Stampa Pagina

C) Gravity and the other forces. (Part One).

C) Gravity and the other “forces”. (First Part).

C) Gravity and other “forces”. (First Part).


Readers should now pay much attention: they now have the textual documentation of what we anticipated in chap.2.6 (Gravity-Mass). The first document pubblished here cronologically follows thirteen years the second, that is the last of the three works pubblished on “Tempo nuovo” in the years 1972-73: the one dedicated to the confrontation between gravity and the presumed cosmic “forces”, that are in reality manifestation of the same gravitation in the microcosmic scale.

Our article has, meanwhile, an his own fundamental interest, because it closes the general theoretic of the new physics, developed in this sec.4, convalidating the synthesis that has been done in sec. 2. It is the demonstration of the fallacious character of the gravitational laws coming from the triad of Keplero, Galileo, Newton and pubblished at once – in the year 1973 – in which a foolish denyal of those laws, from which all the modern physics and cosmology derivate. But its importance is enormously increased by the fact that such confutation has prodigiously been confimed in every details by the revision of the experiments from Eötvös pubblished in 1922, that a group of american researchers made in 1986.

The first documento is, in fact, a short journalistic paragraph from January 10, 1986, that synthesizes the news of the event, pubblished on January 6 by the magazine Physical Review Letters and recovered by the New York Times. The fact arouse then an enormous clamour: that the minor masses would be accelerated by gravity more than the major ones, and not in equal measure, and that acceleration would depend also by the atomic composition of the masses, was so upsetting that, to avoid the denyal of Galileo, Keplero and Newton, but also of Einstein together with them, had been necessary to invent on the spot a “fifth force” or “supercharge” with antigravitazional function!

Our readers know which has been the thecniques used by the instinct of conservation of the establishment. They are those of the uncle count in the talk with the Provincial father from Manzoni’s novel The Betrothed: “Quell, truncate   , very reverend father: truncate, quell”. Right for this reason clever is who knows something today on what happened by the results risultati of the research on the pseudo-explaination made at that time. But if the readers themselves doesn’t want to attribute prophetic virtues to the holder of these pages, they will understand that the two documents presented here convalidate each other in an unanswarable way:  it is impossible to shelve the first, because it has been foretold by the second, and it is impossible to deny the second, because it had meticulously foreseen the first. Again the unigravitatinal physics uses for its demonstration the simplest ways, that right because such escape to the modern wiseacres: it was sufficient to apply in reverse the law of Kepler, that is to the gravitational effect of the minor bodies over the major, to understand that it was valuable approximately only in one sense and that therefore was wrong. Proved this, all the rest irremediably fell, up to Einstein, that blindly trusted his guides.

The trap in which the modern thought has fallen is to have taken as a target the ipse dixit of the Aristotelian and the medieval dogmatism, without noticing adopting new ones, because of the deception generated by the successes of the empiricism associated to the mathematicism. The theorems of Newton seemed an incontrovertible seal of such an association, creating the illusion of a universal validity of them. But to Newton was missing – and it could not be differently for those times – the precise knowledge of the undulatory structure of the gravitational field, for which the density and magnetic orientation, enormously predominant in the atomic field, are factors of exponential increasing of the gravitational intensity, because of the coincidence and overlap of an immense number of waves produced by the atomic and subatomic corpuscles.



Article from:

Tempo nuovo, Naples 1973, nn.3-4:

The unigravitational field


by Renato Palmieri

The first man who looked the skies with an instrument more powerful than the human eye, the telescope he himself had built, was Galileo Galilei; scientist and humanist already famous at that time and surrounded by great respect, friend of grand dukes and cardinals, he once invited note and eminent men, who well knew and esteemed him, to observe with their own eyes, through his telescope, the “Medicean stars” (the four Jupiter’s moon he discovered in January 1610: these and other of his astronomical discoveries had moved to rumors the whole intellectual world of that time). Some of these men refused to look: what Galileo asserted could not be true because it was in contraddiction with the techings of Aristotle, and therefore why wasting time taking care of it? May the student meditate much over this episode: those who behaved in such a way, which appears to us blind and senseless, were men of wide culture and certainly not without intellect; over a century had to pass before a judgement like ours was possible for common consensus”. (Caianiello, De Luca and Ricciardi, Physics, Pubblisher Garzanti, vol. 1, pag. 87: “Science and dogma”).

