Unified Field

I'm also not an expert, but quantum spin shouldn't be rather associated with physical rotation of a particle. It's a common mistake, as people always try to apply standard mechanics to quantum physics - but it simply won't work, so stop thinking about subatomic particles, as about tiny planets. Quantum spin has only 2 possible orientations (up and down), so we can't treat it as a 3D vector (like a normal spin). Besides, quantum spin remains constantly in superposition with other properties of subatomic particles - it's direction in 3D space is not determined and we can't consider it as a simple rotational motion of a body. Quantum spin is directly connected with the magnetic dipole moment of a particle, what is the source of magnetism in matter - and this is probably the only and actual role of quantum spin. In my humble opinion, momentum of a subatomic particle has nothing to do with it's spin...

According to mainstream science, gravity is caused by curvature of space-time, which is created by every object with rest mass. To create a physical model of this concept, scientists use a flat rubber surface and some marbles - like on this movie: My concept of gravity can be visualized using water and couple floating objects Force, which is responsible for attraction of floating objects is known, as Cheerios Effect and is explained by the surface tension of a liquid. But I have couple arguments, which allow me to say, that this is a nice way to visualise gravity. Here they are: - objects are attracted, no matter, what they are made of. - objects are accelerating, while they get closer to the source of attraction - force of attraction depends mostly on the density of objects. - the heavier is an object, the stronger it attracts other objects. - heavy objects are attracted to eachother from a greater distance, than light objects - path of a moving object, will curve towards the source of attraction, if it will get cought by the field. - around all floating objects, water surface is curved, what distorts the background and creates an effect, which looks EXACTLY, like gravitational lensing on Hubble images. In my concept, gravity is carried by gravitational waves, which are emitted by each object with mass - the greater is the mass and density of an object, the bigger waves it emits. Intensity of force is defined by the amplitude - which depends on mass of the source object, while wavelenght depends on it's size (mass/size=density) and defines the area of influence. Gravitational interaction between 2 objects takes place because of the interference of gravitational waves - waves with similar lenght create resonance, what causes the attraction. Big and heavy objects create large gravitational waves, which resonate with other waves at similar lenght - this is why heavy objects attract other heavy objects at much greater distances, than lighter ones. Gravity in this concept, can be understand, as a kind of buoyancy - which is defined by the density of an object. Most dense matter is attracted towards the center of mass in a medium. If the density of an object is smaller, than density of a medium, object is being repelled from the center of mass. This is a demonstration of a force, which can be possibly used to create an anti-gravity field: Fire, which is exposed to microwave radiation, turns into a bubble of plasma, which opposes the force of gravity. Theoretically, if we would input enough energy (and connect it with a VERY long cable), microwave owen would fly stright to space. However, such propulsion can be used ONLY inside a strong gravitational field. The bigger is the distance from the source of gravity, the longer is the wavelenght of grav. waves. At some point, grav. waves of the flying upward owen, would stop to resonate with Earth and the object won't be attracted - so the anti-gravity won't work anymore and the microwave will continue to float beyond the reach of Earth's gravitational field. So, we have already everything, to create simple anti-gravity propulsion - it's not sci-fi, but simple science...

Ok, because no one didn't have any objections with the screenshots, I just finished uploading the movie. Here it is:

This is why I want so much to see the images from radiotelescopes... You can support your theories with "hypothetical papers", but facts speak for themselves... There's simply no need of dark matter and black holes to hypothetically exist... I just want to see your face, when it happens. How do you think, why there's such a delay in the publication of results...? And if I'm wrong, then what? I don't have any scientific career to loose

Just look at those two links: http://exonews.org/half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/ http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~pfrommer/Talks/Pfrommer_review_Stanford14.pdf " by Leah Crane October 9, 2017 (newscientist.com) • For decades physicists have been searching for “dark matter” to account for half of the matter in space between galaxies that was missing from their calculations. • Two different teams of scientists have both found this missing matter, and it is contained in the filaments of gasses that link galaxies together. • The filament strands are so thin that can barely be detected. • Astrophysicists point to this as proof that their theories on how galaxies are formed are indeed authentic. • This study supports the “Pan-Magellanic Bridge” of magnetic gas that was found connect our Milky Way galaxy with our nearest neighboring galaxy. (see article: For the First Time, Astronomers Have Found A Giant ‘Magnetic Bridge’ Between Galaxies) Debunked ... Universe is a neural network, of interconnected magnetic fields. It's a goddamn brain... Science proves God - deal with it now...

