MikeBrace

You're barking up the wrong tree in sentence one. As I stated, the soul has nothing to do with religion. I can't help it if they highjacked the one part of you that makes you unique (if you have one). And it's explanations are not beyond known physical laws...just as your emotions are not. And it is possible that they are connected, but I haven't gone there yet. And, as I asked VictorMedvil, why are you on this forum?

Not to be rude, but I have to ask; why are you on this forum [in the first place]?

Then I take it you believe no one has a soul?

It’s important that you understand word for word how I defined compassion for it is at the heart the definition of a 'soul'. Compassion defines the soul and is unique to the soul. Compassion is not the same as 'sympathy' or 'empathy'. Those are just emotions. Compassion requires a physical act. Remember how I said the soul controls the consciousness? Here is a good definition of compassion: Compassion (noun): The investment and/or expenditure of a personal asset on behalf of another living being, knowing that there exists a high probability that there will be an immediate negative rate of return on the investment, but cognizant of the fact that the recipient(s) of this expenditure may benefit in a positive manner from this expenditure. Act of compassion (verb): Showing or exhibiting compassion. As far as who (or what) can have a soul, it's simple: it is a living creature with a conscious that can willingly and physically helping another living creature by freely giving away it's time, physical help and/or wealth knowing that in all likelihood this recipient of this act cannot immediately pay it back, and that in many cases (and in all likelihood) this creature risks losing more than just it's initial investment. However, the act of compassion is often used in the hope that the recipient will use your giving’s wisely for the betterment of themselves, others and/or this planet. Back to your question; what can own a soul. The single largest determining factor whether or not any physical being (with a conscious) would/could be occupied with a soul is if a physical entity has the ability to make a compassionate act on behalf of another physical entity. If that’s the case then it can in all likelihood be occupied by a soul. I have now come to understand why a living organism may or may not ever harbor a soul, but also why not all of them would ever harbor a soul in the first place. And while a dog would definitely qualify for ‘owning’ one, a lizard or chicken probably wouldn’t.

It is important that you separate the religion from the definition. Your physical consciousness is the basic operating system that controls the living entity in order to meet its basic survival needs. That is your 'elephant'. It has nothing to do with religion. Not all living entities require a consciousness (an 'elephant') to properly operate themselves, but most higher, more evolved forms of life do have them. I think that most autonomous forms of life need one in order to survive. However, history has shown us countless number of examples there the physical consciousness can be influenced and modified beyond its basic needs; that is done by a spiritual consciousness; as soul. If you have such a consciousness present, that is your soul. While religion has laid claim to this spiritual consciousness, it is a fallacy to think it defines it. Religion is a crutch developed by man to understand what they cannot comprehend. I maintain the spiritual consciousness (the soul) has nothing to do with religion, just as religion has nothing to do with reality. The spiritual consciousness that controls your physical consciousness is what you know as a soul. A soul is an advanced operating system independent from your physical consciousness. You don't need a soul to survive, and [contrary to most forms of organized religion] not everyone has one. If your religion dictates otherwise I’ll leave that discussion between you and to whomever you pray; this discussion only talks of the soul, not of religion.

I think that most 'human minds' have accepted the fact that life is finite, so I'm not buying your concept that we created a 'soul' to transcend the end of our physical existence. Even you yourself 'died' twice [and yet] your consciousness did not. Even if you slipped into 'an inky black silence' it was [still] a state of existence that you recognized as a physical state of existence and could describe. And your conscious returned twice, so 'something' about you continued to exist after your body was not capable of harboring it. And when it was [again]. it came back. I will 'agree' in part with you that religion tried to define the soul to its own benefit, but that has gotten it nowhere; especially when it tried to define its existence as 'eternal'. But that's not the definition of a soul in the first place. What most people consider to be the 'soul' is really just your consciousness. The spark of life in you, your life force, is just your consciousness (you) collaborating with organic cells (also made up of matter and energy) on a very large scale in order to survive in a place where everything eats everything else just to stay alive. It’s who you see when you look in the mirror. Most, if not all living organisms [that do not belong to a collective] have a life force. We humans call it our consciousness. But that is not a soul. Think of your consciousness as an elephant. It does what it does to stay alive, experience pleasure and avoid pain/death. Think of your soul (if you have one...and not everybody has one) as the rider on that elephant. For the most part it controls the elephant in an attempt to do its bidding. And as I stated above, for the most part the only thing your soul wants to do is treat others as it wishes to be treated itself. And so it steers the elephant accordingly. It cannot physically force the elephant to go where it wants it to, or do as it wishes it to; it can only try to influence it. And, as I said early, the soul's unique trait is that of compassion. It will always try to make the elephant make a compassionate decision when so confronted. Whether or not your consciousness listens to it is up to the owner of the soul.

