neuvophysics.com

 

 

 

'stating the case'

 

G-theory ©

 

 

 

Prime argument

I once    heard of a professor (whilst engaged in teaching on the subject of special relativity) scold students to "not become revolutionary in their scientific thought because that isn't what's required". Perhaps that's the case in a physics lecture when it's grades that count but,     I declare revolutionary thought most certainly is required and promising results derived from such deliberations should be offered to academia for critical review even when such thought defies consensus...

Tongue in cheek 'consensus' definition...  halfwit + halfwit = whole-wit! So I guess it becomes obvious that even a vast number of bad apples; a good apple don't make.

G-theory may be described as a fact-supported non relativistic paradigm which requires and also vigorously supports   non  Le Sage, 'light' (mass zero,    neutral    quadropolic)    perturbative    scalar boson push gravity.

Not far in; you will probably notice a dearth of support for the idea of rotational particle 'spin' in G-theory. Spin -of an electron say- is factually impossible except by means of magical metaphysics, and spin becomes simply a false observational albeit useful mathematical tool for categorizing particles and energy conservation statistics, and G-theory only supports the idea of spin from that perspective.

Whilst G-theory builds upon the known science which is fundamentally supported/ive, there are many aspects of the accepted physics which have theorized themselves into a corner so to speak. There exists a myriad of enigmas and quandaries in physics which are mostly answerable by simply entertaining a paradigm shift. The required shift is mainly centered around the traditional theory of 'pull gravitation' and then there is also no further requirement for its dubious protege' G-relativity; and of course the historical S-relativity with its precursors-    the Lorentzian form right back to the Galilean transformation.

As far as push gravity is concerned the many and varied arguments aimed against the idea are easily parried. The main problem proposed -which Feynman alluded to- was that anything that pushes will also cause drag. In G-theory that is a fact and not problematic whatsoever; and it is the proposed reason that hyper-velocity motion is a rarity in the universe and not by reason of SR mathemagics as is currently supposed. Of course the limit on such motion is readily noticed in the universe.

The reason that Newtonian and Galilean physics disregards the problem is because it quite obviously and disconcertingly operates according to square law with increasing velocity and this is also the main reason that a huge amount of energy is required just to accelerate a passel of ions in the LHC. This G-theory featured non relativistic phenomenology is painstakingly evaluated in the main presentation as 'Newtons missing inertial frame of reference'.

Most of the mainstream logical arguments brought against relativity, are conceptual and usually less than effective against the circular and generally self supportive return arguments. However I failed to see that bulwark as sufficient reason to not strongly argue the case 'against' just once more. I came to understand that the main argument needs to be aimed at the ability or not of general relativity itself to answer the fundamental problems that even Newton himself was faced with. I'm not referring to the 'Galilean transformation relativity' even though that theory is also disputed at hyper speeds and not by reason of S-relativity either because It was the arcane misunderstanding of the Galilean transformation which has led to the Post Newtonian relativity offerings to date.

Considering the furore surrounding relativity it probably becomes incumbent on ourselves to cast our combined gaze back in time and understand that the first principles of science were based on assumptions made under the limitations caused by the limited understanding of the time. This includes the fact that none of the pioneers of electrodynamics had a clue of what a current, charge or magnetic field was. They also had no clue regarding gravity, the aether or the nature of atoms and quantum physics and yet it is strange indeed that many of their theories lie undisputed on the dusty shelves of learning.

Unfortunately special relativity and its post modern siblings have been derived and 'naturally fallen out' from the same false assumptions and the physics has simply been mathematically distorted by the learned proponents to suit. If however we bravely take a big step back and correctly and honestly analyse those first fundamentals -as I have done on this website- we should discover that relativity of any description would never have been derived, and I mean 'any' description including the one with which Galileo and Newton were familiar. Even the idea of the constancy of momentum and the constancy of Newtonian physics at any speed of momentum is shown herein to be false.

By being based on those early simplistic ideas of relativity, it turns out that even the Newtonian, Maxwellian and relativistic offerings are siblings which are just as simplistic. "What!" you protest. "How can you say that about G.R? Just look at the complexity of the mathematics." Answer: If such complexity is providing it with a level of credibility -In other words if that's where it derives its 'creds'- then there is a conceptual problem right there! The main reason for such complexity is not because of some supposed factualness, but it is simply because of the difference in the scope of the mathematical functions being compared. The Newtonian function only analyses a 'between bodies' manifold whereas the GR manifold is a complex geodesic which lends itself to be dressed up by being fully described mathematically for the complete space/s.

Just one field modifiable gravitational tensor should have been enough. Getting lost in the mathematical weeds prevents the understanding of the problem with SR whereby the emr tensor is constrained to being locked to the auspices of SR where the only perceivable changes are motional reference frame related and no tensor (or spinor) can be modified. I.e. applying relativity to the (emr) or light itself is a ridiculous faux par and that is exactly what Dirac did with the emr functions in an atom also.

Appropriating new emr and/or energy stress tensors to GR would be placing GR theory into the realm of the indecipherable at the very least. So if the need ever arises for the necessity to change one stress tensor with respect to another, then you will likely find the fundamentals of GR being pitted against SR and the futile reactionary fallback to Lorentzian relativity which in turn threatens general relativity- and so where do you go from there? Perhaps to 'dynamic three space', or 'zero' or 'holographic universe' perhaps. Maybe nothing's real at all and Bob down the street will invent free energy from neo-magnets and bottle tops! Do you sense a hint of sarcasm and a little cynicism? I just find it hard to believe that thinking folks can't see these problems for themselves. I seem to sense that there are only a few brave souls, so I must suspect an agenda or two. You think?

To expand the penultimate point a little further: The prime arbiter of one serious problem for GR is the FACT that in the following example; in order to answer at least one fundamental problem; any given stress tensor needs to be modified differently with respect to the other/geodesic. This comes about when attempting to solve the problem relating to planet orbit stability.

More serious problems for GR and SR may be encountered on the following tabs...' Newton's hack', 'Lorentz;Maxwell..', 'Einstein's curve..', 'light; wave..', and a few other tabs in this website. You should note that I don't flounder around with typical anti relativity arguments because most scientists have already been fraudulently led to believe that relativity is proven and a done deal.

No it's not! In every case of supposed proof there is another more reasonable phenomenology available which is being simultaneously but inadvertently proven. This can only occur because the mathematical theory of relativity pretty much predicts the actual phenomenological actions.

There would be no argument at all if relativity didn't arise from faulty science; the same faulty science which will finally be forced to declare that the universe is actually made out of mathematics. Such outcome would be laughable except that such upside down science puts up bulwarks to advancement. In all it's forms it does! It provides limitations which wouldn't necessarily exist if the physics -such as G-theory- that would otherwise be discovered wasn't also being stymied by the limitations being inadvertently placed on the likely discovery of the true phenomenologies by reason of such noticeable realities being simplistically explained away in order to maintain support for such a frivolous Post Newtonian science. Here is a catch 22 indeed!

Yes relativity is so simplistic that the tardiest dunce gets it! What they don't get are... 'the universal energy loop' and 'graviton transitional gravity', and 'light-gravity interactions' and 'the non relativistic behaviours of particles at the quantum level' including light and emr, and many other scientific discoveries which are waiting for a fuller non relativistic treatment. "Aha! what about the proof from Synchrotron mechanics?" You cry triumphantly. No that's not relativistic contraction of waves at all. Here's a case of 'simplistic explaining away' when you don't even know what's really going on with the electrons in the synchrotron before the first one even reaches the wiggler. How can you if your education has been warped so you can only think in waves?

I am not knocking physics in general. We all should acknowledge the progress being made but I suggest it could be even better, and I mean by a quantum leap. I understand that I have already covered the details of the noted and other problems along with the G-theory solution earlier in the thesis, and I have demonstrated how the impossibility for relativity to be modified to suit the sometimes novel phenomenologies is fatal for the GR theory in every way. There is no aether in the traditional sense. There is no such thing as true momentum. Energy or a charge or magnetic fields are not substantive.-They don't exist as some sort of 'stuff'. Therefore because these errors are still held to, this thesis contains a necessary and many pronged attack aimed at a multitude of holes in the relativistic theories.

Regardless and in spite of the supposition of it being a proven scientific 'rock', I will show it to be artificially anchored in drifting sand; and demonstrate that relativity per se can never be part of a workable new science. It does not and cannot faithfully describe the intricate workings of the universe at either the quantum or astrophysical levels. It is a simplistic and twisted mathematical description of a harmonious but non unifyable reality and as such it doesn't describe this universe at all, just the simple uncluttered universe of a warped imagination. You could say that GR is too simplistic by a 'Newtonian mile'!

Mathematics is not an infallible god! Mathematics simply and most often elegantly describes a solution to the problem of arriving at a required result even though the mechanics may be unknown by not being observable.

 

For example. We hit a ball with x-force but we are all an unsighted race and cannot see it's trajectory in a gravitational field. We however find the ball stuck in the mud 100 feet away every time it is struck in exactly the same way.

 

Even if we know nothing about the curvature of the trajectory caused by gravity we will still be able to provide a mathematical solution for the trajectory of the ball but being blind may mistakenly use math to describe a linear angled flight to strike the ground.

 

We could call that angle gravity deflection caused as a kind of friction at the surface of the bat or some such because we did notice that when we drop things they fall down but being blind we might all fail to make the connection to a curved path for the ball both subjectively and mathematically.

 

This opinion might have held sway for a long time until someone proposed the existence of and then measured the previously unobserved acceleration rate of the vertically falling ball and applied that to the old ideas.

 

This new information required a necessary change in the mathematical description of the event from linear to parabolic even though there was nothing wrong with the mathematics of the first description of the proposed event.

 

Ta da! So it is with the theory of relativity.

I humbly suggest to you that only G-theory provides the beginnings of a solution, and the mathematical equations that describe such a theory are not geodesic or four field; they are energy equations as well as math which is even now in development, and which I predict will be closer to multiplex computer algorithms than geodesics. Yes of course they involve space-time. I.e. A purely Euclidean space, constant time metric.

If G-theory showed that the universe operated in a way that was exactly describable by relativity then it's not hard to understand that there could be no possible experiment that could differentiate the two and you could then well argue: "The math works so leave it alone... Ho hum, there are particles flying around; so what? The math takes care of all of that, so it's just business as usual. Good bye!"

That would be a mistake however because there is a big difference between reality and mathematics and there are experiments proposed and yet to be devised. Also we still have the real problem for physics and the human race which I've already described but I'll put it another way: When GR was invented; the Newtonian model was itself deemed to be too simplistic and therefore unable to answer some fundamental observations and phenomena. Well; now it stands that the same charge is able to be squarely leveled at general and special relativity not to mention the Lorentzian/Poincare/Dirac shimozzle.

The charges and the only answers to such problems are to be found in G-theory. No I'm not so much smarter than y'all. I admit to major shortcomings that leave me trudging around in the mathematical ditch while some of you 'whitecoats' are soaring overhead at heights pitifully unattainable by yours truly. -but I'm doing my bit. It turns out that Physicists were way ahead of me and already batting the G-theory around the park. It's just that all the catches were being dropped. All they needed to do was drop the relativity bit instead of the ball, turn gravity around and they'd force a run-less innings on the relativity home team.

If you can't yet see your way clear to admit to a possibly embarrassing and humungous scientific 'gaff' then perhaps note should be taken that emr anisotropy has already been proved as a fact, and light anisotropy will be next. G-theory has the only real solution to that problem as well as a gravitational anomaly solution, with the anomaly having already been noticed and soon to be confirmed. The anomaly is a patently obvious Earth gravity SEP violation.

G-theory is nothing to be frightened of. Its just a model fitting theory that answers most of those annoying enigmas. I suspect that physics will soon have nowhere else to turn, but turn you must, unless you want to conspicuously end up on the wrong side of history in a few hundred wasted years time. Hey don't feel bad; this sort of readjustment is what progress in physics is all about and if any of you were wondering if there was any real opening for further progress 'really', then here it is. Note: All other new theories I am familiar with are dealt with severely in the thesis because unlike the previous relativistic theories they are usually not even a mathematical description of reality of any description. For the most part they are metaphysical ideas which seriously violate laws of physics and strain rationality to the limit. Apart from answers derived from the physics, I won't be arguing on that playing field because there is no game. It's all hocus pocus. Don't worry, your wave energy/function theory will lead you more quickly to divine creation than anything else. I mean if everything is just energy waves then how easy is that to create?

No the universe is far more complex than that and 'smart no-excuses science' gives promise for us to advance much farther than we ever thought possible, so long as we can keep such a new science out of the hands of mad scientists that is. Such complexity and the invariable enigmas that just keep popping up by reason has already caused many alterations to relativistic philosophy as well as the physics theories. The simple GR that Einstein originally developed has already been heavily modified by both himself and others such that it's already unrecognizable as a simple Minkowski geodesic if the manifold is collapsed. The real problem arises when we understand that we have serious problems in quantum physics as well as astrophysics; ones which can't be solved by a simple jog to some sort of spinor or stress tensor. Believe me, there are far more serious enigmas on the way.

GR has a notably significant problem built in. I.e. it can allow no violation of WEP or SEP. This is already violated by light; which gets a pass because some 'grown men' actually believe that the invisible geodesic 'fish net' really truly exists and the emr is able to pass through the 'nodes'. This might be conceivable in some sort of magical fairyland but it becomes a serious irrationality when faced with the infinite number of fishnets existing in any 3D/4D?? geodesic! Others also erroneously declare that light takes the 'best possible' path through the geodesic just like any object supposedly does, although by what force is yet to be admitted.

Apart from that we also have a huge equivalence problem ready to take out GR if just one other quantum particle can be shown to not fall in a gravitational field. That is an occurrence which will destroy any remaining credibility it might seem to have. Ask Casmir about that one. The other mentioned SEP problem will actually be forthcoming here in the Newton's hack tab. See I'm not even blaming Einstein! Yes you have to go back to Newton. Maxwell and Lorentz who got their philosophical steering platform from others before them. Yes 'contraction relativity' was derived from the same school of philosophical thought that spawned the theory of evolution and socialism/communism, but that's another subject.

SR has enough fatal problems of is own to deal with but with respect to GR the requirement for modifications to the geodesic or even worse, a stress tensor, is exactly what is required in order to solve the planetary orbital stability problem for one, and relativity as a geodesic can't allow any more than simple frame dragging while G-theory can and does. There are other problems which I have in store with regard to the stress energy tensor and others that can still be argued around in typical relativistic conceptual circles but there are several 'replacement theory' arguments that deny the possibility for the theory to remain standing. People can believe anything they want of course, no matter how stupid. That's just the nature of the human mind.

However the fundamental problem recognized by science in general can't be argued away! There is a necessary requirement for one stress tensor to be modified relative to the other/geodesic to allow planetary orbit stability and that is the final fatal flaw in GR. The greatest problem of all that was the undoing of Newtonian gravity has come back to bite general relativity in the a$$. Even with relativity there still remains a need for regular spurts of 'divine intervention' for orbital stability. Perhaps you should consider G-theory which does have the required legally applicable mechanism available for orbital stability. However this alone doesn't preclude divine spurts of intervention. I have no say in that.

Now also we have another 'legless' problem for GR however, and that is in the featured 'G'-less (no gravitational constant required) equation for gravity that proves the existence of a significant SEP violation which I suspect will solve for the known 'satellite pass gravitation anomaly' at altitudes in the region of 1000kms, as well as the Greenland bore gravity anomaly also. Keep your eye on the 'Newton's hacks' tabs and visit them later if you are game.

Relativity has ridden on the back of an illegal mathematical operation in a way similar to that of which Newton was also guilty. Newton changed term units in the middle of an experiment. Einstein just changed constants and mathematical functions in the middle. Lorentz (Hyperbolic)... Newton/Einstein GR (parabolic or 1/x2). How on earth can you even think to be able to correlate the two? The first demands 'invariance' of fields while the second searches vainly for 'variance' and is now facing a serious threat to it's geodesic. You've got light that's wave and particles simultaneously, quantum arithmetic that just doesn't add up. You've still got 'stone age' and erroneous classical physics on the shelf, and your physicists speak with forked tongue at every turn and especially the self styled 'high priests' of metaphysics that call themselves cosmologists. That's OK but they also refer to themselves as theoretical physicists, and that's not OK!

Can you imagine what this all looks like to the astute student and Eric the electrician alike. There is a serious disillusionment and distrust of physics going mainstream that no amount of polishing up by the likes of the traditional bunch of like minded alien hunting cosmologists can fix. That distrust even extends to the classical paradigm and the fundamental laws. All of the experimenters out there with their ideas of free power and such (of which there is a massive community) attempting to thwart the laws of thermodynamics, aren't stupid. They just don't trust the physics anymore, and no wonder! The philosophers and mathematicians stole the science and turned it into a monstrous parody of science. Time warping and stopping indeed! Wormholes and time travel; veh!

Special relativity is based on 'dark age' philosophical thought that appeared long before Maxwell. Maxwell arrived at a mathematical solution which had another unrecognized outcome. As well as that, both he and Lorentz between them arrived at an obtuse assumption when there were two other avenues open to them that didn't lead down the time/distance-distortion-relativity pathway.

The two other equally valid assumptions are still as follows...

1/ the charge and magnetic fields are instantaneous because your (Maxwell's) field propagation rate conclusion was inadvertently measuring the rate of something else entirely.

2/ The field propagation rate might be slightly less than instantaneous by dimensional jurisprudence and the electron-nucleus relationship actually requires a dragged field in order to function. (Refer to the 'The most profound error' tab. G theory contends that the fields are permanent and variable and that it is the atoms emr/EWF, G-QED that propagates at 'c' and not the electrons fields.) Note: QCD is phenomenologically similar to charge with regard to instantaneity; It changes but doesn't propagate. This is strongly argued on another tab.

Other assumptions made by different physicists inadvertently refute prior assumptions. E.g. "Gravity holds the atmosphere in place." Good assumption supported by the evidence... "Hydrogen is evaporating into space." Bad assumption, deniable by the first.

Another example which includes a gross misunderstanding of the physical nature of 'charge'... In his lectures on the Ampere-Maxwell solution... Lectures in Physics (II, 18-3); the well known physicist Richard Feynman proved that a spherical source of charge could not produce a magnetic field whatsoever. This proof however undermined the quantum physics idea of point source spinning electrons or other charge particles creating their own magnetic dipoles. Yep! Such assumptions (which abound in physics from something akin to thoughtless mental prattle are many and bold and most are outright questionable! The questions in most peoples minds should probably be along the lines of--- What was he smoking?

I know that people are human and often make mistakes but physics seems to have made an art form out of how to be magnificently wrong! So on that note it appears that G-theory is constrained to be a replacement solution and not an alongside solution at all. The physics needs to be completely revamped at the fundamental level. Is it too late?

Find out for yourself.

 

neuvophysics.com