Well, this forum exists for people, who like to participate in a scientific discussion (at least I do). And that's what we do right now. Entire thread proposes a loose dialogue about theoretical concepts of Universe - more like philosophy, than lab science. There wouldn't be any discussion, if all would agree with eachother. Well, I'm the one, who disagrees. I prefer the plasma cosmology and magnetohydrodynamics. Instead of Einstein, I admire people like Alfven or Tsynagenko - they are for me REAL scientists. MHD is the only part of space physics, which actually works and most people didn't even heard about such thing... But I will have to create a new thread for my alternative concept of gravity... Here's a bit of your "totally debunked" plasma physics: https://mfu5.sciencesconf.org/conference/mfu5/pages/Dolag.compressed.pdf https://static.zooniverse.org/gzconf.galaxyzoo.org/posters/Nakamura.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.4521 http://www.aip.de/groups/MHD/publications/02/aa1845.pdf https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B%3AASTR.0000045019.24124.91 And I could post 20 other links. Without MHD, you won't be able even explain the spiral arms of galaxies. It's all about plasma and magnetic fields Debunked? Those are the same laws, as here: And you talk about some dark matters and black holes, while MHD explains 75% of space physics. You can literally create a MHD simulation of Universe in a bowl of water with a baterry and a magnet... Maybe that;s why I'm so obsessed with magnetism ? You just need to improve the concept of gravity and you have the entire mechanism in a single model... But science preferes to come out with fantastical theories about 11D multi-verse, instead trying to fully explain the 3D One...

Of course. I just wonder, what all of you would make, if there won't be anything on those images from radiotelescopes. Besides, I just love to expose all the holes in theoretical physics... Look at the first post in this thread... Mainstream as hell... Not to mention . that the entire multi-verse subject is more like fiction, than actual science...

I don't care about calculations. Show me the images captured by radiotelescopes - only then I will admit, that such objects exist in Universe. I'm tired of theoretical physics... Black holes, dark matetters, dark energies and other concepts, which are being used to "cover" all the black holes and dark mysteries in Standard Model. It is indeed - and I keep telling this from the beginning... But I have nothing against a discussion with people, who know the subject about which we speak ...

I love to speak about magnetic fields Generally our official science treats magnetism, like somekind of anomaly or side-effect of electric charge in motion. Magnetic field has it's source in the quantum spin of subatomic particles. Science tells, that magnetic field is carried in space by "virtual photons" (maybe virtually possible...). But this is not truth. I was recently speaking online with a physicist regarding magnetic fields and he stopped publishing my posts https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414 It seems, that magnetic field is "written" in the magnetic component of a photon. Linearly polarized light can be used to visually map magnetic field of an object. Birds are getting disoriented, when they are exposed to polarized light - as they have biological visual receptors of magnetic fields... Now let me ask you a nice question: What can be the source of galactic magnetic fields? What is their role in galaxy formation process? How they can connect with other galactic fields through almost completely "empty" intergalactic medium? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm Can you read, what I read here? "A dynamo converts mechanical energy into magnetic energy. The dynamo theory is an attempt at explaining the mechanism with which bodies in the sky can develop a magnetic field. In astronomical objects like planets, stars or galaxies, the dynamo effect occurs if there are turbulent currents and a non-uniform (differential) rotation prevails. This so-called alpha-omega dynamo can generate large-scale magnetic fields – even if the initial field was chaotic." Magnetic energy??? What? Magnetic fields don't need energy to exist... Magnetic fields is created because of the alignment of magnetic fields in it's structure. Smallest magnet was created from 5 aligned atoms... Stronger alingnment creates stronger magnetic fields... You need energy differential to create a current - but you don't need a current for magnetic field.

https://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/cas/cas2002/cas-projects/austria_cygnus_1/ "Is there really a black hole in Cygnus? Scientists don't know if this is really a black hole. It could be a small star, too faint to see in optical wavelengths, or possibly a planet sized hunk of rock. But the Object is too small for a star. A better explanation is that the object is a neutron star or a white dwarf. Neutron Stars usually have very regular and distinct pulses. Cygnus X-1's emmissions, however, show no regularity or periodicity. They seem to have no repeating patterns, and vary on short and long timescales equally." https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/27/new-gravitational-wave-detection-shows-shape-of-ripples-from-black-hole-collision-ligo-virgo Can you then tell me, how could they determine a possible source, if they still can't point out a possible direction? They can only calculate, what can it be. Could be any objects with high mass. No one knows for example what couldf happen during a collision of 2 magnetars - do you? You can use every force, which is causing attraction towards the center - it can be gravity, but it doesn't have to. Helical motion of Solar System within the Milky Way looks more. like an EM effect, rather than gravitational one... I understand the time dilation... And I will repeat once more (!!!), that I don't argue with this. Time dilation is a fact, confirmed by observation - I don't deny it in any way. Besides it is absolutely logical, that the flow of time can differ, depending on different factors... I argue with the concept of determined and physical time dimension - it's a huge difference. Dilation doesn't prove, that time is already defined in every point of the timeline. That's what I keep telling you since my 3 last posts...

