Comments on the unification theory

The one thing Einstein overlooked in his search for the unification theory of
everything was simple. It was contained within his theory of relativity. The
theory of relativity relates to oneness. In a theory of the relativity of motion
how is motion defined. In relationship to another object. Think about it. A single
object in space could be moving at enormous speeds through space but how could you
measure the motion unless there is something relative to measure its motion by. A
singular object in space could be defined a the definition of one divided by zero.
Further explained later on. Two objects in space allows measurement of motion
removing the zero from the undefined equation. In an atom, what is overlooked is
there are two motions. The neutron/proton vibration and the electron rotation. Two
motions. And I believe this to be angular. Angular motion relative to vectored
motion. In a change of state the object in vectored motion is approaching speed of
light. The object internally is rotating during this change on its own axis as
well as traveling in a vector. These two motions are occurring at the same time.
The rotational motion is allowing dispersal from one state to the other.
In the astrophysical world, the moon is in motion around the earth which rotates
on its axis which revolves around the sun which in turn is in motion relative to
other stars. An atom is the definition of one. A hydrogen atom. But the ultimate
complexity of the universe has to allow for more in the way of motion.
Volume (length x width x height) times x amount of mass times x amount of energy
(speed of light) times x amount of motion ( distance/ time) and the complexities
of computation need a definition.
The simple made as complex as you want it to be. Th

Interestingly, matter is a constant. Matter simply changes forms. I admit this

takes energy to happen but energy is also matter in a different form. So what I
suppose is two kinds of matter. There is simply the matter we know exists. Also,
the cosmic forces of the universe with the supposition all motion of planetary
ect… nature is due to the big band. Our known physical matter or in another form
our energy, and the cosmic forces, represent two different ideas. If one, the
physical matter we know can be converted to matter, the cosmic forces, I would
suppose cannot be. It is just an effect. It may well be a constant. It would
define cosmic forces as only energy and vibration, and physical matter as either
energy or matter.

And as previously defined, there is constant state of motion in the universe. It

would indicate the cosmic energy to be constant. The variations of cosmic forces
would be related to the variations in atomic structure vibrations.

So, here is another supposition. If the big bang created the universe and its
cosmic force what sustains it? I am supposing that the universe itself is a
balance system. When stars and black holes explode, incredible amounts of energy
are released. I am supposing that this energy of explosion is related to the
cosmic energy as well as the physical energy. Suggesting a relationship, a
duality, between the two energies. As atoms vibrate and seem to be related, the
vibration of the universe in my view is reinforced by this explosions of matter.
It is a possible relationship of all matter in the universe. In the burst of stars
and black holes enormous explosive power, both energy states are in conjunction
with each other as each is being reintroduced into the sustaining of the universe.

Now what I am supposing here is different types of motion that define our
universe. I observe only two types of motion. There is vectored or straight line
motion and rotational motion, in the form of an ellipse.
In vectored motion, the parameters that define it are already known. In non-
Euclidian math the nature of elliptical motion is defined. My question is “ how
are they different?” I find the difference is a center of gravity has to exist for
an object mass to rotate around the center. Two objects are required. And a force
is introduced that is not present in vectored motion. And that is centripetal
force. Two variations from vectored motion.
Vectored motion can occur with one object traveling through space. But this motion
cannot be observed without a reference point to measure its motion by. That
reference point gives the requirements in order to measure vectored motion. One
point is not a vector. But is it really still motion if there is no reference
point, yes I believe there is. So how do we determine this vectored motion without
regard to another point.
This may seem a long shot. But I am beginning to suppose we need an imaginary
point of reference.
This tends to lead me to believe that such a concept would be related to the
misunderstanding of centrifugal force. If the center of the universe is not the
earth, are the true dynamics of the universe askew?

Relating to gravity and magnetic forces, there is a similarity. Joseph Henry

discover the theory of inductance. A coiled wire, wrapped around an iron bar. This
force of electricity through the wire induced the bar of iron to become magnetic
itself. With the exposed ends becoming the poles of + and -. Interestingly, as I
study the gravitational fields of planets, I observe a field of strength similar
to that of the magnetic bar. The maximum strength of the fields in each case are
at the poles. And I have to ask this question: how is the sun’s axis aligned with
planetary axis’s? it would suggest the “weaker field strength is holding the
planets in orbit. And the poles of the sun, the maximum field strength of gravity
are being ignored. Unless this polar gravitational “ strong” field strength is
aligned with other stars. Which would tend to suggest a complex matrix of “weak”
and “strong” field strengths. Similar to what is observed in magnetic attraction
field strength. As quantum mechanics and its relationship to magnetic fields is
studied, I have to think that gravitational fields and magnetic fields may be an
important clue. This design with similar field strengths combined with the
fluctuations in elliptical orbits and fluctuating field strengths may be the
first true relationship that could reveal a relationship into the true nature of
the universe. Quanta is so small and complex to study, yet it was Einstein’s focus
and blind spot, that to study more observable phenomenon may be the key to
unlocking the unification theory mystery.