I've spent a lifetime thinking about 'the Soul'. Most people have a perception of what a 'soul' is, but I think few have actually defined it. I submit this for your review: The spark of life in you, your life force, is just your consciousness (you) collaborating with organic cells (also made up of matter and energy) on a very large scale in order to survive in a place where everything eats everything else just to stay alive. It’s who you see when you look in the mirror. Most, if not all living organisms [that do not belong to a collective] have a life force. We humans call it our consciousness. A soul is a mental and spiritual entity that influences a life force (your consciousness) to act in a sustaining and nurturing manner. Depending on how closely your consciousness listens to it the soul is capable of controlling the life force of a living organism beyond its basic instincts (and what Mother Nature intended for it), and the soul is the only life force capable of understanding and offering an act of compassion on its own free will. A soul [by definition] acts as a compassionate being on its own free will. As such, it can only occupy a living creature that has a conscious, one that can be controlled and one that is capable of showing an act of compassion. However it is not as powerful as your life force (your consciousness) and if your consciousness so chooses to it can override your soul’s emotions, especially involving acts of compassion. Compassion? The Merriam-Webster Dictionary [loaded in this computer’s word program] defines compassion as: Sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate itA feeling of wanting to help someone who is sick, hungry, in trouble, etc.This dictionary goes on to list some of the more common synonyms as: commiseration, sympathy, feelingI find it rather odd that this dictionary (as well as most others that I looked at) missed the boat completely on defining the word compassion. They all seem to define compassion as an adjective and liken it to a level of sympathy (or empathy) for another person. It has to be more than that. If not, where does that leave an ‘act of compassion’ when compared to an ‘act of empathy’ or an ‘act of sympathy’? Think about it. An act of compassion is more than just describing a feeling of sympathy towards someone’s plight; it’s actually doing something to help them alleviate their pains and sorrows. It is the physical act of ‘lending a helping hand’. Here’s what I propose we consider as the more complete definition of Compassion as it pertains to the soul: Compassion (noun): The investment and/or expenditure of a personal asset on behalf of another living being, knowing that there exists a high probability that there will be an immediate negative rate of return on the investment, but cognizant of the fact that the recipient(s) of this expenditure may benefit in a positive manner from this expenditure. Act of compassion (verb): Showing or exhibiting compassion. Here is a simplified version of compassion: Willingly helping another living creature by freely giving away your time, physical help and/or wealth knowing that in all likelihood this creature cannot immediately pay you back, and that in many cases (and in all likelihood) you risk losing more than just your initial investment, but that [if you have judged the situation wisely] the recipient of your giving’s will use your giving’s wisely for the betterment of themselves, others and/or this planet. I submit that 'Compassion' defines the soul and is unique to the soul.

I think you can create a proton and an electron strictly though mechanical means. I know you can magnetize and demagnetize ferrous metal by introducing the ferrous metal to a magnetic field though mechanical means, such as immediate contact (rub a magnet on a screw driver) or simply imparting kinetic energy (striking it hard with a hammer) to the metal in a magnetic field. I speculate that it you impact a neutron hard enough to break it apart, and you do so in a highly-magnetized field, you will spit out a proton and a neutron. And if they attempt to get back together through mutual attraction, but miss on trajectory you get an hydrogen atom. If they collide you get your neutron back.