We never recorded any visual evidence of a star being "devoured" by a black hole - such process still exists only as a simulation We've detected gravitational waves, but talking about their sources, is in most cases just a pure speculation. We've recorded such source just once - and it was not a collision of black holes, but neutron stars... Black holes will remain speculative, until we won't finally see the images from those radio telescopes... We've seen simply, that stars in the center of galaxy orbit around a central point - that's it. It can be explained using MHD and not gravity - if you make hydrolise in an external magnetic field, water will start to spin around the electrodes A tiny model of galaxy... Change the voltage and you will change the velocity of spin - and suddenly you don't need any "dark matter" to explain the changing speed of galaxy rotation... I don't deny the time dilation - it just doesn't prove, that time is a determined dimension. You can hypothetically make a capsule, in which time will flow 20 times slower/faster - it won't affect the cause/effect relation. But jumping between different points of time is a total absurd. I don't care, from what equations it is dervied, if it can't be proven in any way and generally doesn't make sesnse... I exist here and now. If a second me exists constantly as well, one minute, or even a second ahead of "now" - then it's not me, but someone else... Sorry, but the entire concept lacks common logic...

As for the time dilation. Flow of time is defined by the frequency of processes, which shape the environment of an observer. Rate of this frequency can be varied, depending on location in space, velocity or magnitude of physical forces and (important!) on the physical scale. For two observers with a large difference of size, time will flow differently, even if they will be placed in the same location of space (a bacteria living in an anus). For a tiny observer, time will flow faster, than for a giant and their lifespan will differ as well (if they have similar ratio of metabolism/size). Anyone heard before anything about time dilation created by scaling? No? But it sounds as something rather obvious, so I figured it out by myself ... Time dilation doesn't prove dimensional time - it proves only, that it's "flow" is a relative value. Im absolutely sure, that it's possible, to change locally the apparent flow of time - but it's something completly different, than jumping between determined and physically real points, located on a dimensional axis of time. Such concept creates so many paradoxes and logical errors, that scientists had to make up 8 additional dimensions, while making some attempts of imited explanation. This, is how the multi-verse "theory" was born... Scientists gave us the "best" explanation - if something is not possible in this Universe, then it has to be something common in a different reality or dimension... Please...! How many books was witten, regarding the Grandson Paradox and it's possible solutions? And what for? Is such paradox even possible? I highly doubt it - sooner, or later someone would for sure try it. Actually someone should be killing his still young grandparents, right in this moment, in a different point of time - but somehow "our" Universe still exists and still makes sense... And what if there's a possibility, that a God exists? Just asking about it, makes God a possibility... Shouldn't such hypothetical God exist "somewhere" in the 11D multi-verse of infinite (im)possibilities? Isn't science about scepticism? Well, I'm a sceptic and I won't accept the idea of linear and determined time, until someone won't bring me a newspaper from the next Friday - only after I check, if it speaks about actual future events I will consider it as a fact...

I understand, that science is about connecting all the aspects of Universe - but maybe we should discuss here the multi-verse theory (which I personally consider, as sci-fi fairytale), instead of black holes, gravity, CERN, photons and speed of light. Of course black holes might be hypothetically connected with multi-verses (acting as a wormhole?). But until I won't finally see the data, recorded by Event Horizon Telescope, I won't believe in their existence - I'm a scientific atheist and I don't believe in things, which can't be proved by observation and physical measurement http://eventhorizontelescope.org And what, if there's no black hole in the ceter of Milky Way? Our entire model of Universe, based on gravitation, will crumble... Did you even think about such option? I doubt it... And as for multi-kulti-verse - theories are cool, as everybody can make his own. But before considering such theory, as a part of a model, we need to have ANYTHING, to assume that it might be correct. And the Truth is, that NO ONE is able to observe and physically measure anything except the "point" of HERE and NOW. Multi-verse + linear and determined time dimension = "Back To The Future" meets "Sliders". I also like "Rick & Morty", but to cosider such concept, as scientifically valid, is for me bit too far... I refuse to believe in things, which don't make sense, but sound cool... And what if time is a wave function and not a physical dimension? What if entire physical reality exists in a single and endless moment, which is equal to Planck's Time? What if Universe renders Himself in real-time only? Quantum physics denies determinism - possible outcome becomes a fact, only when we will collapse the wave function and physically determine the outcome. Superposed time function makes in such case much more sense, than a dimensional axis. Future defined, as an superposed assembly of possible outcomes. Past defined, as information about events, which took place already.... Oh, it would mean that Einstein was wrong - so such concept simply can't be true (even if it actually makes sense)... Better believe in 11D wonderland, where everything, what's possible (or impossible) happens in some alternative timeline of a what-if version of our "normal" Universe... But is this science, or a religion? Call me an infidel...

Hello! I'm back! Sorry for the second account - I didn't know about the limit... It wouldn't be the first time, when my account is being blocked, without any explanataion... Anyway, I'm making another movie and I would like to ensure, that I didn't make any mistake (except my terrible grammar :P). Here are some screenshots of the material, which I will present: Electromagnetism - level kindergarten. More to come soon... <edit - order of images> Little bit of scientific heresy... This is probably why, scientfic community doesn't like me too much More incoming... Ok, at last some concrete science: And now higher level of arcane knowledge: Na razie tyle...

According to current knowledge, the only way, in which space weather affects the climate, is by regulating the density of cosmic rays. I use the geomagnetic field, to model air currents in atmosphere, by connecting them directly. Science tells, that influence of solar wind ends on ionosphere, as it cuts out all the plasma currents - but field lines pass through the ionosphere and affect the currents in lower parts of atmosphere. "This is what your competing with" I'm not competing with them - I've just pointed them out, what to do, in order to use the same model, to better understand the weather here on Earth, not on Saturn. I'm just connecting all the dots. There's nothing more to discover, you just need to put it all together - and that's what I do... Somehow, I'm still probably the first one, who decscribed a flux tube in the lower atmosphere... This was published just couple months ago... http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045032/pdf This is from 2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045001 I think, that there's only one reason, why no one still didn't try to put it together - they would have to resign from the human made climate change and blame the possibly upcoming geomagnetic reversal. Open magnetospheric field lines create polar vorticity, which regulates the flow of air over entire globe. Displacement of magnetic poles causes the displacement of polar cups. It's happening right now and is responsible for most of weather anomalies...

Since mars has most likely rather thin atmosphere and very weak magnetic field, disturbances of IMF have probably much stronger effects - causing downbursts, tornadoes and strong horizontal flows. According to my model, you can predict the behavior of airmasses, by modeling the orientation of IMF and space weather activity. I don't know, if there's already a working model of such correlation. I can't write the code, but I can explain the mechanics of this process...

Here's a MHD magnetosphere simulation, which I've ordered on CCMC site and which I've used in some of those movies: https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/viewrun.php?domain=GM&runnumber=Bartlomiej_Staszewski_092617_1 Sadly I'm not that smart, to couple this model, with atmosphere - but I'm sure, that it can be done...

Well, you can run a MHD simulation on most of computers, if you know a bit about matlab. Generally, everything is fully consistent with officially approved knowledgde I can copy and paste all the formulas, if you insist. But entire process can be explained with the basic rules of electromagnetism...

Hello! I'm an amateur researcher. I would like to hear, what can you say about a model, which I've made and which explains the interaction between space weather and circulation of airmasses in the atmosphere. I've tried to base it only on officially approved knowledge, but as I am just an amateur, I would love to hear some professional opinion. Model is based on the laws of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) and supported by scientific publications. Shortly speaking, orientation of IMF sector determines the direction of current during a process, known as flux transfer event (fte). Flux tubes form along open magnetospheric field lines and create a physical pressure on atmosphere - what affects directly air currents. I would like to know, what should I do (or who should I ask), to validate my research and make it more official (for now it's rather a kind of hobby). Here are couple of my movies, in which I explain the mechanics of this interaction:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R2qW3lQACn0https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YPqreh4TFhIhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pJC_-MM6MmMhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JOxQw0LNYfE And here's some supporting material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_transfer_event https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/SCI/Pubs/Nuggets/FTE_nugget/themis nugget.html