Return to Section 4. The articles from 1972-73 on the unigravitational field. Premise.

B) Magnetism and heat (First Part).

B) Magnetism and heat (First Part).

B) Magnetism and heat (First Part).

Premise: Origin of cancer. The cause that disrupt the cellular nucleus is the same that make a supernova explode.

    The second article of this section returns on the actuality of the new physic faced with problems that, although not of time but of all times, are now exacerbated by the difference between the presumptuous loquacity of modern “science” and its total inability to solve them.

   The academic knowledge on thermodynamic are frighteningly inadequate to understand the fundamental biological phenomena and of pathology of the  biological states themselves. (Another thing which is different from knowledge is biogenetic engineering, which is merely artificial activity and not theoretical, as says the denomination itself). For “heat” applies what has been said for “force”: as of this we still only have a “muscular” idea, so the heat is that thing which burns and that is measured by the thermometer. To pretend a scientific meaning from this, it is labeled as “kinetic energy” of the atoms and of molecules, but regarding the therm of “energy”, we return to the evaluation given by  Eddington, that is, we don’t know what it is.

   Being so, because cancer – according to our physics – is originated by a thermodynamic event, it is useless to hope that we can achieve, on official bases, to understand and prevent it, before curing it. On the first drafts of our WEB pages, we deliberately excluded, from the unigravitational bibliography, certain fundamental articles regarding the topic. We did it to avoid the predictable and hypocritical accusation that the new physic would wish to get accreditation from the speculation over illusory hopes of the sufferers and of their families. But now we are at the point that this charge is does not give us any more thought, because we are preliminarily offering the survey of a correct thermodynamic to the readers, and only in relation to it, we will discuss specifically of cancer, of its real origin and of the consequent possibility  of its prevention and cure, recalling things we published long time ago  (Tempo nuovo, n.2 / 1971 and n.1 / 1973).

   Here we just recall the two recent episodes which reported the phenomenon dramatically in front of the stage: the case of Giovanni Alberto Agnelli, who died of cancer at the age of 33, with the almost symbolic value of a universal tragedy, and the controversy between the medical official and the prof.  Luigi Di Bella about a certain pharmacological treatment he experimented. Naturally we are not interested in investigating, here, whether there is or not a true test of the effectiveness of that treatment. We just need to detect the terrorism with which the medical corporation, that ignores everything of the underlying cause of cancer and is almost only capable of treating it with bistoury or with therapies notoriously harmful for the whole body, pretends to lay down the law towards particular therapeutic treatments, operated by regularly qualified medics, only because they escape the control of caste. As if we did not know that it took centuries before – for example – acupuncture had some recognition by the Western medicine.


   The speech that unigravitational physics do about cancer confers to it its full meaning of global knowledge of the universe and the resolutive capability of human problems also on the practical and operative plane. As it will be clear at the completion of this section, discover the etiological reason that join the physical reason of the onset of cancer to the one that causes the stellar explosion of novae and supernovae automatically means to find the antidote to the first phenomenon: obviously, the only one which is at reach of a human intervention. This will also mean to refuse the barbaric practice of the trials on animals to the clinicians corporation, by demonstrating to them – as we are doing toward the theoretical physicians – that chasing empirical methods without the guide of mind is a blind proceed, if not quite – and most of times – only cynical profiteering. The results, not infrequently also manipulated, of the torments inflicted upon the animals are only useful to fill of small talk the coated paper of expensive magazines, for career or stupid conceit.

The survey on magnetism and heat has been published in two parts. The first lays the unigravitational foundation – of physical-cosmological character – while the second, is more strictly thermodynamical.


27th December 1997

The following article is from:

Tempo nuovo, Naples 1972, nn.5-6: The unigravitational field


by Renato Palmieri

The orbital speeds and the shape of the orbits. “Elasticity”. The “states” of matter.

   A gravitational system is composed by the ensemble of the orbital configurations of the  composing parts. Such a bond is extended to the smallest corpuscles – that are the elementary particles, the photons – to progressively bigger bodies, as subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons etc.), atoms, molecules, and in the macrocosm the asteroids, satellites, planets, stars or galaxies orbiting each other.

   The orbiting of two bodies is always mutual, being each of them in the focus of an ellipse traveled by the other body. When the mass (number of constituting photons) of one of the two bodies is much bigger than the other, the speed with which the major body travels on the orbit around the minor is much lower to the one with which the minor orbits around the biggest: therefore the first orbiting, slow, is masked by the remarkable speed of the second. It will then seems that is exclusively the smaller body turning around the biggest, and not also the inverse (*).

