new 'G'-less, 'rel'-less physics

 

G ravity propagation And Multiplex Euclidean Scalar theory*

featuring

Extended Symmetry Quantum Model

---presented as a sublet of

 

the predictive---

*G -Theory

away from M-theory and beyond SUSY:

The digital multiplex quantum field universe v the analogue relativistic classical field tradition

 

 

 

RATIONALE

Let me introduce you to a thought provoking presentation of a new theory of physics on this website. My primary intention at this point is to offer some valid reasons for the need to drop the theory of relativity from any contemplated models when seeking a new physics, and to demonstrate that there are valid reasons to expand and modify the standard electrodynamics theory to include quantum fields.

 I understand that some of you are seeing the need for a physics that is much more able to answer the new and weird anomalies being noted out there in physics-land, and some of you are also noticing that purist mathematics cute theorizing is quite capable of defining the fantastical as well as the reasonable so it should never be used as grounds for proof. If that strikes a bit of a chord even, then you have come to the right place.

You might take issue with some of my results/conclusions and contentions. That's pretty standard, so go right ahead but if your objections are not regarding model destroying difficulties by being unrelated to real and honest facts then don't be too critical. "Is a fact really a fact, an educated guess or blind assumption"? That is an important criterion for judgement.

In spite of that, theories must invite open attack and be able to stand the rigorous examination expected. Of course no theory gets 'it all' right and hopefully physics remains a 'going forward' paradigm while forward remains a possibility. It is primarily the fundamentals of a new theory which are important. We should ask: Does the theory provide answers to our list of problems while not destroying or (at the very least) ignoring the rest of the known classical physics? If it can achieve that at the risk of damaging dogmatic theories then so be it.

There is no point in a new theory if science (which seems to have given some heed to the grumbles of discontent and now recognizes the need for a new theory going forward) is going to take a few more decades or centuries even, to decide whether or not relativity should be part of any new theory or not. I say get the discussion happening at high levels and get it sorted. If there is another rational substitute for relativity then have at it. G-theory offers one.

 

Fundamental premise

 

Relativity is an actual fact but only insofar as it is observational as per the Galilean transformation in our own backyard. The relativistic mathematics of the post Newtonian period has been a wonderful tool for modelling the observational reference frame disjuncts, and even for deriving statistical predictions related to such interrelationships. As well as predicting certain gravitational behaviour, it has also given us the very useful idea of reference frames and stress tensors.

Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity are theories which the majority accept as having been proven and which are declared to be the only answer available for a working model of the universe full stop. Bad mistake! I intend to show that post Newtonian geodesic or time/space warping relativity per se is illegally self supporting and there is now a better fact fitting model available. The proponents of relativity selectively sort assumptions and results which are deemed to be supportive, and simply reject out of hand other classically legal possibilities that are not.

We may well ask concerning relativists (including Carmellian) whether in the act of mathematical-izing physics: Did they use their brains but lose their minds? They distort classical physics and mathematical-ize and see everything through a relativistic lens even when there is an alternative and even though the undistorted physical universe is right there for them to see.

To allow or suggest that either relativistic mathematics or models can be causative of any physical or motional phenomena is highly suspect. This includes actual relative time and space dilation or expansion and causing gravity etc. If it seems from all this that I have developed a irrational beef with relativity- Well I do have a beef! but its very rational. Mathematical relativity being proposed to be causative is the true poster child of irrationality! Another real problem with relativity per se is that it is too simplistic and its parts can only stand alone. Now however the theory of relativity is no longer necessary because of this proposed cutting edge model of G-theory. Relativity will be shown to have truly become a self perpetuating myth which needs to be discarded.

Don't for a moment think that I don't 'get' relativity. I get it alright- I can see right through it, but I know the futility of arguing its stand-alone concepts. In that case I will direct my attack at its specious foundations which really began with a flawed classical physics (including the Galilean transformation). Simultaneously (and In order to credibly present the proposed theoretical model of G theory) it has therefore become incumbent upon me to address and solve those historical unforced errors in classical physics, the first of which fed into the sleight of hand called Lorentzian relativity. A fraud which has (for necessary reasons), been protected by cover ups, cheating and trial and error methods pasted in as 'fix on the go' solutions. Newton also erred- Just ask any engineer whether or not they work from data charts/programs which have been 'adjusted' for real world applications or not- They do, and such the situation is almost inconceivable but it must be fixed in order for any further progress to be made in physics for the 21st century. Note: Refer to Newton 's errors link .

No; I don't think I'm a cut above everyone else in ego town; it's just that the normal tendency for learned folk is to just go with what they've been taught and to not question or otherwise risk getting a smack on the wrist or worse. Academia teaches blind subservience to the consensus. Just ask any student who has tried to question the status quo. They are often ridiculed or told (and readily believe) what they already suspect; that they are just not getting it!

Of course those unfortunate students are themselves sub-subservient to a higher level problem because even their teachers are unable to question the textbooks and curriculum or even worse, the revered scientists of yore from which much of the physics has derived. I seem to have found those scientists to be most human indeed. Indeed; to err is human and in that, none of us (including revered historical scientists) should be held to any lower bar or absolved by any peer group bias.

Every theory should have a legal framework and be able to operate according to the known laws. Apart from them having no fundamental base for predictable behavior there are also many cases relating to the relativity theories where jurisprudence is absolutely not the case.

Yes; I too get things wrong and make mistakes but I have taken great care to keep the G-theory thesis in the domain of the empirical. Arbitrary speculation without any connection to known laws and observances is invalid. Like I said; some of what you are about to encounter will appear to be weird but any speculation is derived within the framework of the whole. After all, the thesis (which is not fully presented on this site) is about a model, and a model needs to work and if the whole structure makes a reasonable prediction regarding a necessary missing piece then it is not illegal to speculate by interpolation but definitely not by extrapolation, which is the Achilles heel of theories like the relativity models. The mathematical expansions of relativity are extrapolations!

  In other words; freehand parts hanging off the models are not valid. This occurs when you bring in some arbitrary 'morphing' or other 'illegal or implausible mechanics' as support of the truly inexplicable. Freehand 'parts' must be inter-relatable to the whole. Like for instance has anyone ever measured 'faster than light' photons? That's a freehand part which is not relatable to any model by any other connection. It's purely speculative and demonstrably proven incorrect by the negative, as is any idea of mass increase by injection of energy particles!

" Digital universe? " Consider the quantum- integer, and Pauli- exclusion principles as well as the double slit phenomenon and even entanglement.

" Multiplex universe? " you say It's all just stress tensors. " Yeah sure " you say- " I'd rather believe that mathematics and empty space causes force motion and energy. "

I guess you can have it your way and you might wonder what possible importance relativity-denying could have for physics and science in general... "we're all doing just fine thank you. " In return I ask you... "What importance does any science have then?"

The answer to these questions is perhaps more philosophical than scientific. I for one just want the world to progress further and have a future. I fear that progress has already been set back by the relativistic idea of a limit on speeds in the universe as well as causing a holding back of advancement in crucial areas in order to chase phantoms in others. That only creates inefficiency and confusion.

Yes we can live with relativity; but without possessing a better understanding of how the universe works we could be left chasing our own tails and likely never actually discover anything of consequence going forward. I suggest that predictability of possible outcomes and ends is fully proportional to the concepts of the science and if the science is wrong then future endeavours threaten to be a waste of time. For instance relativity suggests that time travel and wormholes are a possibility and even that aliens might exist there/then. While not denying the possibility, the probability of that scenario is directly proportional to the probability of the science being correct. If it's wrong- there is no chance. So if it can be proven wrong we might save ourselves from centuries of futility and possible species demise.

That is the thrust of this project--- to provide another more rational, plausible and fact fitting model which removes the perceived dilemmas in the current model(s). I can only address the enigmas in the science. The philosophical stuff will have to follow along.