May also the autors meditate much over this episode and let us know if “over a century” should pass before the “note and eminent meni” of the modern physics proove at least to see the telescope, if not to look into it.

If they only they would open their eyes, they would aknowledge that also the scientific revolution of the reinassance has made its time; that it, passed the positive phase of attachment to the old dogmas, has then finished with assuming the same rigidly conservative character of the medieval thought, transforming its discoveries by effective foundings – for that stadium of knowledge -, still empirical, in new absurd theoretical dogmas, from which the human mind still has not freed yet. They would understand that to have replaced in the “ipse dixit” of Aristotle and Ptolemy the names of Kepler, Newton and latley of Einstein (which is a fantasious offshoot of it) doesn’t mean to have operated a real revolution.

So it happened that wonderful intuitions for the times that saw their birth – several centurie ago – had been embalmed in their childood and adored with a fetishistic cult. Little less than mocked as a sign of dotage has been, instead, the only true greatness of Einstein; that is the labor of the last fourty years of his life, in wich he worked desperately at a “unified theory of the fields”, following an idea that already has been tried by Faraday (1). But the attempt, matured at the end of the last century, was destinated to failure because of the enormous encumbrance of errors accumulated subsequently to the relativistic theory: Einstein was by now a pathetic prisoner of himself.

Protagonist of this work will be the famous Kepler’s Third law:

The relationship between the cube of the radius of the orbit (medium distance of the planet by the Sun) and the square of the period is the same for all the planets:

R3 / T2 = constant

In the enunciating it, the text aforementioned comments (pag. 98):

“Kepler’s opera was so accomplished. His third law, in particular, should then serve to Newton to find, as we will see, the exact shape of the dynamic law that regulates all the gravitational phenomenas”.

But in reality, as we will see, it was only an “optical illusion”, not inferior to the Ptolemaic one that, inducing in error Newton also, would have prevented to science to turn to the right way towards a unitary interpretation of the universe for centuries.

An easy objetion that modern scientism will do preliminarly is that, on the basis of the laws of Kepler and Newton, had been reported successes well known to all, as the discovery of two other planets, Neptune and Pluto, and the modern space flights. But it is also easy to answer – and demonstrate to the course of this survey – that such successes fall right in the band of  empirical validity of those laws, which, right because they are regarding a restricted area of phenomenas, do not accomplish into accounting of anything else which hasn’t been clumsly macroscopic and they have to cease field in the microcosm (molecules, atoms, subatomic particles) to countless other bigger and smaller laws invented ad hoc  by the physicals. Kepler himself said regarding these partial truths:

“The true consequence by false premises is fortuitous, and its natural falsity reveals by itself, as soon it doesn’t come to accomodating infinite other propositions and to never stop into progression and regression” (2).

The third Kepler’s law, therefore, with its own formulation underlines a feature of the gravitational “force” which would make it completely different by any other type of the known forcec. The feature is the following: the speed of a body subjected to the gravitational field of another body is independent from the massa  of the gravitating body, being only in relation with the distance that separates it from the attracting body. In fact, in the formula of the kepler’s law the mass of the planets does not appear: so the planets, big or small, orbit around the Sun with a period that is not bound to their bigger or smaller mass, but only at the respective distance by the Sun. The thing appears confirmed by the famous experience attributed to Galileo, which would have served of the tower of Pisa and of stones of different size: the experience (that repeats with more precision in the emptiness of the “Newton’s tube”) shows how falling objects arrive at the ground all at the same time.

