# On the Non-linearity of Space – or Gravity as a Magnetic Interaction By Onox Cryllik.

Home/Uncategorized/On the Non-linearity of Space – or Gravity as a Magnetic Interaction By Onox Cryllik.

## On the Non-linearity of Space – or Gravity as a Magnetic Interaction By Onox Cryllik.

The purpose of this article is to give the reader insight into a reinterpretation of Coulomb’s Law of attraction and repulsion of charged bodies, apply this law to magnetic monopoles as well, deduce the conceivable non-linearity of space and – foremost – support this reinterpretation by several examples. These concepts, at first, seem rather inconceivable, such as multidimensional analysis or vector analysis, but you have to allow your mind to dwell on these things, as they are really not hard to grasp and profoundly fundamental. What’s more important and what must be pursued are applications on the basis of what’s explained herein; this includes anti-gravity devices. Speech and explanations are kept short and to the point for clarity. All paragraphs set in square brackets can be omitted; they contain additional information as well as speculative comments.

The first two sections of this article are rather technical and mathematical. I would have liked to omit them; however, they are necessary for everything that follows. Please make sure you understand them.

The Fundamental Proportionality

Do you remember Coulomb’s law from school? I hope you do. It states that the force between to electrically charged bodies is proportional to the product of their charge and antiproportional to the square of their distance. Here’s the formula:

$F = k \cdot \frac{q_1 \cdot q_2}{r^2}$

The factor k is nothing more than a proportionality factor dependent on the base units chosen.

We also know that the force exerted on a point charge is the product of this charge and the electric field intensity at that point (the Lorentz law). For the point charge we chose one of the charges of Coulomb’s law.

$F = q_1 \cdot E$

If we equate both formulae, then this charge cancels and a formula, which gives us the electric field intensity at any distance from a given point charge.

$E = k \cdot \frac{q_2}{r^2}$

Now the established interpretation of this formula is that, because the charge must be a constant, the field intensity is a function of the distance, that is, the distance determines the field intensity.

However, for the sake of curiosity, let’s say that the distance is a function of the electric field intensity.

It might seem a little weird at first, but we will literally ‘see’ why this is immensely useful in the interpretation of certain phenomena in no time.

$r = \sqrt{ k \cdot \frac{q_2}{E}}$

This rewritten law now interprets as follows: The distance of an arbitrary point from a point charge is a result of the electric field intensity in this point.

Right now we gain nothing from this ‘reverse’ interpretation, except for the fact that we have eliminated the variable of force from changes in distance; we have simply simplified.

From this equation a proportionality between field intensity and distance can be drawn, which I consider as fundamental, so I’m going to refer to it as the fundamental proportionality. Please keep it in mind – it’s of great importance.

An Extension (or Simplification) of the Lorentz Force

You should as well remember the Lorentz force from school. It states as follows.

$\vec F = q ( \vec E + \vec v \times \vec B )$

The Lorentz force describes all forces acting on a charged body exposed to a magnetic and electric field. If you separate these individual forces, one for the electric and one for the magnetic results. If you’re dealing with a stationary charged body, both forces must be the same.

$\vec F = q \cdot \vec E \quad \vec F = q ( \vec v \times \vec B )$

If we equate them, we see that the charge cancels.

$\vec E = \vec v \times \vec B$

The resulting equation is now to be interpreted. It states that the electric field intensity at any point is given by the cross product of the velocity and the magnetic field intensity at that point. The intensities are nothing new and easily imagined, but what is meant with velocity? We’re not dealing with a point charge anymore, as it canceled, so what is actually moving? All I can give you right now as an answer is: with a point of the field itself, that is, an infinitesimal small volume element of space.

Anyways, this formula is going to prove itself, as we can now describe the electric and the magnetic field, if we assume that there are magnetic monopoles, whereas the derivation is the same, as a function of the other, without having to deal with charge carriers.

[Here I must introduce some thoughts of mine, which are at the outer regions of my horizon of understanding. If distance is actually dependent on field strength, then is there a field strength at which actually a new dimension arises, a fourth dimension of space? If this is the case, then spacial dimensions are not quantized, but rather a continuum. Maybe inside black holes there is an infinite amount of dimensions? Anyway, I’m certain that a new mathematics must be found to deal with this non-linearity of space, in which dimensions can be turned into each other.]

