In this picture I have drawn the pendulum motion, from right to left, and from left to right, of field number 3 that exists at the intersection of two other fields, number 1 and number 2. These two fields are varying with opposite phases: in the “posición 1” in the picture, the field 1 expands and the field 2 contracts, and in the “posición 2” the field 1 contracts and the field 2 expands.
I indicated “fields 1 and 2” but I was referring to the gravitational fields 1 and 2 that are curved by the matters 1 and 2. In this blog we argue that all gravitational fields vary cyclically, and they expand and contract with their specific frequencies depending on the opposition that matter presents to be passed through by the gravitational flux, therefore creating the variable gravitational curvature.
When those two intersecting gravitational fields (I would have used the word “entangled” but I think that “entanglement” has a different meaning for mainstream physics), have an opposite phase of variation, the new field created in their intersection, the field 3 in the picture, experiences a pendulum displacement that is currently known as an “electric stream” or an “electron.” (At the end of the article I’m going to put a picture with intersecting gravitational fields that vary with the same phase of variation, causing different consequences).
When the phases of variation are opposites, the “electron” or field 3 moves toward the side of the matter in which the gravitational field is contracted.
Mainstream physics explains the movement of shared electrons toward an atomic matter because of its “electronegativity.” Electronegativity is for current science an intrinsic property or tendency of matter that allows this matter to attract electrons. If in a molecule one matter has a bigger electronegativity than the other one, that matter will attract the shared electrons in a stronger way than the other one. It produces an electronic asymmetry.
“Electrons” are considered by the currently accepted atomic model as “subparticles” with a negative electrical charge.
But for us, the “electron” is not a subatomic particle, it is a space that is created and exists by and at the intersection of two gravitational fields that vary with opposites (or equal) phases.
For us, this field 3, the “electron,” could have or not have some material mass inside it. (Here we have drawn a mass “3”).
When this “electron” with negative charge that has moved toward the matter 2, in the “posición 1” of the picture, currently accepted physics would say that matter 1 would have lost an electron because it has acquired a “proton,” which has a positive charge by opposition with the negative charge of the “electron.”
When those two gravitational fields vary again, at the “posición 2” of the picture, the intersected space, our “electron” (or “shared electrons”) will have moved again toward the matter 2 because its gravitational field 2 will be again contracted. And the gravitational field 1 will be expanded, so it will have lost an electron and gained a “proton.”
This is a cyclical and dipolar situation. Here there are two poles, the positive one and the negative one, that cyclically change their location.
But for us “proton” doesn’t exist as a sub particle either, for us a proton is the absence of an electron, so a proton exists when the gravitational field of its matter is expanded.
When the electron moves in a contrary direction, it is currently known as “positron”, which is considered an electron with a positive charge, an “anti-electron.” This name for us is only for distinguishing it from the electron that traveled previously and will travel again later in the opposite direction. The signs of “electrical charges” are only an accepted convention.
But the intersection of two cyclically variable gravitational fields creates two other fields that I have drawn in this picture as two horizontal cones located in both gravitational fields 1 and 2. Those new spaces do not move as the field 3, but they experience some transformations while the intersected 1 and 2 gravitational fields vary (expand and contract) and the field 3 (the electron) moves toward one side or another.
So those two conic spaces open or close and move their orbital planes toward one side or another in an inverse way with respect to the field that produces pressure over them from above, and in an equal way with respect to the field that creates pressure from below.
In the “posición 1” the field 1 is expanded and the field 2 is contracted. The left cone, which is placed in the gravitational field 1, has longer orbits that are inclined toward the right side. It doesn’t suffer the pressure of the expanded gravitational field 1 or the contracted gravitational field 2.
And the conic horizontal space located in the contracted gravitational field 2, has smaller orbits because it is experiencing the pressure from below by the contracted field 2 and from above by the expanded gravitational field 1. It is inclined toward the right side too.
In the “posición 2” it occurs the opposite: the conic space of the left side, in the contracted gravitational field 1 has the pressure of both gravitational fields 1 and 2. So it has smaller orbits and now it is inclined toward the left. And the conic horizontal space located at the right in the expanded gravitational field 2 does not have as much pressure, then it has bigger orbits now and it is inclined toward the left too.
