"There cannot be done a better service to the truth than to purge from it things spurious" - Isaac Newton
1. There is only one type of basic force in the universe, not four, as in current theories.
-the force of attraction between oppositely signed charges
-the force of repulsion between charges with the same sign.
2. The addition of distance and time gives velocity, which allows for Maxwellian electrodynamics. For example, magnetism occurs when charges move in mutually orthogonal ways, according to the familiar right-hand rule.
3. Mass is not a primary construct, but a derived one. Everything is waves. Call them de Broglie (pronounced "de broyley") waves if you prefer. Solid bodies are actually standing waves trapped between nodal boundaries at the matter's edge. Free moving particles are wavelets, local energy fluctuations in the cosmic field.
4. Since everything is made of waves, even mass-bearing particles, no mass can move faster than the speed of those waves c. If there were something that wasn't made of matter waves, it could move faster, but since there isn't, it can't. If you tried to get something with mass (= us, for example) to move that fast, the matter waves would 'pile up' on each other like a tsunami, gaining in mass, and slowing down in time. As predicted by Einstein. But unlike Einstein's non-explanation "nothing can move faster than light, capiche!", NeoVerse Theory (NVT) supplies a concrete explanation that is comprehensible by non-technical people, ie it appeals to our (ie humanity's) prior experience of ocean tsunamis, river 'jumps' and tidal 'bores'. You can't move faster than light because you can't move faster than (all the little bits of) yourself. -[1]
5. After the Singularity (the 'big bang') matter and anti-matter were created in equal amounts, due to a rather obvious and simple conservation (time-symmetry) law. Total constituents before equals total constituents after. (Emily) Noether's theorem.
6. So where did all the anti-matter go? Space in the form of a electropositronic or e-p field (the 'matrix') was created. Solid matter consisted of free electrons 'outside' the nuclei and bound positrons inside them. The strong nuclear force is no longer needed. To split the atom requires that the matter and anti-matter hemi-verses of that atom join together in a inverted, miniaturised version of the big bang. The differences in energy manifest themselves as the momentum-bearing property we call mass. - see Figure below - note that 'charge' is defined as mean (or 'average') value of charge.
7. Inside the nucleus, we redefine the rest charge of 'particles' as time averaged cyclic quantities. We can do this because there is no such thing as matter, let alone bits of matter called particles. They are all standing waves. The proton has a rest charge of +1 because it cycles between a maximum of +2 and a minimum of 0. The mean is- (+2-0)/2 = +1. The neutron has a rest charge of zero because it cycles between +1 and -1. The mean is (+1-1)/2 = 0. See figure below. For a small fraction of the cycle, the nucleons repel, but for the majority of the time, they attract, according to Coulomb's Law Fq = constant. q1.q2 / r^2
8. Since everything is a wave, we don't need to worry about 'spooky action at a distance' (SAAAD - it really is quite sad!) and quantum entanglement. Forces communicate across the span of the cosmos via travelling fluctuations in the e-p 'matrix'. Quantum entanglement is a perfect example of the BBB principle (Bullshit Baffles Brains). But the maths seems to fit- maths uber alles, klar! -[2]
9. What about gravity? Isn't that only attractive, never repulsive? How could gravity be some kind of charge based phenomena on a global scale if it never repels? Well, in the early days of the universe, it does. General relativity showed that gravitational repulsion provided the expansive power for the singularity.
10. "Three quarks for muster mark". With this quote from the novel. 'Finnegan's Wake', Murray Gell-man introduced his theory of nucleonic substructure in the 1960's. For this theory to hold water, quarks were allowed to have fractional charge. This is no more of an 'ask' than the cyclic variation in charge depicted in the figure above. In fact, they are theoretical innovations which break the same 'rule'- that charge occurs in integral amounts - but in different ways. Note that the 1/3 charge quanta demanded by the quark experiments (these are real particle accelerator data) arises naturally from examination of the diagram (a theoretical construct).
11. a proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark. From the diagram, the charge balance equation goes like this => 2. (+2/3) + 1. (-1/3) = +1. Similarly, a neutron is composed of one up quark and two down quarks. This charge balance is left to the keen reader to complete -[3]. Note that the physical interpretation in the neoversal theory (NVT) is quite different from the standard viewpoint (SVP). NVT gets the fractional charges from cyclical variations (ie waves) in charge. SVP gets the fractional charges from (putative) particles. Experience tells us that the choice of the wrong physical interpretation will usually end in tears.
12. "I don't believe in coincidences, and neither does god"- Albert Einstein. OK. Here's a coincidence- why do the electrostatic equation and the gravity equation have identical forms, both being inverse square laws.
Newton's Law = Kg.m1.m2/r^2
Coulomb's Law = Kq. q1.q2/r^2
By applying Occam's Razor, we arrive at the following conclusion- gravity is electrostatics on a large size scale. In fact 'Michael's Law' says the following- the electric force between two electrons is always 4.1 x 10^42 times as great as the gravitational force between them at any distance! From Occam we conclude that, in all likelihood, THEY ARE THE SAME FORCE, differing only by a (truly huge) scaling factor. This is because gravity and electric fields behave identically irrespective of the size scale involved. Is that universal enough for you?
If the correlation demonstrated by Michael's Law is a causation, then gravity and electromagnetism are both generated by the same underlying phenomenon, essentially identical except for (1) an enormously large scaling factor, and (2) electromagnetism is propagated via oscillating waves caused by alternating electrical current loops. There have been some recent experiments which provide provisional support for this view. Imagine generating magnetic fields that were so powerful as to perturb local gravitational forces on a test mass. To generate such enormous magnetic fluxes would likely make full use of recent advances in near-ambient temperature superconductors, within which very large electron/ion flows can occur with little or no resistance, due to quantum pair tunnelling effects.
In 1996, a Russian researcher called Eugene Podkletnov claimed to have measured a gravitational shielding effect of 2%, created by rotated a superconducting ceramic disk above a set of powerful electromagnets. Immediately, his work was criticised for actually measuring maglev effects or ionically generated air currents. If the observed lift (reduction in the weight or downward force) of the test mass was actually due to a gravitational effect, then all other possible sources of lift must be quarantined. Ideally the test mass should (1) be made from non-magnetic materials (2) isolated in a vacuum (3) within a faraday cage (4) be in an inertial frame. The first (non-magnetic materials) stipulation is important- the role of magnetism should be to indirectly reduce gravity, not directly induce magnetic dipoles in the test mass. This could be arranged by using alternating magnetic fields.
Another controversial researcher to claim anomalous gravitational effects is the late Ning Li. She claimed to have generated measurable effects using an 11 kilowatt high frequency gravitational waves (HFGW) generator, something she called 'AC Gravity'. Successful experiments of this type offer direct support for the suggested force unification theory.
1. Curiously, because light is massless, ie it is not a standing wave, but a travelling one, it may be able to move faster than c - I'm not sure yet, its part of my current work in progress.
2. Pity about the physical visualisation. Hopefully this website tries to remediate that.
3. excerpt from Zweig, G. (2010) 'Memories of Murray Gell-Mann and the Quark Model'- "in February of 1964 Murray proposed using the three fractionally charged objects in the fundamental representation as fields from which to construct the currents of a toy field theory."