This phenomenon has some very important practical consequences, that everybody experiece continuously, even though it is difficult to realize it in a really conscious way. In fact every other “force” we know (that isn’t the one of gravity), exstablished a certain intensity of the source – for example, a measured effort of our muscles -, has as a consequence to impress to the bodies to which is applied an acceleration inversely proportional to their mass: in other terms, subjecting different bodies to a source of strenght of the same intensity, the bigger ones will move less quickly than the smaller ones. This is the contrary of what happens in “Newton’s tube”, which proves that a celestial body, with an identical effort of its “muscles” has the priviledge to make move with the same speed a planet (or satellite or other falling body) very small as another one very big, given that the different orbital speeds of “fall” depends only by the distance and not by the size of the gravitating bodies. If we human had the same capacity, our kid would carry around a rail convoy with the same ease with which he pulls back his train toy.

We will now express this very difference between gravitation and the other forces in the terms within which it has been explained in the books of physics. Remaining still that, for a constant force, the acceleration imprinted to a body is inversely proportional to the mass of this (3), the force of attraction exercised by a certain gravitazional source (the Sun for the planets, the Earth for the Moon, etc.) is in turn directly proportional to the mass of the subjected body. From this derivates that a planet of mass 2 undergoes from the Sun not the same attractive force of a planet of mass 1 (in such a case the impressed acceleration would be the half), but a double force and therefore the acceleration doesn’t change: so as it is wanted by the formula m a. For the contrary, for a different force from the gravitation, exstablished a certain intensity of the source, the applied force remains evidently the same for all the subjected bodies, which therefore will be more or less accelerated depending by their minor or major mass.

Also this consideration, regarding the proportionality of gravity to mass, is not a theoretical fact, but falls under our most common experience. Everyone knows that a body of double mass respect to another “weigh” twice (in a same place of the Earth), that is it is attracted by the Earth with a twice greater force. If instead the Earth, as a source of gravitational force, would behave the same way as any other source of force, should attract in the same measure (for a certain distance) the bodies of any mass, that therefore would have an identical weigh: being subjected to an equal force of attraction for different masses, they would be differently accelerated in the fall towards the Earth, the less as grater the mass.

We have now done all our best to make as clear as possible the difference that the third Kepler’s law interposes between the gravitation and the other known forces. It can be summarized in the concept of proportionality (gravitation) or non proportionality (other forces) to the masses of the subjected bodies. We have seen that everything flows in the convalidating of such a difference: an overwhelming number of facts, that has determined a concatenation of theories, from Newton’s one to Einstein’s relativity, all based on that presupposition (4).

I now mean to demonstrate that this iron castle of ideas is only made of paper. The unigravitational physics has come so late in the history of thought right because of a misfortunate serie of unfavorable circumstances, that made inaccesible the truth under thousands of contrastating circumstances and mountains of mathematical formulas. We had it under our eyes, we can say, but “we didn’t see the forest, because there were trees”, as it is well observed by a russian proverb (5) (6).

The solution of the problem is in fact at hand reach and its evidence is elementary. Here it is, in a synthesis:

In the universe, there is no “force” which is absolutely proportional to the mass of the bodies to which is applied (not even therefore the gravitation) and none is absolutely non proportional (forces commonly considered non gravitational). The exact proporzionality is a theoretical limit, towards which a force tents, when the spacial extension of the subjected bodies is negligible respect to the punctual variation of the acting field, that is the one of a body of mass and intensity relatively very high. It is also a limit of tendency the absolute non proportionality, when the acting field varies instead a lot from a point to the other of the subjected body, because of the high extension of this respect to the source of force.

At this point we might also consider finished our work, being so clear the question on a theoretical side. It will however be interesting to examine the subject in every particular.

Let’s first explain in simple terms the phenomenon, starting by the stones that Galileo made fall by the tower of Pisa. The punctual value of the terrestrial field applied at each elementar particle of those stones is almost identical from one particle to the other, because of the little extension of the stones respect to the terrestrial field: therefore the total value of the field results with high approximation equivalent to the product of the field applied to a single particle for the number of particles; whence the almost exact proportionality of gravity with the mass of the other stones, that therefore undergo an equal acceleration into the fall, although the have different masses.

