It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unified Field Theory

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Unified field theory.
In contrast to accepted theories of the unified field theory there are only two fundemental forces at play in the nucleus of the atom.One as accepted is the nuclear weak force which is gravity.The other the strong nuclear is infact the spin of the subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.
When two particles spin in counterclockwise to clockwise directions it creates friction between the two particles, this friction force is capable of binding particles together.In contrast when particles spin in the same direction they are repelled.
This fundemental reaction can be seen at play in the dynamics of magnetic fields electrons.
The positive pole of a magnetic field will house electrons which spin in one counter clockwise direction. the negative pole of the magnetic field will house electrons which spin in a clockwise direction.This same fundemental reaction of spin can be see at play in all particles which spin including the subatomic particles of the atomic nucleus.
The neutron spins in one direction and binds to the spin of other neutrons.Protons do not spin hence why atoms need neutrons to become stable as their is no spin in the proton.
The proton gets its spin by the constituant quarks it holds,ie its quarks spin however this is not translated to a higher degree of spin which is capable of generating the strong nuclear force of spin.
The force of spin is also apparent in covalent bonding.since atoms spin they to hold a strong nuclear force aswell and this strong nuclear force is capable of generating friction of a magnetude enough to bind atoms together and thus we have covalent bonding.
It is no mystery why the majority of subatomic and atomic matter aswell as particulate matter is spinning, this is because the fundemental force of spin is at play at all levels of existence.




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Interesting post, thanks for dumbing it down to a level I can understand. Seems like a good theory, I think the most simplest theory is most likely the correct one, and this one seems to really simplify or "unify" different theories and provide complete explanations with less hypotheticals.


edit on 16-3-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Unified field theory.
In contrast to accepted theories of the unified field theory there are only two fundemental forces at play in the nucleus of the atom.One as accepted is the nuclear weak force which is gravity.The other the strong nuclear is infact the spin of the subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.


First off the weak nuclear force isn't gravity. Gravity is another force altogether.
The strong nuclear force is a force, not the spin of subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.


When two particles spin in counterclockwise to clockwise directions it creates friction between the two particles, this friction force is capable of binding particles together.In contrast when particles spin in the same direction they are repelled.


Friction is caused by electromagnetism.

How can friction bind particles together, if the force that is causing friction is making them repel?

This is what happened when I read the first paragraph.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by binomialtheorem

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Unified field theory.
In contrast to accepted theories of the unified field theory there are only two fundemental forces at play in the nucleus of the atom.One as accepted is the nuclear weak force which is gravity.The other the strong nuclear is infact the spin of the subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.


First off the weak nuclear force isn't gravity. Gravity is another force altogether.
This is correct.

A decade or more ago they were teaching the four fundamental known forces of nature:
-gravity
-electromagnetism
-weak nuclear force
-strong nuclear force

Now they are only teaching three. The weak nuclear force is now taught as a form of electromagnetism, so they combined the 2nd and 3rd items on that list in more recent courses.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by binomialtheorem

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Unified field theory.
In contrast to accepted theories of the unified field theory there are only two fundemental forces at play in the nucleus of the atom.One as accepted is the nuclear weak force which is gravity.The other the strong nuclear is infact the spin of the subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.


First off the weak nuclear force isn't gravity. Gravity is another force altogether.
The strong nuclear force is a force, not the spin of subatomic particles comprising the nucleus.


When two particles spin in counterclockwise to clockwise directions it creates friction between the two particles, this friction force is capable of binding particles together.In contrast when particles spin in the same direction they are repelled.


Friction is caused by electromagnetism.

How can friction bind particles together, if the force that is causing friction is making them repel?

This is what happened when I read the first paragraph.


if electromagentism is one of the fundamental forces then how casn we exlpain the binding of other subatomic particles such as quarks,pions and fermoins?,they have no electrons to cuase an electromagenetic reaction yet they still bind.
There is binding and repulsion going onat all levels of particles and the force behind it is spin.

I beg to differ,spin actually is a force it is well documented in electrons as the mechanism behind repulsion and attraction,this same mechanism is at play in the atomic nucleus as the atomic strong force.

There are only two forces,gravity and spin...the weak and strong nuclear forces.

Ignore much of standard physics its bogus there lightyears behind me and black ops.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Ignore much of standard physics its bogus there lightyears behind me and black ops.


Yeah, I'm not going to even begin to tell you how wrong you are, mostly because you're light year ahead of me anyway.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by binomialtheorem

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
Ignore much of standard physics its bogus there lightyears behind me and black ops.


Yeah, I'm not going to even begin to tell you how wrong you are, mostly because you're light year ahead of me anyway.


why am i wrong?,do you wish to dispute the fact that spin is a fundemerntal force behind repulsion and attraction for particles at all levels?,for thats al im saying which is different to accepted models.

theres spin and theres gravity.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
and there is chandragupta too or hidden image ..or a print sumwhere sumtimes isnt it
the one that was overwritten and that should be overwrite again ..or not?
edit on 16-3-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)


thanks mods for a bit lighter backgrounds at here and now forum one
edit on 16-3-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nii900
and there is chandragupta too or hidden image ..or a print sumwhere sumtimes isnt it
the one that was overwritten and that should be overwrite again ..or not?
edit on 16-3-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)


what?,explain your self more please



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
another scientist has realised the power of spin in regards to the unified field theory




The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.

www.theresonanceproject.org...

not sure if he realised it before me but ive only been doing physics for 3 years.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 


Bit gobbledegooky there op
Do you think the particles are actually spinning



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
another scientist has realised the power of spin in regards to the unified field theory


The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.

www.theresonanceproject.org...

not sure if he realised it before me but ive only been doing physics for 3 years.
I'm not sure you want to quote Haramein. His theory says the mass of a proton is 39 orders of magnitude larger than what we observe, and he admits the discrepancy, which makes him a charlatan, or a crackpot, or both. So anyone quoting him will probably find themselves labeled similarly. I don't think that's what you want, is it?

If you've done physics for 3 years, that's 3 years longer than Haramein. In physics, theory and observation must agree with each other, for Haramein that's not a requirement so he's not doing physics, it's something else. In the physics forums they call his work "crackpottery".



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
another scientist has realised the power of spin in regards to the unified field theory


The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory" (PDF), by Nassim Haramein and E.A. Rauscher.

www.theresonanceproject.org...

not sure if he realised it before me but ive only been doing physics for 3 years.
I'm not sure you want to quote Haramein. His theory says the mass of a proton is 39 orders of magnitude larger than what we observe, and he admits the discrepancy, which makes him a charlatan, or a crackpot, or both. So anyone quoting him will probably find themselves labeled similarly. I don't think that's what you want, is it?

If you've done physics for 3 years, that's 3 years longer than Haramein. In physics, theory and observation must agree with each other, for Haramein that's not a requirement so he's not doing physics, it's something else. In the physics forums they call his work "crackpottery".



precisely i forgot to mention he is a disinfo agent for science,just like their are disinfo agents in the ufo field who intentionally sound crazy to discredit the field haramein is the science version of that.he claims there is a singularity at the centre of the earth and all kinds of crazy things.
the point is that he will speak the truth and intentionally make it sound crazy so no one believes it.

you can pretty much figure out the truth if you watch discreditation agents at work.....theres many for stargates for example.

the proton is made up of two quarks btw as you can see in this visualtion of the proton
focus.aps.org...
you can see the two cone shaped quarks which spin in the opposite direction binding to each other.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 


Bit gobbledegooky there op
Do you think the particles are actually spinning


yes it is well known that particles spin,practicly all of them do at near the speed of ligh generating enormous potential for friction/torque.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 


Bit gobbledegooky there op
Do you think the particles are actually spinning


yes it is well known that particles spin,practicly all of them do at near the speed of ligh generating enormous potential for friction/torque.

Electrons don't actually spin...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Electrons don't actually spin...
First I read that red, green and blue quark colors aren't really red, green and blue, and now I read that things that have spin don't really spin?

What's next? Is someone going to tell me the big bang wasn't big? Or that it wasn't a bang? or both?


The Big Bang wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang.
Sheesh, do you think these physicists are trying to confuse us or something with these names they pick?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by HeresHowItGoes
 


Bit gobbledegooky there op
Do you think the particles are actually spinning


yes it is well known that particles spin,practicly all of them do at near the speed of ligh generating enormous potential for friction/torque.

Electrons don't actually spin...


electrons do spin
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

at near the speed of light just as their velocity.
the smaller an iota of matter is the faster its spin and velocity as their is less space time friction for them to overcome.electrons happen to be made up of two pions and have a mass considerbly less than that of protons.

it is the high speed of an electrons spin that makes it useful for properties such as magnetic fields and electrical currents,they have a strong strong nuclear force thus can create stable fields,waves and currents.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by john_bmth
Electrons don't actually spin...
First I read that red, green and blue quark colors aren't really red, green and blue, and now I read that things that have spin don't really spin?

What's next? Is someone going to tell me the big bang wasn't big? Or that it wasn't a bang? or both?


The Big Bang wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang.
Sheesh, do you think these physicists are trying to confuse us or something with these names they pick?

It's all part of the grand disinfo scheme to lead the public away from the 'true' science performed in space by ninjas

edit on 16-3-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by john_bmth
Electrons don't actually spin...
First I read that red, green and blue quark colors aren't really red, green and blue, and now I read that things that have spin don't really spin?

What's next? Is someone going to tell me the big bang wasn't big? Or that it wasn't a bang? or both?


The Big Bang wasn't really big. Nor was it really a bang.
Sheesh, do you think these physicists are trying to confuse us or something with these names they pick?


the big bang was an expansion of an above dimensions black hole's singularity,we aref an expanding singularity within a black hole like structure.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
electrons do spin
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
Did you read your own link?


The term "electron spin" is not to be taken literally in the classical sense as a description of the origin of the magnetic moment described above. To be sure, a spinning sphere of charge can produce a magnetic moment, but the magnitude of the magnetic moment obtained above cannot be reasonably modeled by considering the electron as a spinning sphere.



Originally posted by john_bmth
It's all part of the grand disinfo scheme to lead the public away from the 'true' science performed in space by ninjas

That explains why they hired Haramein as a disinfo agent then, he's doing a pretty good job at making us think he's crazy. I guess he's earning that disinfo paycheck.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join