## Reinstatement of Einsteins Unified Field Theory## by K. B. RobertsonThe identification of the 4th Dimension enables among other things, the unprecedented discovery and identification of two previously unrecognized Physical Dimensions Of Reality beyond the 4th dimension of physical ('apparently 3-D') matter. Again, these two 'new' Dimensions are not really 'unknown' or 'inexperienced' at all; merely unrecognized. In compliance with the geometric definition for dimensions, if anything moves at right angles from the 4th Dimension, then what-ever that something is, is also the 5th Dimension. After Maxwell we learned of the existence and especially the structural quality and dynamics of the electromagnetic field. Specifically, we learned from Maxwell that something does in fact move at right angles out of (4-D) matter, and that 'something' is electricity. Therefore Electricity Is The 5th Dimension. Again, in compliance with the geometric definition for Dimensions, if any measurable entity moves at right angles from/to the 5th - whatever else it may be: it is also the 6th dimension. Indeed. Some-thing does (invariably) move at right-angles-to/ perpendicular-from 5 dimensional electricity, and that something is magnetism. Therefore, magnetism Is The 6th Dimension. Of course, in order to recognize and identify The 5th and 6th Dimensions of Electricity and Magnetism, one must first of all acknowledge and recognize The 4th Dimension Of expanding Matter & accelerating Gravity. From which is projected the 5th and 6th physical dimensions of electromagnetic reality (acting at a distance across space; projecting the law of the inverse square; at the speed of light; 'just like gravity' - in fact finding gravity and electromagnetism to be, in every sense of the word, one and the same: a unified field). We may - presently opportune to - know, gravity on earth is caused by the electromagnetic 4-Dimensional acceleration of Matter. This generates a mechanical pushing or repelling force on or near the surface of major gravitational masses (such as planets); as clarified within Einstein's elevators of The General Principle. But, how does this account for action-at-a-distance across Space; generating atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial tidal effects for example, and sustaining the orbiting of the planets? *Why don't their orbits collapse; why don't they all (stellar objects, galaxies, stars, et al) collapse upon and/or collide with each other, through mutual gravitational attraction? (As Isaac Newton himself asked, and considered to be the major unresolved flaw in his own revolutionary system. Two and a quarter centuries later, Einstein resolved Newton's problem with the Cosmological Constant - a repelling force paralleling conventionally perceived gravity, but acting in the opposite direction. The answer to Newton's question is not in the 4-dimensional MassField gravity, on or near the surface of accelerantly expanding material systems - but rather the 5 and 6 dimensional ElectroMagnetic field generated by and projecting at right angles from material - 4 dimensional - sources. That is to say, material bodies on or near the apparent surface of matter are gravitationally influenced to 'fall', or remain (mechanically-inertially/direct-contact/surface-to-surface) pinned against the earth's 4-Dimensionally accelerating surface. On the other hand, action-at-a-distance - specifically tidal effects and the orbiting of planets & moons - is gravitationally motivated by the 5th and 6th Dimensions of electricity and magnetism, respectively. Another way of realizing this is, when you are near and above a large 4-dimensional MassField, you fall. In fact you will fall to earth eventually, even when you are as far as 3,999 miles from it. You orbit for a long time at that distance, but eventually your orbit deteriorates and you fall. This is true of any orbiting body at any distance less than 4,000 miles above the earth. 4,000 miles is also the earth's radius. Beyond that distance your orbit is permanent; that is to say, you do not fall. Summarily, in the case of permanent orbit you are repelled away from 4-D MassField Earth and kept in ever enlarging, spiral shaped orbit by the 5th and 6th Dimensions of ElectroMagnetism. The Electro-Magnetic fields of the planets (for example) are reciprocally conflicting with the electromagnetic field of the Sun (emits about one billion tons of radiantly transitory matter every four minutes). Hence, planets cannot fall into the Sun; due to their mutual opposition from (and toward) it - and they cannot escape it either. Arranged exactly in the orders and orbits of Newton's indomitably calculated, universally gravitating vouchsafe. Unarguably caused by a pulling force or a pushing force. Or both a pulling and pushing force. Mechanically pushing at near distances and electromagnetic-ally pulling and/or pushing at far distances. Due to their reciprocal acceleration against each and other's electromagnetic and/or radiation fields, extending beyond four dimensional matter; across space (acting at a distance). Fulfilling the definition for the fifth and sixth dimensions; as electromagnetism acting at a distance; conjunctive with Newtonian-Einsteinian - and other formally proven and recognized - definition(s) of universal gravity. Another look at the structure of a snail or nautilus shell, and the arms of spiral galaxies (what a @ sign may describe). A consequence of this is the realization of the actual 4-D path of any orbiting body - electron, moon, planet - as compared to what we perceive in 3 presumably static Dimensions of Space. That is to say, because of the unrecognized 4-Dimensional acceleration of Matter, and the extensionally functional 5 and 6 Dimensional space separating it from other matter, the path of any orbiting body is not characteristically circular or ellipsoidal as it is 3-Dimensionally observed or understood to be. "Instead, the MassField Concept recognizes that the path in SpaceTime of every orbiting body exists 4-Dimensionally as an accelerating - ever enlarging - spiral (@)Where the distance of space opening up between the orbiting body and its point of orbit, is no more recognized and accounted for, than the ever ongoing physical enlargement of the orbiting body and its point of orbit (the dominant mass of two considered gravitational masses; each actually orbiting a common center of gravity between the two - or more - centers). SPECULATIVE NOTE: The loss of 43� of arc per century in the elliptical extreme orbit of Mercury (the shortest of planetary years in the solar system) - and correspondingly more reduced losses for the planets correspondingly further from the Sun - appears resolvable in the 4-D HyperOrbitalPath. This example of planetary field reciprocally and physically conflicting with solar field, and lunar mass reciprocally and physically conflicting with hosting planetary field is already directly experienced in the proven, acknowledged fact that two or more physical bodies never (surfacially) contact each other - also due to conflicting field forces of electrical charges disallowing the simultaneous occupation of their space by any other field-charge. The foundation of Einstein's Unified Field Theory is a (previously unknown repelling) force which Einstein discovered within and extracted from his General Theory Of Relativity. That is the same theory that revealed and introduced us to the 4th Dimension. Einstein called this previously unknown force 'the Cosmological Constant'. When he spoke of it in his Unified Field equations he designated it with the Greek sign 'Lambda', which resembles an inverted capital 'V', like this: A. The non-mathematical definition of Einstein's 'Lambda' or 'Cosmological Constant': 'A previously unrecognized Universal Repelling Force, originating in all Matter and projecting across space at the velocity of light'. Einstein's cosmological constant force does not eliminate or ignore the concept of gravitational attraction (the concept of a pulling force'), but rather joins it. The repelling force and the impelling force are found coexistentially, side by side. The impelling force of gravity binds the universe together. The cosmologically constant repelling force of Lambda is Einstein's answer to Newton's previously unanswered question of why a universe full of impelling bodies doesn't collapse on itself. I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory, which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas. The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3-recognized Dimensions Of Space'. These quasi-3-D parabolas and curves, which are not really parabolas and curves but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'. Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'. If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity. .. Galileo, proved that Aristotle was wrong when the latter surmised that heavier objects that weigh more than light objects, fall faster in descent, when dropped from the same height at the same time, above the earth's surface. It does 'seem logical'. It just doesn't happen to be true. Everyone who is anyone in physics today, falls on hocus pocus, to make this annoying fact go away. Reduce it to a trivial matter of no - ho hum - importance. Whereas, it is a major, unresolved enigma in theoretical physics. It is often falsely held up, either as a non-issue, or as a (falsely) resolved issue. Galileo is said to be the first to make and note proof of that unexpected - ever since, bitterly disappointing - fact of reality. Being the universal rate of descent of all objects in free fall, regardless of their mass values (in the absence of air resistance). 16 feet per second squared for bodies descending on or near the surface of the earth. ('God is subtle, but not malicious'. - Einstein). Much (low key, back stage) concern has been given to his unarguable fact of descending bodies in a gravitational field; ever since it was proven. Especially after Newton made a law of gravity that does indeed dictate: the heavier object should indeed descend faster than the lighter - less massive - object. Because, according to Newton's laws, there should inevitably be a greater mutual attraction between, say, a descending cannonball and the earth, than between a descending bb shot and the earth. The ('ironic') mystery is frequently and glibly said to be resolved in the fact of the 'coincidence' of inertial and gravitational mass values intersecting at the same qualitatively accelerating coordinates. But an obligatory description of the unanticipated and 'astonishing' coincidence is not any explanation of it still. That is to say, a cannonball, according to Newton's Law, should ('is supposed to') fall faster than a descending bb shot. The cannonball does not fall faster than descending bb shot or a grain of sand or a Blue whale. Everything falls at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of its mass value (in the absence of air resistance).completely unexplained *coincidence. .. According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster. They don't. (Einstein's General Principle is the only explanation for this.) Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance). Pursuing The Irresolutely Descending Cul De Sac - At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which is 'supposed to be there', and isn't. Eotvos was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second (A nanosecond). He could find no difference in rates of descent for variously massed test objects. No difference in descent rates of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been measured; to date. The author submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more than 'coincidence' - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter-of-factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects. The ('Impossible') reason all objects (appear to) 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration. .. the best-known mathematical formula in the world. The direct, non-mathematical translation of which irrevocably proves - as it always has - that gravity is the 4th Dimension. The formula is E=MC^2. The direct non-mathematical translation of which is: 'Energy equals Matter times the speed of light squared'. In grade school as well as jr. high school, I would hear other students ask a question which I have since then learned is also familiar to many others; that question being: 'In the formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, 'non-field')? I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now - but others did ask that question and that is understandable enough. The teacher's (ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being: 'It (C squared) actually isn't necessary'. This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC^2?' All are implored not to take my word for this. Simply ask the next physicist or mathematician you happen in to. If you pursue this question, you will get that answer or its equivalent. I had no under-standing of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering, 'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?' One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out of) Matter'. Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second. *Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities - light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC^2, originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of MatterEnergy: mother and father of all 'spaces and times'. On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding. Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously and at theoretically disastrous regular intervals since the turn of the 1900's, obsessively agreed by the outwardly unworried and unscared collective authorities on the subject, to be static and non-expanding. Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law: "In the formula E=MC^2, we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy. Einstein's 'renowned formula' E=MC^2 proves again that Universal Matter is literally, constantly and dramatically expanding. Clipping right along on this planet at 32 feet per second squared. The Causative Source of the 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum. Ostensibly and inescapably: a dimension of time, and motion (are synonymous - time being the interval between two or more events . Disregarding the decent of freefalling objects, the weight of everything, the orbiting of the planets .. The inescapable sound of gravity. Anything round and rolling - especially metal, glass and/or stone - that's allowed to slow down, fall over, and settle, audibly oscillating and rotating downwardly toward a quick stop on a hard surface. A tabled or floored coin, dinner plate or serving tray on the run, slowing down to orbitally circle around its destinationally tightening drum roll, finally settling down in the making of a gravitationally resounding, perfectly spiral shaped nest. Shaped like a shrinking spiral while roundly sounding the rhythmically accelerating part. Where everything in present tense continuously and collectively arrives from the past. The sound, shape - and measurable sight - of materially manifest gravity: the reputedly 'immeasurable', 'unimaginable' 4-D space-time continuum. Heat flows downhill; ever smaller. Whereas, events flow uphill; ever larger. Entropy [universal heat death] is not meaningfully derived from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The four dimensionally expanding steady state universe (universal density) remains always the same relative density; consisting always of the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over an ever enlarging space; from microcosmic infinity, to macrocosmic infinity. ## Credits to K. B. Robertson |