Ambion Theory - How Gravity, Magnetism, and Electromagnetic Radiation Work

[sssssnake222]

relativity says the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. in a large rotating body like the earth, the closer you get to the center, the slower the atoms move, causing a swirled time field. i believe all of empty space is made of time, the only thing seperating everything in the universe.

[grisgrisy]

i enjoyed this vid

[alexasmithy]

some sweet info here

[jayejayeee]

some really good stuff here

[prosimion]

Calling what physics doesn't know 'ambions' does not define ambions...I heard no new theory. Correct me if I'm wrong ,but, all I heard was a generalization of the unknown as re-coined 'Ambion". The collision of ambions is nothing more than the repulsion of general physics, calling gravity magnetism is like calling them both attractions. If that's you're statement you are correct, but so is physics 102. So what is the rate of subatomic particle repulsion versus attraction.

[kirox777]

needs moar pictures!!

[markrigoglioso]

Scott - you are on the right track with your unified theory. It also can explain anti-'gravity' as a powerful, localized opposing Ambion current set in opposition to earths planetary pull on an object. It also explains why electromagnetic energy can appear to have a particle nature when it really does not.

Now think outside of the box about Earth's origins. Consider the unifying Hydroplate Theory of Walt Brown and the unifying Post-Flood Ice Age Theory of Michael Oard. You will get a new view!

[jaymantra]

So are you saying that if you put a magnet next to an apple in outer space, they'll attract ...well, half as much as the strength of the magnet. Also, if something is coasting in space, how does it just keep going and not get slowed down by ambions?

[13sam31]

Excellent just what you call ambions I call Time Other then that I think your heading in right direction

[prestonbrooksart]

you speculate that it may take many ambions to move a single electron, but how many? millions, 1000s, 100s, or less? your last video mentioned that rotating superconductors emitted far greater gravitational waves than theorized. could ambions be stronger than you think? with the example of the galaxy (great analogy) we have billions of rotating vortices revolving around the central vortex. is the ambion force bi-directional (also repel) along the plane to keep gravity from collapsing the galaxy?

[ASoberMind]

@prestonbrooksart To answer your question of how many - I can't give you an answer to that yet. Though I do believe this is the right direction to look, it is still a theory in its baby stage, which is why I am trying to get it out there. I also don't have other videos posted right now, so I'm not sure what you are referencing when you mention rotating superconductors. To answer your final question, stay tuned. I'll be posting a series of videos going further in depth with visuals soon.

[ineuifity]

Still, none the less, this theory was from a different perspective and it was fun to consider. It's great to see that your thinking in new forms of thought. Keep it up!

[ineuifity]

Also, I believe there is good reasons why scientists differentiated magnetic force and gravitational force. A magnetic force has two poles and can repel or attract depending on the positioning of the poles. Where as, gravity, no matter what the circumstances it always attracts two bodies of mass towards each other. If magnetism was in fact the ultimate force and also determined gravity, how is it that ambions never seem to have a repulsion force for gravity?

[JasonW7467]

@ineuifity: I think if you watched the video more closely it would be quite easy to see. The disorder of ambions (causing vortices), caused gravity, when order of ambions happen you get magnetism. When you have order you get "2 vertices, one from each pole). The alignment of the pole's determine the attraction or repulsion.

[ineuifity]

...however, the probability is equivalent in each object (that is if all objects float in a sea of ambions) and yet only certain objects such as a magnetic rocks can produce a noticeable magnetic force. Why?

[ASoberMind]

@ineuifity The reason only certain objects produce a noticeable magnetic field is due to the pattern in which electrons are exchanged between atoms in the substance's molecules. In non-magnetic materials, the electrons are exchanged in such varied patterns, that they are unable to cause a unified current in the ambion field. Think of a shallow-water pool. Your friends are all swimming in different directions, the water splashes about in no meaningful way. If you all start moving in the same

[ASoberMind]

@ineuifity direction around the pool, you will create a whirlpool. Magnetic poles are not positive and negative forces, they are simply currents in the ambion field, one rotating clockwise, the other counter clockwise. Does this make sense? I think I need to include visuals to help explain this better. Haha. Thanks for checking out the video and posting feedback.

[ineuifity]

Interesting theory, but...

"When the flow of electrons in multiple atoms becomes aligned, as it does in a permanent magnet, the unified motion creates a much larger whirlpool in the ambions, and thus results in a magnetic field "

Don't electrons moved due to the magnetic field? I haven't imaged that electrons align themselves up naturally causing 'ambions' to produce a stronger magnetic field. And since electrons move in unpredictable motion, there is a possibility that enough do align...

[ASoberMind]

@ineuifity The movement of electrons is determined by the atomic and molecular structure. For instance, iron by itself does not produce a noticeable magnetic current. If you can imagine, on its own the electrons are moving in varied directions. However, when combined with other elements to form the molecules of a permanent magnet, or a magnetic rock, the molecular structure causes the electrons to be exchanged in a unified pattern (think of electrons through a wire causing a magnetic field).

[blaz395]

If when you say vortices you mean swirling ambions, then why do we feel a push/pull when putting magnets together instead of a twisting, or are the vortices you describe more like vacuums?

[ASoberMind]

@blaz395 They are "swirling," if you will. The physical magnet does not twist for the same reason it does not twist when you hold it in your hand. The motion of the ambions is being driven by the electrons in the magnet. As the electrons corral and rotate within the magnet, we do not see the magnet spinning. When we hold it, it does not appear twist in our hand. However, the electrons are in motion. As they move, they are stirring the ambions around them.

[ASoberMind]

@blaz395 As I mentioned, this is much like stirring water molecules underwater. For instance, if you can imagine creating a whirlpool-like current underwater by introducing an object that spins at a high speed, the water would be stirred quickest where there object is, and then slower as it moves outward. From the top and bottom, you would notice a vortex. If you were to place two of these objects on top of one another and they stirred the water in the same direction, the currents would synch up

[ASoberMind]

@blaz395 and "pull" each other in. If one of the objects was flipped and stirred the water in the opposite direction, the currents would be opposing. The opposing flow would cause the two currents to "push" away from each other. This would not cause the driving objects to twist or turn, but the flow of the water around them would be disrupted, preventing or aiding them in coming together. Does that make sense?