Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / May 2004

Sounds tempting, but I'll have to look at a review. I don't want to
buy a book just to find out it was written by a crank or a crack pot.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

This is a joke right? I've skimmed through the author's "Science
Frequently Asked Questions" section, and have concluded that the
author has NO concept of some of the most fundamental principals of
physics. His concept of work, energy, power, force, and vectors are on
par with that of a struggling high school student, championing such
foolish notions as "gravity never does any work throughout the
universe" (hold a stone above your head and release it... if it moves,
work is being done, my heavens what a concept...)  I really hope too
many gullible people haven't bought into this thinking that the theory
would be able to hold any water.

I purchased and read The Final Theory a couple of months ago hoping
for a good challenge in finding the flaws of another theory and
finding the discrepancies that will prove it false and contradicting.
Instead, i found myself using an entirely different standard with
which to view the universe. Obvious but overlooked or ignored flaws in
today's Standard Theory are exposed and corrected. Fundamental
mysteries such as magnetism, electricity, and gravity are explained
and their causes made known.
The theory presented by the author is a solid and extremely
thought-provoking concept. There is nothing overly complex. Everything
is simple and makes perfect sense. This book is well worth getting
just for the way it will make you review all the laws and theories
we've grown up with and accepted, some for centuries. Either you will
find the Standard Theory reinforced as it defends the laws at its
core, or you will find a new way to view the everyday fundamentals of
the universe. Either way its worth the read.

Most of what is written below are excerpts from previous posts.  One
particular poster has repeatedly asked for the definitions of a time
rate gradient field, a null motion gradient field, and an absolute null
motion gradient.

The reality is that these terms have been well defined in multiple
posts.  That particular poster has confessed to not reading my posts
but nevertheless still makes the claim that I've not defined these
terms.

Of course I make some statements in the beginning which through
examination of my arguments are my conclusions.   In other words I'm
making the statement of my findings first and then attempting to lead
the reader through the processes that brought me to that conclusion.
You have to 'get' several things all at once and have a Gestalt sort of
experience and you can get that by going over the information a number
of times until you have internalized some of the concepts with which
you may be unfamiliar or terms that you perhaps have never heard
before. But I'll take your criticism to heart and first try to explain
a number of terms that I use.

Time rate gradient field or null motion gradient field.

These two terms are synonymous with each other and are descriptive of
the characteristics of a gravitational field.  

That's it.

A time rate gradient field or a null motion gradient field are synonyms
for a gravitational field.

Suppose one had a gravitational terminus loop. One can suppose that
there is a terminus to a monolithic gravitational field that is not
point-like but rather terminates to a closed loop.  "Monolithic" means
'of one stone' but in this context I use it to mean from one source or
emanating from a single source.   Most people are familiar with the
concept of a multi-source gravitational field.  It is commonly accepted
that the gravitational acceleration at any point is the vector sum, at
that point, of all monolithic gravitational sources.  But people aren't
familiar with the term "monolithic gravitational source" because there
is the presumption that all matter produces a gravitational attraction
for all other matter so that all bits of matter or all mass-like quanta
are presumed to be gravitational sources.  I want people to question
any belief which they cannot substantiate by data, intuition (the
direct sort) or deductive logic.  By the direct sort of intuition I
mean pretty much the same thing that Descartes meant.   By intuition he
meant that faculty of the mind which allowed one to directly apprend
what is straightforwardly obvious; such that an individual can mentally
have the intuition that he exists, that he thinks; or the notion that a
triangle is bounded by three sides or that a sphere is bounded by a
single surface. He wrote that facts of such kind are more numerous than
many people think because they disdain to direct their attention upon
such simple matters.

I'll make the claim here that of the four primary particles in nature,
neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, only neutrons and photons
are truly gravitational sources and that protons and electrons respond
to the gravitational sources but are not themselves gravitational
sources.  I would also further posit with respect to being or not being
gravitational sources that what is true of the primary quanta is also
true of their anti-particles.  We'll see if we can substantiate such
ideas by further exploration or I'll give you my reasoning that I am
convinced establishes the validity of such claims.  I'll further claim
that protons and electrons respond to gravitational fields differently
and will demonstrate my reasoning also.  

Let's go back to the terms 'Time rate gradient field' and 'null motion
gradient field' so that the reader can get a good conceptual feel for
these terms.

Starting again, suppose there was a gravitational terminus loop.  Now
suppose there were conceptual concentric gravitational equipotential
surfaces each at a different distance from the gravitational terminus.
On a given surface all clocks would run at the same rate.  On a surface
closer to the gravitational terminus line (closed line, or loop) the
clocks would run slower than clocks on another equipotential surface
not as close.  Now it is only that the clocks on different surfaces
appear to run at different rates with respect to a distant observer.
Because there is a differential with respect to the clock rates for
clocks at different levels then the region that encloses multiple
levels has a time rate gradient, hence the name for such a region would
be a time rate gradient field.  Since the concept of time rate is
related to change and because the simplest sort of change is motion
then as one simultaneously examines the physical processes at multiple
gravitational equipotential surfaces of a monolithic gravitational
source then one can see from the viewpoint of a distant observer that
as processes move lower in the 'field' that time appears to become
dilated and that processes observed at the terminus level leads to no
apparent motion or change at all so that moving one's vision downward
toward the gravitational terminus one sees that there is a tendency
toward no motion or 'null' motion.  Hence the term 'null motion
gradient' is also synonymous with the term 'time rate gradient'.  Many
people are familiar with the term 'time dilation' but no necessarily in
possession of a full or rich concept of its application.  To dilate
means to open up, to widen, to become larger.  Time dilation means for
an apparent perceived standard unit of time such as a second to become
longer.  But such perception, it must be remembered, is only available
to an outside observer so that the outside observer must not be
experiencing his local time rate as synchronous with that which he is
observing from his local frame hence there is a differential or
gradient and the observed standard unit of time at a place of greater
gravitational acceleration can be compared with his local time rate and
found to be much larger than his local standard unit of time.  Hence,
he would say that the region under his observation (that which is
nearer to the gravitational terminus of a monolithic gravitational
terminus) is experiencing 'time dilation'.  The term 'gravity' while
nearly univerally recognized is insufficient to express the properties
of what we call a gravitational field.  People need a more precise
conceptualization of what a gravitational field actually is; therefore
I feel justified in using a terminology which more closely captures the
features of what we have traditionally called a 'gravitational field'.

Now, using my previous post's ideas where I have expressed that all
motion is binary because it is relative should be much clearer.  The
term 'binary' as I have used it in this context means 'having two
primary subcomponents'.  I