   Let’s consider in fact, to simplify, such an orbiting, that can be the one of an electron compared to a proton, as of a planet compared to the Sun. Modern physics has, in this regard, enormously tangled up things, when, after coming across the dual aspect – corpuscular and undulatory  – of the subatomic particles and being unable to reconcile the two manifestations of a same particle, has unreasonably abandoned the planetary model of the atom. That’s how Heisenberg’s notorious “principle of indetermination” had birth. It states that it is impossible to distinguish also theoretically the corpuscleelectron, for example, from the waveelectron and that the first can be found probabilistically everywhere are the wavefronts of the second. This is as absurd as saying that at the stadium the whistle of the referee, other than in the mouth of the referee, is in the ears of the thousands spectators of the match. The explanation is instead that the most minute part of matter gravitating in the field of the electron draws the gravitational undulation of it, in the way that, in each radiating star, the spectroscopic (undulatory) image is outlined by the matter irradiated in the form of photons along its magnetic lines and cannot be confused with the intrinsic (corporeal) aspect of the star itself.

   We can then conclude that the wave form of an electron as the one of a celestial body is described by the matter of the satellite, shattered and dispersed on the wavefronts produced by the body; for example, the rainbow, the northern Lights, Van Allen radiation belts represent the “undulatory” aspect of the Earth, whose internal spheroid marks the   “corporeal”- On a larger scale and more advanced stage of material aggregation, the Rings of Saturn or the asteroid belts and the groups of comets around the Sun also draw mega-magnetic curves waves produced by the two celestial bodies. The apparent dualism of wave and corpuscle in the subatomic particles comes from the much greater irradiating intensity – proportionally to the mass – of the subatomic fields, compared to the sidereal ones, and from the rapidity of the orbits: the “cloud” of the radiation is therefore spectroscopically very marked and the instantaneous localization of the corpuscle along the orbit experimentally impossible. But from this to affirm the also theoretical absence of any precise localization and the identity between the particle and its waves there is an abyss, that only the “indeterministic” absurdity can assume to fill.   


   Another misunderstanding to clarify is regarding what we have defined “rapidity” of the microcosmic orbits and that the modern physics imagine as “high speed”, with which these orbitals would take place. As it may seem a paradox at first sight, the two concepts don’t identify. The subatomic orbits are very rapid, in the meaning that a particle can trace billions of them around another, in the time of a second, and however they are covered at low speed. If for hypothesis an intra nuclear particle turns in a billionth of a second on a orbit long a billionth of a millimeter, it performs in a second a whirling carousel of a billion of revolution, but at the modest speed of only a millimeter per second, which is 30 million times inferior  to the speed of revolution of the Earth (about 30 km/s)  

   The length of the orbit and the orbiting speed are, of course, to measure relatively to the attracting corpuscle, considered still. Let’s suppose that two cyclists must run in the same direction on two concentric circular runways: their starting positions are along a radius. The orbit of the external corridor respect to the internal one is represented by the length of the outer circumference. To let him fulfill such a orbit performing only a round of the track, it is needed that the inner cyclist remains still: the orbital speed will be given by the relationship between the length of the circumference and the time employed to follow it. If instead the inner cyclist is also moving, only one round and the respective time won’t evidently be enough, to make the external one see all the sides of the companion, which means that he makes a whole orbit around the inner one. More laps will be needed, which means a longer time. The orbital speed therefore decreases (the orbit length is always the one of the external circumference, but time increases) and it can even be zero, if the two cyclists have the same angular speed: in this case they are constantly turning the same side to each other. Therefore it can happen that, even though running as fast as possible on their tracks, the two corridors have a reciprocal orbital speed equal to zero.

   The example now given does not correspond if not approximately to the reality of the gravitational orbits, that in space are very complicated reciprocal curves: the two cyclists should in fact travel each one his own ellipse around the other, placed in one of the focuses. It has however been useful to distinguish the round (seen from the outside) of a body that chases another from its revolution, which is strictly respective to the attracting body and must be regardless of the rotational motions of the interacting bodies: in fact in astronomy we talk about “sidereal revolution”, that is independent by the rotational motion. It can also give an idea of the mutual orbits  between planets of a system as the solar system, totally ignorant in the common planetary representation.

   In the example mentioned above, the billion revolutions per second of the intra nuclear particle will then correspond to more billions of rounds made in a second, that is  proportionally to the number of needed rounds to make a complete orbit (or revolution).