We will return after on the importance of almost. Let’s now turn to the planetary system: the reasoning is analogue. For the reduced extension of the planets – also the greater ones – respect to the solar field, the punctual value of this varies in a negligible way from one point to the other of each planet, which therefore absorbs a global value of field almost proportional to its mass. Because the variation of the solar field becomes sensible only on great distances, the value of acceleration appears bound only to the radius of the orbit and indipendent by the mass, as exactly suggests the third Kepler’s law.

Let’s pass to the apparently opposite example of the railway convoy and the toy train, that oppose to our efforts a well different resistance. What happens, because the field of the force that we apply to the real train or to the toy train, although it extends theoretically to the whole mass of the object (as the solar field respect to a planet), explains the maximum of its intensity on a very low periferical zone of it, in contact with our hands, dimineshing almost to zero right outside of this zone (7). Therefore the total value of the filed absorbed by the whole object is not the result of the multiplication of the punctual value of the field relative to a particle of the zone of application of the force for the total number of particles, but is instead very far from such result (8). It is in reality the average among the highly different puncutal values suffered by the particles of the object multiplicated for the number of the same particles (that is the sum of the punctual values). Such product, for the practical annihillation of the field over the zone of appliance, results of little difference between the real treno to the toy train, but however is not identical, being a little higher in the firts case; therefore also the non proportionality of the force (as the proportionality for the gravitation) is not an absolut fact, but almost exact: an identical force, of a kind considered non gravitational, applied to two bodies of different mass (real train, toy train), in theory produces a higher acceleration in the largest body, although of very little, to the one foreseen by the inverse proportionality respect to the mass (9). But the measure of the difference is in practice undetectable, for the very high reduction of the field over the point of direct application of the force.

Let’s now see what it really means, basin on physical and mathematical prooves, the almost in the given examples. Let’s suppose that two of Galileo’s stones have respectively mass 1 and mass 2: the force of gravity, that is the weigh, if not exactly proportional to mass, it will be imperceptibly inferior twice the weigh of the first, that will therefore undergo a slightly higer acceleration into emptyness, falling onto the ground a very little tima before the other (10). Only the exiguity of the difference, in relation to the shortness of the traveled spaces, prevents us to relevate the error committed by Galileo (and by us, when we repeat the experience of the “Newton’s tube” to the students).

If Galileo had left fall the two stones at cosmic heights, instead that by the tower of Pisa, he would have observed the following dissimilarity by his preceding experiment:

a). The falling bodies, starting by the speed of zero respect to Earth, do not follow a radial trajectory (perpendicular) but spiral, in the sense west-east of the terrestrial rotation: which happens for the vortex structure, which I described more times, of the gravitational field (11).

b). The two stones don’t travel a same spiral of collision, but the trajectory of the bigger stone          diverge towards east from the one of the smaller stone, being accelerated a little less in direction of the center of the Earth: this right because its weigh is a little less of the double of the other, which for mass is the half.

c). At the end of their trajectory the two stones, starting together, won’t fall at the same time, instead the one with higher mass will touch the ground a little after the other, regardless of the much longer travel: the bigger stone is slower.

At this point there is who will grin, observing that no one will take the trouble to climb so high to trow the stones to deny Galileo and Newton. But here is a una curious proof of what I adfirmed. Let’s read what the EST (Encyclopedia of Science    and Technique, Mondadori) under the voice “Meteorite” in the new edition – mind you – in 12 volumes:

“When a meteorite shatters in the air, the fragments scatter but fall however almost in a elliptic area (fig. 3): the ones with higher mass has a longer route” (vol. VIII, pag. 368).


And why, excuse the curiosity, the bigger fragments have a longer route?

Our curiosity is heightened by the attempt to explain that has been done in the preceeding edition of the EST, in 10 volumes, which i quote:

“the ones with higher mass continue at a higher speed and therefore have a longer route” (vol. VI, pag. 731).

Naturally it was a nonsense, because if the bigger pieces would fall faster towards the Earth (as they should, for the fact that they better win the resistance to the air), they would have a collision path more direct and shorter, and not the contrary! It is well known to the kids, those who play with the pebbles at “bounce” in the water of the pond: the heaviest flints fall right away. The extensors of the EST would have propably noticed the nonsense and has remedied in the simpliest way, that is by abolishing any explaination of a fact absolutely incomprehensible to them.