What if Einstein really was wrong? What if faster than 'c' is a possibility. What if a protection technology for astronauts travelling faster than that speed was also possible? What if our clocks didn't change at hyper velocities? What if we are only holding ourselves back by a failure to properly think relativity through and see it as the mind game it truly is? What if we developed conditional quantum control of our own bodies? What if we gained conditional quantum control of our own minds. What if conditional transportation was not forever out of the question?

Laugh if you like, but daring to believe the rational fantasy has been the historical prerequisite for advancement, while restrictions on physical possibilities such as relativistic hyper speed prevention and chasing phantoms such as time warps, time travel and black hole entering thwarts progress. Believe me a black hole is somewhere you would do well to steer clear of!

I am forced to conclude from the facts that the relativistic mathematics is just a representation of an as yet unknown mechanics of causation. G-theory provides a probable physical mechanics. I see a bright future for mankind going forward. With that in mind lets take a look at the current paradigm---

 

 

Beyond 'asymptotic freedom', 'the core', 'the grid', 'SUSY..?' , the 'fifth dimension' 'dynamical four space' etc.

 

"Grad students know everything about nothing and Professors know nothing about everything" is a tongue in cheek phrase that hints at a profound honesty required for progress in the physics.

The spoils of discovery will go to the honest. One fairly honest appraisal of the standard quantum model has been written by the brilliant physicist and Nobel Prize winning author of  'Longing for the Harmonies' Frank Wilczek. The publisher is Penguin books and it is likely to be available from the usual outlets.

'The lightness of being' is the recommended read. I don't agree with Mr. Wilczek on many counts but he is forthright and so candid he often doesn't even totally agree with himself and I do yearn for his ability to clarify horrendously difficult concepts. However perhaps we should take note of how (when contemplating SUSY) the idea of empiricism was cast aside in favour of the beauty of mathematical symmetry.

That's not what I consider to be a reasonable attitude. I see it as rather 'Laplacian'. Woah: What's reason, other than a determination that your own philosophical outlook is logical? I know not! So while Mr. Wilczek is fully entitled to his philosophy I would like to point out that there are symmetries to be found everywhere in the universe. He does well to chase the harmony of symmetry to its logical end but in the real universe symmetries don't necessarily extend that far. There is a lot of chaos to be seen yet still some sort of external (internal ?) interference seems to be going on that we are yet to figure out.

For example we can look no further than delving into a fantasy where we are examining a huge PC that runs our imaginary (house) world. We have made our way up a data cable to the inside and we are fully intent on discovering what it does and how. That is just because we are curious and we haven’t got a clue about what it is, just what it does. It seems to make our world run very nicely thank you very much.

We set about painstakingly analysing it, only to find that it operates by some beautiful fundamental harmony which some of the smart dudes in our group lock into mathematical equations. It’s clock runs at a defined speed. It even ticks over every second to an output data stream. We also noticed that many things in our house world run like clockwork and if you press certain buttons you always get the same result, so we even derived laws from that. There are other harmonious data streams travelling on their own pathways both in and out, and the cables (and even data via another 'wireless' dimension) seem to connect to everything that works in our world. Do we therefore assume that there is auto harmonious operation and self generation? Yes, if we want to.

While we are studying it from the inside we do eventually notice that the data streams suddenly change for short durations for no definable reason and all the in/out ports show a subsequent change with very little time delay. We do notice that this all begins at certain ports but we haven't a clue that someone just began typing on a keyboard, or a data stream entered some external 'landline' port. We just notice that the harmony appeared to be spontaneously broken. So we simply ignore the anomaly of control data coming in from somewhere outside and we just bathe in the 'beauty of the harmonies' and the 'lightness of being'.

In the same way in the real world, we notice such anomalies as spontaneous symmetry breaking and indeed symmetry violation as well as a plethora of other head scratching violations such as electromagnetic gauge variance as well as so called Lorentz violations. How also do we explain quark confinement to a nucleon for instance, or why particles such as quarks behave in ways that don't seem to be prevented? Nothing is stopping them but they just don't do it. They are never seen to be existing alone and they clump together in specific groups of two, three or a complete lattice. They are never seen to be floating around outside of nucleons. Or are they? How do we then explain the baryonic matter declared to be the stuff of filaments in the depths of space? What about quark gluon plasma?

In this universe, that siren song of harmony (we might be lulled by in our quiet corner of the cosmos) is made to be broken but it is quite obviously controlled symmetry breaking because true spontaneity can only result in utter chaos but what we have is order in chaos. There can only be one answer to all of those enigmas... The universe must be programmed and therefore controlled! The Laplacian style auto harmonious control system that you might seek simply doesn't exist. The super-partners do not exist. There is no 'Higgs field' or universal quantum 'field' in the standard theory sense but having said that- Bohr was probably right. “In a profound error there can also be profound truth.” I suggest that Multi-dimensionalism (multiplicity) is the truly necessary philosophy for any hope of understanding our universe. About that multidimensional part: in that regard I agree with SUSY but that's where the similarity ends. G-theory and SUSY are contemporaneous but G-theory was derived independently of SUSY and even the 'string theories' for that matter.

Let's now switch our focus to historical relativity from Galileo to Einstein. Contrary to the traditional thinking I hasten to declare that there is no need for there to be consistency of classical laws of motion relative to the speed of the reference frame. Indeed in reality there is not. Yes; even if you are travelling in a train at 50km/hr and you play catch, and of course the laws of motion will appear to be the same. That has nothing to do with relativity it all. It only has to do with the true fundamental derivation of inertial mass. (However gravity has a lot to say about that as we will see in the thesis). If your train travels at half the speed of light say; then the laws of motion won't work for you any more (Do they have to?*) and according to G-theory your whole body would be truly flattened and not just relativistically. Yes; really!

*If the laws are declared to have been 'active as the agency of creation' rather than just noted observations, then they do have to . All the while this leaves scientists scratching their heads over gravitational anomalies in space and declaring dark energy/matter stuff. Really?

 

To be fair, the whole paradigm of quantum physics is 'extremely' complicated, not to mention complex as well. Don't get too confused about the identity of some particles. Many terms and names of particles are simply substitutions for other particles in different states. For instance gravitons in G-theory are just as easily neutrinos in QFT and other named concepts in G-theory are identifiable in other theories as well. One such theory is 'the grid'. In G theory such particles can have different identities and characteristics in different dimensions. Imagine dimensions as mostly occupying the same space time.

The theorizing of 'the grid' along with its companion illegal concept of the 'super-conductance' of space leaves many questions that are  only readily solved by G-theory multiplicity. The color charges in quarks and other particles and the gluon-quark fundamental charge interactions are better understood through the lens of trans-dimensional 'across brane' transforms than by continuing with futile attempts at straight forward unification. it should be obvious by now that there is a serious problem with that approach. Even the standard quantum theory requires the ability for many particles to be conditionally able to legally occupy the same space time even if only for fleeting instants.

If we remove the two non time related dimensions from G-theory we are left with the 10 dimensions which could in effect emulate the spinor representations of So10. The virtual particles in 'grid' theory become the branes in G-theory.

The masses calculated in the standard model would have to be re configured to be made relational in the multiplex sense. In effect the 95% of mass accounted for by the standard model becomes 100% in the G-theory model because the extra 5% is predicted to be contained in the constantly transitioning gravitons and other particles (including electrons).

This means that to some limited extent mass is dependent up on gravity and that the affects of gravity itself must also have some proportionality to temperature. This is not readily (ever) noticeable on earth or in our own backyard but there are many facts that support this contention (or deniable prediction). It stands that Newtonian (and to some extent Einsteinian) physics is not necessarily transferable to every place in the universe and that there are a-priori fundamental laws and the possibility of some physics yet untapped (but not however as per Carmellian relativity*). Even mass does change slightly when thermal energy is added to a system. There is no such thing as static dark energy or matter. What does exist are fundamental misconceptions regarding gravity.