   Obviously different by the orbital subatomic speeds is the particles translation speed, which is often very high, up to touching the speed of light, being inherent to more general gravitational factors. In the case of the cyclists, their translation speed, respect to the outside, is the one with which each travel along his own track. If they were, for any reason, abandon it, they would project themselves toward the exit at a much higher speed, respect to the one of reciprocal orbiting.

   Let’s now examine the geometrical shape that a gravitating orbit can assume, in dependence from the speed of orbiting of the gravitating body A’ relative to the attracting body, A (supposing – as it as already been said – the first with a much lower mass respect to the second). We know that the orbiting is not a phenomenon that can be referred to the two orbiting body only: it is a condition of dynamic equilibrium between the mutual attraction and the one of external fields. The collision between the two bodies (“fall” of one on the other) is caused by the prevalence of the reciprocal interaction on the external and inversely the escape or deviation (“reflection” of each one respect to the other), by the prevalence of the external interaction over the reciprocal one.

   Be Voc and Vof respectively the minimum and maximum speed, within the limits of which – for given masses, instantaneous distances and directions of  A and A’ and determined intensity of the surrounding fields – the gravitating body A’ orbit around A, considered still. At the speed Voc the orbit of A’ is circular, limit case of the ellipse. For Vc(“collision speed”) < Voc the orbit changes from circular to centripetal spiral: A’ falls on A with a collision trajectory, that on the final part and for proportionally short distances, assumes an apparently radial trend (free fall), but spiral in reality, in its complete development. We know that this is caused by the repeatedly illustrated vortex structure of of the gravitational field and it demonstrates itself in the infinite spiral shapes existing in nature (galaxies, cyclones, shells, disposal of leaves and seeds, trajectories of meteorites and particles, etc.).

   For increasing speeds included between Voc and Vof , the orbit modifies from circular to elliptic, of increasing elongated shape. The major axis touch the maximum extension at the limit Vof , that is  the highest of the “orbital speeds” Vo . Therefore, for  Vf (“escape velocity”) > Vof the trajectory from elliptic transform in inparabolic and then in iperbolic: A’ escapes A by starting gravitating in an external field, prevailing on A.

   An elliptic orbit is traveled with a speed variable from a minimum, in the farther point from the body of reference (“apo-A”: apogee, aphelion), to a maximum, in the closest point (“peri-A”: perigee, perihelion); a circular orbit, instead, with constant speed.

We call “orbital tolerance the difference  Vof — Voc = Vto and it is proportional to the minimum orbital speed Voc . For example:

   Voc = 100 m/s;……………..Vof = 140 m/s;………….….Vto = 40 m/s;

     Voc = 1000 m/s;…………… Vof = 1400 m/s;………….. .Vto = 400 m/s.

   Let’s suppose to make A’ undergo for a very short time an extraordinary gravitational interaction, such that it accelerates o decelerates, along the instantaneous direction, the normal orbiting speed of A’ (**). It will then occur an axial modification of the orbit, that will become more elliptic for an increase in speed and less elliptic for a decreased speed.

   Now, inside orbital tolerance are existing limits within which the speed variation, once ceased the extraordinary interaction, tends to be eliminated by the normal interactions of the preexisting fields: so that the orbit, after a series of oscillations, returns almost the one of before. This median strip of Vto  Veo of the system (A, A’), and naturally has different values (in percentage to Vto) depending on the interactive conditions preceding the extraordinary event. If the occasional variation of speed exceeds the band of elasticity, the orbit modifies permanently: that means, it remains “deformed”. If, at last, such variation exceed the orbital tolerance margin itself, the orbiting cannot subsist and a collision of A’ with A with Vc < Voc occurs, or an escape of A’ towards the outside for  Vf > Vof in the first case the system undergo a “crush”, in the second a “break”. The margin of Vo included between the elasticity and the crush or the break, constitute the “plasticity” Vop.

    = 50% of Vto  , (respectively 20 and 200 m/s), a variation of speed between 110 and 130 m/s and between 1100 and 1300 m/s is temporary: after a certain time from the ceasing of the cause that provoked it, the speed returns at the medium value and the orbit to its normal shape. There is plasticity within the limit of 100-110, 130-140 and 1000-1100, 1300-1400 m/s.

   We must specify that the band of elasticity is reduced with the increasing of the length of the occasional interaction. If in fact this is maintained long enough, it will introduce some stable modifications in the total system, such to alter the value Voc itself, provoking then a “permanent deformation” of the original orbit.