Electric Monopoles

When you think of electric monopoles, that is, electrons, most of you will have a picture in mind of an immensely small sphere, which is inflexible and of no other properties except for change.

This is wrong.

An electron is in fact flexible, as its radius is dependent on the electric field intensity in all points of space, that is, on the infinitely extending electric field in which the electron is situated. Furthermore, the electron does have a spin axis, as is acknowledged in established science, which is nothing more than the magnetic line of force of maximum intensity along the axis around which the electron is spinning. Unfortunately almost no one explains it in such simple terms; let me thus elaborate by use of an analogy.

Imagine a tornado, that is, a vortex with an expanding vortex inside the edge of the tornado and a contracting vortex outside the edge. With edge I refer to the ring-shaped line when you cut through the vortex at which there is maximum velocity. From the edge, inward and outward, velocity decreases. Now, in your mind, reshape this vortex to a tube. Now close the ends of the tube and form a sphere. Now this is exactly how an electron should be conceived; just replace the air molecules and their velocity with points of the electric field and your basically done. I say basically, because now we have two variables, the electric field and the velocity with which the field itself moves, and their cross product yields the magnetic field of this electron. This is similar in shape to earth magnetic field; you can look that up if you want.

To illustrate the ‘flexible’ nature of the electron, I use the example of an electron pair. An electron pair actually forms, when the spin axes of the two electrons next to each other are oppositely oriented, so that the north pole of the one points to the south pole of the other. The radius of the electrons is now on the side towards the other electron smaller, because the field is stronger. (Read the first section again, if you cannot follow.) For the outer side, the opposite is the case. In the end, the shape of the electron is between the shape of half of a sphere and a sphere.

Gravitation

The last example is in fact the simplest example for gravitation there is. Gravitation is nothing more than the result of the closed magnetic lines of force of all matter. We have deduced that the electron has a magnetic field, thus (and this ‘thus’ I might explain in a future article, as the electron is actually the building block for all stationary matter, that is, all elements and molecules), all matter must have a magnetic field. Now when two uncharged matter particles are next to each other, their magnetic fields overlap. At the start of this article we have shown that an increase in field strength is equal to a decrease in distance. Thus, both particles will ‘attract’. This is also the reason, why there is no repulsive force in gravitation; there are no open field lines which could oppose each other.

[As a matter of fact, the magnetic interaction is much stronger than the electric. This might seem wrong at first look, but in fact there are two kinds of electric interaction: the interaction of open field lines in the case of charge carriers and the interaction of closed field lines, which is a case not often encountered. With the magnetic field, both interactions theoretically are also possible, but unfortunately the properties of our quadrant of the universe make the formation of magnetic monopoles practically impossible. (They have however been experimentally created in spin-ice. For a throughout discussion, please see “Scalar Waves” by Konstantin Meyl; be warned: the book is horribly translated into English.) So when I say that the magnetic interaction is stronger than the electric, I mean that the interaction of magnetic monopoles is stronger than that of electric monopoles (in our quadrant of the galaxy) and similarly for closed field lines.]

There really is not much more to gravitation. I just want to mention, that inside matter, there is more space, than outside matter. This is a result of the increased field, magnetic and to a variable degree electric, which of course leads to a decrease in distance. This concept is rather tricky to grasp, but let me ask you the question: Is a decrease in length really equal in meaning to decrease in space? It isn’t. So let us revise: An increase in field intensity causes a decrease in distance (or measure of length), which in turn causes an increase in space. Do you remember any documentaries on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? There often is a scene, where they show that a rod to measure the diameter of the earth, when put through the earth must be longer than when measured from space. This is almost exactly the effect I’m talking about. There are in my opinion a few things to criticize Einstein’s Theory, but I’m thankful for his theory with regard to gravitational fields, as they are a great means of visualizing.

Thus an explanation of the Tamarack experiment seems conceivable. I will go into that and other examples supporting the non-linearity of space in my next article. In reading I noticed that I should have focused more on what the term non-linearity means in this context, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out – it’s rather easy to grasp. Hope you enjoyed it.