* Carmellian relativity falls on its sword over the confusion between simultaneous physical and relativistic expansion of space.

The main reason for a multiplex 'grid' in G-theory is that particles (not wavicles) are able to pass right through each other in Euclidean space time with only the conditional fundamental charge interactions being perturbative and effective.

No matter how you resolve it 'inertial mass' requires an anchor, (You know an object in space has to be retro-pushing on something else when you push on it. How else can mass provide a push back?) which is not at all related to (motion) spatial displacement. In G-theory 95% of your own mass comes from protons and neutrons because they have built in connections to the Higgs 'cosmean' brane (spinor if you like). That is where the anchor point (to which Newtonian inertia relates) is located and it derives from a fundamental force interaction at the Zo boson brane interface... and it is connected to every other structural component within any given nucleon via the electroweak Higg's superstruct and the quark lattice proper; but not completely to the cosmean femptospace. This proposed inertial mass anchoring phenomenology is revealed in the presentation of the G-theory thesis. (Order a free E-book copy from the contact tab.)

Only in any given gravity, at any given temperature will mass be precisely the same for two similar objects. Any non standard effect of gravity on mass is only noticeable in astrophysics and in that regard other logically absurd reasons have traditionally been given for such questions as to why our own sun has so much gravity. In that particular case mass is 'made up' by adding extra heavy elements even though they can't actually be found in solar coronal spectroscopy. Being unable to prove something from a negative stupidly helps to provide cover for such an excuse. Also we have to ask: Where is the missing mass of the universe? According to G-theory, it's not missing at all. It only appears to be because of this faulty post Newtonian paradigm we seem to be stuck with.

Sorry; that's a bit rough... Although not fully fleshed out, the standard quantum theory is a marvel of scientific achievement. The faulty paradigm however is well noted by some physicists; which is why new theories are being proposed, but I'm also sorry because I strongly suspect that SUSY or M theory are not the answer which I predict will be the forthcoming consensual conclusion. When you all do come to that realization, G-theory is ready to be refined and tested to the point of possible rejection as well but I doubt that result very much.

As some have speculated I would agree that space is full of qibits but you can't have variously labelled fundamental force bits colliding, just particles perturbing in order to balance, force and control. There is control and there is data... and there is also fundamental qibit separation.

Virtualizing and 'wavicle-ing' everything is just appealing to magic and miracles; Though real and always relatable to particles, it is only forces which are able to be virtual. There are force and charge fields but they too are related directly to matter constructs of particles. In G-theory the 'virtual photon' of quantum theory becomes a dimensional transform. The Feynman diagram then becomes 'multi-dimensional'.

By way of an introduction to G-theory; Imagine a 10 level layer cake. Two particles appear to collide (actually pass through each other) in top view but if we look from the side we find that they only appeared to come together because they exist in different layers of the cake. The perturbation in the quantum field was caused by their disturbing of each others fields, across a brane (spinor). Yes momentum is transferable via force field perturbation and not necessarily by direct contact. Ask any repelled magnet.

The disturbance created a legal interaction which if great enough would prescribe a transform in multiplicity. I.e. through layers. (soft or hard). Whatever the transform; if the results produced QCD color change then the new particles may be concluded to have been shifted by the transform to other layers and momentum is still conserved in the eigen-vector analysis. This suggests that the quarks in any quark construct occupy the same space time and their force field is contained and operated via another dimension. Note: The layer cake analogy is somewhat misleading in the respect that eight differently colored quarks and a couple of other particles could theoretically occupy the same space time, In other words the layers only have dimensional separation and not spatial separation relative to any given collisive interaction. Their 'matter' Constructs occupy the same space but their biracial fundamental charge forces have conditional cross brane perturbability. P.S. It becomes an "I know you're there because I can 'sense' you" type situation. Because of that those sub particle inertias don't necessarily conform to Newtons action reaction laws.

The transform function predicated by pre-eminent cosmean* law, uses energy, and mass and is realized because of its affect at the Zo boson superstruct transform at the electroweak juncture of a nucleon, (actually the Higg's extreme near field juncture). Necessary transfers of energy also occur over the 'icing' layer which is the instantaneously acting 'eos' dimension which transfers particles as energy by (G-theory 'BBR' phenomenology) which is definitively divorced from the traditional idea of thermal photonic 'BBR'.

This kind of particle transfer (called vacuum polarization) is elastic at the point of cross brane transfer and it often results in that common phenomenon of elasticity; 'ringing'... in which case many different particles might be transiently observed as though they are just appearing and disappearing from and to the vacuum. The higher the energy of the particle 'collision' the greater the number of particles which can be expected. Energy conservation is carried out by the delivery and subduction of particles so don't be surprised if many far more 'massive' (energetic) particles arrive back on scene.

In a high energy particle collision we see a massive yet sub microscopic event occurring across the various fundamental stress tensors and the conservation of energy requires that momentum is conserved. The cake has been damaged but it is soon repaired. Note: You can have a self renewing cake subject to dimensional laws but you can't have a self renewing disturbance which runs on magic. Such ideas go right back to Maxwell. At least Newton refrained from going down that road. Physics necessarily contains lots of magic (inexplicable phenomena) but it is empirically illegal and totally metaphysical to explain away one magic with another magic.

In returning to the collider mechanics; energy was conceptually used to wind up the particles and in the case of nucleons the energy was built up by (the insertion by emr reception) of a massive quantity of bosons into the femtospace*. When the collision occurs this becomes self evident by the astonishing quantity of particles released, as does the arrival and subsequent banishment of 'super' particles at the scene. This is because there are not enough particles on scene to balance the momentum requirements, so the eos drops some in from it's own dimension. You can't see them or notice them but they are all around you and they are dark matter/energy. Not mass. They are only potential mass and energy.

*Cosmea is the pre-existing space. Femtospace is a theorized dimensionless cosmean space existing within every nucleon quark lattice which has a variety of roles that answers to many of the inexplicable dilemmas in physics, and because such spaces have been already supported by rational interpretations of observations, the theory isn't a solution from metaphysics or magic. Refer to the thesis.

 

The standard model has made giant inroads towards a hint of understanding the universe but as is common to many human endeavours we often ignore seemingly trivial logical dilemmas* which when truly understood are actually a serious threat to any model. With physics in general the problem is relativity and with the quantum physics paradigm it is mass-energy equivalence. Both of these are mathematically sound but they are a bogus answer that hides the true phenomenologies.

*Don't let such things as annoying facts stand in the way of a perfectly good theory!

 

The fact that large amounts of thermal energy can be added to a quantum/atomic system without a proportional increase in mass leads to the understanding that quantum energy is not the same thing as thermal or classical energy. That must be the case with the current understanding; therefore if quantum energy is deemed to equate to quantum mass then we are faced with the conclusion that quantum mass must be just as divorced from classical mass as well; and the problem of the derivation of classical mass/inertia is still with us in the mathematical sense as well because you can't compare apples with oranges unless 'fruit' alone is the outcome; in which case we would require a new term that covers both kinds of mass: I suggest 'miss-mass! '

leaving that 'tongue in cheek' aside alone: Asymptotic freedom doesn't provide any anchor at all; that's like you being pushed and you then fall against a force field that pushes against another and another until when? It stands as factual that all virtual counter-force is un-anchored to anything else than its own particle/s. Quark color charge and gluon charge shielding can't possibly account for it either. The quark color charge behaviour must be by dimensional interaction law which doesn't translate to the universe at large, only coulombic charge does.

Ideas of charge screening/anti-screening are ludicrous without a legal framework. How is it possible to have a positive charge being surrounded by a cloud of attracted negative charges? That can't be made to work except by magic. If there is a reason for such magic why then doesn't that translate to the macro universe without something like multiplicity to prevent it? That something can only be dimensional separation by a legal framework. I.e. dimension exclusive laws. That means only one thing... programming under multiplex jurisprudence and not by magic!

In order to overcome such a critical dilemma as seen in mass-energy equivalence there needs to be a change in the way we perceive energy and mass. I.e. In essence they have nothing to do with each other. G-theory provides a phenomenology which solves for those problems

This necessary but short introduction lets the 'cat out of the bag' a little and to many it likely serves to reduce the interest in studying the G-theory thesis I guess. Be that as it may; and if you want to run with your own ideas along this line of thought then be my guest but I suspect that there will be many years of work ahead of you just to get to the stage I have progressed to. That stage is simply a skeleton that is yet to be fleshed out but while other theories leave many model threatening questions, G-theory opens up new fundamental questions by answering the old. The search never ends but let's choose to not leave too long of a trail of dilemmas and insipid explanations!

 

The G-rel gravity solution under fire.

 

Quantum interactions whether coulombic, fundamental or QCD are either neutral, attractive or repulsive. In any normal analysis neutral may be ignored but not when the analysis involves time disjuncts relative to spatial displacement (space-time warping).

When an excruciatingly close examination of the concept is made, the end result is vector sum zero whether or not an object is moving or stationary relative to the reference frame of warped time. For instance if a particle is neutral by reason of a field (which is an even display of positive and negative fields) being presented in warped time against the reference frame of empirical time then the notionally changed time differential across the object would cause a change of displacement of both fields relative to each other at the same instants relative to common spatial points of reference. This then must also apply to unilateral fields.

In attempting to remove the absurd implication that would be involved if time were being warped at the same rate of gravitational acceleration (which is the idea of a 9.8m long object being held vertically in a GS (gravitational field) having a time differential of one second between the ends) it must then be assumed that the time warp must be exceedingly small to not be noticeable or measurable and yet still be able to provide a realistically powerful fictitious force called gravity.

Just because something is deemed to be immeasurable even though existing doesn't mean that it then falls outside the bounds of reason. The fact is, that regardless of the time differential existing across an object in a GS, there is no net force able to be produced unless perchance when some external force is introduced, but then the possibility of particle decrepitation due to 'time disjunct caused disassociation of quantum perturbative forces' becomes a real issue.

Disregarding that serious problem for the moment: If an object is forced to move by the introduction of an external force in a time warped GS then we should be able to deduce that the changing quantum force relationships are being stretched in one direction and shortened in another which would mean that the strong equivalence principle becomes violated in a gravitational field with proportionality to the direction of the force. This we don't observe do we? No we can't because the space is being distorted by the GS regardless of what the cause of gravity is, so no proof either way is able to be derived from this and any proposed length contraction can be ignored as improvable. Note: Cosmic ray phenomenology and y-ray nucleon photography etc. are refuted in the thesis.

If perhaps length contraction does occur because of the time contraction then of course any time disjunctive affect that might ever be contemplated is consequently negated and there is a nul result.

When we analyse push gravity we find that all of the arguments against are based on proofs derived from the current unproven paradigm and by reason such proofs are opinion and not empirical. This also applies to the proofs for time warping/dilation typified by the cosmic ray phenomenon which once again is based on unsubstantiated assumptions regarding what a cosmic ray actually is and what speed it travels at. G-theory also promotes an assault on those very assumptions as well. It provides a complete paradigm shift in understanding the known facts, and it stands wide open for empirical deniability which I confidently suggest will be unlikely.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This all means that any idea of gravity being caused by time dilation is misguided at best and if aggressively promoted in the face of reason (which includes lack of proofs and unification); insanity*! The very real option remaining to provide the true testable answers is G-theory push gravity and quantum field unification.

 

 

*You might notice a slight attitude problem on my part at times. Sorry about that but I get a bit myopic when I see entrenched philosophical agendas standing in the way of progress. Honesty also requires the recognition that while physics has philosophy but no religion, it might just lead to a God. No that's not religious bigotry or a subliminal message aiming at your conversion, it's just philosophical open mindedness. It's not reasonable to preclude God and I wouldn't expect all of you to understand the difference. All I could hope for is also not reasonable, and that is to have a philosophically clean paradigm.

For anyone looking down- Welcome to 'Human World'- Don't worry, we might soon be getting somewhere regardless of our differences.

 

Note: As you peruse this website you may be tempted to raise ad hoc 'gotcha' objections quite frequently. Feel free but remember that I can't possibly cover all the bases on this site but I can almost guarantee that I have covered them in the off-line thesis. 

 

 

 

Some interesting tidbits

 

STOP PRESS--- calculated from G-theory: Higg's mass from constituent particle mass addition (conditionally permissible with G-theory mass derivatives)--- mh 80.385+45.5938 GeV/c2                       result--- mh=125.9788 ( 126)... Compare that result with some previously predicted Higg's masses in standard theory---

125.3 +- 0.4 and 126 +-0.4--- (Others: 125 to 127 ) My result of 126 GeV/c2 is statistically in the middle of those others.

(No; I haven't just thrown together some numbers to make this up... check with the thesis.)

Also consider this: The speed of gravity 'y' is found by y=c/? Therefore (and having no arithmetical relationship to that equation) the theoretical energy content in the (local) universe can be found by E=y.c which is in the 10e??J range Find the true answer and the 'why' in the presentation. (??s are to be found answered in the thesis).

Also consider this: What do you reckon the odds are for this? We can derive z (gravitational energy loss constant) by multiplying a coulomb number of electrons as one Joule in one second; multiplied by the speed of light at which it will have that kinetic energy of 1J.kg.sec (kg/w.s), then divide it by the number of atoms that each coulomb is colliding with over one second to make that Joule which is related to the perfect atom with just one neutron of mass per atom and that is 1kg of hydrogen (1H).

z= 6.241509e18 x 3e8 /5.96e26= 3.1416991610738 (constant)

Does that look like pi to you? Here's the best current estimate for pi--- 3.141592653589 unbelievable? Yes I know- deriving pi isn't proof of anything but when it coincides with the very same numerical derivation via a different approach (gravitational v electrodynamics) then there's probably room for seeing 'profundity' I would think.

OK; you want some other amazing pi relationships from electrodynamics then... 'Using the original 8e-12 value for eo we get 2pi3= (rt(uoeo))Cn. Using the original or any contemporary value of eo you find that 3pi2=rt(1/uoeo). ---(Cn is the coulomb number 6.241509e18).

Of course from there we can hunt around for a few other pertinent variables and constants and derive the theoretical maximum limit of temperature in the universe. It's in the (e12) range (find out more in the thesis)'.

Now if you can't see any use for any of the above then you're probably not a likely candidate for investigating the formula for everything. Don't be discouraged, let me pique your interest. We can all change our minds but only if we open them first. If you do know of someone who may be interested then why not let them in on the existence of this website.

Whoever holds to a position is bound to remain in position!

 

You know you have a problem when every problem has a solution but every solution has a problem. We need to find the final solution... no problem!

 

 

Why new physics?

That's a good question; however shouldn't we all be first of all asking what's wrong with the old physics?

That leads to a bit of a paradox because the answer is; not much, and a lot at the same time! We'll get to that soon but now for a lead in.

It's not hard to recognize the driver behind the age old quest to find answers: Curiosity! If we get curious enough sometimes we even find answers to questions nobody's even asked yet. That kind of jolt to the senses can lead to a more far reaching curiosity. The problem is; while such a laudable human trait has taken physics to extraordinary lengths and has gotten some intrepid seekers to the final stage where the discovery of the Higg's boson seems to be history, we are now left with another question: So... what's next? Logical answer: First of all; we need to find out what a Higg's boson actually is and what it actually does.

That's not the only quest in physics which has ended up producing more questions than answers. There are many exploratory but interconnected arms of physics which have disconcertingly led to enigmas and downright contrary observations and physics defying data. Because of the trend towards 'magic' evident in some of those conclusions a solution was found in the 'elegance' of certain 'mathemagical' theories, with the result being that many theoretical physicists are making further forays into metaphysics, or for that matter deep into the 'nothing's real' school of thought.

This tendency has devolved to the extent that postulations such as warped time and even stopped time as well as entropic energy 'stuff' moving around in the universe as a kind of 'stress energy tensor' causing gravity which is thereby determined to not be real, (I guess nobody's dropped a hammer on their toe recently) are somehow considered to be plausible concepts and this has been extended to the subjectivism of many a concrete objectivism and visa versa to the point where many even declare the universe to be made out of mathematics. duh! One you tube teacher in particular utilizes faulty arithmetic in a puerile attempt to demonstrate how mathematics itself prevents travel at faster than 'c'! Show me some math that produces a real force which actually causes motion and I'm your man.

The purpose of this website is to offer a comprehensive and plausible theory which allows me (your humble theorist) to try and drag those physicists back from such diabolically unscientific ends by presenting a fact fitting substantive particle theory; a theory which is not only empirically legal but one which answers to most of the questions floating around out there and even some that aren't. One question, whilst being answered outright in the tendered thesis, simultaneously derived a very likely structure and function for the Higg's boson which in turn solves an extremely important yet previously unknown mechanics missing in the standard model. (See above for a possible hint.)

This extended symmetry quantum model was only able to be theorized while struggling to unify the standard quantum model with G-theory in the thesis. This was because of the different but convincing 'particle structures' model prescribed by G-theory which (as you can see from the stop press tag) was pretty well substantiated by mass summed exactitude in line with the known mass values and predictions of the standard model. G-theory confirms that general Higg's mass predictions were correct to within the margin of error most of the scientists predicted! A proposed phenomenology of Higg's function relative to the exhibition of inertial mass in higher order atomic matter is also presented as a complete model fit to the featured extended symmetry quantum particle phenomenology.

I suppose that all began by sounding a tad ambitious   , then even presumptuous perhaps but at the end I guess you might even consider it all; astoundingly unbelievable. Be that as it may the answers were out there to be had. It was all there in the physics but only if you'd stumbled upon the right model to fit the jigsaw pieces to! I recommend it to you: G-theory is that model.

Contemporary theoretical physics has reached the end of its tether mainly because it is built on a foundation that is somewhat flawed. Not much, but enough for it to become progressively evident that the upper rows of bricks are becoming so noticeably crooked that a finished building is not at all a likely outcome. In fact some of the structure is already beginning to crumble. I'm mainly referring to relativity here but to its credit G-rel was only deemed necessary because Newton 'got it wrong' in the first place. He also erred in the derivation of E=mv2, which (proved in the thesis) error was carried over to E=mc2 by Einstein. Not only that, both of those physicists as well as other historical scientists at times inadvertently (or conveniently) disregarded other laws of physics.

G-theory proposes a fix for the quantum mass muddle* that particle physics has got itself bamboozled in. However G-theory can't work if the contentions and flaws evident in both classical and post Newtonian (new dark age) physics continue to either be ignored or remain unresolved, so a significant part of the thesis is involved in addressing and proving the pertinent assertations. An empirical solution to the unknown cause of mass is also forthcoming.

*It mightn't look like a muddle from in among the trees but it sure looks like it when contemplating the forest from the outside.

I'll leave Newton alone for now and continue by questioning Lorentz, Einstein and Poincare et al: The first thing they all ignored was the understanding that because we don't live in a perfect universe, the 'Nothing's perfect' law comes into effect. We can't expect perfect instantaneous energy conservation. We can't have perfectly infinite velocity or even observe a perfect annihilation time. Observed instantaneity of action apart from 'upon the application or cessation of a force' is impossible. We are also unable to envisage a particle with perfectly zero mass and this assertion is a departure from the standard model. Such perfection is only able to occur in an infinite universe with fully conserved energy and it's only to a theoretical universe like that which relativity can still only mathematically and (by consequence), only theoretically relate.

The relativistic math is essentially fine. The trouble is, we live in an imperfect and entropic universe and such perfect mathematics doesn't apply. With regard to S-rel we end up with a zero sum game in this finite universe. The only fairly useful solutions are Einstein's modified field equations. The pure relativistic forms are geodesic mathematical solutions and they don't prove the actual effectiveness of relativity as a real mechanics capable of producing any force or energy whatsoever. Mathematically even S-rel's energy solution is too perfect, without any entropic energy stress tensor at all. (Proof that it is entropic in the thesis)

The two relativities are at odds and Lorentzian math can even produce reverse time and it also act in violation of the Dirac four field. Having said that the relativistic math is fine for deriving the fine constant of hydrogen for example but that's not applied relativity; that's using known relativistic partial differential equations to work back basically by inverse square law to find the proportion of loss relating to the slower than 'c' electron in the finely divided electron orbitals shell divisions, so that's not relativity per se. The inverse square law is as common as spuds in the universe. That doesn't prove that relativity is capable of doing what we might think. This all means that applied S-rel is disallowed within the universe by the laws of thermodynamics and G-rel is discredited for ditto and a lack of any reasonable mechanics.

I will be arguing that the so called other fictitious forces which are dragged out and prettied up as a transparent 'fit up' precedence for the relativistic 'fictitious gravitational force' are really either actual inertial forces or simply observational relativity at best. Schrodinger's equation gets a thumbs down for overt generalizations. Refer to the thesis for proof of sleight of hand assumptions.

While I'm at it: S-relativity is so non empirical it derives laws for itself without any experimental observations at all and with usually just one supporting notion. That's science??

"No biggie... just a few technicalities," you might say. Perhaps you're fond of the idea of time travel or being able to contemplate the extended idea of warping space to propel a space craft and perhaps taking it even further to find wormholes for intergalactic space travel. Unfortunately unless someone can actually prove that there is an actual geodesic which is able to generate a real force and even worse (because of its requirement for proof) figuring out some physical phenomenology, then I don't really think much of your chances!

What's wrong with a fictitious force phenomenology? ---you might ask. Yeah well you've already got that in G-rel gravity phenomenology. You might consider that to be acceptable but I would add; only if you like the idea of the promised fictitious 'goodies' but last time I looked, we all seemed to live in a physical universe of real forces.

The stress energy tensor (warp) became added to the space time warp G-rel theory once it was finally admitted that neither of those space or time warp conditions were able to produce any 'actual' force as causality for gravity. Unfortunately the GR stress energy tensor also treats energy as some nebulous conceptual 'stuff' and therefore fictitious as well. I can assure you that actual classical momentum is a fallacy and that is not shown to be the case by all that stooping to level of playing mind games with reference frames. Historical perpetration of the 'new-found' entropic-energy-tensor-gravity patch job has only resulted in sending science further away from empiricism and deeper into the realms of metaphisicism (my coined word).

Metaphisicism is describable as a school of thought which believes that energy, gravity and -unfortunately for that school, until the discovery of the Higg's boson- mass; are not caused by physical attributes of particles rather they are either caused by mathematical substitute in one case or by the motion and quantum mechanics wave function of matter in another theory. This -as well as gravity either now being supposedly caused by entropic energy imbalance, or by the retro space-time warping by a geodesic in motion or the more recently 'discovered' zero universe. This -is all either unscientific gobbledygook or just mathematical subjectivism derived from M-E equivalence theory which somehow equates matter and mass at the quantum level. Those are all complete and debunkable falsehoods. Apart from simple arithmetic, M-E equivalence can be disproved by the law of the conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system; it may only be converted from one form to another, including mass?!! WTH

A person unknown conveniently added that last bit to a commonly accepted law. Bad mistake! Reason being: Scientific experimentation has easily proved that you can pump thermal energy into matter without observing any change in its mass. So then; when any thinking person is forced to conclude that mass cannot be the same thing as matter -let alone energy- it becomes obvious that we need a new physics. Note: The thesis will disallow any appeal to Lorentzian physics to solve those 'mass' problems.

Energy is only trans-convertible with the motion of matter and not with mass per se, but that is only because energy is actually matter in motion and not just a concept of energy stuff moving around the universe. In relationship terms, temperature is actually the true concept whereas energy is not.

Energy is always derived as a measure of the value of the motion of particles or objects exhibiting mass which are undergoing spatial displacement (or have historically done so) over time. The only valid acceptance of energy as a concept is in the contemplation of quantum, mechanical and chemical potential energy as well as kinetic-potential energy; all of which are also potential force. However the E in E=mc2 is just a concept.

G-theory takes an immediate departure from quantum wave function physics, in that the kinetic and potential energies of a quantum system are considered to not be co-invariant with the mass and wave function of the system whether relativistic or not. This is in full acceptance of what we see in front of our very eyes rather than what we want to see (from a boost perhaps) and G theory rejects all theories from Lorentz through Kein Gordon and beyond. G-theory proves that the universe is made of particles and not waves. No the existence of waves travelling without a medium hasn't been proven. Have you ever heard of loci and perturbative/non perturbative particle interaction. Wave theory is highly suspect.

The real arbiter of motion leading to the recognition of energy is force. Regardless of whether we are evaluating a physical force or a virtual 'force at a distance' -from extreme near field perturbative force to far field forces, which are fundamental forces that are just QED or EMR extension of an object or body's single or summed perturbative presence- the empirical requirement is that force must be real. Virtual doesn't mean 'not real', 'fictitious' does. As for mass it doesn't exist in a theoretical object which is either in a state of rest or momentum, it only becomes exhibited when an object's state of motion changes as spatial displacement vector changes whether angular or linear! Note: ---temporarily disregarding internal particle motion states for reasons of simplicity.

Gravity is indeed a modified stress tensor and boy does it move. My calculations -yes it can be calculated by other methods- concur with van Flandern in that gravity travels at greater than 1e10 times 'c'*. That's a phenomenal velocity for gravity particles to move. What? ...Gravity particles? Where do they come from? That theory of Le Sage's is toast isn't it?

Sorry, but Le Sage didn't introduce us to perturbative transitional light scalar bosons did he? His 'bouncing particles' theory was easily debunked so nowadays it's really an overcooked relativity that's setting off the smoke alarm! Gravity is part of the entropic energy loop of the universe and the gravitational transitional particles derive from objects which have literally been hidden in plain sight -No; not stars or black holes, or weird morphing without energy conservation-. This idea of transitional particle gravity, lines up with what I just declared, and it is being proposed along with a comprehensively exhaustive but in the end, unifying phenomenology. The macro universe coincidentally gets a makeover as well. If gravity isn't what you think it is then such entities as black holes are unlikely to be what you think the are as well, and ditto quantum behaviour. (Hey There's not much difference)

It must be pointed out that others have coincidentally arrived at other particle transitional solutions but have either taken the idea into metaphisicism or some religion; either that or they have been unable to extend the theory into an enigma busting cohomology for physics per se. In order to comprehend transitional particle gravity it must first be understood that energy is only observable as the motion of particles within our physical universe and that gravity only has energy by that reason and any proposed mechanics must uphold the laws of thermodynamics, even in the quantum world.

Armed with the kinetic actions of an unimaginable quantity of particles travelling at similarly unimaginable velocity, as well as being accompanied by a model fitting and plausible phenomenology to unlock the mysteries of the universe; the very enigmatic dark energy and mass become easily explainable. In fact there is then no longer any quandary to explain. As well as that; objections will be answered from science and not by opinion or assumption. Quantum physics also gets a makeover as well as a defined and 'solid' connection to the entropic universal energy loop.

Where are the professional sceptics when you want them? They want everything to be physical don't they? They'll normally come down hard on the metaphysical but it looks like that's only when religion declares miracles but not when science does! Funny that.

The miracles currently noticed in quantum physics are herein removed by relevant and unifying phenomenologies but only if cause can be shown as to why the laws of the universe are conditional and subservient to a priori higher generational laws. This includes one often neglected law which is based on the third law of thermodynamics, and that is the 'nothings perfect' law.

There are four or five fundamental questions which physics has yet to answer or find a solution for. The extended symmetry G-theory model being offered for your study confidently proposes to have answered and solved those enigmas. They are as follows.

 

1/ Provide a cohomology between quantum theory and general relativity---

You might think that's impossible! That's like saying smash your cell phone against the wall and unify the mysterious parts with quadratic equations! However I've gone one better and unified both normal and dark mass/energy and gravity with the other fundamental forces at both the quantum and cosmological level and thus deriving a cohomology. This is achieved under the general auspices of the reinterpreted parts of the standard quantum model, quantum mechanics -to a limited degree- and G-theory multiplicity. This will remove the need for fanciful 'straw clutching' models such as SUSY and relativistic as well as string theories. M-theory and 'zero universe' theory have parts which are tantalizingly close to G-theory yet--- so very far away.

 

2/ Resolve the problems at the foundational level of quantum mechanics...

This I have achieved by the G-theory multiplicity model itself. Just a note here: Quantum mechanics, like many theories that have come and gone has been helpful in deriving ideas which do have a real place in physics. However the basic premise is flawed and it can only lead to alternate realities. the foundational flaw is that Heisenberg derived an observational uncertainty principle and then ridiculously applied that to real world actions.

If you look through some rotating blades on a windmill for instance and consider that there is some uncertainty about the reality of actions taking place behind the blade: "I can't see behind," is one thing but to state that the blocking of observability by the blade removes the reality or changes the reality is quite another. This then becomes akin to the reasoning that nothing exists behind a wall you can't see behind, or other such bizarre notions.

This flaw has led to the strange and miraculous attachment of wave function physics to quantization and Planck's constant etc when other more rational solutions are available such as G-theory.

Because of very real 'windmill blade type' observational restrictions at the microscopic quantum level the uncertainty principle suggests that the more we can observe about the momentum of an object the less we can observe regarding it's position and visa versa. With the help of Bohr and Schrodinger et al this was changed to declare that by accepting the loss of observational information regarding either of these values then the other value becomes actually affected in reality. To me that is an absurdity, and while I'm at it the stupid cat is dead!

 

3/ Unify the various particles, forces and energies as a single fundamental unity---

This is asking for the formula for everything; which I think is an unnecessary and daunting task. The equations of classical physics and ones which I have developed in the body of the work are all circularly inter-relatable*. I guess they could be expanded out to one huge equation but many of the values of terms are unknown and some of the equations go off on tangents not yet closed. I have calculated the upper limits of universal temperature, the energy of light, gravity, a quantum and a nucleon. I have also related the quantum integer principle (QIP) to ohms law and proved PEP/QIP to be a law at the fermion level. I have derived the equation for the universal energy loop; developed the true energy formula for both the molar and atomic mass relationships with temperature and gravity. -not ME equivalence-. I have equated the mass defect to gravitational energy loss per nucleon. This is still not M-E equivalence because I have calculated the actual total energy in an atom at STP to be -an actual value- more than a thousand times greater than its ground state energy; plus much much more.

I will just have to take a sabbatical and come back and attack the formula for everything one day. I honestly hope somebody else beats me to it! I can see it there in the list of equations on the relevant page.