Final post on the UFoP; the Superluminal Drive. The speed of any object of mass is governed by the physics of two things: the force by which the object is accelerated and the medium through which it is traveling. If the object of mass [from herein referred to as the projectile] is born of the electromagnetic spectrum (ES) then we know its force is derived from the same, and its final steady-state velocity is the speed of light; 300M m/s (c). (I, for one, have always found it odd that the only projectiles we see (and measure) to be traveling at (or near) the speed of light are those projectiles that are born of the electromagnetic spectrum.) One of the earlier postulates of approaching the speed of light is that it can’t be done. Special Relativity (SR) tells us that, as something speeds up, its relativistic mass increases compared with its mass at rest (determined by multiplying its rest mass by the Lorentz factor) and every extra unit of energy you put into speeding up the object less effective at making it actually move faster. This doesn’t make sense in GM because physics tells us you can’t increase mass or energy, and if F = MA, then you should also be able to provide enough instantaneous F (force) to accelerate a projectile (M) to (or near) the speed of light. If the universe is 14 billion years old, and we know that nuclear forces can instantaneously release enough energy [force] to propel a projectile at speeds approaching c, then why have we not seen any projectile (other than one from the ES) traveling across the universe at a velocity anywhere near c? From a physics standpoint the answer is straight forward: Regardless of its initial velocity every projectiles’ velocity will begin to decay at a rate based on its coefficient of drag (CD) while traveling through a medium. To which, the formula for the coefficient of drag tells us [among other things] that the force of drag (a decelerating force) is based on the frontal area of the projectile as well as the square of the projectiles’ velocity (v2). This means that the force of deceleration of any projectile is not linear and gets weaker as the projectile slows down. Using GM the opposite must (and does) hold true: the force of acceleration of any projectile traveling through any medium is based on that projectiles’ coefficient of drag (CD) increases logarithmically with v2. Once again, SR is at odds with GM because of the physics governing the universe; and rather than assuming that every projectile traveling in space behaves like every other projectile traveling through a medium, SR disavows the medium and uses QFT to post a speed limit. I didn’t and still don’t buy it. So my solution to superluminal speeds for a projectile not of the ES is to lower the density of the medium through which it is traveling. If we lower the density of the GravX particles in front of a projectile in motion, we lessen the force required to accelerate said projectile. We will always need to apply a force to accelerate to a velocity, and because of the projectiles’ CD, we will always need to a force to maintain a steady-state velocity through space. This force will always be dependent on the mass, not because of its overall weight but because of its atomic weight [density]. The opacity of the GravX particle is strictly based on the size of the nucleus of the atom through which it is traveling. Therefore since we cannot reduce the mass (frontal area) of the projectiles we need to lower its relative CD to the medium it is traveling through. The easiest way to do this is the change the density of the GravX particle field of the local area around the projectile. (I am not saying anything new to those that have speculated that Wormholes exist and that they may offer a means of intergalactic travel at superluminal speeds.) It’s important to note that in increase in velocity - achieved by changing the density of the medium through which you travel - does not change the measured velocity of the projectile in the medium by which it is traveling. Just as an aircraft actually shows a decrease in internally-measured airspeed as it gains altitude, it also shows an increase in speed relative to the earth (ground) below it. Accordingly I theorize that if the density of the Void energy field is lowered sufficiently that a projectile traveling through it can get from Point A to Point B at a velocity several times the speed of light when measured from Point A relative to Point B (or any other point other than the projectile itself). At no time does the projectile measure its velocity superluminal within the confines of the projectile. Therefore any resistance through its [localized] lower Void energy field will be lower than any other projectile traveling through the average, steady state value of the Void energy field outside its range of influence. I have referred to this concept as a Relative Superluminal Drive (RSD) because at no time does the projectile measure superluminal velocities of itself; all superluminal velocities (∆d/∆t) are measure from a reference point outside of the projectile. This concept also stipulates several GM properties seen while traveling through a compressible medium: that the projectile never creates a shock wave traveling through Void energy;that Newton’s Laws apply, but in a balanced acceleration through the Void corresponding to a balanced density change of the localized Void results in a conservation of momentum as the ∑F = 0 internal to the projectile. This results in an acceleration constant of 0 for the mass of the projectile;and the resultant maximum velocity (VM) is logarithmically based on the change in Void density (VD) over the change in distance in front of the projectile. Each of these postulates have ramifications of their own, ramifications that would allow for humans to travel at superluminal speeds, and these ramifications are not by accident but only by observation and design. I will not delve into the intricacies or possibilities of these ramifications in this thread but I would encourage any reader to open up a discussion with me as to what these ramifications mean to us. I will not offer a mechanical solution without a mechanical means to achieve this solution, so I will end this thread with the mechanical means to [ultimately] prove this theorem. Since GravX particles are electromagnetically charged particles, they are subject to the same laws of physics that govern every other ES particle in the universe: they can be manipulated in means unique to their properties. For instance, we use an X-Ray machine to condense and project ES particles, microwave guns to create and focus microwaves in a localized area, and antennas to manipulate radio waves. Because we can also manipulate a host of ES particles, as well as a host of other energy particles using mechanical means this means we can do the same for the GravX particles. Because I am not [by trade] an expert on ES manipulation I do not know what the mechanics of this manipulation would look like; however my education, experience and observations gave me good cause for places to start. However, as I designed and devised experiments to prove each aspect of the theory I discovered that either I had been the first [that I was aware of] to design and