The explaination is instead in the analysis we carried out previously and rappresents a most evident proof: the biggest fragments don’t weigh proportionally to their own mass, but a little less, and therefore are accelerated towards the Earth much less than the smaller fragments. The very long trajectory of the meteorites clear this way what in Galileo’s experiment and in “Newton’s tube” is masqued by the shortness of the route: Gravità differs by the other “forces” only for the degree of proportionality with the masses, respect to which not even itself is exactly proportional. That is: the coefficient of proportionality with masses is, for any force, < 1 and > 1/m.

About the true shape of the trajectory of the falling bodies, spiral and not radial (perpendicularity is apparent and refers only to the final stretch of the fall), doesn’t worth the effort to dwell, being so evident, after what in the preceeding works I had the chance to say on geometry and the effects of the unigravitational field (cfr. n. 11). The same meteoritic routes, identical to the spirali subatomic trajectories, are there demonstrating it to us, offering a model of the process of general aggregation of matter, both abiological (galactic spirals, into crystals, etc.), both living (spiral structures in animal and vegetal organisms) (12).

The preceeding fig. 3, assumes a great importance, to clear the gradual transition of gravitation commonly meant (apparent proportionality to the masses) to the various “forces” considered non gravitational (apparent non proportionality to the masses) at the light of the reasonings so far developed. Such transition will evidently characterize a strip of intermedium phenomena, whose apparent absence has made believe to a gravitation completely different from the other cosmic forces.

Let’s therefore consider the modalities of the phenomenon, so described in the caption:

 “The meteorite crosses twice the more dense strata of the terrestrial atmosphere”.

That is it occurs a small bounce of the meteorite on the external strata of the atmosphere, which at a superficial observer could seem throughout similar to the game of throwing pebbles on the water surface made by the kids. We now know instead that it has an opposite   trend: while in the little bounce of the kids the biggest pebble sink first (shorter trajectory between the water surface and the bottom), in the one of the meteorite the biggest fragments make a longer route in the atmosphere, therefore it is right the biggest of all the one who ends with bouncing on the superior stratas of the air, falling much further than the area of fall of the smaller pieces. The differece of behaviour depends by the fact that in the first case, for the short proportions of the phenomenon, prevails the factor of resistance of the medium (bigger pebble, shorter route) over the general one of the fall of the falling bodies we analized (higher mass, longer route); in the second, it happens the opposite.

The importance of this observation will stand out from its extraordinary, paradoxals consequences. In fact it signifies that, between two interacting bodies of much different dimensions, as the minor body’s mass increases, proportionally is done by the bigger body who does always less grip on the othero, whose “inertia” gradually increases: therefore are inreased the chances for this to disengage by the attraction of the bigger body with a  deviation (“escape“) in direction of the external fields. In the case of meteorites, while the minors collide with the Earth, the gravitational bounce of the bigger ones, less accelerated towards the center of the Earth, can to the limit bring some of them to enter in the orbit or even escape the terrestrial attraction. Therefore the asteroid belt signs a collection area, in the solar gravitational field, of the meteoritic material which for dimensions and distances by the Sun has avoided both the fall towards the Sun and the escape towards the external spaces: that means it represents, as we will better see after, the corresponding of a “barrier of potential” nuclear, on the outside of which prevail events of escape and orbit bigger planets, while on the inside prevail events of collision and only minor planets orbit. Such barrier can normally be crossed only by very light objects (respect to the nucleus-Sun), as the comets, which however undergo from it a gradually disgregating effect.

