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/x^{2}).
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