   If the extraordinary interaction has a directional effect, that is that it does not exercise along the instantaneous direction of A’, but on a angled direction respect to the instantaneous one, it will then transform the orbit of A’ in another one more or less wide (of a larger or shorter medium radius), and will change – respectively decreasing or increasing – all the values of the Vo : that is  Voc , Vof , Vto , Veo , Vop. In fact, as much as the orbital radius increases, the needed speed, to make the orbiting between the two body occur, is always lower, because of the decreasing of the reciprocal gravitational intensity: consider, for example, the speed at which the different planets are orbiting around the Sun, in relation to the scale of their distances from the central celestial body.

   Also the radial modification of the orbit – as the axial one – is  a reversible (elasticity) or irreversible (plasticity) fact, once the occasional interaction has ceased. If the medium radius of the new orbit is diversified from the preceding within determined limits in more or less, the end of the contingent event bring back the orbit to the original shape; otherwise a permanent deformation occurs.


   The change in the values of the  Vo in relation to the new orbit involve that, for an orbit radially wider and therefore with a lower Voc and  Vof , the preceding orbiting speed  Vor can result too high respect to the new  Vo and therefore transform into   Vf ; vice versa, for a more tight orbit, that is a higher  Voc and  Vof , the original Vor can be too low for the new value of Vo and therefore turn into  Vc . There will then be the break of the system in the first case and in the second the crush.  In every phenomenon of elasticity and of plasticity are generally present both of the forms – axial and radial – of these properties, being however able to prevail, case by case, one or the other. Such is then the gravitational explanation of all those phenomena related to the elasticity of the bodies, included the typical biological function of the “muscular elasticity”, to whom we owe the contractile ability of the muscles.

   We have said that the orbiting is a condition of dynamic equilibrium between the reciprocal attraction of the considered orbiting bodies and the one of the external fields on the same bodies. It is obvious that such an equilibrium cannot be perfect and eternal, because of the continuous change of the gravitational situations of the entire universe. Given a “gravitational system”, or simply a body – constituted, as it has been seen, by a set of minor macro- or microscopical (bodies, corpuscles, particles and finally “absolute atoms”, that is photons) mutually gravitating  systems with a certain stability -, after a certain longer or shorter time of observation, we will note some relevant modifications in the system, caused by the uninterrupted gravitational interactions both internal and external to the body. Such modifications, accumulating, will eventually determine so extensive and deep alterations to make the system completely different from the original one, or even to crush and disperse it. All this derives exactly by the fact that the stability of the mutual orbiting is not absolute, but only temporary, for the continuously changing conditions of gravitational equilibrium in the cosmic matter.

   Let’s then take in exam, for a certain gravitational system, the possible developments of its material organization.

   As a first case, we suppose that the equilibrium of the system is altered by a constant prevalence of the external attraction over the internal one. It will then happen that the orbits will gradually widen. Before the ones of the peripheral parts, then little by little those of the outer zones. Therefore the general values of the Vo will decrease, so that the original speed of orbiting Vor will result superior to those values, becoming escape velocity, respect to the system. This will expand always more and its parts will progressively detach, emigrating towards the external fields, until the complete dispersion of the system itself. In magnetic terms, such process involves the resolution of the smaller domains in progressively bigger domains and finally the loss of every evident magnetic characteristic in the dismagnetism.

   The second case is represented by the prevalence of the internal attraction over the external. The orbits tend to shrink, before the innermost, then the peripheral ones. The values of the  Vo are therefore increasing, respect to which the primitive speed of orbiting end up resulting too low and transform into collision speed. The system then contracts: it increases the cohesion among its parts, that thicken towards the center of mass. Magnetically, there is a progressive miniaturization of the domains: the matter proceed along the “magnetic scale” from dismagnetism to paramagnetism and then to diamagnetism.

  The fall of a secondary body (planet or satellite), from its own orbit toward the “eye” of a dominant  gravitational vortex, provokes the collision of the planetary body with the “nucleus” of the considered system: for example, of a comet with the Sun, nucleus of the solar system, or of a artificial satellite with the Earth, nucleus of the Earth-Moon system, and similarly of an electron with a proton and so on. “Collision” is properly the entering of the colliding body in an area surrounding the center of mass of the collided body, in which, the density of the matter of this last one, prevents every total orbiting around it.

   To clear up this concept, we will consider an artificial satellite orbiting around the Earth. Until the orbit is sufficiently outside the dense strata of the terrestrial atmosphere, it has a relative stability regime; if it runs, instead, inside a certain limit of density of the air, the orbital motion will be slowed down and progressively transformed in a motion of collision: this verifies already in the moment in which the atmospheric friction prevents the satellite from performing a whole orbit around the Earth.