Si comprende ora facilmente che gli eventi di deviazione e fuga gravitazionale, per chi li legga in modo distorto, da posizioni visuali o mentali non favorevoli, possono acquistare l’aspetto di fenomeni “repulsivi”, determinati da urto e rimbalzo contro una “barriera”. Sorge quindi l’idea, nell’osservazione del microcosmo, che corpi in fuga relativa – per attrazione in diverse direzioni – si “respingano” vicendevolmente! I rami di lunghissime iperboli gravitazionali, confusi con gli asintoti per un facile errore di prospettiva, appaiono come traiettorie rettilinee nei fenomeni di “incidenza e riflessione” (13). Pertanto, se noi potessimo guardare i fatti del macrocosmo con occhi di dimensioni cosmiche, non c’è dubbio che li vedremmo accadere con modalità identiche a quelle che attribuiamo ai fatti del microcosmo: il significato della fisica unigravitazionale sta nella continua dimostrazione di questa identità.

Our theoretical analysis, which in the second part of this work will be accompanied by a n examination od mathematical character, carries to the conclusion that, as minor are the differences of mass between the bodies scattered in a relatively very big portion of space and as minor are the densities of the single bodies (higher the volumes for unity of mass), the less sensible is the  proportionality of the field (of the “force”) of each with the masses of the others, keeping such field campo towards a non proportionalitywhich is however never absolute, as by the way the believed proportionality of gravity. In correspondece increase phenomenically “repulsive” events, in reality of gravitational deviation and escape (with apparent continuos “dribble” of the bodies from a field to the other), due to the equilibrium of the reciprocal interactions. Electrons between them or protons, or other particles commonly considere of the same “sign”, seem to mutually reject, with “forces” which, not being considered gravitational, are valued in base to the criterium – oppositely erroneous – of a non absolute proportionality, that is as conferring accelerations proportionally inverse to the masses: in reality their behaviour get birth by the being negligible the differences between the single masses and is not different by the one of the stars of a cluster or of a galaxy, which also, continuosly shuffling, seem escaping between them without for this that comes to the mind to anyone to attribute to them any “sign”.

The complessive gravitational bond, which deny every hypotesis of repulsivity, appears by the aggregation of the bodies, masses non dissimilar for order of size, in big systems of shape perfectly analogue in the macro- and microcosm: the immense vortexes of the galaxies, made of billion of stars, do not sostantially differ by the vortexes of electrons which, gathering in myriads, give origine to a electromagnetic field (one should not commit the error of believing that the field gathers the electrons, while these are the ones who create the field, gathering and composing ondulatorilly). If therefore the electrons, seen each in relation to another, seem repelling each other, they instead show clearly the general attractive bond, when they travel as swarms composed of countless individuals. Being so, also prescinding by the specific consideraztions of mathematical order which we will make afterwards, it is completerly absurd that, while the electrons (or protons) would reject each other, because supplied of a card with written “minus” (or “plus”) on it, and with a non proportional force to the reciprocal masses, the stars of a galaxy instead would attract with a force of a completely different kind, exactly proportional to their masses.

On the other hand, the undeniable observation of the enormous compactness of the systems as the atomic nucleus, which are principally constituited of particles – the protons – characterized by the physician with a same “sign”, has forced to postulate new “forces” more powerful than the “ electrostatic repulsion” and such to cement the riotous corpuscles in a iron unity. So are born the “nuclear forces”, subdivided into various tipes of interactions, whose number goes multiplying in relation to the rising of always new, inevitable contraddictions.

Summarizing, the concept of “non gravitational forces”, with a function of  thrust has instead of attraction  and with the character of non proportionality to the subjected masses instead of  proportionalityderivates simply by the prospective from which are considerated the phenomena. We have however a wide field of verification of the graduality wherewith in the universe, macro- and microcosmic, there is a switch by the events determinated by the apparently non proportional forces to the masses to the ones depending by a force apparently proportional to the subjected masses. A first demonstration has been given by the analysis of the meteoritic trajectories; the behaviour of the particles in the electromagnetic fields will offer a sperimentally operative term of confrontation.

The action of a magnetic field over the particles of atomic or subatomic order is almost analogue for proportions to the one of a sidereal gravitational field over small celestial bodies: the general effects will therefore be analogue.

