Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

Abolish a "FORCE" by yourself

"there is no model of the theory of gravitation today ..."

Scientists cling to a superstition

Given some easily obtainable evidence -
do you want to abolish a "force" used to cover-up ignorance?


Here you go!

We know that matter is held / forced together by a universal force called different names by scientists, depending on the density and size of the lump of matter.

Eg - At the proton / atomic level the force is called the strong nuclear force,

And we know now that this universal binding force is attenuated - weakened - by the nearby presence of matter.

In the document below H. E. Anderson and Bill Reid make some observations and comments in the final three paragraphs of this long report.
If it's down try a mirror site - same document.

Scroll down to the REFERENCES at bottom, then back up three para's.

The mere presence of a mass (lead - in this case), attenuates the binding force that controls the growth of the crystals.

So the crystals are distorted, growing more loosely, in the attenuating field of the nearby mass (of lead).

A gyro or rotating 'magnetic field' would produce similar effect - check crystal

mass of lead
mass (lead)
< - - Distance - - > crystal atom
distorted crystal atom

Right - those are enough facts . You can now get on with your job of abolition.

But don't rush, take it easy - let's make sure we have these facts straight -

1) there's a force pushing matter into shape and holding it together;

2) that force is weakened by the nearby presence of mass;

3) in some direct proportion to the volume & density of the mass
and in some inverse proportion to the distance separating them - as seen below.

Can we add a tentative conclusion here?

Yes - probably. From the above - it looks pretty certain that the force is lessened when passing through matter.

But you don't have to use that conclusion here.

It's just something you know that the 'scientists' don't, which might eventually give rise to some very deep thoughts about time.  Also its logical consequences demand a recount/review of planetary and stellar densities and behaviors [ie. of neutron stars etc.] - and appear to rule out possibility of so-called "black holes" or singularities

But you can do a 'thought experiment' - like Einstein used to - using just those known facts:-

mass of lead
mass (lead)
crystal atom
near crystal atom
crystal atom
far crystal atom

"Which crystal atom feels the greatest amount of compressive force (binding force)?"

Right - the far crystal.

Due to its greater distance from the attenuating effect of mass, the 'nuclear force' is felt more strongly around the far crystal

From that you can extract a rule - any increase in distance from mass allows an increase in the binding / compressive force felt by matter.

And from that you can show (see below) that the effective strength of the binding / compressive force can change - even across the width of a crystal atom.

mass of lead
mass (lead)
< - Distance - >

weakercrystal atomstronger

So it's stronger on the far side of the crystal atom - weaker on the near side.

Hey!  Only one radiating phenomenon decreases available energy closer to the source: a shadow.

The `shadow' results in a push towards the mass of lead.

And this 'push' increases as the distance decreases.

ruled by 1/distance2 - see radiation

tho' you'll have to prove that later, by exact measurement


Well, you've just established - in a direct and simple way - that matter is pushed towards a mass by a side-effect of the universal binding-force.

So there is no need for an imaginary "gravity" to pull bodies together.

You can confirm your hypothesis and disprove "Gravity" in the experiments:- HERE

So-called "Gravity" is only imaginary.


But superstitious 'scientists' still seem to believe in it, though we've told them the truth several times already
- see UEF.

Congratulations !

You're now well on the way to working out the whole of the
UEF Theory

For those with blind faith in text book science:-

Unlike superstitious `Newtonians', Newton himself did not believe that his laws of Gravity were due to an 'action at a distance'

Here is Newton, in a letter to Bentley, expressing his dissatisfaction with his own published 'laws':-

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it"

[philosophical matters = scientific reasoning ]


Newton put his conclusions in his "Principia" where he stated that his famous "Three Laws of Motion" were not "Laws" at all but `axioms' - and, examining them -

1 - A body continues at rest or in uniform motion unless it is acted upon by an external force
2 - Force on a body in motion is proportional to its mass times its acceleration (F = m.a)
3 - To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

we find that only one (the first) constitutes an `axiom', the other two are confused attempts by which Newton - suffering from preconceptions that `scientists' have even today - tried to explain "mass & motion" - which turns out to mean `mass & relative motion'.

Checking all the facts we find that Newton, Einstein and Schrödinger did not themselves believe in the theoretical constructs ascribed to them :- Newtonian Gravity, rubber-sheet Relativity and magic Quantum exchanges.

Now you know why.

[new window]

[ Google ]

Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson

this page


Share This