conduct such an experiment, or someone else had already conducted those experiments and the results where as I predicted. That is not to say that the scientists conducting these published experiments proved what they trying to prove, they only observed results that I would have expected. Many such experiments disproved their original hypothesis because it was in conflict with GM or based on an informal fallacy. What I found in my research was that many scientists were simply conducting experiment in physics for the sake of discovery; but, because they were not looking for their experiments to prove any particular theory in general, many of these published and observed discoveries went unnoticed, unwanted or unreceived. One such aspect of the UFoP from early on was that the Void [energy field] was particle based. As such these particles should behave as all other physical aspects of every other particle in the universe. Accordingly I model the GravX particle like that of gaseous matter such that it should behave within the parameters of the Perfect Gas Laws. Since I started my study as an aeronautical engineer I started designing some of my first experiments along the Magnus effect and calculate the force of the Void using the Kutta-Joukowski Lift theorem for a cylinder. What I discovered in my research was that these experiments have been conducted over and over again under the title of Anti-gravity wheel. However, because the cause for these effects are based several informal fallacies they could not explain the conservation of mass and momentum where the ∑F must = 0 (since nothing is accelerating) as the rotating object begins to rotate at a fixed velocity about an axis normal to the horizontal axis. Nor could they produce a device where they could produce work; only defeat gravity. Please reference US patent US8066226B2 for the description of just such a device. Accordingly, one of my first experiments that I am designing to observe an quantify the UFoP is just such that as described however describe the observed effects and measurements (many of which were done in previous experiments, but not in conjunction with each other) in a manner consistent with GM and the UFoP. While the aforementioned experiment will help understand the UFoP better, it will not help achieve superluminal velocities of an object of mass. To do that I evolved a very different set experiments and tests to conduct. I envisioned a set of experiments to manipulate the Void enough to give results consistent with my UFoP and construct a RSD based on these results. The other As the UFoP matured I theorized that since the Void is comprised of GravX particles and that these particles they have a charge, energy level and density, the Void could be manipulated by electromechanical means. I set about looking at what others had done to do this and recalled John Hutchinson and the Hutchinson Effect. I was aware of his efforts as I went through college and in an effort to construct my experiments then studied his efforts in greater detail. I came up with the following conclusions: Although John had the cart in front of the horse, he [unknowingly] proved my theory. Because he was not out to prove any [other] theory that I know of when he was conducting these experiments, he didn’t know (or realize) what he had discovered. He was not part of any recognized organization or educational institution so he never had the backing of such. Most of his work and discoveries occurred long before the informational age of the internet came into being, so he didn’t get the notoriety that may have gotten his wrok noticed. To date physics is still trying to explain and duplicate his experiments using SR and QFT, and this effort has continued to offer only theoretical solutions based on theoretical physics. In conclusion, I still have yet to understand out how the Hutchinson Effect affects mass, and that in order to do this I need to conduct a more constrained series of electromechanical experiments and apply those findings to a secular device designed to manipulate the Void. However, such hurdles would not hinder a knowledgeable electromechanical engineer and scientist from designing and laying the ground work for the construction of just such a device, nor conceiving the mechanisms needed beforehand, should they discover the correct means to electromechanically manipulate the density of the Void. And I did that in 2015. For the electromechanical means to achieve superluminal velocities for an object of mass please refer to US Patent application US20170051730A1. The abstract is shown below: Relative Superluminal Propulsion Drive Abstract A Relative Superluminal Propulsion Drive that allows for the electro-mechanical means by which a vehicle of mass can be accelerated to and maintain a relative velocity greater than the universal constant C (299,792,458 meters/second, the speed of light in a vacuum) between two fixed points in space when measured from a third fixed point in space. The propulsion drive is an array of electro-mechanical antennas positioned on the forward and aft portion of the vehicle and provides for the force of acceleration to the vehicle by lowering the pressure and density of the energy state of the area in front of the vehicle and increasing the pressure and density of the energy state behind the vehicle through the collection and re-distribution of that part of the electro-magnetic spectrum responsible for maintaining the average pressure density of the void energy of space. In addition to providing propulsion the Relative Superluminal Propulsion Drive accounts for and negates the effects of the Newton's Laws of Motion during both the acceleration and deceleration portion of the travel. The aforementioned patent DOES NOT give you the electrical means to operate the described mechanism, only the construct of the mechanism. I liken it to a car motor, for which there are many designs for, however each engine has a unique fuel and unique construction. The electrical means to operate the device are still a secret for me to discover, and now that I know where to look that will be the topic of another patent. (If you would like to help, let me know. At this stage of my life I can use all of the help I can muster.) Conclusion to the UFoP thread: Since we discovered the universe is accelerating, everything aspect of GM and observed physics has been defined IAW the UFoP. And, although this framework still falls under the realm of theoretical physics, I can say this with 100% certainty: with the exception of proving the existence of just one particle, no other theoretical physics is needed to be hypothesized in order to understand the physics of our universe, nor validate the proof of the UFoP. (I realize that I have probably not convinced many readers as the validity of my framework for a more perfect ToE, however I would ask any readers who hold such mental reservations to look at all you’ve learned, observed and explained, then compare that to the timeliness and framework of other theories and explanations [that you hold true], and then ask yourself if what you understand to be true is a fact, theory, hypothesis, belief or a just fantasy, then judge the UFoP accordingly.) This concludes this thread on the UFoP.