The first thing one can observe with immediate evidence is that the trajectories of the particeles sono at all identical – a it has already been said – to the ones of the meteorites in the terrestrial gravitational field (14). But the most important consideration is that it is not a generics similarity. The “mass spectrograph” measure the mass of the particles by the deviation they undergo crossing subsequently an electric field and a magnetic field: it is founded over the principle that, as little the mass, as stronger the deviation, because higher is the centripetal acceleration which the force of the field exercises over the particle. Well this is exactly the phenomenon which I preceedingly described and explained for the meteorites, recovering it by the ESTthe fragments of a meteorite with higher mass have a longer route, being deviated less by the gravity respect to the smaller fragments; which signifies that they undergo an inferior centripetal acceleration and that therefore gravity is not precisely proportional to the masses! The corrispondence between macrocosm and microcosm becomes so convalidated by always more clear confirmations.

All this implies right away another astonishign observation: the calculation of the masses in the spettrograph starts by the assumption that the force of an electric or magnetico field, being non gravitational, is not proportional to the masses of the particles and therefore produces accelerations inversally proportional to the same masses. But the comparison with the meteoritic phenomenon demonstrates that such assumption is equally erroneous: also the non proportionality of the electric and magnetic force is to be intended in a non absolute way, as the proportionality of the gravitational force. The result is the need of an accurate critique revision of the measures of mass in the nuclear physics, being the imprecision of the foundations of the methods of such measures non secondary cause of the dust cloud that wraps the classification of the particles.


(1) G. Gamow, Biography of the physic, Mondadori (pag. 147):

“Faraday, convinced of the existance of deep reciprocal bpnds between all the existing phenomena in nature, had tried to find a relation between the electromagnetic forces and Newton’s force of gravity. In his  Diariy of laboratory in 1849 is written:

“Gravity. Certainly this force must have some experimental connection with electricity, magnetism and other forces, so as to interact with them with reciprocal actions and identical effects. Let’s think a little to the way of organizoing a collection of concrete evidences and of experiences in this sense”.

But the numerous experiments executed in search of the above mentioned relation were all infructuos and Faraday himself concludes so that part of his Diary:

“Here for the moment finishes my effort: results are negative, but they don’t minimally shake my deep convinction of the existance of a relation between gravity and electricity, even though I didn’t manage to demonstrate it”.

A century later another genis will work again on the problem in the most difficoult attempt to develop the so called “unified theory of the fields”, which should have reunited in a unique arrangement all the gravitational phenomena and the electromagnetic ones; but, alike Faraday, also Albert Einstein died without having reached his purpose”.

(2) Cited by Geymonat, History of the philosophical and scientific thought, Garzanti, II, pag. 509. Among the moderni scholars we could say as Foscolo: “I know the best and to the worse I cling”.

(3) We will see forward the mechanism of this law. Let’s meanwhile say that the scholastic physics limits itself to attributing to it the name of “inertia”, without explaining neighter the nature or justifying its anomalies.

(4) W. R. Fuchs, The modern illustrated physics, introduction by Max Born, Rizzoli (pages 231-232):

“Newton has discovered the law of universal gravitaion which allows do describe both the fall of an apple by a tree and the revolution of the Moon or of an artificial satellite around the Earth. This force of attraction of the Earth has also as a consequence to make fall all the bodies with the same speed, abstracting the resistance to the air, fact already known to Galileo. And such force of attraction distinguish itself by all the other forces acting on the bodies right for this property. Einstein was the firts to recognise the universal meaning of such a fact. In Newton’s gravitational theory the free fall of a body has only a secondary importance, while Einstein made of it the base of his general theory of relativity”.

(5) Quoted by Gamow, op. cit. (pag. 147):

“It is not to be forgotten that often, to theoretically frame a physical phenomenon, a too deep knowledge of mathematic reveals itself useless or even harmful; the researcher can easily get lost in the jungle of the complicated mathematical formulas and, to tell it with a russian proverb, doesn’t see the forest because of the presence of the trees”.

