitation. This is the grand unification that has been strived for without success until now. Gravitational force is said to be ten to the minus fortieth times the strong force. Since a particle, like the neutron, is a vortex, the angular flow should have the force called the strong force. V squared r for each planet is found to be identical. It is called, herein, circle G of the sun. For the Earth, the moon and all satellites have identical v squared r's thus providing a circle G of the Earth which is 3.989644343 X 10 to the twentieth cm. cubed/s squared [p 128]. It has been found by this author that the ratio of the mass of any planet to its v squared r [of any satellite around it] is identical and thus M/v squared r of any planet equals that of any other planet. This is logical since M is responsible for v squared r. This is analogous to vr being equal at any radius in a vortex and it is said that the angular momentum [mvr] remains constant in any isolated system. These formulae might also be important at the microscopic level. One more proof that the laws of the macrocosm apply to the microcosm is that the hydrogen molecule, or atom, [an electron orbiting a proton] can provide a close approximation for the mass of the Earth. On p750 of the Introduction to Physics for Scientists and Engineers by F.J. Bueche [1980], it states that the velocity of an electron in various orbits within Bohr's model for the Hydrogen atom equals V = [2.2 X 10 to the sixth m/s] / n. An atom of Hydrogen with a single electron is usually in ground state so n = 1 [p753]. Therefore V = 2.2 X 10 to the sixth m / s = 2.2 X 10 to the eighth cm./s. r of the first orbit = .53 Angstroms = .53 X 10 to the minus eighth cm. [p750]. The mass of the proton = 1.672652307 X 10 to the minus twenty fourth gms. V squared r = 2.5652 X 10 to the eighth cm cubed / s squared. Multiplied by 4.35 times 10 to the minus fortieth [the ratio between the strong force and gravitational force within the hydrogen atom] the V squared r [circle G] due to gravitation = 1.115862 X 10 to the minus thirty-first cm cubed / s squared = circle G [proton]. The ratio of the circle G's equals the ratios of the masses therefore Circle G [Earth] X M [proton] / Circle G [proton] = M[Earth]. 6.673 X 10 to the minus fourth cm cubed / s squared / 1.115862 X 10 to the minus thirty-first cm cubed / s squared = 5.98 X 10 to the twenty-seventh gms. for the mass of the Earth. Earth mass is calculated [using the present value for G] to be 5.979145075 X 10 to the twenty-seventh gms. The above result is close enough to say that all of the laws of the Universe are unified. If the ratio between the strong force and the force of gravity within the hydrogen atom could be obtained more exactly, the mass of the Earth would then be more exact and then the gravitational constant could be calculated more exactly since circle G [Earth] divided by Earth mass = G. Pages 31 to 34 [Gravitation] are extended as follows: With respect to Paul Boynton's experiment consisting of two equal weights of aluminum and beryllium in a disc that was hung on a wire beside a mountain [p32], it may be thought that the nucleonic force [herein calculated as proton force] equates with gravitational force because the nucleons are responsible for the gravitational effect]. It does not. It was shown by this author's dropping tests [p33] that aluminum drops faster than lead because there is more nucleonic force downwards on the aluminum atom despite lead having a greater weight. Weight, a measure of gravitational force is not a measure of nucleonic force. Nucleonic force is due to the nucleonic angular momentum as the nucleon orbits within the atom. If there are more neutrons in excess of protons there is more mass and with respect to the total mass, the less angular momentum since the angular momentum of the neutron is only a percentage of that of the proton. It is the nucleonic angular momentum or velocity that determines the acceleration of the atom downwards due to the Magnus effect. The total effect is on the entire mass. Thus, two masses of equal weight but different composition can have different nucleonic forces which alter their accelerations. Boynton's experiment which used the side of a mountain to gravitationally attract the disc horizontally [which would not be affected by the Earth's attraction because that is acting vertically and is counteracted by the supporting wire] would have greater acceleration from the aluminum than the beryllium side and thus a torque would be created to turn the aluminum towards the mountain. If the force of neutrons is multiplied by .8424633 [p33], it equates with the force of protons and thus the force of both nucleons can be expressed as proton force. It was shown on p33 that since the neutron has 68.4922602% of the angular momentum of the proton, one half of the remaining 31.5073398% negates the other half due to the third vortex around a proton. Even though the effect on emanating waves is negated, it is still there and has to be taken into account when calculating the spin velocity of the average nucleon from which the orbital velocity is calculated. It is the orbital velocity that controls gravity, the ratio of which matches the ratio of dropping times. The proton force can be thought of as the total spin angular momentum of the proton[even though part of it cannot be measured] which becomes a force through the Magnus equation when it meets resistance. Continuous force becomes gravitational acceleration When an element's nucleonic force is calculated in terms of proton force per unit mass, it can be expressed by this author's equation: F = [qN + P]/m where q is the calculated factor equal to .8424633, N the number of neutrons, P the number of protons and m is the mass in terms of amu or atomic mass units [atomic weight]. If it is to be compared to the ratio of drop times, F must be inversed, as in table 1 [p32 & 33], because a greater force results in less dropping time. The Orbital Curve of Matter in Motion- A New Cosmic Principle, Found by this Author, to Explain Planetary Spin With reference to p183 and Sun's rotation p159 Since the Sun's gravitational field, its etheron field and its particle field is accompanied by waves of energy radiating outward through these fields, as well as revolving around with the spinning Sun and because they penetrate to every atom of every planet they cause the planets to orbit the Sun. The Sun revolves faster than the planets in orbit and thus its fields sweep and carry the planets in the direction of its spin. At this point, an important principle is evoked. The balance between gravitational and centrifugal force maintains a curved orbital path, for the planet, around the Sun. Now, when a planet is forced to travel this curved path a point on the outer side [away from the Sun] is forced to move faster than a point on the inner side because it has a longer orbit to travel in the same time. In the absence of any greater forces in opposition, this causes the planet to spin because the force attempts to make this point revolve around the one on the inside. Of course, the next point in line is subjected to the same force once the spin commences. The amount of force depends upon the diameter of the planet [i.e. the distance between the orbits of the inside and outside surfaces] and thus the difference of their orbital lengths. The smaller the planet, the longer the spin period because there is less force. This is true of the planets in the solar system, from Earth outward, thereby providing evidence for this concept. The gravitational field of the Sun does not consist of gravitational waves of specific parameters but just simply waves of any description, primarily the finer waves, that emanate from the Sun that create the Magnus effect in the nucleonic structure of the bodies being affected. Because of the inverse square law, there is a greater concentration of waves near the prime source and thus a greater gravitational effect. In nearby bodies such as Mercury and Venus [to a great extent] near the Sun and in the Moon next to the Earth, gravitational force is greater than the spin force and thus the spin is counteracted as gravitational force tries to direct the satellites towards the center of the prime source, against the momentum, like a ball on a tether. From the Earth outward, the spin is less and less affected by the Sun's gravity but the spin force also decreases due to a spreading of the waves. This latter is offset by the outer planets being larger and the arc of their orbit being flatter. The orbital length of the outer point, on any planet, divided by the orbital length of the inner point is the exact same ratio as the orbital velocity of the outer point divided by the orbital velocity of the inner point. The outer orbit is longer so the outer point moves faster, in orbit, than the inner point. Relative to the planet, the inner and outer points travel at the same velocity but in different solar directions as the planet spins. Part of the inner velocity forwards, along the orbital path, would be canceled by its backward motion. Let us examine this principle using Earth as an example. The following data is used for Earth from Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, fifth edition, and from calculations herein with new formula by this author. Equatorial circumference = 4007516119 cm. Equatorial radius = 637816000 cm.: Equatorial velocity = 46518.96873 cm./s.: Orbital radius = 1.49597870 X 10 to the thirteenth cm.: Orbital period = 31471949 seconds: Rotational period = 23.93 hours [mean sidereal day]. Since the orbital radius is to the Earth's center, the orbital radius to the inner point is this minus one half of the diameter and to the outer point it is this plus one half of the diameter. The orbital radius to the inner point = 1.495914918 X10 to the thirteenth cm. and its circumference is 9.399110633 X 10 to the thirteenth cm. To the outer point it is 1.496042481 X 10 to the thirteenth and its circumference is 9.399912135 X 10 to the thirteenth. The orbital circumference divided by its orbital period equals its orbital velocity. The outer velocity = 2986758.823 cm./s. The inner velocity = 2986504.14 cm./s. The inner velocity [relative to the Earth]is 2986504.14 cm./s minus 46518.96873 cm./s [Earth's present average velocity of rotation backward along the orbit] which is 2939985.171 cm./s. The difference beween the two is 46773.652 cm./s which is the surplus of the outer, that is greater than the inner, after the two are equalized by Earth. This surplus goes into the rotation of the planet. By dividing the Earth's circumference by this surplus we obtain the Earth's rotational period, the result of which is 85678.9228 seconds. This equals 23.8 hours. Since we are now seeing this from the orbital point of view, we compare this to the mean sidereal day, or one revolution, of 23.93 hours. This difference of only 7.8 minutes is small. However, there is another force involved. These calculations were applied to an isolated Earth, in the absence of other forces, which means before the moon was captured by the Earth, passing close to it, while they both were in orbit in the same direction around the sun [p.159 within the section titled "The Origin of the Solar system" p.147] For a period after capture, it would only affect the Earth periodically as it came close in its orbit and then went way out. It would not much affect the slowing of Earth's rotation until it settled into a more circular orbit. Astronomers calculate that the gravitational effect of the moon is increasing the Earth's rotational period by 1.5 milliseconds per century. The 7.8 minutes, above, can be accounted for by the moon if it finally reached this more circular orbit by about 30 million years ago. This is one half of the time since the extinction of the dinosaurs which would have occurred during the first close encounters. The more circular orbit at 30 million years ago seems reasonable. On p156 it is mentioned that Dr.Ovenden, head of the Astronomy Dept. at U.B.C. Vancouver, Canada, with the help of a computer, had determined that the area now occupied by the asteroid belt had contained matter 90 times the mass of the Earth that suddenly disappeared 16 million years ago. This was undoubtably captured by Jupiter as described. The oldest rocks on Earth are three billion years old. If the planets took this long to form in the standing wave nodes before clearing the area between them so that they could move to balance gravity and centrifugal force and thus capture moons etc., then it is not improbable that the Earth captured our moon 60 to 70 million years ago as described, along with the evidence thereof, and which would have occurred a little earlier in time. This close correlation establishes this new Cosmic principle. Contrary to Einstein's theory, it is not space that is curved but only the paths, within space, of particles or bodies that are forced to follow them by the combination of gravitational and centrifugal forces. In summation,when viewed from above, a planet will curve to the left when orbiting in the direction of the sun's rotation. This causes a spin of the planet of a like rotation as outlined and proven by using orbital data to calculate the spin of the Earth. However, if a planet or particle is caused to spin, such as by collision, a reverse orbit would occur with the arc curving to the right in the absence of other forces. If there is still a gravitational force emanating from a focal point, the object would either orbit in the reverse direction [as some planetary satellites] or else counteract some of the gravitational force thus changing the orbital radius or else tilting the planet's spin axis [as that of Uranus]. In the case of particles in a cloud chamber, their spiral, or corkscrew, path is explained by this principle. Spin Curvature - A new name, herein, for the new Cosmic Principle The laws of the macrocosm can again be demonstrated to apply to the microcosm. In the process Spin Curvature can again be established. For example, let us examine a group of etherons, the medium of the Universe, which form the lowest energy electromagnetic particle by making up the first vortex particle capable of emitting field waves. This particle is known to be part of what is called background radiation with a measured energy of 2.73K. It was called the 3K or 2.73K particle. It is called herein the kaytron. From this energy it was calculated [p.10] that its wavelength is .177 cm., at the bottom of the infrared spectrum, and its energy in terms of ergs equals 1.122303723 X 10 to the minus fifteenth ergs. h [Planck's constant] used in these calculations = 6.626176 X 10 to the minus twenty seventh erg seconds. Velocity, from E = hv/wavelength equals 2.997925 X 10 to the tenth cm./s. which is light speed as measured on Earth. Its mass can also be calculated. On page 6, the mass of the etheron was derived to be 7.372615 X 10 to the -48th gms. Since energies are proportionate to masses, if kaytron energy is divided by 6.626176 X 10 to the -27th ergs, which is the energy of an etheron close to absolute zero, and made equal to the kaytron mass divided by the etheron mass, it is found that the mass of the kaytron is 1.2487313 X 10 to the -36 gms. This can also be verified by E = MCsquared, the conversion equation for matter at rest or at light speed. Its radius can also be calculated. 1.2487313 X 10 to the -36 gms.[kaytron] / 7.372615 X 10 to the -48 gms. [etheron] = .1693743 X 10 to the 12th = the number of etherons in a kaytron. Etheron radius [p7] = 9.983 X 10 to the -23rd cm. The volume of the etheron = [9.983 X 10 to the -23]cubed X 4/3pi =4167.463671 X 10 to the -69th cubed. The volume of the kaytron = 4167.463671 X 10 to the -69th X .1693743 X 10 to the 12th = 7.058612421 X 10 to the -55 cm.cubed. When divided by 4/3pi rcubed = 1.68.5119587 X10 to the -57th. r for the kaytron = 5.52344765 X 10 to the -19 cm. which is over 1100 times smaller than that of the electron. Since the kaytron has a wavelength of .177 cm. and travels in a spiral or coiled path, as do all particles, with this wavelength being the measure between adjacent points on the coil,after once around the coil, the wave has an amplitude. The wave energy is known to be proportionate to the amplitude squared. A table was found on the internet which gives five examples of energy and the corresponding squares of the amplitudes found by them as follows shown by the numerical values.: Energy - - - - - - - - - - Amplitude Squared 2099.66 - - - - - - - - - - - 100 8441.44 - - - - - - - - - - - 400 19058 - - - - - - - - - - - - 900 33727.2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1600 76101.9 - - - - - - - - - - - 3600 If the energy is divided by the amplitude squared, the five examples have an average ratio of 21.1. If the energy [ergs] of a kaytron is divided by 21.1, this = the amplitude squared which = 5.31897 X 10 to the -17th. The wave amplitude is thus 7.2931269 X 10 to the-9th cm. The direct circumference of this amplitude = 2piA = 4.5824068458 X 10 to the -8th cm. When the wavelength , .177 cm., is added to this, the total length of travel over the spiral wavelength = .1770000458 cm.. Propagation through space near Earth is 2.997925 X 10 to the 10th cm./s. If this is divided into .177 cm. the period is obtained which = 5.09040836579 X 10 to the -12th. The spiral wavelength velocity = C/P = 3.47712861289333 X 10 to the 10th cm./s. The spin curvature principle can now be applied. The radius of the innermost point = 7.2931269 X 10 to the -9th [A] - 5.5234479 X10 to the -19th cm. = 7.2931268994 X 10 to the -9th cm. Its circumference = 4.5284067778 X 10 to the -8th cm. + .1770000458 cm. When divided by P, V = 34771295130.9749 cm./s. After subtracting the retrograde spin velocity of 2.997925 X 10 to the 10th cm/s, its velocity along its orbit is 4.7920361289333 X 10 to the -9th cm./s. The radius of the outermost point = 7.2931269 cm. + 5.5234479 X 10 to the -19th = 7.2931269006 X 10 to the -9th cm. The circumference = 4.5824067785 X 10 to the -8th cm. After adding .1770000458 it equals .1770000916 cm. After dividing by P, it equals V which = 34771295130.9749 cm./s. The outer V - the inner V =2.99792590020416 X 10 to the 10th cm./s which is the surplus velocity that goes into spin. Though the inner and outer radii and circumferences are different, the calculator couldn't handle any difference in velocities but the calculations show that the surplus outer velocity was essentially that of light speed for the spin of the kaytron, equal to that of propagation speed or showing that kinetic and potential energies are equal as outlined herein. We are not attempting to determine the rotation rate from the surplus velocity of the outer point since we need to know this before determining the surplus. We are verifying the rotation rate with the orbital data to show that orbital curvature is responsible for the rotation rate or possibly, in some cases, it is vice versa. The Gravity Probe B Experiment William M. Fairbank, with Schiff, Cannon and Everitt started the investigation that we now call the Stanford Relativity Gyroscope experiment and helped bring it to the point that put it into orbit as NASA's Gravity Probe B. Its purpose is to test the Theory of Relativity by detection of the drift of the spin axes of four gyroscopes if it interacts with a curved space-time continuum. If there should be success, even in a small way, scientists should be cautious about attributing it to proof of Einstein's concept of curved space when there are alternative and more plausible explanations such as that described herewith. An addition to page 186, just before the heading "The Ultimate Universe" is as follows: According to the Canwest News Service, Dr. David Crampton, an astronomer at the Federal Government's Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Victoria, B.C., Canada, said that Canadian Astronomers peered billions of years back in time to when they thought the Universe was only three to six billion years old and were amazed to find hundreds of billions of stars already clustered into huge galaxies in what was supposed to be an infant Universe. This is one more proof that the Big Bang never happened and that the Universe has always existed and is in a dynamic steady state as expressed herein. Addition to p131 after the first paragraph is as follows: If we now use the textbook data for the speed of the sun through space of 220 km./s [Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun 2001, p34]and the diameter of the galaxy of 25000 parsecs and a mass of about 10 to the eleventh times that of our sun [Cambridge p33 and Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia 1995] we can calculate the orbital radius of our sun around the galactic center. On page 131, the mass of the sun is given which was calculated from that of the Earth, since the ratio of the Vsq.r's equals the ratio of the masses. [Vsq.r was found herein to be the same for every planet [p130] which gives the value for the sun and all Earth satellites give it for the Earth.] Likewise, The galactic Vsq.r can be determined from the galactic mass divided by the sun's mass [which is 10 to the eleventh] which is the same ratio as the galactic Vsq.r divided by the sun's Vsq.r. Once we know the galactic Vsq.r cm.cubed s sq. we obtain the sun's orbital radius by dividing 220 km/s [in cm./s] squared. The result is 2.757041322 X 10 to the seventeenth km. Divided by 3.0857 X 10 to the thirteenth it equals 8935 parsecs. According to the above mentioned Cambridge Encyclopedia, p33, the sun's orbital radius around the galactic center is 8500 parsecs. 8935 parsecs should be more accurate providing the galactic mass is reasonable. Of course, if the sun's velocity or the distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy [by which our galaxy's mass was determined] altered, due to a different measurement of the speed of light or a different medium density, in some areas, which might throw off the parallax method similar to a star's position seen near the edge of the sun, all of the dimensions could greatly change. Kaytrons [the term used herein for the 2.75 particle mistakenly referred to as the background radiation from the Big Bang have been shown to be the 90% of our galaxy that is termed "missing". From the energy and density of his mass it was shown [p13] that the average speed of light in our galaxy was six times that which was measure here on Earth. An explanation was given. The relativistic factor [p83] was shown to be only a ratio between two observations, one of which was in error because the observer was travelling with part of the motion and thus was unaware of it. It thus does not apply to any limitation of the speed of light. The medium in the galaxy could contain currents and density changes in an area because more matter in the area would drive the kaytrons and etherons away. Thus there would be less density near the galactic center than there would be near the its extremity. In a disk like the galaxy the radius of a point where all of the mass could be assumed to be located is Rsq.= 1/2rsq. R = .707r = .707 X 12500 = 8837.5 parsecs. This is quite close to that calculated for the orbital radius of our sun. This figure would also be the location of the average density of the medium within the galaxy and thus the average light velocity. If this actually is six times that measured on Earth this would change our measurement of the sun's velocity and thus a great change in the mass of the galaxy and in the sun's orbital radius. Effects of Motion,The New Cosmic Principle Another way of looking at the red shift is that when receiving radiation from the Universe we are receiving energy which are waves of motion. A receding star emanating waves of motion towards us has the motion from us subtracted from this and thus we receive less energy than we would if there was no recession. The amounts of energy received are seen by us as colors. Red is of a lower frequency or lower energy than other colors. However, recession is not the only cause of lower energy. As radiation travels through the Universe it encounters other waves of motion. The farther it travels the more it is retarded by them and the less energy we receive. Thus the color does represent distance away from us but this distance is not necessarily the same all the time nor the same in other directions, but is subject to the amount of other waves encountered that is in opposition to it. Now we look at the basic emission of energy waves. If we examine a cubic meter of space, we see a certain amount of energy passing through per second. At different elevations on a planet or in different areas of space, the amount of energy will be different. If we judge this volume by the fact that kaytrons [3K particles] have been found to be constant in all parts of the Universe and assume that these areas would be of the same energy, if the velocity of the waves passing through was the same, then the difference in energy in different areas would be due to different velocities. The velocities would be greater from denser content such as a rock versus an area of air. The denser material would exert a greater velocity to the pressure waves generated from the atomic nuclei because, being crowded, they would be driven to the areas of lesser energy such as from inside the Earth outwards. The greater velocity would create a greater motion of other matter towards it due to the Magnus effect. Thus greater mass creates a greater gravitational effect. We saw, under the new cosmic principle heading, that a particle moving in a curved path will cause the particle to spin. Thus atoms carried around by the Earth's rotation will be caused to spin. Spinning atoms, in turn, cause the nucleons to spin. Their spin axis will be parallel to the Earth's spin axis thus lining up all the particles along "lines of force". As mentioned, waves of energy are emitted from the Earth's nucleons outward to the points of least resistance and they cause, by the Magnus effect, the particle to move inward as described. Gravity, then, is an effect caused by a combination of an applied cosmic principle and the Magnus effect. Levitation Levitation is rising, rather than falling, of objects, the opposite of gravitation. It has been shown that gravitation is due to the spin of nucleons. If they spin in the opposite direction, with respect to the Earth, levitation will occur. Electrons, when they reach a nucleon after going through the electron barrier in an atom, can, at the right frequency, reverse the spin axis of the nucleon. If over fifty per cent of the nucleons in the object are reversed, the object will levitate away from the Earth's surface. If it is less than fifty per cent, the object merely loses weight. The following movie demonstrates the loss of weight of an object on a balance scale. A plastic case containing brass screws rises when the switch is on and falls when it is shut off. It will repeat as many times as the switch is turned on and off and instantly reacts. The second picture shows a block of wood doing the same thing. These are placed close to the electron source while the opposite side of the scale is further away and any effect on it is minimized by the inverse square law. This, of course, goes down when the target goes up. Note that the two pointers are even when balanced and when the target gets lighter its pointer goes up while its opposite goes down. This reverses when the switch is shut off and they come to balance again.[They can be seen on each side of the center scale] This is all done without the solid state power supply, special coil and other equipment needed to lift heavier weights. The only power used was for a small two and one half inch diameter electric motor. The electron generator in this demonstration is not powerful enough to drive the electrons farther than just shallow penetration, but it is enough to show that levitation can be accomplished on demand which is necessary to be able to harness it. Once equipment is used to drive the electrons further so that they penetrate deeply enough into the atom, weight will have no limit since the force comes from the angular momentum of the nucleon, itself, [just as gravitation causes objects to drive themselves down] and so the more weight, the more nucleons there are and thus the more force to lift the extra weight, a minute fraction of which is enough to maintain the spin orientation of the nucleon. The third picture shows the same 2X2 wood block on a different scale. It goes up and towards the electron source. It stops about 1/2 inch or so after rising because it is as close to the source as it can get. In the first picture, it stopped because that was the limit of the scale. In case someone thinks that the electrons are driving the electrons in the wood to the opposite side leaving protons [positive] which try to move towards the source, it should be remembered that it is electrons that move towards protons [which are called holes], not vice versa. Electrons should repel the electrons in the atoms of the wood but these are attached to protons in the nucleus of the atom by standing waves and thus the whole block of wood should be repelled by the electrons from the source. Electrons do dislodge atoms from the surface of material. The only way that electrons from the source can cause material to move towards the source is through the Magnus effect, described under gravitation, which must overcome the repulsion effect by electrons. When sufficient force is applied to reach over 50% of the nucleons in an atom and thus over 50% of the atoms in the material, that is when the atoms in the material can continue to levitate the whole material at once towards the electron source. If the source stays ahead of the motion by being attached, the motion is continuous. It is not the source attracting the target. It is the nucleon in the target that is pushing itself in the direction of the source due to the Magnus effect of the independent electrons from the source. A baseball pitcher is not applying force to curve a baseball. The ball is curving its own path by spinning and forcing the air molecules to go to one side like that of an airplane wing lifting because the stream of air, forced over the wing, causes a lower pressure than that underneath [Bernoulli equation]. Attraction of one particle to another is not a drawing of it towards it. If the other is not spinning, firing smaller particles at it [as is the common theory] would not draw it. It would repel it. If spinning, the Magnus effect takes place as described herein. These references to the attraction due to the Magnus effect do not apply to those particles that attract due to the standing waves set up between them because they have the same wavelength and frequency or the harmonics thereof. In Scientific American, May 2007, It is stated that a German-Dutch team has provided direct proof that powerful electric fields can supply energy to the electrons in an atom to weaken the bonds between protons and the surrounding electrons enabling the electrons to escape from the field of the protons in the atom. This would explain how electrons fired at atoms in our levitation experiments [see Gravitation] can break through the electron barrier to reach the nucleons. The beam of electrons would first allow electrons in the barrier to escape and thus leave a gap for further electrons to get through to reach the nucleons. At this point the Magnus effect takes place at the nucleons as described. The team produced the powerful field with a laser pulse but we have accomplished this by an alternative method. Effects of Motion, The New Cosmic Principle and Spin Curvature P189 To be placed at the end of summary, P88 The density of etherons determines energy. Particles, or etherons, at the speed of cosmic rays are not spinning. All energy of cosmic rays is kinetic. Particles at rest mass are spinning at maximum. i.e. All energy is in the spin. Mass is total energy [kinetic plus potential{spin}]. It is not matter. E=MCsq. orMVsq. Kinetic energy is 1/2 or 1/2 mvsq. Potential energy {spin} is the other half. The total energy is the same for a particle at rest or a particle at cosmic ray speed. Total energy X Vsq. is the same also since a particle at rest still has constituents travelling at nonspiral etheron speed only in a circular orbit [see section on inertia] rather than a linear path. Inbetween rest mass and etheron speed energy the average velocity [speed of motion] is 50% of the etheron speed. The other 50% is the speed of spin of the constituents. This average is at the frequency at which our eyes react and we call it light. Cosmic ray speed [close to etheron speed in space] is thus twice that of what we measure as light. That is why it has such penetrating power. The relativistic factor was proven in this book [boxcar experiment] to be invalid. This allows velocity to be anything that the energy of the area allows. To be placed on p 200 at the end of Part II The idea has come back recently that the forces of the Universe are electrical. This book defines electrical forces as a function of the flow of waves of energy. As mentioned herein an electrical current is not a flow of electrons down a wire but rather the force of impact of one electron on another, each one in turn down the wire. Each one only moves the distance beween it and the next one. Like a row of billiard balls, each separated by a small distance, the time taken is very small. If they were all touching, the transfer of energy to the end ball would be instantaneous just as one end of a stick will move at the same time as the other. Each atom contains a core that spins off center, relative to the motion of its constituents, and thus sends a compressional spiral wave of energy outward to interact with the field of waves of others in the manner outlined herein in the section on the formation of the solar system and in the manner of how the galaxy is formed. Like electricity, all motions in the Universe are the result of the motion and the interaction of waves and in this sense it is an electrical Universe. The Universe has thus been depicted in a manner that seems to answer all questions. Details can be added but the general picture seems to leave no doubt as to its accuracy. However, full understanding must come after reading the whole book [perhaps more than once] in order to combine the scattered explanations into one. End of first paragraph on p.176. Vesto Slipher measured the spectra of distant galaxies and linked their radial rotation to the red shift in 1912. He then assumed that the Doppler effect was the cause of the red shift and thus assumed that the farther they were from us the faster they moved away from us. Hubble assumed from this that the Universe is expanding. However, if the cause of the red shift was not due to the Doppler effect but was,in fact, due to the lessening of the wave amplitude by the resistance of the universal medium, the red shift may reflect distance but not an increase in a recessional velocity. This would mean that the universe is not expanding but is a dynamic steady state as described herein.   Insert at the end of p.85 which shows the famous mind boxcar experiment and shows that the boxcar observer is in error because he is moving with the horizontal component of the light and is unaware of it. He only measures the vertical component. To mention some other aspects of relativity, it can be said that there is no doubt about some motion being relative to some other motion or non-motion. However one must verify that an observation is true or not. Some of us can remember being in a train alongside another train, facing in the opposite direction and hiding the landscape. When the other train started moving we thought we were moving. Only when the other train passed did we realize that our observation was in error when we saw the landscape and realized that we were still stationary. The same thing would apply if two cars were traveling on the road and one passed the other. A passenger in either car, not looking at the road, could think that the other car is moving in reverse, no matter which way it was pointing. An observation can be in error and not be actual. It may be subjective and not related to the bigger actual picture. Like the elephant that was described by the three blind men, each feeling only one part, it can be misleading to accept something without knowing all the factors involved. Only when the bigger picture that takes in all observers is examined, can actuality be established. To be placed at the end of Introduction on xv Lee Smolin, in his book "The Trouble with Physics" provides a clear picture of the field of Physics in the world today. This book presents five main problems. The first is realism. The second is making sense of quantum mechanics. The third is the unification of particles and forces. No.4 is how the values of free constants in the standard model are chosen in nature. No.5 is explain dark energy and matter. In The Science of Actuality all but No.4 is explained and proven. This is not a standard model. The string theory, apart from a couple of basic ideas, so far consists of mostly approximate results and conjectures that disagree with experiments. The majority of scientists spent the last thirty years without much progress. What we know for certain about the laws of nature is no more than what we knew back in the 1970's. Those working on alternate ideas are usually held back. These alternate ideas should be given close attention. An idea should not be dismissed because it disagrees with that commonly being pursued. If the terms are different they should be examined to see if there are any connections to those described differently. Everything may have a cause but they don't have to be the same cause. Gravity doesn't have to arise from a graviton but instead be a result of the motion of ordinary particles of any type. The basics of such is described herein and deserves careful study and thought of the combination of various ideas developed throughout the book to be able to comprehend the complete picture presented therein. View Mel Winfield's Levitation Video Clips NOTE - To view these clips, you need to have to have Windows Media Player installed and it's recommended that you enlarge the movies to full screen size. You can download and install it from this location: Download Windows Media Player Levitation Video Clip 1 Levitation Video Clip 2 Levitation Video Clip 3 Place on page 49 at end of summary Gravity has been explained herein theoretically,mathematically and experimentally with dropping tests. The dropping test proved that because the neutron excess over protons coincided in direct ratio to the differences in dropping rates of the elements, the neutron excess was responsible for the dropping, which is gravitation. It has been referred to herein that it is nucleons[neutrons and protons] that is responsible, which is true since they both play a part. However, it is the neutron excess, to be specific, that causes gravity and this is the reason that gravity is not influenced by electromagnetic action. This neutron excess are neutrons that are not held back by union with protons. They are free of protons. Since neutrons are protons with a third opposite rotating small outer segment or vortex, they are able to unite with protons in a manner described herein since their outer spin is opposite to that of the proton when they come in contact. Neutrons orbiting with protons would revolve around one another in the nucleus as they orbited within the atom which would prevent them from causing gravitation. The excess are free of protons and can move the atom downward as described. In the example a proton was used as an example but more accurately it should have been called a neutron even though it is a proton with a little extra added. The neutron excess over protons, the difference between the compositions of the elements, relates to gravity because the orbital velocity of the free neutrons within the atom, and thus their angular momentum, were in direct ratio to the dropping times. << To Go to Gravitation Click Here Copyright © 1977-2012 Mel Winfield. All rights reserved. This page last modified January/2012. [Close] Sample content here.