Unified Relativity (of energy)

What does that mean?  Unified Relativity?  Sometimes I think there are 50,000 different meanings to it and none being close to the other.

In John Richter language “Unified Relativity” means the ability to tie all forms of energy into a single source.  So a photon streaming at us from the sun has the same origin as  magnetic flux around the moon, which has the same origin as an electron flowing through a copper electrical wire, which has the same origin as a tsunami wave force, which has the same origin as gale force winds – and on and on and on and on until we have enumerated every harvestable source of energy known to man – and then throw in a few more because I’m certain that we haven’t discovered them all yet.  In any case the key word is origin  (if I haven’t made that clear enough with all the italicizing, bolding and underlining.)  I’m saying that all of these sources of power, in fact life itself, can be traced back to a single source of power – a single thing that enabled all of them to become viable.  I believe that common thread is neutrinos.  I would call that “the God particle” if those dudes smashing quarks in billion dollar underground tunnels didn’t already steal that handle for their useless findings.

So for the record, no, I don’t believe all of these different sources of viable energy are the same.  A gasoline powered engine is nothing like a momentous or gnarly wave for surfing in Hawaii.  But neutrinos in different reactions with different atoms in different ways cause both to exhibit the different things we can observe from them both.  In other words, I believe neutrinos should be added to the periodic table of elements because I believe neutrinos are a catalyst – or somehow involved with the completion of every chemical reaction in the universe.  And everything we know, see, hear, feel, taste or everything we physically are  is due to chemical reactions.

Also for the record, no, I am not trying to prove Einstein’s Theory of Relativity incorrect.  Quite to the contrary I think he was absolutely correct in everything he accomplished.  But he was not able to unify gravity with his other modes of energy through his Unified Theory of Relativity.  It wasn’t due to his failure or anything he calculated wrongly.  He simply did not have sufficient information on gravity to complete the task.  And neither do we 100 years later.  Which is hampering our progress, btw.

There is something missing, something we are overlooking in our quest to completely understand gravity.  The most obvious thing to me is that gravity is closely related to magnetism, so I think our research should travel in that direction.  Most scientists I’ve talked to or have seen answering the gravity/magnetism question vehemently deny that the two are related, stating basically that the two can not be measured with the same instruments – ergo – not the same.  Voltage and amperage are not the same either, but they both are electric.  And they also each require specialized instruments to measure them.  So could magnetism and gravity be related at least in the same way that voltage and amps are related?

Here’s a hint to what I’m saying for any future scientists: neutrinos cause electricity, atomic chemical reactions, magnetism, and electricity.  And there is no doubt in my mind that they cause magnetism, which causes electricity and gravity, which are both chemical reactions.  It’s a complete repeating circle.  Unified relativity.  Neutrinos are the key.

 

 

A Car That Runs on Fumes

Recently I watched a fellow on YouTube rig up his small truck with something similar to a gas-bong he had made from a red gas can and plastic tubing to his air intake.    The theory is that air flows through bubbles in the gas – causing strong enough fumes to run the vehicle, as opposed to running the vehicle on direct gas liquid – thereby reducing the amount of gas needed for driving.  As he moved the camera around the engine compartment to explain what he had done, I could see in the background that he lived in a remote area with trees and fields all around.  And in the middle of all that nature was unmistakably a mobile home.  Presumably his.  Immediately I assumed this wasn’t Andrew Carnegie.

But that’s not the point.  Well, it is kind of – but my point is the exact opposite.  This fellow had seen other videos on YouTube where people had run their lawnmowers and cars on the same technique – so he tried it on his own truck.  And when he got positive results – ie, pulled the fuel pump fuse and actually ran the truck on fumes – he just wanted to share that with everyone else.  So he grabbed his camera and posted his own video.  He said other people he knew were getting up to 200 miles per gallon in their cars using this same method.  I’m sure the horsepower is cut drastically but a little more ingenuity like a bump switch connected to a canister of nitrous oxide could give you the little boost whenever it’s needed.

And that’s still not the point.  My point is that all of the materials used by this poor, uneducated but kind hearted man were available 50 years ago.    And in all those 50 years not one engineer, not one educated scientific minded person came forward with this “out of the box” idea.  Why did it take the people paying the high prices of gasoline to come up with this?  One answer: necessity.  They can’t pay $4 for a gallon of gas when they live 30 miles or more away from their employment.  So again we see that necessity is the mother of all invention.

But back to the engineers and so-called experts, because I’m really becoming annoyed with them.  Oh yes, certainly the greedy oil companies and execs deserve to be lam”basted” – or just “basted” over an open fire – but right now I’m pretty content with just knowing that scenario is probably going to happen to them in the afterlife.   So I want to focus on the demi-gods we call “experts.”

More specifically I want to talk about those people that I call quantifiers.  A quantifier is someone who takes any science and uses the observations found n that science to “quantify” and errantly “validify” the science itself.  In other words, any science is based on observable facts, facts that can be recreated under the same circumstances by anyone else.

For example, electricity is a science, and so is gravity.  We can quantify the amount of electrons that flow through a copper wire by knowing the length of that wire, the circumference of that wire, and the make-up components of the generator producing the current.  And it doesn’t matter if the engineers at General Electric do it or engineers in Timbuktu – they all get the same results.  That makes it a “valid” science.  Everything in it comes from known observations and is mathematically calculated to a tee.

Gravity is no different.  We can determine the gravity quotient on earth mathematically, as well as just about every other planet we can see through telescopes by determining their interaction with other bodies of mass.  The math of gravity is extremely finite and right on the money.  There’s no question about that.

But….  and this is a big but….  the math behind observations of any science can not be used to qualify any possible source (or origin) of that science.  That’s a big sentence.  Let me break it down.  Gravity is awesome.  For all we know it has been around for as long as man has been around.  That’s been a little while now.  Heck, I’ve been here for 56 years.  And all the way to this point the only things we know about gravity is that it exists and we can reasonably calculate what it can do.  But we don’t know what causes it.  Let me say that again: we don’t know what causes it.  So in essence we are just like the apes in that “Planet of the Apes” movie where they all stand around and praise and pray to a nuclear missile because they can’t possibly comprehend how it works.  So in the timeline of the true technological scale we are really still in our diapers!

So to all the scientists and engineers who are so confident in your numbers and quantifications let me just say this:  Stop it!  Stop poo-pooing those young people whose insights on gravity are NOT baseless and could very well explain the origins of it.

THINK!  The current definition of the origin of gravity is that it is caused by “a body of mass.”  DUH!  That is not a definition!  It is only an observation!  So when you were told 50 years ago in the sixth grade that magnetism and gravity were not the same thing – guess what?  Your teacher was wrong.  And continuing to preach  that same misinformation is hampering technology – and you should know that.  When you shoot down these young minds they become discouraged and just go away.  It doesn’t matter what you own beliefs are.  If they come to you for advice – whether you agree with them or not – give them the insight to find the answers themselves without simply shining them off – which only causes them to think they are just foolish and their efforts are futile.  At least accept the possibility – regardless of the your own calculated odds – that you just might be wrong.  And when it comes to correlating the observable mathematics from any science with that science’s origin I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong.  Without a doubt.

Magnets are a body of mass.  Ergo, by the very definition of gravity – magnets are the origin of gravity.  But so are bowling balls, ergo, bowling balls cause gravity.  But so are marbles, ergo, marbles cause gravity.  The scientists’ bodies themselves are bodies of mass, ergo, scientists cause gravity.    The amazing thing, and one that boggles my mind over and over, is that posterity and the future will bring evidence that all of these origins of gravity are true.  And the people 200 or 300 years from now are going to think of our scientists as absolute egotistical fools who allowed us to waste decades of technology.  Me and the guy with the gas-fume truck already think that.

The Flaw

I run and run, run and run…
how far I run to find myself –
exhausted but exalted –
Away from those of strictest knowledge!

“Now hear this boy –
as we did before you –
For this is knoweldge –
and the only knowledge.
There is no more
and there is no less.
We need no adding and
we need no subtracting.
It is what it is and
what it has always been.
More over-
it will always be.
–  The same.
For you, for me.
No inbetween.
No ‘What if’s or but what’s….’
You’ll swallow it whole
and then you’ll grow –
to be happy.
And on that day when
you’ve grown old,
and all your stories
have been told –
You’ll give the youngsters this –
with nothing amiss –
and it will always be again.”

But, but – I must run and run.
For there is nothing – ‘cept for
“What if’s” and “But what’s” chasing me.

I see the flaw.
It is human.