Scientists today, talented into preaching, do as Ovidio: “Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor”. [In note 2 Foscolo’s translation]

(6) Before desmounting the last chain of false evidences, which have so far mascqued the identity of gravitaton with any other force in the universe, bringing to the inauspicious consequences of relativity and the various formalistic theories, I remember that I took care of the other aspects of apparent diversification in preceding works: as the different intensity of gravitation and of elettronuclear forces, the “repulsivity” in the electric and magnetic phenomena, the undulatory waves of gravitation and of electromagnetism. I will return afterwards over such aspects, in the course of this same survey. I however preciso that the studies – included the actual one – coming successively to the first opera (Physics of the unigravitational field, in 2 vol.) don’t do other than exteriorize in a more discorsive phormula concepts and implications already contained in the substance of such treatis.

If, to make an example, would happen to me to have to speak of the phenomenon of the terrestrial glaciations, I could only particularize an explaination already given in this words in the 1° of this two volumes (pag. 84):

“…for the cyclic character of such phenomena, v. § 40-(3); cfr. §§ 39-(1) and 50, and terrestrial glaciations”.

La fisica unigravitazionale significa anche questa concisione, che deriva dalla semplicità e unicità della chiave che essa fornisce. L’unificazione dei campi, così a lungo e inutilmente perseguita, si celava dietro la farragine di complicatissime assurdità teoriche.

(7) Of the different progression with which can diminuish the intensity of a field in relation to the distance, we will discuss afterwards.

(8) We will give after a esemplificative table.

(9) This prescinding by the “starting transient”, the apparent initial increasing of mass due to the infinitesimal time of delay within which the body reach the acceleration foreseen by the second principle of Dynamic: the phenomenon verifies at each istantaneous variation of the applied force.

(10) We can consider negligible, given the extreme smallness of the stones respect to the Earth, the reciprocal phenomenon of the acceleration imprinted by the stones to Earth itself: theoretically higher acceleration produced by the stone of higher mass.

(11) See in particular: Physics of the unigravitazionale field, § 2; Introduction to the Unigravitational physics, pages- 17-18; the unigravitational physich, §§ 12-18. But let’s consider Geymonat again (cit. op., Il, pag. 296), regarding a right idea by Cartesio, unluckily remained in fieri:

“Starting from such principles, Descartesi formulated his famous theory of the vortices. As a mote which floats over the water is attracted by a vortex formed by the current, so a stone is attracted towards the Earth by a vortex. Similarly the planets (included the Earth) spin, with the vortices around them, in a bigger vortex around the Sun. Newton will demonstrate mathematically that the teoriy of the vortices does not hold. It represents however a fundamental stage in the history of scientific thought: an audacious theory, which tried to uniifu in one machine all the processes of the universe. As such, it exercised a great charm over all the scientific spirits of the epoca, until when it was replaced by the well more solid newtonian theory of universal gravitation”.

Heck of a Newton, who was able to demonstrate mathematically that a spiral galaxy, a cyclone, a shell, a DNA molecule, two snails in love, a crystal, a pine cone, a climbing, a horne, the water which flows by the drainage of the washbasin, the vertigo (in latin, vortex) from which we feel sucked for the fall of pressure, for a sublime feeling or for the attraction of emptiness, in the end – without exeption – any mineral structure, vegetal, animal, psychic – the same number of vortices, small and big, all doing marameo – are things that doesn’t stand up!

Regarding the newtonian theory of gravitation and the osanna by Geymonat, we come to see how they in fact stand up.

(12) R. P., The unigravitational physics, pages. 36-57, figg. 12-16.

(13) R. P., The unigravitational physics, § 18.

(14) The order of the transaltion is obviously different, being in relation to the universal interactions which accelerate enormously more the bodies with very little mass than the ones with big mass (for the orbital and translatory, see “Tempo nuovo”, nn. 5-6/1972, pages 63 and following). This is another evidence of the fact that gravity is not in absolute proportional to the masses, but appears such in a very limited scope of relations. Regarding the crazy speeds of the galaxies, which have by now reached the speed of light itself, they only belong to the fantasy of the modern physicists, which ignores the true nature of the cosmic “red-shift” (see Thea unigravitational physics, § 29).

For the aporias of Newton’s law, see “Gravitation” in the Enciclopedia Italiana.

Permalink link a questo articolo: