super quick theory for everything.

Here is quick theory for everything.
Lord Kelvin came up with one of the first atom models; he figured it was a smoke ring like pattern trapped in a perfect fluid or aether. This was good idea, but he got some things wrong. First the perfect can be compressible; if there is no other smaller particle to transfer energy into you can have compression and inertia in the aether.
The second mistake was the smoke ring pattern. That’s the wrong pattern. Think of vortex like a hurricane, tornado or maybe a black hole, any vortex type structure will do.
So if you look at hurricane diagram, you see they have low pressure center, with a higher pressure area around it ( the area with the clouds) and the eye wall where the two pressures meet at point of equalization. Then in the center you have down flow of warm air, and between the spiral bands you have same up and down flows.
In comparison to an atom, you have a high energy center with the proton and neutron. The proton is similar the center of the hurricane in that it is at an opposite energy level to the clouded area. The neutron is similar to eye wall as it is neutral to clouded area and the center. The clouded area is similar to electron cloud. The magnetic fields of the electron work similar to up and down flows in the hurricane that form between bands. The banding effect is similar to the flux lines in a magnetic field. The polarization effect of magnetic is similar to top and bottom of a hurricanes center, as the top is high pressure and bottom is a low pressure. Opposite attract, the high and low, is like a north and south.

So black hole, tornados, hurricanes…whatever you want to call it, they are vortexes and so is an atom.
I’m not the only one thinking this, here’s two links

www.technologyreview.com...

www.youtube.com...

And gravity is similar to the Fujiwhara effect (google it)…btw it happens with all vortexes not just hurricans

Between what I said and the two links, you can find all your forces.

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
www.technologyreview.com...

www.youtube.com...

Nassim Haramein's claims have been debunked here multiple times. You can find these threads in a search of his name.

The technology review article is interesting but it says nothing about vortices. The paper it refers to says:

predictions for possible experimental confirmation of the scenario at LHC are made

So it's not really a theory, it's a hypothesis which they have proposed some experiments to confirm (or not). As you may be aware, the number of hypotheses which are confirmed relative to the total number of hypotheses is pretty small.

So, did they ever test their hypothesis at the LHC?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


well the idea is like but not exactly the same as his, but nope, nobody at the LHC has tested this. Would love if somebody would, but I personally don't make enough disposable income to buy a collider so I guess it is food for thought more than anything.

But if gravity is the like the Fujiwhara effect the question is how would you shield of prevent gravity. Well the idea is simple, doing it is really hard, but if you induce strong field between the atoms. Like making a really high pressure system between two hurricanes to push the two apart you possibly could do it. I think this could be done with magnetic fields, namely the center part of coil where the flux lines run straight. Other parts of the magnetic would cause higher gravity.
So is this antigravity?

phys.org...

Looking at the video... This is not centrifugal force, but a magnetic force that is disrupting gravity. Play it full sized and notice the how fast the flies are moving, and pause the video and get a ruler and measure out the average size of the flies in the 0G and 2G. The average size of the flies in the 0G is larger than the average size of the 2G. Are we really seeing a b-field effect or are seeing a evey so small length expansion and time dilation ? Their own words are the flies are moving faster, nothing mentioned about the lengths though.

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Looking at the video... This is not centrifugal force, but a magnetic force that is disrupting gravity.

It's not disrupting gravity.

If you take a commercial flight when the plane reaches cruising altitude, the lift forces are equal and opposite to the gravitational forces, so your flight stays at a constant altitude. This is not a disruption of gravity, it's the introduction of an equal but opposite force to gravity, and the magnetic force is likewise not a disruption of gravity, just an opposing force.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Disruption was a bad word, let me rephrase, if there is a unified field which is not a far off concept, then all forces are aspects of the same force. After all Einstein coined the term in his attempts to prove just that. If true then the use of magnetic field to create an opposing force to gravity, well it becomes a battle of terminology as both forces are part a same fundamental force.

Here something to think about, the electromagnetic force can be induced meaning you can use electricity to induce electricity into something else. You can have a wire with a high voltages on it ionize the air around it. So what would happen if you had a device powerful enough to induce the air with enough ionization to cause a current flow matching that of floating flies…..in other words what if the fly itself could induce the magnetic field around itself?

reply to post by Tbrooks76

It's been a popular idea and it has been researched...but all the experimental results so far have not demonstrated any relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. Nassim Haramein doesn't have any experimental results, on the contrary his theory claims a proton has more mass than Mt Everest, so his claims directly contradict observation.

The idea itself isn't silly, it's ignoring the evidence that experimental results show the idea isn't true that's silly. Maybe someone will find some experimental results to prove it someday, but it's not like nobody has tried. Many have tried, and failed, to prove that idea.

Think of a superstring as the colour SU(3) magnetic monopole endpoint of a Nielsen-Olesen vortex in the superconducting Higgs field and you will be nearer to the true answer.
smphillips.8m.com...
And this vortex in the Higgs field was described as such for the second time in 1959 - five years before physicist Peter Higgs even conceived of the Higgs particle in his work on generating masses for subatomic particles through spontaneous symmetry-breaking by a scalar field and many more years before vortex solutions were found in the equations of the QCD string model (it was originally described as a "vortex" 134 years ago by American colour therapy pioneer Edwin Babbitt).

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Tbrooks76

 

It's been a popular idea and it has been researched...but all the experimental results so far have not demonstrated any relationship between gravity and electromagnetism.

I don't know about that, I remember the ESA gravity modification research in 2006, once they announced positive results everything went quite.
I also remember NASA was set to test this too, and for whatever reason it got canceled just be before testing.
The U.S. Air Force Academy Department of Astronautics also tested this, but despite their machine running for while in the control part of the test, the machine broke just as they started putting negative charges on it and started generating a weight lost.

This is a quote from there paper and a link….
Paper

Enough data had been acquired to
statistically test whether or not this
experiment offered proof that electrogravity
was indeed a real phenomenon. Even
though there was an apparent decrease in
weight through negatively charged rotation
and an increase through positively charged
rotation (as Yama#a had predicted), it
may not have been a measurable enough of a
change to reach a definite conclusion.


I think it’s funny they say there was a decrease in weight, and then in same sentience say it was not measurable enough of a change. ….if it’s not measurable enough, how did they know there was a decrease in weight. I’m the only person that sees that contradiction? Kind of like saying we seen a spark but don’t know if was bright enough to called it a light source ?????