     The final result of the collision is that the parts of the colliding body – in this case, the satellite – don’t constitute any more a set orbiting around the “nucleus” – the Earth; but, disuniting and intruding in the structures of the nucleus itself (air, ocean, solid crust), they become elements of gravitational systems much more restricted that the primitive one, in which the mass of the original body goes disperse. The parts or particles of this last one enter the scope of the local gravitational dominions, of both macroscopic (as rocks, or water or air masses) and microscopic (molecules, atoms, subatomic corpuscles) order, in which the starting situation – as said above – is miniaturized: the orbiting of the whole satellite around the Earth get fragmented, after the collision, in a multiplicity of gravitational events relative to the interaction between the more or less big parts of the satellite and those of the Earth, with which the first get mixed as a consequence of the impact.

    In the major or minor reciprocal stability of the parts constituting any gravitational system consists the condition said “status” (solid, liquid, ) of the system. It is an error of perspective to consider that this is only regarding the matter of molecular or atomic order (for which is added the plasmatic status). If we consider a regular galaxy or a globular cluster, we can calculate that in the central zones there are conditions of gravitational equilibrium such to determine a relative fixity of the reciprocal stellar positions: the movements of the parts towards the entire system jointly involve a vast number of stars, that are approximately fixed one another (every acceleration being more or less balanced by an equal and contrary acceleration). In these zones the stellar system can then be called – made the required proportions: stars in the place of molecules and atoms – at “solid” state. Towards the periphery, instead, these conditions of stability goes altering: the reciprocal interactions between stars are always less equilibrated, in the measure that from the center of the system we proceed towards the outside, and therefore the stars acquire a mutual higher autonomy, which brings them to mutually remixing. The progressive decreasing of the central equilibrium therefore signs the passage of the stellar system from the “solid” state of the nucleus to the “liquid” one of the median zones and the “gaseous” of the extreme periphery: in this are particularly numerous the effects of deviation and gravitational escape between the single stars, even though there is a prevailing overall bond which make reciprocally gravitating all the parts of the stellar system. “Transition statuses” are also found between one and the other of these statuses indicated as fundamental in the aggregative conditions of the material systems.


   This way, the cosmological meaning of the unigravitational physics is always more highlighted. It establish the absolute unity of the Universe, from microcosm to macrocosm. Naturally, if the law of gravitational structuring is unique, very different are the conditions that are found in matter, depending if we consider, of it, the atomic-molecular aggregation, that is the macro-cosmic or   sidereal. An atom has a very particular structure and quite regular, only comparable, in a very generic way, with the one of a planetary system. But this does not originate – as the modern physics considers, that however has a very confused idea of that structure – from diversity of physical laws, that would separate the nature of the microcosm, with its so called “electrical charges”, “antiparticles”, “nuclear forces”, etc., from the one of macrocosm, dominated by the Newtonian gravitation. It is instead clear that the structural regularity of the atom depends by the fact that it signs the first and intimate aggregative stages of matter, in which necessarily manifests a much bigger order, respect from the successive and increasingly higher macro-cosmic stratifications. 

   Regarding the Newtonian gravitation, there’s to notice the absurd property, that it attributes to the center of the mass and that has been accepted without critics by the moderns, to add up in itself miraculously the gravitational force of the entire mass:  this implies that it bears the weight of all the surrounding mass and that it is therefore crushed by inconceivably high pressures (***). It is this way completely neglected the evident fact that, in a material sphere, proceeding along a diameter by the surface towards the center, if it is true that the above mass increases, attracted by the direction of the center and therefore the pressure toward the center itself increases in relation to it, however diminishes the attracting mass, in correspondence with the part of remaining diameter and increases, with lightening effect, the attracting mass towards the surface, in direction of the starting point. But the strangest thing is that this elementary consideration is held with the right account, when it comes to describing the nuclear interactions (W. R. Fuchs, the modern physics illustrated, figure a, page 258:

“A corpuscle inside of the atomic nucleus is completely bound to the forces of the surrounding corpuscles. Instead a corpuscle at the surface of the nucleus is attracted only towards the inside”);

 is instead unreasonably set aside in relation to the gravitational interaction: so strong is the mythical suggestion of the law of Newton!









(*) The geometrical-gravitational meaning of “around” is clarified in the successive article Gravity and other “forces”: the reciprocity of the orbiting is manifested in the rotation of the apsidal line.

(**) Distinguish the orbiting speed Vor  , actual, from the orbital speed Vo , theoretical.

(***) SAPERE, n. 753, pag. 16-21.


Permanent link to this article: