Home P2 TECHNICAL The wisdom of the trolls Refutation of STR anisotropy CRITICAL INFORMATION

5 G-theory abstract 2 Prerequisite info 3 Prime argument 4 G-theory primer 6 Philosophy of new physics 7 POI and FAQs 8 The multiplex G-theory *Energy and the eV Push gravity mind exp.

thesis CONTENTS list CH 2 ORIGINS< CH 3a GRAVITY CH 3b ORBIT STABILITY CH 3c MECHANICS OF MOTION CH 4 ASTROPHYSICS CH 5 UNIVERSAL ENERGY CH 6 LIGHT- THE GREAT ACHIEVER CH 7 ATOMS- QMPOT THEORY CH 8 THE GOD CODE CH 9 LIGHT< CH 10a EM THEORY CH 10b EM IN A CONDUCTOR CH 10c NEWTON'S faux par. CH 11 emr Radio CH 12 RELATIVITY CH 13 THE EOS and the GOD PARTICLE CH 14 FORCE- ENERGY- MATTER CH 15 CONTEXTUAL POSTULATIONS

CH 17 ATOMIC DNA CH 18 ENERGY- MASS CH 19 ME EQUIVALENCE CH 20a QUANTUM BIRACIAL SYMMETRY CH 20b NFP PROPRIETARY CONTENT CH 21 CHARGE- MAGNETISM CH 22 ENERGY- MASS Sg- C CH 23a QUANTUM STATISTICS CH 23b NFP PROPRIETRY CONTENT Definitions and technical a-d Definitions and technical e-h Definitions and technical i-p Definitions and technical q-z

neuvophysics.com neuvophysics@Gmail.com

Introducing

G-THEORY (or VM-theory)

NB: Content and links address high level physics.

Sorry but there are about 3000 pages in here!

This web URL is neuvophysics.com NOT neuvoSIGH-KICKS

Link to home page 2 TECHNICAL

Note: Only special references have been utilized because of the ability to 'google it' for everything else. Any links to other websites in no way proposes the endorsement of those sites for any or all of the theories presented on this site. This site is not 'linked in' or advertised. If there is scientific truth to be found herein then Scientists will find this site. I have no need to search for them. May God bless mankind.

Please take care as some technical information has been purposefully tampered with to prevent plagiarism. If you can't figure out what G-statistics is, or if you are puzzled by anything you read--- you may need to email order a genuine copy of the thesis or discuss the problem with neuvophysics@gmail.com. At the very least it is advisable for the reader to become familiar with the nomenclature by reference to the definitions tab sections.

Please listen up! High level physics doesn't have much of a target audience. If you find this website to be a must see for any physicist or professor that you know. Please share the link with them.

People are asking--- What ' s this website all about?

Filling a nut shell with a whole tree is pretty difficult but I ' ll try. Here goes---

It ' s all about the idea that science has got a few things wrong in the past and this has led some branches of endeavour down the wrong path which has been taking physics deep into pseudoscience. No wonder some people decide that the earth is flat. Get a look at what you professors have been teaching them. After that anything goes!

Basically it ' s about Newton getting gravity back the front and Maxwell getting ideas surrounding charge and emr wrong.

I have turned both of those on their head and have therefore derived a different physics going forward from that. Most classical physics remains as it is but that which does remain needs a little tweaking in the areas where subterfuge and lame excuses have been used to cover up the glaring holes and enigmas that most high school physics students are aware of. Most of that I could just leave as the status quo because the physics we have to date is sufficient for the tasks to date; and if we are happy with that then we could leave everything alone and go fishing I guess.

What I will explain briefly here is dealt with in depth both on this site and in more excruciating detail in the offline thesis. Basically it all comes down to the following.

1/ Newton should have deferred to his first opinion. Gravity is a push and what he didn ' t understand is that gravity is a stupendously massive universe filling sub quantum particle field. Because he reversed gravity he was unable to construct the correct equation for gravity and Einstein was able to use the same fudge called big G -that Newton used- in his field equations. This gives erroneous support for GTR.

2/Maxwell, Lorentz and others of the day were under mistaken impressions surrounding charge and energy. Basically they thought that energy and charge were substances you could almost ' bottle ' per Feynman. At the very least they thought that charge was some ethereal ' substance ' which could propagate through free space like magnetism does in a limited way and which light and emr combined do magnificently.

Maxwell even thought that charge was something which could be brought instantaneously to a plate (We now know different.) and from that he went on to prove lol, the self negating -but essentially true- idea that charge was actually a single part of emr which alone travelled at the speed of light in a conductor. He failed to notice how that result negated his original premise of instantaneity.

Heaviside and Lorentz missed that too, and the Latter -now feeling emboldened by the support of the throng of physicists of the day- picked up on the speed of light and emr from that faux pa* and erroneously applied that result as meaning that charge could now be declared to travel out into free space at the speed of light. That is declared to be incorrect -by experimentation and g-theory- even if the free space was just that space surrounding a high speed electron. He thought that the electron ' s charge emission would be left behind or dragged in time or something or at the very least it would have some Galilean transformation problem whereby the speed of the charge would be slower out the front than out behind If ' c ' was going to be a constant as required to fit Maxwell ' s solution. So he invented the mathematical fix called the Lorentz Fitzgerald transformation.

* Which had actually just been loosely measured and checked by other scientists. No one knew anything about the G theory derived quantum relationship of c with pi -which thereby allowed for the Maxwell result. This appeared to be like some sort of conspiracy or at the very least a dark comedy of errors.

I have analysed all this and arrived at the conclusion that charge ONLY RELATES TO A FIELD SURROUNDING CHARGE PARTICLES and it never exists unbound in free space as some sort of ethereal substance which is also magically propagatory. Come on you scientists. Get a grip! You let this stuff slide and you theorize string theories??

Therefore the conclusion is that charge travels with any high speed or even a supposedly relativistic electron at the same speed as the electron as part of the extended existence of its own perturbative field and the g-factor in atoms is mostly coloumbic CHARGE and the G-theory analysis shows that some dragging of the magnetic field is REQUIRED or else the electron will either go straight into the nucleus or else not even enter any orbital at all. So we should be able to consider -in line with the failure of any supportive experimental results- that the Lorentz force and equation are derived from a flawed conceptualism.

There is actually a medium available for the propagation of light and emr at c +-. It ' s called the gravity field. Both emr and light speed anisotropy in the IRF have been historically demonstrated. Now there is no need for LTR or STR and on top of all that; Einstein ' s equivalence principle is also a misunderstanding of the way gravity works. Hint. It pushes through every nucleon in your body etc. It is NOT EXPECTED TO BE A SURFACE ACTING FORCE THAT YOU CAN EFFING FEEL! So of course you won ' t be able to feel or measure it. There is no need for any solution using GTR.

If you are unable to understand let alone consider such things then you should go no further into this website, which -while threatening the traditional paradigm- simultaneously demonstrates a unifying physics which answers most of the questions and enigmas resident in the standard models.

I do consider that such things as entanglement etc. are real and such phenomena observed at the level of particles is supported by this new theory which I have dubbed G theory.

Under this new understanding only the Galilean transformation is valid and not LTR, STR or GTR. They are not required and they are really spanners in the physics works! Get rid of them pursuant to all the proofs and the lack of supporting evidence and the very valid arguments being presented against them!

This is not geocentricism, flat earthism or free energy crap! It is a jurisprudent model which upholds most of we know to be proved in physics. This is an attempt to present the alternative science even if in a fairly artistic manner at times. Please don ' t laugh too much because I know that a great deal of this still needs to be fleshed out.

People also want to know what the point is. Oh I don ' t know. What ' s the point of any science? Maybe you might now be transporting and mind reading and having realistic videos being beamed directly to your head. You might have antigravity vehicles and clean power. You might even be able to switch invisibility on and off. You might be able to feed the world. Who knows but right now good luck with wormholes and time travel etc. That sounds really cool. LMAO!

I have noticed how flat earthers ignore true scientific evidence or lack thereof in their overwhelming desire to be dogmatic. Beware of dogmatism. That one bites hard.

Thank you for visiting neuvophysics.com.

Note: I have been accused of not having any facts. Lol--- the facts are already in! some have been fudged and others are mistaken. The problem is not with the facts but with the interpretations of what the fact ' s are showing us. If the interpretations lead to a dead end, then it ' s probably a good time to choose another path.

Also I seem to be doing a lot of fixing but that is really only addressing just a few errors and theories.

Apology: Somewhere in here I indicated that it was Flinders university who discovered emr speed anisotropy in a coaxial cable. I Erred. It was actually the university of Utah in 1981 per Tor and Kolen. Other similar experiments were carried out at Flinders University per De Witte 1991.

Note also: This web page index isn't fully compatible with all user technologies. Some may discover the need to move the mouse cursor rapidly out onto the flip out tabs in order to grab them.

Open letter to physics link. Ctrl click this link

Welcome to neuvophysics.com

Science is not all about absolute facts. Although many facts are declared over time, the ongoing search continues to be about consensus and a residual conflict of ideas. The current understanding is continuously evolving, so intransigent attachments to favoured ideas and any sort of dogma should be studiously avoided. Only ideas which have been firmly settled by serious proofs should be consensually accepted as stalwarts of the interpretive agenda. Everything -especially renowned theories- should still remain questionable and a conversation needs to be had but please understand; neither fraud nor incompetence is a companion agent of proof.

Having said that; if we can't first of all find consensus of definitions pertaining to the likes of energy, temperature, matter and mass, there is no possibility of a conversation at all.

This G theory requires that new analysis and re-interpretation of these usually passed over subjects becomes necessary.

To that end I welcome you to join me on a journey that begins outside the largest of the large and ends up unifying the physics of that macro universe with the smallest fundamental particles and we don't even have to step outside of empirical classical physics to do it. "Impossible!" you say. "Surely you jest!"

"Not at all; you've just been inadvertently relying on facts that really are questionable assumptions or theories at best, and therefore looking in all the wrong places! So while the sum of experimental discoveries associated with the physics has grown at a phenomenal rate -as far as understanding the real physics- you've all been clinging to 'dark age' and metaphysical theories that, while deemed to be scientific, have definitely outgrown their usefulness. sorry--- uselessness- and that interpretive-agenda is even now showing signs of collapse." You know there are problems aplenty which defy solutions.

The strange thing about all this is that even though the historical 'intelligencia' initially revolted at the very idea of 'spiritual causes' and 'magical explanations' for physical phenomena, the post Newtonian drift has ironically been away from classical empirical physics to paradoxically end up where the science didn't want to go at all. Yes 'progressive knowledge' is making deep forays into a 'spiritual' mathematical formalism involving such things as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, formalized wave function and space-time symmetries even extending to such ideas as dynamical 4 space etc and other 'universe made of laws and mathematics' type ethereal, mystical bullshit! If you want to deny God--- go right ahead but don't just turn right around and make another magic working one for yourselves instead! That's just foolishness. Having a program like SETI still looking for little green men after sixty years of nil result is likely to be an activity similarly devoid of rationality. If you think about it, it’s not science at all. Cute and popular though huh?

Paradoxical mind experiments are not science but sometimes away games can't be avoided so I have likewise indulged in the mind experiment which follows. However instead of taking physics in such directions as I just mentioned; G-theory has married some admittedly weird physics at the fundamental level with a classical physics at the macro. That's really describing 'deep reality physics' and there is a philosophical argument to be made in its favour.

I believe in the concrete nature of a universe which operates by physical phenomenon under the jurisprudence of discovered laws. My belief in God allows for all the weird stuff including fiat creation ex-nihilo’ or it could have been out of something that was just invisible. In any case the idea of the existence of ethereal physical or non physical substance is soundly rebuked--- at least in this universe.

RADIOTHERAPY ALERT --- NOVEL TUMORICIDAL THERAPY??? Note: some people have declared that this is totally a bullshit idea! Yes in those words. I will just yell at them. GO AND CHECK OUT THE TECHNOLOGIES ALREADY IN USE ALONG THOSE LINES. Then go and get your engineering degree upgraded to a doctorate in applied medical physics before you do the adhominim crap. Morons!

I have described a copyright proposed method of causing controlled short duration nuclear fusion* inside a tumour by the utilization of a combination of currently recognized experimental therapies. The therapeutic damage to the tumour would be expected to be caused by externally triggered--- internally generated -within the volume of the tumour mass- neutron bombardment. Any expected ill affects to the patient would be ameliorated by inverse square law. This would compare favourably to other currently evaluated, externally-focused radiotherapy procedures which have the opposite problem.

Yes I am really referring to cold fusion (relative). Up to date there have been remarkable inroads made into this technology as well as in unrelated experimental medical technologies which are beginning to utilize other exotic quantum tools as we speak.

By the utilization of one of these techniques; a process similar to pion-starring would be the operative carrier technology in the first instance but then muon affect would be expected to supersede this by facilitation via external control. The tumor will need to be amenable to injection of a benign substance as part of the therapy.

Other than a small amount of radioactive tritium -expected to be the residual by-product of such fusion- none of the substances envisioned for use are harmful to humans and apart from the small amount of tritium -which can be eliminated from the body and contained as described later- the only residual and eliminable by-products envisaged at this stage would be harmless to the patient and the environment. proposed method

*Some will no doubt be having a good belly laugh at this by now. However I assure you that the possibility exists for your knowledge of physics to be flawed and limited but perhaps just in a different way than mine--- That's all.

WARNING!

THIS SITE CONTAINS A COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION OF A MODEL OF NEW-PHYSICS. EVEN THOUGH THAT THREATENS TO SEND THE DREAD FEAR OF IRATIONALITY INTO YOUR VERY BONES. IT MIGHTN'T BE WISE TO PASS THIS ALL OFF AS JUST ANOTHER CRACKPOT RELATIVITY BASHING WEBSITE! ---CRACKPOT PERHAPS--- BUT PLEASE BE AWARE THAT SOME BASIC IDEA OF RELATIVITY AND RELATIVISTIC TIME ADJUSTMENT IS STILL RETAINED!

SUCH A NOVEL IDEA -as presented herein- IS ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BUT IN G-THEORY IT'S NOT EXACTLY RELATIVISTIC 'GAMMA' OR TRULY RELATABLE TO THE RELATIVITY YOU WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH.

IN G-THEORY -centrifuges notwithstanding (not testable)- AN ATOMIC CLOCK IS SHOWN TO NOT REALLY BE A 'TIME PIECE' AT ALL--- RATHER, IT'S A GRAVITY MEASURING INSTRUMENT. I.E. TIME SIMPLY BECOMES RELATIVE TO GRAVITATIONAL FLUX DENSITY. ASK ANY BLACK HOLE!*

A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AND A STUPENDOUS QUANTITY OF WASTED MENTAL ENERGY HAS BEEN APPLIED TO A MATHEMATICS WHICH HAS BEEN BASED ON SOME WRONG ASSUMPTIONS. THESE ARE---

1/ THE SPEED OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IS 'c' AND LIGHT IS THEREFORE AN emr.

2/ LIGHT IS ISOTROPIC. SO ITS SPEED IS 'c' IN ALL REFERENCE FRAMES.

3/ EVEN IF IT IS EXPERIMENTALLY DECLARED TO BE ANISOTROPIC--- SOMEHOW 'THAT'S JUST RELATIVISTIC' IS THE PREMISE NEGATING CRY!

4/ THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE THE SAME IN ALL REFERENCE FRAMES.**

5/ ENERGY IS A SUBSTANCE WHICH IS TRANSPOSABLE TO MASS AND eV.

I HAVE DEVELOPED NOVEL REASONS FOR REJECTING PARTS OR ALL OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS. THAT MIGHT ALL SOUND RATHER DROLL BUT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE PROFOUND INDEED!

*Notwithstanding fudged GPS satellite clock adjustment data. The variations are within the range of error window and can't possible allow the division of components of gamma into relatable parts for either or both of the relativities. That's all just another part of the fraud WHICH IS ONLY FRAUDULENT BY DOGMA.

With reference to that: I agree that there is a requirement to adjust the clocks for GPS satellites but that's all altitude related and has nothing to do with Lorentzian Gamma. This is because an orbit is an accelerating reference frame and not an IRF so STR doesn't count. If you think it still does well we are going to see about relativity in all its forms within these two thousand odd pages.

** Which laws are we referring to?

Note of interest: There is a UNIFIED FIELD THEORY presented somewhere on this site. You will only find it in the relevant section in the thesis published on this site or via an E-book.

I would rather just leave relativity behind in the dust simply by presenting the new science and letting you all make up your own mind afterwards. Unfortunately, too many of you believe that relativity is proved and even if it isn't, it is declared to still remain a necessary criterion for the validity of any new theories going forward. So because I have a theory which doesn't require relativity at all then for that reason alone I am constrained to offer a serious refutation and not because I wish to indulge in some arrogant contrariness.

Before going any further, may I suggest that rather than arguing preconceived concepts, why not actually look for some valid reasons to seriously evaluate new science. This might require a greater level of intelligence or indeed fortitude, than that which allows the menial discussion of trains and tunnels etc. Every high schooler can do that! Why not maintain an open mind and go straight to here first.

Or evaluate THE WISDOM OF THE MOUNTAIN TROLLS.

To the best of my knowledge.--- This new theory demonstrates full jurisprudence and upholds the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation. It contains the standard MFV. However It has good reason to not care about the Neutron EDM and CP or CPT violations. Baryogenesis is how it is because that's how it toggled in the beginning. Black holes can eat space but all matter/energy is returned by a surprising phenomenology.

It would probably be nice to have a future to build up the science we have so I just want to throw this in here--- To all world leaders: "Paleese ---there is no such thing as a first strike capability! That red thing's the friggin total mass murder slash suicide button!!!" Please let's use science for peaceful purposes.

THIS SITE DOES NOT PROMOTE THE FOLLOWING---

THERE WILL BE NO SUPPORT FOR---

· FREE POWER

· PSEUDO/ METAPHYSICS

· RELATIVITY/REVERSE RELATIVITY

· NEW AGE FAKE TESLA PHYSICS

· NEW AGE/RELIGIOUS/MYSTICAL/ARTISTIC-QUANTUM MECHANICS---I.E The Copenhagen solution.

· STATIONARY EARTH--- REVERSE OR PARALLEL UNIVERSE THEORIES

· TERRA/GEOCENTRICITY OR FLAT EARTH HYPOTHESES

· STRING THEORIES

· SUSY THEORY

· DYNAMICAL FOUR SPACE THEORY

· TIME TRAVEL

· WORMHOLES

· DARK MATTER/ENERGY

· HIGG'S FIELDS

· ME EQUIVALENCE

· WAVE FUNCTION

· E=MC²

· ANY WEIRDLY DERIVED E=hf EQUATION UTILIZING WAVELENGTH OR WAVE FUNCTION.

· LORENTZ-DIRAC INVARIANCE

· LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPY

· MAXWELL'S FIELD ASSUMPTIONS

· NEWTON 'S GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT

· LITTLE GREEN MEN; oh OK but only if Schrodie's cat's alive in a million years!

· UNILATERAL PROGRESSION THEORIES

"What the--- !? That doesn't leave much."

"Oh yes it does! I.e. A new science based on classical physics actually! Get ready for a 'deep reality physics' that works."

"Of course -like anything different- the theory appears to be weird at first, but to it’s credit it leaves the weirdness right down at the elementary/fundamental level where it belongs; and the macro world remains as straight as you truly observe it to be, and without any relativity* mathemagics or metaphysics in sight!"

Don't worry if you don't see your name up there. I've no doubt found you and you do get a mention in here somewhere.

* MMX and Sagnac etc are evaluated in due course.

Beware of you-tube charlatans: This site is different and because it's not a science lesson, I don't have to drag out the Lorentz factor equation just to impress you. If you don't know what that even is; then you obviously skipped the 'WARNING' above, and it's likely that this website isn't for you.

A CHALLENGE ----At first with reference to the standard post Newtonian relativity; and then the more modern relativistic thought is also challenged via the evolution of the following thought continuum.

WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS WEBSITE ALL ABOUT?

Let me tell you: First understand that I'm far from alone in holding strong doubts regarding relativity. If you want to visit the MMX-Sagnac confliction, go to--- home page 2 TECHNICA L

Even though I sincerely demonstrate a bias against relativity, I'm not just attacking that mainstream thought for nothing--- I'm constrained to, because I actually claim to have a valid new theory to replace it with.

Having in all likelihood been judged arrogant, and at the risk of furthermore appearing brusque and rude, I nevertheless wish to make the following challenge and in so doing hope to attract some of your attentions; and also banish a good deal of the readers from this site in one fell swoop I guess.

First of all I'd like to ask the following question to those brave uncommitted souls who are still with me; then make the following observation and statements and then many of you will either understand or not and/or see a problem or not and you can go from there.

Question: Where are your 'relativistic unification' and 'unified field theories'?

Observation: OK--- still working on it after a century or more--- got that!

Even though there has been no historical solution to that problem--- some of you will still hold to the opinion that physicists such as yours truly -who just so happens to perhaps, maybe--- have developed a homology as well as a unified field theory- just don't ' get ' relativity and there is no excuse for that! How dare he not get it!

I get it alright, and even though many others don't truly understand the arguments, I'll try and put this accusation to bed by making the following statements right up front.

Statement (a) In order to avoid confusion it must be understood that by the Galilean transformation light is able -to be measured by an instrument- to be travelling faster than 'c' under at least one vector adjusted circumstance. I.e. when two hyper velocity objects are closing. This is because in special relativity light is only declared to be a constant in the universal reference frame* Note: Bear with me. Please check the asterisk below. and not between inertial reference frames so that can't occur. If you get that wrong then your whole understanding of relativity will be wrong!

*WTF --- That's not right ?!! Didn't Einstein say that light is a constant between all IRF's as well? Oh no--- if that's the case then that also causes a problem for those two -faster than light closing speed- IRFs. That gets sorted by conferring a constant speed on light. But still we have a different dilemma because it's just the closing speed that's faster than c but that’s not allowable by STR either. Now we see that the objects have one 'gamma' for the URF and a completely different one between each other and it's negative to boot?!!! There is an understood historical confusion here so some have since argued a position regarding a preferred reference frame which I refute here.

Statement (b) In any case relativistic gamma is completely relatable to the URF closing or disappearing speed of whatever light source you are observing from the point of view of yourself in your own IRF. This is the part which is missed by all the brainy yobs out there who do get that far in the understanding stakes. There are many who do get it up to a point but most can't seem to understand why that in turn leads to the following problem---

Problem: If there are two spots of light in the sky from two different light sources; one from a closing object say and one from a disappearing one, then the calculable gamma contraction or expansion of time relatable to your own URF/IRF depends entirely upon which spot of light you are measuring or looking at. This means that your time adjustment with reference to any twinkle in the sky is relative to the IRF of that twinkle.

Those who do get this and notice the problem of mult-uality, now appeal to quantum mechanics to propose that each photon of light brings its own time with it. That would work except for the Doppler shift which sort of annuls that! But then the excuse for that is that you can't make a photon relativistic. However having declared that--- out of the other side of their mouth they can allow the photon to 'bring' its own relativistic gamma time data!!?? That's because with a simple twist of logic the photons are not supposed to be really moving at all. It's now become the time that's moving through the universe at 'c' relative to the spatial direction of emission. It's all achieved by variant space time symmetries. That my friends--- is fuct up mathemagics. That's just an irrational reverse way of looking at it all, even though there is still no physical emission mechanics for the light to be emitted from the emitting matter available in the record.

The only way for that to work would be if time were to stop on the outside of atomic matter I guess! Click here to see what sort of rubbish some of these people sprout and have the nerve to call science.

These are all mind games similar in vein to the time travel type paradoxes such as the twins. Such mathemagics is adhered to like a religion which requires faith to believe and therefore it isn't physics at all. It's just twisting equations around and throwing in a few spinors and Hamiltonians to change reality, that's all. The proponents are even able to convert negative time to be negative reality as well, and they can also change charge fields into magnetic fields in that they stupidly contend that charge in one IRF is magnetism in another supposedly relatable IRF. WTF? These are not physicists they are mystical mathematicians or modern day Magi. Sorry if you've learned all that stuff. Oops.

What there is truly no excuse for though; is the open but fraudulent appellation to a mathematical metaphor-for-reality called quantum mechanics. I reckon the Copenhagen solution to be a metaphysical and pseudoscientific idea and if mathemagics is your opinion and you don't wish that to change then I suggest you leave this site now.

However a problem arises when you combine the two statements (a) and (b) above; in that both the relativistic gamma and quantum physics photon behaviour is being applied to light which can't really be travelling at a relative 'c' whenever the IRF for the measuring event is not the URF. This produces problems which require pages of mathematical gobbledegook to argue out and the notional outcome is then voted on by consensus and not on the ability or not of such an arguable theory to be able to answer the fundamental questions of physics ; which of course relativity can not!

So when it all gets boiled down, the argument is really about philosophy or ideas and the one idea that causes all the confusion is not about relativity at all. It's about the hoax being presented by mathematical physics in the new metaphysics which has all been spawned by the Post Newtonian revolution. Note:--- The following is not the well known 'The twins paradox' mind experiment, rather a new 'Twins in space' mind experiment, and this is not so easily fobbed off IF YOU HOLD TO IRF and URF 'c' CONSTANCY AS EINSTEIN DID.

I CAN ONLY AGREE WITH -AND PROMISE TO SHOW THROUGHOUT THIS SITE--- 1/ CONDITIONAL URF LIGHT SPEED CONSTANCY and 2/ IRF LIGHT SPEED ANISOTROPY.

I am appalled at the confusion that reigns in physics and yet I can understand it. For instance anti-matter and reverse matter can become confused when in fact they are two completely unrelated trains of thought. Reverse matter might be one result in a mathematical equation but that so easily becomes fraudulently equated to anti-matter by the power of just a few words! G-theory accepts the existence of anti matter at some level but not reverse matter. There is a BIG difference!

Most physicists don't seem to get that and they hold ideas such as the antimatter belonging to an anti-universe with anti-time and all. WTF? The only reversal allowed in G-theory is with charge. Supposed parity and spin/time reversals are not permitted. ---Anyone seen a neutron spin lately? Of course that's really isobaric spin but many graphical representations show a spin like a top??? Isospin is reversible but the time is not!

This new theory doesn't make changes to any of the quantum states etc. just the phenomenology as to how the states are derived without the magic which is currently understood to occur.

The discussions following any you-tube video about traditional physics shows the extent to which the paradigm has become so befuddling. Why all the confusion and arguments? It's because some of the arguments are actually right. The paradigm is wrong. Let's fix it.

To watch some of those 'name brand professor' physicists glibly stating mathematically derived trash as facts is quite disconcerting. Their evidences are often laughable! Do I have to sit and watch while a physicist tells me with a straight face that the reason why we have muons down on the surface of the earth is because of relativity?! Hasn't he even heard of pions and their decay time to muons yet? Get off the soap box and come back when you learn a lot more--- I say, "quick get me a bucket, or at least a pizza base!"

Please: These mathematician-physicists are GAMING YOU ALL with their planes, trains and tunnels. Don't they have anything better to do? I guess not. Don't fall for it. Learn the true science here.

SOME EXCERPTS OF possible INTEREST

You wouldn't believe the number of predictions of G-theory which are now coming true!

I couldn't resist this one. Could it be next?

"---4.23e-27J (From this we can calculate a graviton's vibration (notional spin) frequency by the reduced planks constant.)

f=E/h

f=4.23e-27/1.1e-34

f=38454545.454545454545454545454545454545454545455r Hz

Isn't that as pretty a mathematical picture you ever saw? I'm stunned!

Graviton inertial mass is 61.705GeV/c². That might seem to be a large mass for the tiniest of particles but most of that is inertial mass from linear velocity i.e. E_k."

The following doesn't prove anything but it's pretty mind blowing!

---We can derive 'z' by multiplying a coulomb number of electrons -producing the energy of one Joule in one second- multiplied by the speed of light at which speed that coulomb will have that kinetic energy as the energy being 1J.kg.sec. Then divide by the number of atoms that each coulomb is colliding with over one second in the making of that Joule; being as related to a mass of perfect atoms with just one neutron value of mass per atom and that is 1kg of hydrogen. Note: 1kg is not an infinite number of atoms but we know what it is and its close enough; but the real connection is that the Joule and the kg have been fundamentally related. So we still divide by the calculated quantity of protons in a kg of hydrogen 1H and not infinity.

z=coulomb x 'c'/n

z= 6.241509e18 x 3e8 /5.96e26= 3.1416991610738eJ/s

Does that look like pi to you?

Here's the current estimate of pi--- 3.141592653589. That's truly astonishing? That's the 'z' energy loss constant relationship. This has to be one of the most remarkable coincidences in physics. Or is it a coincidence? Looks like just one more fingerprint of God to me. Feynman's week might not be far away! Atheism is starting to look so boring.

So Z=pi---

--- This atomic clock phenomenon might still appear to be exactly according to Einstein's general theory of relativity; but not so fast! ---because it's really his special theory of relativity (STR) that holds the reigns on that one.

By interjecting a robust replacement phenomenology, G-theory removes the argument and proposes that it must be NEITHER of the Einsteinian relativities which are responsible FOR CHANGES OF TIME IN ATOMIC CLOCKS. Consistent with that assertion you may rest assured that this new and comprehensive model contains many fact-supported -yet likely to be controversial- ideas and theories.

It needs to be made plain from the outset that even though several popular findings proposed by the following historical scientists listed below are herein held in doubt -as critically examined- the bulk of their theories are still able to be used as per normal in electrodynamic calculations etc because in those particular real world cases the mathematics remains a valid description of the mechanics. Semiconductor theory is a real-world case in point.

The gentlemen being referred to are the revered physicists- Maxwell, Lorentz, Heaviside and even Cavendish--- and to some degree also including Laplace, Hertz, and other historical-error perpetrating scientists who's own specific work is not being brought into question. Newton and Einstein are a special case; as are Maxwell-Heaviside and Lorentz, in very critical areas of electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamic theory. Note: Poincare and Minkowski are interim mathematicians. Minkowski space is truly weird and is an attempt to unify Lorentz and Einstein---.

---As an indication of such diversion from standard physics theories consider the following proved conclusion; verbatim from the featured thesis circa 2011. " So we can conclude here that nuclear fusion alone requires more energy input than it releases. It is a dud bomb. It is a dud energy source; surprisingly even in stars. The fusion in stars is actually fuelled by gravity/light! This will be completely analysed in the next chapter. There will be no fusion energy realizable on Earth unless we expect to utilize solar as a catalyst. Best we look to LFTR or such type reactors for clean energy huh? (Gravity energy apart from hydro power appears to be out of our reach for now but keep looking--- Or should I say start?!) ---editorial comment in brackets.

It must be understood that a fission bomb alone only exhibits the fission of a part of its fuel. This is an important fact which can be substantiated by the amount of fissionable material let over as radioactive 'mother' particles (and even lumps) after the event." ---

---Fusion in a bomb is simply a catalyst for fission! The proof is found in the math (In the thesis) and the understanding of "specific atomic particle density".

Notwithstanding the ANNOUNCEMENT 7-10-14 by The US National Ignition Facility of a short term 1+ result. They might get a better result if they supplement the lasers with concentrated solar light to sustain the fusion--- Just a thought. That solar light application would probably be location sensitive on the pellet.

Please refer to the theory herein. I am not suggesting anything as stupid as to attempt to raise the temperature of the pellet to fusion requirements with a solar light source of any description! That is likely to be more applicable to a Tokomak as a method of additional heating/ along with possible integration of the two ideas. I am just suggesting that other experimental avenues need to be taken with regard to nuclear fusion power simply because the standard understanding of the science -including 'temperature'- might be less than optimal.

At the moment the two techniques of laser-pellet and plasma-doughnut mightn't appear to be unifyable but in the past appearance have sometimes proven to be deceptive!

STOP PRESS 4/11/2014

Seems that someone's on the same page! NEWS: Russia develops fusion catalysed fission reactor. Note tag regarding Thorium.

Ctrl click--- http://rt.com/news/196088-russia-hybrid-nuclear-reactor/

STOP PRESS 4/11/2014

Yes we can promote fusion by methods many and varied. The trick is to get 1+ (over-unity) power out constantly and unfortunately, I predict that such an outcome will not be arrived at.

WTH WTH WTH WTH WTH WTH WTH WTH WTH WTH WTH

Perhaps an accurate equation for gravity that doesn't involve the Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational constant 'G' might be of interest??!!! WTH? If you think that's not possible then check it out!!!!!!! That's to be found on another tab. Enter this site at the peril of your known science.

High energy and quantum physicists first Ctrl click--- NEWS or mathematicians go here first

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhG3R66wFpg

THE SPECIAL THEORY of RELATIVITY PARADOX; or THE 'TWINS IN SPACE' PARADOX

(Not to be confused with 'The twins paradox' -otherwise called 'Einstein's twins'- which is also deniable -but not so easily- as being a proof of Einstein's (Poincare's?) special theory of relativity (STR). Other websites offer reasonable dis-proofs of the standard argument. There are two points that I would like to make on that subject however. 1/ Einstein declares that special relativity can't be utilized for accelerating reference frames, and that is conveniently ignored. 2/ the parts of the overall 'trip' that don't suit the purposes of achieving the required relativistic result are also fraudulently overlooked. Note: Refer to the thesis treatment of the tunnel and train paradox's. In short the tunnel treatment usually sees both the train and tunnel moving relative to the URF simultaneously and also the flawed idea of instantaneity of action is appealed to.

In the train and station platform experiment the train is seen both approaching and leaving the station because the observer can't travel with it. Either that or magic is afoot. All this relativity crap is just that--- CRAP! Relativity is any sense is not needed. Oops! Of course the Galilean transformation remains valid. If you're thinking that --- this guy doesn't know what I know that proves relativity then think again. You do get a mention in here and your favourite argument is shown to be either seriously flawed or is easily explainable by non relativistic physics.

I won't continue with this train argument because the following paradox completely destroys the special theory of relativity (STR) all by itself.

Note: URF and IRF are acronyms for universal reference frame and inertial (motional) reference frame respectively.

If you are already aware of the existence of so many relativistic paradoxes and you happen to be a mathematician or at least able to understand technical jargon/data then you might be well served by first investigating a pertinent web article or here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhG3R66wFpg.

Note also that there are many other voices expressing serious doubts regarding relativity, and even proponents of relativity are beginning to suggest that there could be other non relativistic solutions. The problem I have with that attitude is--- holding on to a failed paradigm until another comes along stifles advancement. Wouldn't it be better for the failure to be admitted in order to free up the brain pool to be directed towards the search for the truth? Truth?? Well that's something else which is analysed in the relevant philosophical argument tabs.

NOW TO THE PREMIER PARADOXICAL CONTRADICTION of the SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

Note: Relativists will likely form objections upon reading that which follows. If those objections aren't answered immediately, they will likely be addressed in the section following, which is headed--- POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS and PERCEIVED PROBLEMS.

It's quite obvious that the good Professor never got this far. He wouldn't dare. His hoax would be revealed and he would be looking for a new job!

THE 'TWINS IN SPACE' PARADOX

A couple of twin astronauts -let's call them A1 and A2 are travelling in their spacecraft with the equally unlikely name of 'Inertial Reference Frame' (IRF) and they have been launched from the general reference frame we call Earth (sun URF*) and they now find themselves travelling in momentum at say half the speed of light and such motion can be determined to meet the requirements of a state of constant motion relative to the URF. So they are in a single IRF

*For this exercise; the Earth is considered to be stationary in space and hence the Earth's motion and time is equated exactly as being that of the URF.

Having been well looked after they each sport a Rolex watch and there is also an atomic clock located between their seats. If that's not enough time keepers on board; they also have a special clock mounted on the dash which magically shows the passage of time with respect to the reference frame of the Earth (as their URF). They have previously synchronized their super accurate watches and clock with the atomic clock, and because 'Inertial reference frame' is only a very small 'space coupe', and being fearful that the aliens might attack from behind, they are seated with A1 looking forward and his twin A2 facing aft in order to have a good view in all directions.

Being able to measure or even see light beams -because of 'space haze'- A1 is now observing the light beam going forward from the headlights and A2 the light from the taillights vanishing of into the nether regions behind them. Note: If you missed that 'space dust haze' bit, and want to argue the obvious; i.e. that you can't see a photon from the side and then even in consideration of the light reflecting of space dust--- if you then formulate an expanded argument in consideration of the speed of the light travelling at 'c' (URF) from beam to eyeballs--- well that argument sort of becomes invalidated because the reality is that the light beams are really deemed to be being 'measured' relative to the URF and not being 'seen' as such. We just say that for simplicity; so now can we get on with it?

I'll reiterate: A1 and A2 can both see the light beams in this mind experiment so--- According to the precepts of special relativity it logically stands that - in order to enable such a quaint occurrence of having both of them watch (really measure) their respectively applicable light beams and be able to perceive (measure) them to be travelling away at 'c'--- each of their perceived light travel times (gamma adjusted duration by measurement) must therefore be adjusted differently relative to each other, with such time adjustment being with full respect to the earth time reference clock.

This must be seen as absolutely and necessarily the case! That's because special relativity 'implicitly' declares that light speed is a universal reference frame (URF) constant and very explicitly declares that the speed of light must appear to be exactly the same for all observers in and between any/all inertial reference frames in respectably relatable stability of motion; and this relativity also applies to any and all moving light sources with respect to any and all similar IRFs.

This traditional special relativistic assumption is all theoretically enabled by the fabled idea of time contraction and expansion -commonly known as relativistic gamma or boost gamma factor (GF) calculable by the Lorentz factor equation individually for each Inertial reference frame with respect to both received or emitted light. This means that stable motion (IRF momentum) with respect to the reference frame of the universe is deemed to cause a time adjustment gamma factor within that URF in any case. As well as that, any other stable differential motion between various IRFs will supposedly cause similar but relatively different GF results when comparing those IRFs against either each other or the URF. Confused? Most physicists are at this point so don't worry.

There exists a real paradoxical dilemma which can be demonstrated in this mind experiment, which is further explained thus: Now because the spacecraft is travelling at half 'c' (say) then by reason we must suppose that in A1's case the headlight beam really leaves the spacecraft at a URF respective half 'c' -as apparently observed by A1 when he’s not telling fibs- in order to keep its light travelling at 'c' in the URF. In that case we have the situation that A1's actual and notional time -and similarly the time relative to his measuring instruments and watch- is expected to have become 'contracted'--- slowed down -with respect to the earth time URF reference clock. This is necessary in order to enable the headlight beam to be actually observed/measured by him to travel at the known speed of light 'c' rather than the 'half speed' it would have appeared to travel otherwise.

Questions: In that situation; what time would the atomic clock show with reference to the earth clock and the watches? Would it now depend on which astronaut turned to look at it? If A2 is watching the tail light beam will his watch be changing in synch with A1's?

Answers: In fact the atomic clock would be showing as much time deviation as both their watches as well as the dashboard reference clock. That has to be a fact because A1 and A2 are in the same IRF. So no times are changing at all! Every single timepiece would match the Earth URF clock. We will soon see why.

It should come as no surprise that such a conclusion completely denies the standard conclusions declared by STR and relativistic gamma but I wouldn't be scoffing at that denial too soon if I were you--- because a real STR destroying logical problem exists in that while A1 is watching the headlight beam; A2 is simultaneously observing the tail light which STR declares must also be travelling at the same URF respective speed of light 'c'--- but this time however; in reverse, and for such a necessary and very different gamma factor adjustment to be the result; A2's watch would have to be made to go faster and not slower as it was in A1's case!!! Note: It must be understood that the speed of both the light beams with respect to the URF (The Earth) is exactly 'c'--- as an actual fact and there is nothing relative about that.

We are now faced with that true paradox which is demonstrating denial by the rational recognition of impossibility by contradiction.

Reason? Because both A1 and A2 are positioned within the exact- same inertial reference frame while they are simultaneously declared -by some strange magic- to both be observing (measuring) light from the respective sources to be travelling away at 'c' by completely opposite and contradictory applications of relativistic gamma. Therefore their watches must be declared to change timekeeping rates and simultaneously experience different durations of time dependent upon which direction the individual wearers are looking. DUH!

If you can't see the STR-model-destroying-absurdity in that contradiction*; then you are probably going to stoop to making ridiculous excuses such as ---the act of turning around changing the relevance of the motional reference frame. OK--- your laughable excuse is noted; but by so arguing subjectively like that you are inadvertently inferring that the whole STR thing is subjective, and thankyou very much--- because it is! STR is a mental aberration of conceptualization and that's all. Note: The real reason for the MMX nul result is declared herein as well as that I have developed a proprietary experiment which I would like to get some assistance with to prove the existence of an aether of some description which would be simultaneously declaring the fact of light speed anisotropy. I wish to provide support to the Sagnac light speed anisotropy result and also the University of Utah emr anisotropy result..

When also faced with these undeniable facts of experimental observation; it would seem that anyone still adhering to the STR is likely to be either a very strong advocate for their own industry; a complete idiot or intellectually challenged! Mmm--- not much choice there! If you find yourself being currently engrossed in details regarding object lengthening/contraction etc, and/or cones of observability and speed of light from the observances or such then you may have completely lost the plot; totally stunned and dazzled by such irrelevant technicalities -like some moth duped by a brightly shining light- and there is probably no hope for you.

This then declares that anyone who is able to actually understand these concepts and who still chooses to adhere to STR is probably best described as a complete moron. Personally I don't like to--- but I am forced to make the reasoned assumption that in order for our science to avoid being held in such disdain according to the annals of the future; such a contradiction must be recognized in academia right now! Also by the same reasoning we could soon ask the following questions: For how long has science been run by a ship of fools? -and- How long will it be before that ship of fools finally runs a ground? When they all want to give up their careers and tenure I guess.

By now it should be crystal clear that the common idea of special relativity is just a subjectivism with respect to individually specified inertial frames of reference. In that case, by any reasoned thinking and by extension we should be forced to consider that there might actually be something wrong with the historical data and assumptions that led to such a foolish notion in the first place, but that leads to the questions of--- Is there? and what? Answer; We'll have to travel back in time to find out--- J but first there are other problems to address. To skip these and go straight to the follow on subject; please refer to 'NOTE:' in the essay located at 'The fundamental problem' tag on this site.

*Soul destroying? J

Support from an experiment.

Many of you might notice a connection with the Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). In that experiment--- If light is causing a Lorentzian length contraction in an arm of the device going outwards, in order to keep c constancy then it must also be getting expanded in length when it returns after reflection, in order to achieve ditto. If we have a constant beam then we run into the ludicrous situation where the arm is being shortened and lengthened simultaneously. So such reasoning can't possibly be used to support any 'relativistically undetectable anisotropy theory' which has been proposed by Cahill et al. STR is obviously a crock! There is a solution. G theory.

A SIMPLIFIED VERSION for dummies may be found at the end: For more problems surrounding both relativities -including the Sagnac experiment- Go to home page 2 TECHNICA L

NOTES OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE

Should you ever arrive at any conclusion that G-theory doesn't permit the idea of any relativity at all--- It does! The essay on ' the fundamental problem ' tag needs to be referred back to in such a case.

The following article, basically shows up the problems associated with the traditional understanding of relativity in all its forms and it also indicts that 'understanding' to be in dire need of an overhaul. Mathematics proves nothing and causes nothing! It only proves what you think it proves or design it to prove, so in that case it is imperative that correct interpretation becomes the key to understanding instead and metaphysics has no place in such determinations. The salient fact is that Math doesn't cause anything. If it does: Show me your unified field theory!

Please; enough of the dogma already! Can't we all recognize that neither Einstein nor any other scientist is a god. We are all human and apt to err. Let's not continue to perpetuate error or even fraud on behalf of either their legacy or our learnedness or careers Maybe any such continuance could turn out to be at the expense of science and humanity in general.

The following gives a hint concerning the content thrust of this website (You may skip this and go straight on in. If you're truly game enough go straight to the thesis!)

There is a scientific model that provides answers to the fundamental questions and enigmas of physics. It is featured exclusively on this website and it is a deep reality physics model called G-theory.

If you take a critical cruise around the You Tube physics section, you just can't miss all the free-energy slash levitation videos etc. Mmmm--- What's wrong with these people?

Even if you personally disparage such con jobs -and keep to the traditional physics offerings yourself- you might still come away with the impression that all is not well with the current paradigm in any case.

It seems to many, both academic and geek alike that physics is in a bit of a cafuffle--- especially when it attempts to provide answers to the curly questions (including 'the five'). Whenever such enigmas are raised the blogs will inevitably erupt with contrary and often weird opinions that mostly verge on the mystical. So it's no wonder the 'you tube' techno nerds all over the place are engaging in attempts at routing real science with their wild and wonderful offerings. The fact is; they don't believe real science. Physics in particular has a serious credibility problem. It even denies its own laws of thermodynamics ad hoc!

Even in the mainstream the problems have been recognized and this has spawned many strange ideas and several seemingly bona fide scientific models as well. Unfortunately all of the theories seem to suffer from the same problems; that is--- they attempt to, or -in some cases- even seem to provide answers to particular portions of the overall physics and require some sort of religious adherence to relativity but the main problem still remains; in that they still have no answer to the known problematic fundamental questions--- Such offerings are no solutions at all.

Of those remaining questions of physics -which G-theory demonstrates are answerable- the well known ones are those regarding the derivation of gravity and particularly mass; but what is often overlooked however, is that physics is impotent when it comes to providing the necessary unification between astro and quantum physics--- or even the individual arms of relativity for that matter. Also; there are still many questions surrounding energy and mass over which more than a few heads are being scratched--- especially when you consider that Lorentzian and Special relativity incur a second law of thermodynamics violation while G-rel commits a conservation of energy violation. It is very puzzling why such theories are in any way at all still acceptable as being real physics!? Not only acceptable but almost revered.

There are many more questions and enigmas that won't be addressed at this juncture, and there are just as many weird and whacky ideas being floated about, many of which are akin to the--- "I am alone: I alone exist: The whole universe is created by my mind, and there is nothing existing behind that wall over there until I look behind it and my mind then creates the scenario"--- Moving this sort of thinking up to a 'higher level' of physics, we unerringly arrive at ideas such as the universe being a hologram emitted by black holes--- or being made out of mathematics--- or by the seemingly more reasonable but glib and dangerous supposition that mass/gravity is caused by the energy-entropy of the universe. That one does sound reasonable on the surface but it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what energy actually is; and as a theory it is rather glib and doesn't provide any practical solution to the mystery of gravity and mass at all. Where's the phenomenology?

That subject is arguable enough, but there is a far greater problem when the consensus actually entertains the really insane drivel--- This is indeed the case when we consider the blatant and unreasonable morphing of the subjective mathematical into objective reality by sleight of hand, being fully typified in the case of the L, G and S theories of relativity.

In order to understand this accusation better, consider the case of the fourth dimension which is supposed to be a mathematical realty of an infinite array of interconnected three spaces. This fourth (fifth?) dimension is also supposed to be a possible reality just like relativity. I've got some bad news for you sunshine--- If you actually think about it; you should leave here with the takeaway that the only actually reality is--- one -infinite but divisible- three space. Even the first and second dimensions themselves which form up a three space (volume) are only mathematical structures. To wit--- a point--- a line or even a Cartesian plane are unable to exist as reality while a structure which encloses space is--- exclusively!--- full stop! So by the same logic neither can the fourth dimension exist because it doesn't enclose the space either--- and while we're at, neither can Post Newtonian general relativity, or any other mathematical distortion of space such as a geodesic metric or torus etc. Such things are all metaphysical pseudoscience.

So--- with regard to any new model which does profess to pass the sanity and objective reality test; it then becomes absolutely necessary for that model to also demonstrate full jurisprudence--- and that being with the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation* front and center. After that the theory must then be able to provide answers to most fundamental problems without violating any other known laws except conditionally at the fundamental level. G-theory can't explain 'it all' because new questions will always remain a feature of new knowledge but it can't be easily labelled as faux science either.

*The second law of thermodynamics can be separated into a usage and a conservation part.

Now to be fair; because scientific understanding is a progression; a complete and unassailable theory might just be expecting too much--- but at least any new theory should provide answers to a much greater extent in comparison to what we have to date. The post Newtonian paradigm we have taken to is obviously broken in places. Having said that: It remains the case that most of the classical physics -extending to the facts applicable to many of the standard model interpretations- is unassailable (but not all). But that's only because those facts and interpretations are the portions of the whole paradigm that pass the preceding tests. Experiment and repeat-ability are not always possible going forward so those tests being referred to should be made an imperative.

Let's say that to your mind, some 'out there' theoretical model purports to provide a substantial quantity of answers -which by the way, isn't the case in any other known theories -then even if you harbour strong doubts with a hint of cynicism, don't you think that in light of the promised end--- shouldn't such promising theories as those be perhaps given a bit more daylight than the inside of a WPB--- or summary relegation to some dark corner to sit around gathering dust for a while--- or even worse being totally ignored? So in light of that; shouldn't such a requirement to examine promising new theories apply even more to G-theory which is a theory that even dares to propose a homology/unification as well. What if such a cohomology is possible? I ask you.

Or perhaps you might just be one of those dyed-in-the-wool 'crackpot' relativity adherents who is very likely of the opinion that should anyone declare such a theoretical model which dares to promise the holy grail (so to speak) without including relativity, then in this case it simply has to be the neuvophysics theorist who's the real 'crackpot' in the room--- Therein lies an arguable relativity indeed! So in light of such an expected stalemate It would seem that there is no recourse but for neuvophysics.com to go on the attack. So in light of that--- please consider this: Leaving STR to flounder on its own at this juncture, let's now take a further critical look at GTR and STR.

For a continuation---

Go to home page 2 TECHNICAL