Further Expansion Of Field Strength

Comments on the unification theory The one thing Einstein overlooked in his search for the unification theory of everything was simple. It was contained within his theory of relativity. The theory of relativity relates to oneness. In a theory of the relativity of motion how is motion defined. In relationship to another object. Think about it. A single object in space could be moving at enormous speeds through space but how could you measure the motion unless there is something relative to measure its motion by. A singular object in space could be defined a the definition of one divided by zero. Further explained later on. Two objects in space allows measurement of motion removing the zero from the undefined equation. In an atom, what is overlooked is there are two motions. The neutron/proton vibration and the electron rotation. Two motions. And I believe this to be angular. Angular motion relative to vectored motion. In a change of state the object in vectored motion is approaching speed of light. The object internally is rotating during this change on its own axis as well as traveling in a vector. These two motions are occurring at the same time. The rotational motion is allowing dispersal from one state to the other. In the astrophysical world, the moon is in motion around the earth which rotates on its axis which revolves around the sun which in turn is in motion relative to other stars. An atom is the definition of one. A hydrogen atom. But the ultimate complexity of the universe has to allow for more in the way of motion. Volume (length x width x height) times x amount of mass times x amount of energy (speed of light) times x amount of motion ( distance/ time) and the complexities of computation need a definition. The simple made as complex as you want it to be. Th Interestingly, matter is a constant. Matter simply changes forms. I admit this takes energy to happen but energy is also matter in a different form. So what I suppose is two kinds of matter. There is simply the matter we know exists. Also, the cosmic forces of the universe with the supposition all motion of planetary ect… nature is due to the big band. Our known physical matter or in another form our energy, and the cosmic forces, represent two different ideas. If one, the physical matter we know can be converted to matter, the cosmic forces, I would suppose cannot be. It is just an effect. It may well be a constant. It would define cosmic forces as only energy and vibration, and physical matter as either energy or matter. And as previously defined, there is constant state of motion in the universe. It would indicate the cosmic energy to be constant. The variations of cosmic forces would be related to the variations in atomic structure vibrations. So, here is another supposition. If the big bang created the universe and its cosmic force what sustains it? I am supposing that the universe itself is a balance system. When stars and black holes explode, incredible amounts of energy are released. I am supposing that this energy of explosion is related to the cosmic energy as well as the physical energy. Suggesting a relationship, a duality, between the two energies. As atoms vibrate and seem to be related, the vibration of the universe in my view is reinforced by this explosions of matter. It is a possible relationship of all matter in the universe. In the burst of stars and black holes enormous explosive power, both energy states are in conjunction with each other as each is being reintroduced into the sustaining of the universe. Now what I am supposing here is different types of motion that define our universe. I observe only two types of motion. There is vectored or straight line motion and rotational motion, in the form of an ellipse. In vectored motion, the parameters that define it are already known. In nonEuclidian math the nature of elliptical motion is defined. My question is “ how

are they different?” I find the difference is a center of gravity has to exist for an object mass to rotate around the center. Two objects are required. And a force is introduced that is not present in vectored motion. And that is centripetal force. Two variations from vectored motion. Vectored motion can occur with one object traveling through space. But this motion cannot be observed without a reference point to measure its motion by. That reference point gives the requirements in order to measure vectored motion. One point is not a vector. But is it really still motion if there is no reference point, yes I believe there is. So how do we determine this vectored motion without regard to another point. This may seem a long shot. But I am beginning to suppose we need an imaginary point of reference. This tends to lead me to believe that such a concept would be related to the misunderstanding of centrifugal force. If the center of the universe is not the earth, are the true dynamics of the universe askew? Relating to gravity and magnetic forces, there is a similarity. Joseph Henry discover the theory of inductance. A coiled wire, wrapped around an iron bar. This force of electricity through the wire induced the bar of iron to become magnetic itself. With the exposed ends becoming the poles of + and -. Interestingly, as I study the gravitational fields of planets, I observe a field of strength similar to that of the magnetic bar. The maximum strength of the fields in each case are at the poles. And I have to ask this question: how is the sun’s axis aligned with planetary axis’s? it would suggest the “weaker field strength is holding the planets in orbit. And the poles of the sun, the maximum field strength of gravity are being ignored. Unless this polar gravitational “ strong” field strength is aligned with other stars. Which would tend to suggest a complex matrix of “weak” and “strong” field strengths. Similar to what is observed in magnetic attraction field strength. As quantum mechanics and its relationship to magnetic fields is studied, I have to think that gravitational fields and magnetic fields may be an important clue. This design with similar field strengths combined with the fluctuations in elliptical orbits and fluctuating field strengths may be the first true relationship that could reveal a relationship into the true nature of the universe. Quanta is so small and complex to study, yet it was Einstein’s focus and blind spot, that to study more observable phenomenon may be the key to unlocking the unification theory mystery.