Thank you for offering the answer that was on the tip of my tongue (fingertips?) And now, for the conclusion...

(Authors’ warning: this post is more personable and less scientific than the previous posts. I felt that if you have no just criticism of my work on the UFoP by now then I should show you the man behind the proof and let you decide if your time has been worth it). I will work on the equations (as I referenced a few posts back) and when I have the mathematical proof I will post it as well. It may be on this forum, it may be on another. However, I feel it is incumbent on me, as the scientist that built this UFoP, to explain my motivation for building it. I didn’t do it for recognition, or just to prove I am right. I did it because I knew I could. During conversations on my reasons for undertaking this effort, and why I did not do it for the obvious reasons, I like to quote Jimmy Buffet: Good times and riches and son-of-a-bitches - I’ve seen more than I can recall. I had to build it for one specific problem and one specific problem only: the quest for superluminal drive. And I did it by taking lessons learned from the Kobayashi Maru. Like many detectives and innovative personalities I like to solve problems. For me, the bane of my existence is my obsession with solving problems. Over the last 40 years I have solved a lot of them, some for commercial reasons others for just self-edification. Some I spent very little time on, some took me years and years, but to my own satisfaction I have solved all that I have come across and chose to take on. I say this because superluminal drive is the last, and longest running problem that I have been working on, and this UFoP offers me the technical solution I came up with. I for one believe in extraterrestrials. As an explorer, scientist and historian I have come across, through my own volition and investigation, too much hard and narrative evidence to say we are not the first technology based, sentient beings to inhabit this planet. This certainty has also been bolstered over the last few hundred years with the notion and discussion of space travel to the stars. To which - I think you will find that almost every aspect of science fiction (not science fantasy) has either come to pass, currently on the test bench or currently on the drawing boards. Despite Albert E’s postulate about the speed of light not being broken, and even considering all of his most devote followers, I don’t think you will find a scientist alive today that will say with 100% certainty that it is not possible. The idea of superluminal travel as being possible for the sake of technology was not, however, my primary driver for knowing it is possible. To convince myself that it has to be possible I relied on the knowledge that IF another advanced civilization has visited our planet that they have to had gotten here at superluminal speeds. I state this observation because psychology has taught us that no society or social organization survives in isolation from the parent society for the duration of more than a generation or two; especially if that society is technologically based and has a social conscious. (Nor could this isolated society hope to survive on its own without near or immediate support.) And since the closest inhabitable planets are light years away, that means that IF extraterrestrials are real THEN superluminal drives have to exist. If you have read this far, and if you are interested in the technical solution to superluminal propulsion, then please continue to the next post. If you are, on the other hand, dead set against the notion of extraterrestrials then stop right here; if you have a had any doubts about my reasoning and motivation behind the UFoP then nothing I can write after this would change your mind…and I have no desire to do that.

The above quote is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the discussions in this post, and how they can go so badly astray and end up as bullshit. I use this post as not because it is in error, because it (like so many other posts in this thread) keep basing their arguments on informal fallacies; in this example it's the speed of light. Many on this thread keep thinking that the speed of light is a constant and the arguments based on this assumption are sound physics. I hate to break the news, but scientist have long ago figured out a way to slow light down, and I am talking about slowing it down to not just a crawl, but stopping photons in mid-flight altogether. Need proof? Just so some detective work. You may find that on the Jan 24, 2001 the Harvard Gazette reported that they got it down to 36 mph … then still slower later on. CBS talked about it on 19 Feb, 2001. Like one of the articles so eloquently said: …"the speed of light was considered one of the universe’s great constants. Albert Einstein theorized that light cannot travel faster than 186,282 miles per second. No one has proved him wrong, but he never said that it couldn’t go slower." If y'all really want to cut the bullshit out of physics - get your ducks in a row first, then make your point. Anything less is just bullshit.

For many scientists the proof can be in the results or the proof can be in the numbers. I’ve been of the mindset that the proof is always in the results, and the numbers are just the icing on the cake. This mindset isn’t based on education, logic or personal psychology, but based on reason. I have learned [and seen] a multitude of manmade equations predict naturally occurring physics time and time again, however the scientific history of the physics behind those equations tells us that the physic is born of reason, and not of mathematics from theoretical equations. Theoretical equations produce theoretical results, and while most theoretical equations are derived from observed and proven physics (we call this reality), and many of the same have become fact, far more of them have not. Conversely, the usual failure of theoretical equations are not based on the observations, but on the numbers derived in these equations do not correctly define the physics. Carl Sagan once said: It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. I think you can substitute ‘mathematics’ for ‘the universe’ and it would still hold true. I am not ignorant of the fact that mathematics are the ultimate proof of concept and proof of fact, for I know that if you can explain the physics mathematically [using real numbers], and then replicate (or change) the physics by using any combination of variables and constants, with 100% certainty time after time, then the theory behind the physics far more supportable into becoming a fact. I have learned historically that scientist create theories to explain observations. Then, when the theory becomes accepted by themselves or others, they derive the equations to create the change/create the physics they need to suit their purpose; this is the nature of progress. I had my reasons for piecing together this theory together the way I did (and the education, logic and personal psychology to help piece it together as I went along). As I built this framework I discover that by its very construct I only needed a few fundamental equations to prove it mathematically. To which, I am at the point where need the mathematical values for these equations to ‘mathematically’ prove I am right. The bad news is that those numbers and derived values are still beyond my education. The good news is that I can learn or derive them myself if need be. For those of you that want to see the equations and the numbers I need to prove my UFoP I submit the following thread. I know that ultimately this mathematical proof will bear me and my theories out, however because my reasons for constructing this UFoP was not to seek mathematical proof of its validity, but to predict and observe theoretical physics that I believe to exist (and be true), I am still moving forward and try to physically prove my theories before I mathematically justify them. To which I may never get the chance to conduct the one, last experiment I need to prove my theories, but I’ve proven too much of my theories to be true to give up on them just yet. So I’ll either be successful in putting the experiment together or die of old age first. The actual values needed to prove this theory right are actually quite few in number and easy to plug in, because (as I referenced earlier) the universe is a balanced equation between Matter and Energy and neither can be created nor destroyed. So all I need to start with is calculating the Force of the Void and the Force of Matter. For a while I could simply look them up on the internet. However since the introduction of QFT the modern definitions of these values keep changing. However, based on GM the actual values will not; and while I have seen them before I did not write them down when I saw them. Here is what I need: If FV (Void force) is the force of acceleration that the Void energy is exerting on the Mass of the universe to accelerate it, I need to find this value. Since we measure the acceleration of the universe as a positive it will remain that way. If FM is the amount of force needed to keep Matter stable, I need to find this value. Since this force is exact opposite of FV I will label it as a negative value. Here’s why I need them: My UFoP is based on the construct that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and there are only two states of existence in the universe (matter and energy), the Void is energy, and there is energy in Mass, AND the sum of the forces in a balanced equation must equal 0. So my proof is simple: these two values should be the same but opposite signs. FV + FM = 0 FV = - FM To find FV we know that the universe is accelerating (A), and we know that Mass (M) is constant, so all we have to do is solve for FV = MA. Here is the part that history has escaped me: the value of FV and the value of A. When we first discovered that the universe was accelerating the numerical value of A gave us a value of FV that was too hard to believe so we changed everything to fit our [erroneous] models. (This was also the birth/acceptance of Dark Matter/Dark Energy). I read this value, grasped the magnitude of this value, and based my whole UFoP on that value. And here’s why: I was taught in school that Albert E’s postulate that the stored potential energy of an atom was based on its mass (M), and that if its potential energy was ever converted to kinetic energy it could be described in the kinetic variable in the standard energy (force) equation: E = Mc2. This formula also gave us a number of frightfully high but believable values so we theorized the output of the atomic bomb on these values. We understand that these values are simply based on the potential kinetic energy of the mass of the atom if it is deconstructed at once. Albert E also knew that the theoretical values for the gravitational forces of mass were not enough to keep protons together (and I was in school when we proved this). So he theorized that if ‘whatever was keeping atoms together’ instantly went away, AND knowing that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, the energy conversion of potential to kinetic would be catastrophic on a universal scale. (This moment was also birth/acceptance of QFT.) In simple terms, I stated that if Mass and Energy are constant, the forces that create them and hold them together have to be that same as well. I have stated that Void energy (and Void energy alone) is responsible for universal acceleration, so the force of the Void = FV. Finding FV was simple: FV = MA. We know M and we measured A. I read this value once, but cannot easily find it anymore among the continuing growth of clutter surrounding SR and Dark Matter/Energy. To find FM I could go to E=Mc2 to find the potential energy equivalent of the atomic structure (FM), and see if it is the same as Void energy, however because E=Mc2 has never really been proven I want to keep this value with the realm of GM. (To do otherwise may be committing an informal fallacy.) To calculate FM we just have to calculate how much pressure (N/m2) it takes to keep the heaviest atom (U238) stable. FM = FA x AA Where FA is the internal force of repulsion (N) of the protons in this atom, and AA is the outer surface area of the nucleus of the atom (m2). For FA, I need a numerical value the force of repulsion for 92 protons in immediate contact with each other. For AA I need to know the surface are of the nucleus of the U238 atom. I know this is variable since it can contain between 141 and 146 Neutrons, however I would consider using an average of 144 neutrons to start with. In summary, if I can determine the force of electromagnetic repulsion in the nucleus of this atom and the surface area of the nucleus I can determine the [current] maximum stable pressure the Void is exerting on the largest stable atom, then compare this force FM to the force of universal acceleration FV and see if they match. If they do I am more proper than anything else out there that has not moved out of the realm of hypothesis. And this is far as I have gotten; almost complete but I need to plug in the values. And since I am a betting man I would bet in my favor, and that these numbers will match. But as I said, this is not my reason for the UFoP. I built the UFoP to go faster than light…much, much faster.

If the previous theories and observations supporting these theories are true (factual) then in accordance with the laws of physics the opposite reactions of these postulates must be true. If the kinetic energy of Mass, and its interaction with other objects of Mass [in the Void], can create pressure waves and localized pressure differentials in the Void (both high pressure and low pressure) as well as change the localized density differential of the Void, than Mass can create not only Black Holes, it should be able to create pressure variations of a different physical characteristic as well, and those variations should be common in nature. Accordingly, the interactions of Mass with the Void (and with other objects of Mass) should be able to create cyclonic, linear disturbances as well.Just as the kinetic energy and pressure differential of the earths’ atmosphere (comprised of gaseous particles as well as solid particles) creates hurricanes, it also creates tornados. Scientists have hypothesized that just such disturbance may exist; they are referred to as Wormholes. By definition a Wormhole is actually a linear cyclonic disturbance with an area of extreme low pressure at its center.If a low pressure area of the Void results in a Black Hole, and this Black Hole causes an acceleration of Mass towards the center of this area of low pressure, then the opposite must be true; a centralized area of high pressure will result in all stable Matter accelerating away from this centralized region. To which, we have seen and measured this observation across the universe. The mass of the universe is accelerating away from itself.As Mass accelerates its kinetic energy level increases, as well as the resultant forces in Void pressure waves and differentials, when interacting with Void particles as well as other objects of Mass. (F=MA)If an object of stable Mass is surrounded by a uniformly dense field of Void particles, then the Mass will remain intact as long as the pressure against the atomic structure of the Mass remains constant. If the localized pressure gradient of the Void energy field begins to decay (a reduction of force) this means that the Void energy field is being allowed to expand outwards to meet its constraints (Ideal Gas Law). Unrestricted it will continue to expand unabated.If allowed to expand beyond the point of having enough pressure to contain stable Mass at the atomic level, the Mass will then begin to decay and destruct into smaller and smaller objects of Mass, and these smaller objects of Mass will have a lower density. Given unrestricted Void expansion all Mass in the universe will eventually destruct to the only stable Mass that does not need Void energy to remain intact as stable Matter: Hydrogen. This last postulate does indeed support the Big Bang Theory. Hypothetically, at one instance in time all of the protons [that comprise stable matter] may have been assembled in a solid construct, and the Void energy field around it could theoretically had enough force (Area pressure) to keep it all compacted together in one place. (This would be acceptable within the laws of physics, and the first construct of this UFoP, that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed). If the Void Energy field constraints were removed, and the Void energy field was allowed unlimited expansion, as the field expanded its pressure/density around this solid construct of Matter would begin to decline at an accelerated pace. This pace would match the deceleration rate of the universe. It would not be a ‘big bang’ but the resultant affect would be the same; Matter would begin to destruct, break into smaller clumps of less dense, stable matter and began to push away from each other as a rate that matches the rate of pressure decay in the Void energy field. In essence it would not be an explosion that forced Matter to spread out against the cosmos, it would be repulsive force of Void energy starting from the inside of the solid construct that pushes it outward. And this force would not be instantaneous (like that of a chemical explosion) it would be continuous (like magnetic repulsion). There is 100% conservation of energy, and the only energy needed for the acceleration of the Mass in the universe is the latent energy of elasticity of the Void particle, GravX. As this latent energy is expended, and approaches zero (0), the kinetic energy of the mass of the universe is expended (at the same rate) as Mass density approaches zero (0). With this postulate we can write the one equation that unifies the physics of the universe: F=MA Where F = FV + FM + FE Where M = the known Mass of the all stable and unstable Matter in the universe Where A = Av + AM + AE FV = the Force of the pressure/density differential of the Void energy field FM = the Force [energy] of Mass (E=MC2) FE = the Force [energy] of the Electromagnetic Spectrum FE = FES + FER Where FES = the Force [energy] of Electrical Energy Where FER = the Force [energy] of Radioactive Energy Av = Acceleration of Void energy [particles] AM = Acceleration of Mass [particles] AE = Acceleration of the Electromagnetic Spectrum [particles] AE = AES + AER Where AES = the acceleration value of Electrical Energy Where AER = the acceleration value of Radioactive Energy The corollary to that equation is that in a balanced equation the sum of the forces must equal 0. ∑F = 0 This hold true for even the first construct of this UFoP; Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This means that they can only trade places. Accordingly, if we sum up the forces in this equation as each approaches 0 we find that M remains constant and A approaches 0 at the same rate. I have stated that as the universe expands the pressure/density differential of the Void Energy (FV) is the force behind that expansion, and since there is a positive value to F, there is a positive value to A. And while M remains forever constant, FM does not. However, as the universe expands FV decreases with the change in distance between Void energy particles by r2. So, as the distance between the repulsively-charged GravX particles gets greater FV approaches 0. As FV approaches 0, so does FM; for it is the energy of FV that determines the density of M. As FV decays so does the atomic construct of stable Matter. There will always be the same number of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons in the universe (those elements that comprise stable matter) however FM is not based on total Mass, it is based on the latent energy of the density of Mass; the amount of energy in Mass is based on the repulsive latent kinetic energy between like-charge Protons. If E=MC2, where M is based on the kinetic energy of the number of repulsive protons in the nucleus of the atom, Matter can go from the lowest positive value derived from the Helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons) it can deconstruct to a value of 0 when it breaks apart into hydrogen (1 proton and 1 electron). As the universe expands Av approaches zero (0) because the acceleration forces of Void energy are decreasing with the change in distance between Void energy particles by r2. And, as Av approaches 0 so does AM; the UFoP construct tells us the energy of the Void is the force behind any change in velocity of Matter, so as Av approaches 0 AM approaches 0 As the values for FV, FM, AV and AM approach 0 we can substitute them in the equation: (FV + FM + FE) = M (AV + AM + AE) (0 + 0 + FE) = M (0 + 0 + AE) FE = M (AE) Since the electrical forces of the Electromagnetic Spectrum are neutrally balanced we can substitute 0 for FES as well. This leaves the radioactive energies of the Electromagnetic Spectrum (FER) that are not based on electrical forces, but are based on atomic forces (radioactivity); these radioactive forces are based on the decay of unstable Mass. However, like the kinetic forces of Mass the radioactive energies of unstable mass can be deconstructed to a kinetic force (energy level) of 0 based on radioactive decay (matter deconstruction) however their radioactive energy levels cannot; FER must have a positive whole number value: 1. Therefore FES = M (AES) and FER = M (AER) are valid equations however they describe a different relationship between Mass and Energy. Conversely, the force of energy derived from the acceleration of mass in the equation FES = M (AES) comes from the property of Mass in that equation, and if the particle from the Electromagnetic Spectrum has no mass (it is a massless particle; as are most particles in the Electromagnetic Spectrum) the AER for that particle is of no value for MER = 0. Therefore ∑F for stable Matter and Electrical Energy = ∑ (FV + FM + FEE) = 0 Since the product off all Matter and Energy in the universe can never have a 0 value (it must always be positive), the product of the two must always have a positive value as well. So when M (AV + AM + AER) = 1 (0 + 0 + 1) = 1 (1) = 1 You will note that M (Matter) had survived to its lowest value, that of hydrogen (since it cannot be destroyed) it must remain a positive whole number, and since the acceleration of massless particles will forever remain positive, the acceleration forces due to radioactive energy (AER) cannot approach 0; it must remain a positive whole number as well. This also means that if FER = M (AER) where FER, M, AER and all have a positive value of 1, then the equation is still balanced, even when we complete the above equation (where the sum of the other forces = 0). FER = M (AER) 1 = 1 (1) 1 = 1 Thus completes the major constructs of my Unifying Framework of Physics. I am currently working out the mathematics of my postulates and will discuss those efforts shortly. I sincerely hope some readers chime in with what I need. I will also spend the next few posts discussing the major and minor ramifications of this framework and why I built it in the first place: future predications and observations I had hoped to see in my lifetime.

(Dear readers, I would ask that as you read this post please allow enough time to understand and comprehend it, because of all of the posts in this thread this one discusses the most fundamental and controversial subject in physics: Black Holes and all of the ramifications of defining them) The postulate of using the density differentials between layers of particles to bend light is considered sound physics. However the historical postulate of the Aether was not needed to bend light, it was theorize as the medium of which light traveled in (or on, depending on your point of view). We have also [historically] considered the speed of light to be a universal constant, however we have had to amend that constant based on new definitions normalized (or uniform) space. To accommodate observed changes in this velocity we have employed variations of the Space-Time continuum theories. This has allowed us to experiment for, and account for, variations in gravity and its effects on the speed of light. In each case these variations have always had something to do with the density of the medium in which light traverses. To which we have tested this hypothesis to the point where we have changed the density and refraction of different transparent materials to slow light down to less than 6 mph. Many contemporary SR theories serve to bolster the need for the an ‘Aether’ to be a carrier of light, only most SR theories (as discussed in previous posts) refer to it as Dark Energy coming from Dark Matter. I have been in complete agreement [with many of the scientist over the years] in that light, like every other electromagnetic particle in the Electromagnetic Spectrum, needs a medium by which to travel through. However I theorize that Void energy, and Void energy particles, are this medium. I bring this theory back out only because there exists an observed physic phenomena that has caused impassible conflicts between GR and SR theories as well as GM and QFT theories; Black Holes. The history and definition of a Black Hole has evolved over the years, and I will not elaborate on these changes, however several postulates about the physics of Black Holes, and their existence, have persisted; namely those postulates of intense gravitational pull due to Mass and that this intense pull (which has morphed into a gravitational well creating a Space-Time Curvature) is so intense that [not even] light can escape. However recently we have observed the signature of Black Holes thorough the escape of radiation through the axis of rotation of the Black Hole. This of course defies the very definition of a Black hole; a gravity source so intense that light cannot escape (that’s why we can’t see them). Like many others I asked, how did the radiation escape? Likewise, we define Gravitational lensing as the bending of light through the gravity field in close proximity to large, dense objects yet we have observed (and confirmed) the existence of a Black Hole in transit across a field of stars lightyears behind it, however it did not bend the light around it; it only appeared as a black spot blocking out the stars’ light behind it as it passed between the stars and us. Once again we see two non-contagious theories in conflict Gravity and Light. The UFoP can tie these two together by explaining both of them within the laws of physics. To the UFoP the most obvious solution to these conflicts is the density and pressure properties of the Void energy field. If the measure maximum sustained speed of light (appx 300M m/s) as that speed measured through a homogeneous transparent medium (such as the void of space), and we know that we can slow light down, or change its direction by changing the density of the medium in which it is traveling, then we can extrapolate (with a high degree of certainty) the theory that we can slow it down to the point of non-observance by either changing the medium by which it is traveling or removing the medium altogether. This hypothesis aligns itself to several theorems that we have verified over and over again. For instance, sound waves create noise through the oscillatory motion of solid, elastic particles of mass propagated by a rapid change in pressure against those particles. The speed of the sound/pressure wave is based on the density and elasticity of the particles with which the pressure wave travels. In other words, the physics of creating sound is strictly based on the physical properties of the affected particles of mass and how these particles interact with each other. The speed of sound (sonic velocity) is measured to be much faster through water than air, and even faster through metal than water, however it slows down in air while traveling through the lower density of the atmosphere at altitude; to which its speed becomes zero (0) because it cannot propagate in a vacuum at all. The same can be said for long-since hypothesized (but only recently discovered) gravity waves. We believe we have recently measured gravity waves from the beginning of time (appx 14B years ago). If this is correct, this pressure wave has taken 14B years to reach us, and we are not even at the edge of the universe. Since Mass is affected by Void Energy it must therefore affect Void energy and Void energy particles in the same magnitude and in the same manner (Newton’s Laws). We know that when an object solid Mass impacts another object of solid Mass, the denser the Mass the faster the pressure wave propagates through the Mass. Newton’s Cradle is a good example of this. The Hertzian wave solution tells us that pressure wave of sound through steel is about 5,000 m/s, however the pressure wave caused by the first steel ball striking the second steel ball travels to the last ball in the line of balls travels at about 500 m/s. This pressure propagation change is due to the change in pressure medium from sound as well as the impact energy due to the kinetic energy transfer, elasticity and momentum between the steel balls. The laws of physics, particularly particle interactions between dissimilar particles, still applies. Simply put, the pressure waves of Void energy particles in the UFoP can accommodate and account gravity waves without modification; they are due in part to both the impact and expulsion of Mass in the Void, and are seen as the resultant pressure wave created in the Void energy particle field. Like pressure waves (sound waves) traveling through an elastic medium (air particles), the force of pressure degrades rapidly as the density of the elastic medium does. (However its speed does not degrade nearly as fast.) The extrapolation of these theories, facts and observations in the framework of the UFoP allows the UFoP model to state that Black Holes are a localized low-pressure area of Void Energy due to a lack of Void energy particles. This would account for the most common and current observations of a Black Hole: Light waves do not propagate though a Black Hole at the same speed as they do though normalized Void space. If they transit through a Black Hole they will slow down to a lower speed correlating to the pressure of Void energy in the Black Hole. This velocity will affect the visual observation of light transiting through (or reflecting off matter in) the Black Hole, and therefore it may not be visible for an extended length of time (if ever) depending on the distance of the observer from the Black Hole.Stable Matter is formed based on the localized pressure and density of the Void energy field [of particles]. If the pressure/density of the Void energy field is lowered, then the stable Mass (Matter) formed within this field will become less dense. To which if the density of the localized energy field is lowered below a minimal value then even visible, stable matter will not exist. A Black Hole may have Matter within its confines, however if that matter is gaseous in nature (e.g. hydrogen or helium) or does not exist in sufficient quantities [at this lower scale of atomic mass] to be even visible, you won’t see it, nor will the light reflecting off it be seen (if not for a very, very long time).Conversely, if the electromagnetic particle exiting a Black Hole can be observed by other means (other than using the visible light spectrum), then you would see them escaping (if they did).The formation of a localized region of lower Void energy pressure (a Black Hole) would result in a migration of any Mass (near this local region of space) into the Black Hole due to the pressure differential of the Void on both sides of the object of Mass.It would not be sucked in (as by gravity); it would be pushed in (like an air pressure leak into a vacuum).If this resultant velocity vector (trajectory) [due to the acceleration of the Mass towards the Black Hole] does not result in a stable orbit of the Mass about the low-pressure area then the Mass’s orbit will either degrade towards the center of the Black Hole, or it will ‘slingshot’ around the Black Hole and depart the area at a deceleration rate that matches it approaching acceleration. Once again, this rate of acceleration is strictly based on the density of the Mass approaching the Black Hole. If the object of Mass’s approach velocity and trajectory results in a stable orbit around the Black Hole it will remain visible and orbit the Black Hole in a cyclonic fashion. As more Mass approaches the Black hole, if the Mass does not approach the Black Hole at the proper trajectory it may collide with any Matter circling the Black Hole and either get knocked into the Black Hole or be forced to establish a more planer orbit. Eventually, if the Black Hole is big enough, and does not dissipate quickly (but remains intact long enough) all localized Mass near the Black Hole will establish a planer orbit around the Black Hole and appear as a spiral galaxy.The laws of physics support this theory 100% as this observation is the exact same definition of visible and invisible matter in a hurricane or particle-based cyclonic storm of any kind. In summary, nothing regarding the observation and confirmation of the existence of Black Holes has changed; only the physics explaining them has. And nothing in the physics behind these explanation is theoretical nor has it been changed; everything within this construct of the UFoP regarding the physical interactions between particles of mass and energy has acted in accordance with the known laws of physics.