As mentioned earlier, these conic spaces do not have the motion force that has the space that exists in the intersection of the gravitational fields, the “shared electron,” when it moves toward the matter that has its gravitational field contracted. So they do not have any electrical charge, positive or negative. This is because we think it is possible to say that they have a neutral charge. In fact we think that those two conic fields are currently known as “neutrons.” Neutrons have a neutral charge but it is known that they have mass. How can we explain that these spaces that we think are neutrons could have any mass? We will see this later.
We are seeing that all fields that we are describing correspond with different subatomic particles of the currently accepted atomic model, protons and neutrons in a nucleus inside the matter and electrons outside it.
Current physics considers that in the “Beta negative radiation” a “neutron” “transforms” into an “electron” and a “proton”. The proton is preserved in the nucleus, and two particles are emitted: an electron and a beta negative particle.
In the “Beta positive radiation” current science affirms that a “proton” transforms into a “neutron” and a “positron” (the electron with negative charge). And the positron is called the “beta positive particle.”
For us, in the “Beta negative radiation,” the field 1 expands and gains a + proton (because the shared electron “3” moves towards the field 2); the field 2 contracts and gains the shared electron field “3.” The neutron (the horizontal conic space) of the field 1 has lost the pressure and has increased its volume; and the neutron of the gravitational field 2 has reduced its volume because it is now suffering the pressure of both gravitational fields 1 and 2.
So it could be said that when a matter gains an electron because its gravitational field contracts, it obtains a neutron too; and when a matter loses an electron and gains a proton it loses a neutron too. (We are thinking here only about intersected gravitational fields that have opposite or clearly different phases of variation).
It will occur for example in Redox reactions, when a matter gains an electron being reduced, it loses a proton and it will gain a neutron. And the matter that is oxidized, losing an electron and gaining a proton, will lose a neutron too.
We said that neutrons are gained or lost. But for us, the field that is the electron continues being there. But they have been modified. Because current physics thinks about neutrons in terms of mass, we think that maybe they are measuring the loss of pressure and they are misidentifying pressure with mass, and losses of pressure with losses of mass. But this “loses of mass” necessary, we think, appear in the exact same proportion in the neutron located at the other gravitational field, which previously would have “lost its own mass”, its pressure.
It could be accepted for us too that inside of these fields that are neutrons for us, could exist a material mass too. But neutrons and neutrinos would be the same material mass; it only would change the pressure on it, its own weight.
In the case of “”posición 2,” the opposite occurs. Matter 1 gains the “positron” and gains a “neutron.” And matter 2 loses its “electron” and its “neutron” and gains a “proton.”
So, what could be the beta positive and beta negative radiations? We guess that these radiations are created by the transformations of the fields that are currently known as neutrons.
For us, the neutron placed in the contracted gravitational field that has near it the shared electrons, produces the beta negative radiation because its pressure (the pressure on the neutron field) is increased; and the beta positive radiation will be created by the neutron located in the other gravitational field when it becomes contracted, so it will have near it a positron, losing its previous “proton”.
So it could be said that in beta negative radiation matter gains a neutron and an electron and loses a proton; and in beta positive radiation matter gains a neutron and a positron and loses a proton.
The same could be said about beta positive and beta negative decays, they will be opposite to beta negative and beta positive radiations emitted by the neutron of the matter that has its gravitational field intersected with other, and both vary with opposite phases of variation.
In this sense, when the neutron of the matter 2 gains pressure (at the “posición 1” of the picture), it will emit beta negative radiation and its matter 2 will gain an electron at the same time; at the same time, the neutron of matter 1 will have a beta negative decay and its matter will gain a proton. And when the matter 1 gains pressure (at the “posición 2” of the picture), it will emit beta positive radiation and its matter 1 will gain a positron at the same time, while the neutron of the matter 2 has a beta negative decay and its matter gains a proton.
Mainstream science considers that neutrons are inside of matter, in its nucleus. And because they need to justify the apparent losses of nuclear energy because it would be contrary to the principle of conservation of energy, they needed to invent a new sub particle below protons, neutrons and electrons, imagined by Pauli at XX century: the “neutrino.”
For us, the neutrino is only the same neutron when it has lost its pressure, so when it is located in a gravitational field that is expanded when it is intersected with another gravitational field that is contracted. We assume that recent measures of neutrinos must be measures of the consequences of the described variations in those fields.
On the other hand, with respect to Alfa and Gamma radiation and decay, we think that the mechanism of explanation is the same that we have already proposed. But in these cases, the phases of variation of the intersected gravitational fields must be the same or similar. So here the two intersected gravitational fields expand and contract at the same time.
When it comes to explaining Alfa radiation it is currently accepted that the nucleus loses two protons and two neutrons. And when the nuclear decay occurs, emitting electromagnetic waves, a new nucleus is formed with the same number of protons and neutrons. In the Gamma radiation it is said that there are not transformations of protons and neutrons but a photon is emitted because of the excess of energy that was accumulated there.
For us there is not any difference on the mechanism that creates Alfa and Gamma radiation and produces their decays. It must be the same: two intersected gravitational fields are varying with the same frequency; when they contract at the same time the space created in their intersection increases its pressure moving up (it could be seen in the picture below). The ascending pressure creates a “photon.” And the two neutrons lose their pressure and increase their area.
In this way, when the two gravitational fields are contracted at the same time, the “electron” increases its energy creating a photon, the two “neutrons” are lost and the two “protons” (the expanded gravitational fields) are lost too.
Then, the energy created by the field that exists in the gravitational intersection, the electron for us, starts to experience a decay on its ascending energy because of the two intersected gravitational fields start two to become expanded. In this moment the expanding gravitational fields create a pressure on the two horizontal conic spaces that are for us “neutrons”. So, when nuclear decay occurs, the two “neutrons” appear again with their pressure, and the two “protons” are recovered too because of the gravitational fields 1 and 2 are now expanded.
In this case it could be thought the losses of energy is motivated by the emission of the photon. But it could be thought using the current idea of “neutrinos,” that the energy was absorbed by the transformation of two neutrinos into two neutrons, because when the two gravitational fields were contracted and the coming up field, the electron, emitted the photon, the two neutrons did not have much more pressure; they would be neutrinos; and when the nuclear decay occurs, the two neutrons recover their pressure again (the pressure that is caused on them by the expanded gravitational fields).
But four us the apparent losses of energy by the system when a photon is emitted must be found in the inverse side of the curvature that exists in the gravitation, at the convex side, of the gravitational fields. Because when the two gravitational fields expand the field that we identified as an “electron” (or shared electrons) comes down and losses its ascending pressure. But this pressure is not lost; it still exists in the field that is located in the convex side of those two intersected gravitational fields. This new field has its curvature inverted with respect to the curvature of the field that we identify as an electron.
So the waves emitted by this inverted field will have an opposite direction with respect to the gravitational flux. It is because we thing they can be considered as an anti-photon and an anti-gravitational force.
This process will be cyclical.
* In the picture below there is a problem of weight distribution that we think explains the Mass Gap problem. We will try to explain it in the next post.
* The fields that we have described in this article, are for us the currently known as “chemical bounds“. Two expanded gravitational fields represent a weaker interaction and two contracted gravitational fields represent a stronger interaction.
* This presented model would be aplicable to any stelar system too. It could be interesting to think about if the orbit of the Earth were located in a field like the field “neutron”, or if our Moon is located in a similar field too. Because then it would exist an Anti-earth (already known to Greeks as “Antichthon”) located in the another gravitational field. In this cases the Earth would not orbit around the Sun, and the Moon would not orbit around the Earth.
* The model would be aplicable to the intersection of two universes too. The cyclical “Big Bang” would occur when the two Universe gravitational fields were contracted creating a “Big bang photon”.
Here we have spoken only about the simplest possible system, with only two intersected gravitational fields.