 

4/ Provide an explanation for dark energy and dark matter...

This I have achieved by the multiplex model of G-theory and the required entropic particle energy loop.

 

There is another fundamental question regarding the free constants in the standard model which queries the reasons why nature selected these constants and even why we appear to live in a matter universe when it could have just as easily been an antimatter universe? The answer for that last stupid bit of the question is that if we had an antimatter universe then we would actually be referring to it as matter and the alternative which was matter before then becomes antimatter. Circular reasoning!

Some of the latter I've given fair reasons for in the thesis but other questions regarding those constants become a bit like asking, which came first the chicken or the egg? Now because I don't profess to really know any one thing to its fullest extent let alone everything, some of these questions might just have to remain unanswered.

If some questions are completely unanswerable, why should that be problematical? Those fundamental questions we must leave in the realm of God. In the thesis, we can almost make out the finger of God as depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel but the secrets he wants to keep to himself, I guess he'll keep.

It looks like I've only arrived at the periphery of the theory of everything. My theory should be seen to differ from others who also hold to certain aspects featured in G-theory in that I truly believe I have presented the models and assertations in an empirical and classical-physics relative, legal and logical manner.

Having blown off the last question like I did, I'll now come back and let you in on a little secret: I have suggested another solution which begins with... "Nature can't be personified like that. Nature didn't select anything. That's not science so yo'all deserved the answer you got!" There is however a natural 'one way' cause and effect solution which is presented in the thesis.

 

Well I took that sabbatical and ended up with a result which was all the time staring me in the face within the body of the work. Now with human nature being what it is; everyone wants 'the formula' for everything but even so, they all stand ready with a glass of 'giggle juice' in case anyone ever suggests they might have discovered it.

I have definitively derived an electrodynamic energy equation which relates the speed of gravity with the speed of light, so firstly we have an equation which includes the terms y, c, G, mass/weight, the meter, the second (velocity and acceleration by force), Sg, temperature, the Joule, C and s*. When further related' the Joule ties QIP to ohms law 'current and power' which is further relatable to mechanical energy by the Joule. Another extension relates C with intra nucleon degrees of freedom (DOF) which relates thermal energy to matter but not mass**, the mole and nuclear DOF, the mass defect and SBE/SBF. This is all generally a tie up of Newtonian physics extended to the quantum level, with deference to Coulomb and Avogadro in particular. Another thermal energy extension allows sub quantum masses to sensibly relate to nucleon mass.

As is the case with any large equation; apart from the constants, variants are used for the circumstances at hand and the use of some terms precludes the use of others which become conditionally inferred but the whole is still circularly related.

*The 'fine' (entropy) constant. The other constants are just derivatives of the intractability of the relationship between these basic terms and the laws of thermodynamics . Note also: gaseous pressure is an off shoot.

**Mass is to energy as temperature is to heat.

 

I'm not about to reveal the formula here. It's not all that daunting and clearly presented along with fact fitting results in the thesis. You should be able to search it out. If you have any trouble you may contact me for an earnest discovery tour.

Some of you will have a ball with the theory. Some will just toss the ball back, and some will not want to play ball at all. I've just batted it into the park. Go catch! There are plenty of deniable postulations to deny. Why; I even provide suggestions for experiments that can refute my theory.

 

WARNING! 1300 ODD PAGES OF OPSIMATHIC THESIS AHEAD!

Yeah I know; very odd! My recommendation for you is to read the introduction book first.

Why not order it now? It's free, and confidentiality is assured.

P.S. Deriving the hopefully correct theory of everything has steered me in directions which resulted in the discovery of other interrelated patterns and forms within the natural world of physics. For instance did you know that it stands to reason that the molecular crystalline structures are related to a lower fundamental matrix structure of nucleons in a given nucleus and that this also helps derive some of the characteristics of the elements? Did you also know that the atom is digital? Did you also know that atoms have a memory?

*Did you also realize that the speed of light is determined within a nucleon because of it's reading of gravity data? Did you also know that the speed of gravity is found by the relationship equation  y=c/G m.s? (Note: big G provides a workable relationship but the true relationship equation is provided in the full presentation.

That's 4.495e18 m.s or 1.498e10 times the speed of light (concurring closely with van Flandern). Don't worry about the supposed laws of relativity you'll get used to this new theory. Surprisingly this means that G is derived from c/y. What a profoundly simple relationship. Of course if that can be substantiated you should  be able to realize that an energy formula will be derivable because 'y' is then proportionally related to ' g ' by F=m. g... etcetera, etcetera. you could drive that into the whole of physics yourselves but you don't have to; I've already done it for you. You should also be able to see the profundity; in that light and gravity form the universal entropic energy loop. Note 'y' is local and not a constant so we can therefore derive the speed of gravity in any gravitational situation and once we have the speed then---

Here's a little tidbit from the thesis for the astro- and fusion physicists. Note: Graviton creation from photon 'collisions' is considered to be the phenomenology behind the otherwise magical ability of laser light to transfer a force with sufficient inertia to cause inertial confinement fusion in a deuterium pellet. This is the same phenomenology that causes fusion in stars. Next time you fire up your fusion reactor it might be an idea have a gravimeter around the place!

Express your interest in procuring a copy of the presentation today via the contact link.

 

QUESTION: Where did the theory of relativity come from and do we need it today?

 

A little tongue in cheek prose.

Did you know how the idea of relativity came about and how the very requirement for it in theories going forward actually prevents its application to today's models of the atom?

I'll explain: Back in the day when Adam was a lad, atoms were just beginning to be understood and the thinking was that electrons orbited around the nucleus like planets around the sun but at almost the speed of light. Now you don't have to have much of a brain to realize that if the electromagnetic fields coming out of an electron are travelling at the speed of light as well as the electron then that's gonna make it impossible for the atom to know where its electron is and for the electron to even be able to orbit at all. Orbits require real time forces like a ball whizzing around on a string.

Gravity has that problem in the current relativistic model but that's another story. So in regard to the electron; a guy called Lorentz gave an ear to Maxwell's suppositions and decided that the universe must somehow let the electron act like it's standing still even when travelling at hyper velocity. This was so its fields could come out at, like, real time speeds and all would be well.

He concluded from where he sat (in what might in hindsight be seen to be false assumption land) that if this wasn't the case then the whole atom thing couldn't work. Rather than doing the smart thing and questioning the model, Lorentz set about making up some brilliant mathematical equations (well partial differential equations actually) that let time contract with speed between reference frames and of course somehow emr is exempt by assumption of necessity.

So out of that came the Lorentz invariance for emr and his transformation for universal motion and Einstein jumped on that and simplified it by only considering reference frames between moving bodies. Whether right or wrong, this was all necessary in the progression of the physics and those scientists were intellectual giants with prodigious abilities and far reaching solutions and their legacy is in no way being besmirched.

I won't go into the dim dark corners of that conceptual nightmare to argue the point here or the protagonists will just use one relativity to prove the other and I'll look like a fool and I really don't want anyone to know.

So we'll get back to atoms and stuff: When we come to the modern atomic models where relativity is not required to hold electrons in planetary orbits the old idea of relativity is standing in the way of new physics and it actually prevents electrons from getting down through the orbitals of atoms to make any connections possible. This is because the electron is almost without mass and if it runs into an atoms outer shell magnetic field line it will come to an abrupt stop and go no further.

The only way to overcome this -and avoid running into another relativistic theory coming from inside the atom by a bloke called Dirac which is being applied for the four fields of the nucleus in the opposite direction- is to reject relativity altogether and allow the electron to be approaching the atom at hyper velocity with its electromagnetism now hanging out the back -at some very small dragged angle- or it won't get in. The relativistic model was called invariance but in this normal case we have some variance as slight as it may be. This slight variance is actually caused by something else which has been demonstrated in the Sagnac experiment and is another subject.

With variance the electron can now conditionally poke its nose (so to speak) deep into the atom's orbitals before the atom even knows it's there. After a short time the atom gets the message at the speed of light and it sends a signal to check the intruder as well as its own orbitals to see if the electron is useful or not and also check its quantum state to organize a seating if necessary and legal.

While all this is going on the electron's factors have caught up to the atom's factors lickety split and the electron has finally been brought to a stop and it is now within the atom's orbitals but not confirmed. If that seems a bit far fetched you should understand that there are even rules for an atom's own seated electrons as far as their internal movements are concerned.

Anyway the electron tries to make itself at home. It's wobbling around a bit on some tenuous resultant-nuclear-factors because of this nuclear variance and it notices that all the other electrons are 'gett'n' jiggy with it' as well. The newcomer takes some comfort in that and thinks it's got itself a nice cushy gig in a dynamic system so it starts to get more comfortable, settling in further, seeking a relationship for it's factors with those of the host when suddenly the magnetic line of force it was hanging out with suddenly loops towards the outer, taking the poor old electron with it. The force line does a full twist behind the unsuspecting electron and when it touches its loops together it separates like the magnetic lines in a solar flare and the snapping force of separation ejects the electron from the orbitals.

Now the poor electron can't understand this so he asks the question on the way out only to be told that his quantum state wasn't right because all the positions were take up and to come back next week "we're always lookin' for new electrons but not today. "On the way out another electron got knocked off by mistake and was now disappearing into the distance at a great rate of knots, but right when our electron was about to do a u-turn to make the most of this unexpected turn of luck he was really peeved to see a different electron zoom in and take the other one's place in exactly the same way our poor displaced fermion had done when arriving before.

He sat around half expectantly and watched for a while until he finally realized (after he noticed the new electron getting turned around, flipped and rotated to fit in, with lots of hand shaking and back slapping) that this new and lucky 'neg-one' had been accepted by the nucleus while he hadn't!

Not exactly bedtime story fare for the kids but from our more serious point of view we should understand that relativity would have prevented any reception into an atom from occurring in the first place and it should now be obvious that atom dynamics actually requires force frame dragging relative to the velocity of motion and not relativistically fixed between reference frames which would produce a rigid model. In the real world the theory of force frame dragging is never a problem because we never travel anywhere near the speed of light and it is partially helpful for stabilizing the orbits of planets so we surely don't want to get rid of it.

In the G-theory thesis I have found the fourth quantum state without requiring any angular momentum, as well as providing a fact fitting model for orbitals which doesn't require relativity for it it work. In fact I have derived a legally strict, empirical and plausible model of everything; all without relativity. If you start with dark age physics you'll end up with dark age results which is exactly the position post Newtonian physics finds itself in right now. It might be post Newtonian but from where I sit they could both be in the same old-folks band called 'Post mortem'! Using relativity as a solution to physical realities is invalid. It is just a mathematical model definer whereby the result is often but not always the mirror image of the reality. That's OK just swap signs. Ta dah! WTH

Don't worry I haven't forgotten about GPS, synchrotrons, muons, mu-mesic data, the hydrogen fine structure or the Dirac four field/Lorentz invariance violation or the flawed Dirac connection to the Schrodinger equation which is supposedly unifying relativity and quantum physics. After all, I've still got a 'killer-page' thesis to deal with all that, but it beats me how a flawed quantum model is considered capable of being unified with a fancifully applied Lorentzian relativity.

Another Misconception

Another misconception of physics needs to be cleared up. There is no way that Maxwell or Lorentz could measure the speed of electrical and magnetic fields for Einstein to conclude that they produced emr which travelled at the same speed as light, which must therefore be an emr. Note: There have been experiments which have attempted to establish the emr build velocity but they are inconclusive at best. refer to. The most profound error tab.

Another assumption is that electric fields are made of some sort of charge particles and magnetic fields consist of ditto magnetic particles, or one and not the other, or both differently relative to the reference frame of observation. It's becoming more obvious to a 'suspicious of grandpa's wild imaginings' new generation that it's all just ludicrous clap trap. I don't go that far but I don't need to have some sort of more exotic mind than the masses who can't grasp such elevated thought. I can grasp it all right and I know what I want to do with it sometimes.

Do you sense a hint of frustration at blind intransigence to the status quo. Where are all the oblique thinkers? If you don't think I've got a valid propriety to my reasoning that the status quo needs to be questioned then why not go straight to the Newton 's blunders tabs and then come back with your opinion.

There are no magnetically perturbative electric charge particles that do not posses magnetic dipoles. The assumptions of the early physicists are products of their time when magnetic fields were thought to thread through holes in objects yet that historically related wild unscientific assumption is still held to this day. On top of that Maxwell thought that charge could be instantaneously be applied to a plate. If that's the case. I'll scrap this whole theory. The fact is that charge takes time to appear on a plate. The very first electron like all the rest must travel at the speed of light so there must be a delay. That mistake is why Maxwell developed his equation to calculate the speed of light. The speed of light is associated with pi. That's all. (Control H z in the thesis. Also refer to the Lorentz, Maxwell's errors atb)

Surely we've come a long way since then in other understanding as well. Hopefully by now we should understand that magnetic fields don't affect or cause any electrical phenomenon in space including propagating electromagnetic waves without a medium. Surely an electric field is not somehow forced by a magnetic field and visa versa. Go on prove it in a vacuum! Surely an electron is not a virtual point charge particle. If it is then how is it different to any other point charge particles that you might conceive of? Where does it get its charge if it's just a point? How does a proton have a charge if it isn't derived in the same manner?

It seems that just like physicists of yore the modern variety are just as brainwashed by the current traditional thought that they risk being historically patronized if not ridiculed by future scientists--- not for their mistakes but for their dogma. Such subservience to tradition leads to very expensive experiments based on flawed assumptions typified by the ones I have just mentioned. Add in another supposition which assumes that it's gravity that bends light around bodies and you end up with someone perhaps measuring the speed of radio waves from quasars and calling that the speed of gravity. It has happened. Beats me how that measurement can be achieved in any case?-- Doppler assumptions I guess.

I'm referring to the experiment carried out to test the speed of gravity which many other proofs demonstrate to be much faster than 'c'. The imaginative experiment was carried out by Sergei Kopeikin, professor of physics and astronomy at the university of Missouri-Columbia USA in 2002. I'm not qualified to declare his results but I do suspect they might be questionable.

Sure I've only got mind experiments to offer but unlike the conceptualy-assumption-distorted 'moving magnet and conductor problem' of electrodynamics I've got a mass of sizzling new logical and fact fitting physics which doesn't need mind bending contortions to get confused with. If the old farts don't want to know about it though, I guess fresh young inquiring minds who suspect they might have been getting the short end in college might not be so jaded.

Don't get me wrong: Most physicists do depend on the sum of prior knowledge and a priori principles, and most are productively engaged in many diverse experiments and imaginative projects. Most of those don't have time to think about this stuff; they are busy attempting to prove or deny the physics they have. The cosmologists and quantum mechanics are the ones caught in a pickle. They are the ones who should be questioning the status quo in a confrontational and unbiased manner. It appears that almost to a man they are biased and they don't even know what their bias is. I'll tell them by way of generalization. They have sacrificed reason by elevating mathematics to the level of a god. Mathematics unfortunately is a god which is interpretive and which can lead you astray.

They have wasted their time on evolutionary cosmology and warped thinking; all the while ignoring God, Tesla, and the possibility of economical power and other technological possibilities. They have turned everything (including self evident impossibility regarding origins) upside down. We used to have a word to describe people like that, and it wasn't 'intelligent'!

 

 

neuvophysics.com