G-THEORY

PRIMER

 

 

WARNING INTENSELY CONVOLUTED AND OBLIQUE THINKING LEADING TO A SURPRISING FINAL CONCLUSION--- SUSY theorists might like to take a peek at this.

 

The rationale behind G-theory without any phenomenological implications for the classical physics which don't keep jurisprudence with the laws of that physics at the higher atomic orders of matter.

 

CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT WHICH LED TO G-THEORY

 

1/There must be an aether or some other propagation medium for light and emr because

2/Relativity is provably pseudoscience therefore

3/Light speed must be anisotropic therefore

4/There must be something wrong with the mechanics of the experiments that show a negative result for anisotropy therefore

5/The wave nature of light and reflection mechanics must be suspect.

6/The only possible medium for light propagation must be gravity itself therefore

7/Gravity must operate by a particle flux which can't be observed so its actions must occur within the vacuum.

8/The proposed phenomenology for gravitational force requires that particles must be able to occupy the same space time, and such a necessity has a precedent with light, and also because it is necessary for particles to be able to pass right through each other in particle and atomic physics there must be…

9/multidimensional spaces in the vacuum.

 

Lorentzian relativity is provably wrong also therefore

10/ There must be something wrong with the science which led to the supposition that electrodynamics have a field build rate at 'c'

11/ It has been herein shown that Newton erred with gravity and Maxwell erred with the analysis of the build velocity of fields.

That is just the beginning of the reasoning which has led to the homology being presented as G-theory. Once those problems are dealt with then many other problems surface -both old and new- which are easily able to be solved with the new multiplex tensor multidimensionalism.

 

 

QUESTIONING THE MATH

Beware of mathematics! It can derive real solutions and insane ones. If you religiously hold to its subjectivisms you risk the latter fate. Ideas of holographic, zero, or multiple universes/realities are spawned from such pandering to mathematics and a kind of fawning subservience to post Newtonian centuries old physics. If Mr Dawkins is looking for myths to trash he might do much better looking in his own back yard.

We are all familiar with E=mc2... How about the extended version?..

E2=m2c4+ p2c2

...which should really be in terms of E and not E2. All terms bar one should not be in that equation at all if it's to be an active energy equation because they are concepts (qualitative) and have no true values, and that includes the squared functor unless there is understanding of the imminent relationship with time*. The others are m, p and E, E is an instantaneous evaluation similar to the watt. The concepts of energy and power (not momentum which has a component of kinetic energy) are the same thing. The two truly become quantitative as being similar, in w/s or J/s and the only applicable substantive value is in (impergy) or energy per second. I know the formula only relates to the quantum world; patience I am going there.

*The 'c' in the equation is not the time relationship (velocity); it is a constant. Time relationship would be E/sec or d/s. The 'm' doesn't matter so long as the time is related to any qualitative term to give it a quantitative value. There is no time in that equation so we can put some in.

 

FINDING THE TIME

However while 'c' is just a fixed constant which could be just 3e8, E cannot be squared multiplied or transposed in a more complex equation of other terms. It is limited to E.t=m.c2    E.sec=m.c2/1sec   In reality c is the distance per time--- being d/sec as spatial displacement of a photon in one second at 'c'. So we have c=d/t so E.sec =m/t.d/t.d/t--- E.sec=m/t.d2/t (t=1) Instantaneous E=m.d2. Velocity has got nothing to do with it. It's only the fact that 'c' is thought to be constant that it is legally able to supplant d/sec but then the underlying concept becomes changed and the formula must stand alone.

Now mass is also a concept. (show me a mass outside of an object deemed to possess it) So the whole equation is made up of concepts except for 't' and 'd' which are dimensional measures, and all this squaring stuff is pretty arbitrary. It all began with E=mv2 which I have soundly debunked in the thesis. However E=mv is OK because 'v' is a variable and provides the time component.

This is somewhat arguable I guess and not that important per se. I just needed to bring out the idea of concepts in equations and that energy is not just some instantaneous value of some nebulous stuff that is indirectly proportional to mass just because it's on the other side of a line on paper. You need to conclude the requirement for E/second but you can't have mass per second so 'E' and 'm' are not transferable even in inverse proportionality. The two are incompatible terms. No matter how long it takes, the Joule is still relatable as energy per second.

Momentum p is also a concept. p is the concept of; at rest with respect to change of motion. p is a frame referencing 'ring in' which some even erroneously equate to the energy (it only ever contains kinetic energy) of E=mc2.In fact all objects are at rest with reference to their moving reference frame. When objects collide it matters not which was deemed to have any value of motion (including p) or Ek at all. The collision occurs as a collision between reference frame vectored velocities. None of the objects have any different (particle specific) value of energy because all objects are always at rest with respect to the moving reference frame and no energy transcends the bounds of one reference frame to another.    Note 1: So    p     cannot be a component of the energy equation. 2: The reference frames of macro objects are notional.

G-theory contends that true    doesn't exist in classical physics in an empirical sense although its conceptual use for day to day understanding is clear. Also in quantum mechanics/physics its function is taken over by either wave statistics or E=hf which even applies to the linear component of motion because linear motion simply changes the waveform and linear motion (spatial displacement) of a vibrating particle doesn't actually exist. The wave is just the locus of the particle motion relative to spatial displacement! 

Under the same modelling but with a different viewpoint the photon doesn't move and gain energy. It is the reference frame which is in motion and the photon is always at rest just like everything else. It is actually having it's packet of sub bosons transported by universal entropy law.

The reference frames are always passing through each other. Energy is exhibited when an object in one reference frame is dragged within the frame by another object in a passing RF and ditto is the result. The frame decelerates in line with the occupant and this is considered to have been forced by (particle/object/body) integrity resolution. Macro objects distort the actions of the frames and cause deflections.

Imagine that two reference frames of the lowest value of fundamental particles collide. What happens to them is totally subjugated by the a priori relationship between the reference frames relative to other multiplex universal reference frames and energy conservation (for parity) is the priority of the laws that govern their interactions at the fundamental level.

Fundamental particle reference frames are diverse stress tensors which may have no connection whatsoever so the particles can be conditionally declared to pass through each other. Some RFs have a mutual or unilateral perturbative relationship with the intuitively likely outcome. Some different particles share the same stress tensors with an infinite number of possible reference frames.

As the particles are conjoined into higher level particles/objects the stress tensors associated with them now have variable relationships with other stress tensors and they consequently lose the characteristics of their fundamental nature unless they are conjoined with another stress tensor which has the required characteristic as well. The characteristics are summative and individually limiting. Combined tensors only share limitations and not freedoms. Combination is phenomenologically entropic.

For example: In theory the stress tensor of an identifiable particle might have no notion of time while another has no notion of space. If the two become part of a greater structure then they must both abide by the full notion and limitations of space time in that situation. Only the smallest existing particles exclusively occupy the space time dimensionless tensor called the eos and that is the smallest non vanishing particle being the uni-racial trion which goes by other quantum particle names relative to the variability of characteristics of  any other tensors it may be coexisting in at any given time. This means that it's not the particle which has characteristics it's the tensors. Fundamental particles are able to be forced to cross boundaries (branes) to other tensors in which case they could be seen to just vanish or morph after a fleeting decay.

 So energy is the function of the motion of the stress energy tensor relative to the motion of all other tensors except the eos. The potential for energy per time is calculable by the relative motion of the stress energy tensor and the other tensor reference frames and not with respect to the URF except for the eos. The relative motion of the energy tensor is the average of the motion of all the tensors and this motion may be different to the URF. For example if a host of galaxies are in outward motion at the edge of the universe then the stress energy tensor is also in a relative average motion in the same direction with reference to the URF. This means that the energy interactions between the moving galaxies will remain the same as if they were at rest. they might have momentum but the potential for collision dynamics is a vector relationship of their average motion.

Otherwise    if a large section of the universe is in motion (or if there is a small vibrating mass-less particle) then there will be a violation of E=mv and F=ma* because the component of relative motion with each of the parts has not been averaged. Any collision is relative to the reference frame of the objects in collision and to those objects the universe appears to be relatively stopped and that their RF of motion is the URF which is not the case. It is the stress energy tensor which appears to be stopped and relative but then the ERF will have relative motion with reference to the URF.

*Here are the points where Newtonian physics and quantum physics diverge and E=hf begins to rule.

 

FUNDAMENTAL NOTE

Einstein himself removed the idea of a universal reference frame but only because of its association with some kind of aether. He was also well aware that special relativity was simply an observational tool with which to calculate the predictions of energies through the motions in different inertial frames of reference. Please read the following website page---

http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/einstein/special.html from the Franklin insitute.

SR has been turned into a ridiculous farce because the speed of light is also now not declared to be a universal reference frame (URF) constant and we end up with absurd notions such as that of time travel. G-theory contends that there is a URF when it comes to the propagation of light. There is an explanation in the thesis. Inertial reference frames are real observer-specific observational interactions.

When it comes to light emission from a set of moving bodies we have a problem if 'c' is a constant in the relative reference frames. If they are all moving in lockstep then the speed of light between them will appear the same and to the energy stress tensor it will also appear the same but not with respect to the URF. How does this affect light emanating from a distant source which is at notional rest at the center of the universe. It leaves at 'c' and arrives at greater than 'c'. That light is now at 'c' relative to the URF but not to the -for instance earth reference frame (ERF)- so we must ask: Has that light lost energy? Yes because energy is relative to the ERF and not the URF. Where did the energy go?

Nowhere; because light is not carrying energy but sub-sub fundamental particles of matter which were never reduced. However the energy appeared to be lost because the waveform has appeared to have been stretched relative to the (moving away) ERF. So light is always travelling at 'c' relative to the URF but not to other motional reference frames. This means that the emission speed of light is only 'c' with reference to the URF and variable with reference to any individual RF and even slightly variable with reference to a moving ERF.

If the outer galaxies were moving away at close to the speed of light and the ERF relatively ditto, this would mean that the light would gradually lose energy with reference to that frame and their light to each other would be so stretched -in photons per second- that it wouldn't even be seen. This must occur in the reverse direction also and in that case if the galaxies are travelling out at a realistic speed then the last we would see of them would be red. So it stands to reason that red is a lower energy than white etc.

This is Doppler shift explained as a perceived energy reduction/increase rather than      just       an optical phenomenon. This is also supportive of the contention that light has variable emission velocity relative to the moving RF. This explanation also shows the infinitely variable velocity relationship between selected reference frames and there is no energy loss between them because they don't actually exist as physical entities but as cosmean* law/ data transporters. The cosmean data is quantum particles, namely gauge bosons.

We see it all as energy transportation whereas the cosmea sees it as information for entropy control. This data is obtained by the eos which regulates the universal energy return loop and quantum entanglement management. If you thought the universe was just running on blind energy. I have a completely different take on that. There is intelligence but for most purposes it is built in and the cosmea runs on its own a priori laws. These laws are revealed in the thesis. This variable ERF-URF relationship is the reason why there are galaxies in the universe and not just a quark gluon plasma.

*Cosmean: The stress tensor of the outer non universal cosmos. It is interwoven with the universe in amazing ways.

 

You might think there is an energy violation here because the photon lost energy and no actual work was done. Not at all. If you think that objects travel through the universe carrying various quantities of energy related to their mass and velocity then you would be wrong. Kinetic (all) energy is actually potential force (a property of matter and not mass) and it is related to the velocity between any two selected reference frames with one frame being arbitrarily related to the object under consideration. If we switch reference frames that have a different relative velocity between then the conceptual value of energy will change accordingly. Hence energy is only a notion. So in the case of the photon which has very infinitesimal mass, the mass is not related to its velocity as per E=mc2; it is related to the velocity of the selected reference frame as well and if the reference frame is accelerating away (as in the case of the ERF) as the photon approaches, then the notional energy with reference to that frame will change accordingly.

This can be explained by imagining that you are on a train: You are walking in the carriage and you perceive that your velocity with reference to the carriage is such that if you bump into an object on board the train then you would feel a certain minimal energy solution. If however you stuck your head out the window and the train was travelling at a fair clip and your head struck an object next to the track then the energy solution wouldn't be pretty. Did your body suddenly gain more energy depending on which reference frame you were addressing. It sure did; because energy is only a notion. However in the world of classical notions of motion relative to the reference frame of the earth we don't have to consider such aberrations of thought and you are not to be blamed for thinking the intuitive notion. It's amazing how intuition can let you down. (Consider pull and push gravity!)

Every object does actually have a total amount of notional energy relatable to mass and that is with 'state of motion' reference to the universal reference frame. We can define this as E=m.v o

v o =vURF +- vERF  (v o is relative object velocity). Now we will relate all this to E=mc   2   . So we must now consider that 'c' is either just a constant like I previously declared (and the equation shown at the beginning is therefore bogus) so it must be a velocity. If it is declared as a velocity then the photon's energy becomes subject to the same solutions as just described which makes E in the equation variable without any change in the actual speed of light or its mass. That is ridiculous. However this is made even worse if 'c' is made to be a reference frame constant without relationship with the URF as Einstein has done in S-relativity*; and even worse when it is removed by some devious sleight of hand to derive E=m by a prior relationship of terms that computes an algebraic result with non relatable terms such as time (per se) distance and interval being time2-distance2  without any terms of    velocity---    assumed to be 'c'.

*In that case we have notionally different energies relative to each reference frame. It's true: energy is just a notion!

 

So at first a ludicrous situation develops for rest mass energy and it is  derived  in a way simplified like this: E becomes the mass of any object moving at 'c' and this then becomes transferred to an at rest object in a motional relative reference frame in the Minkowski space time. In this way E can equal anything you want really. What if your reference frames are travelling at 2c relative to each other? In any case you have to see a mathematical parlor trick otherwise we must conclude that if one of the equations is right then the other must be wrong. The rule is that two different equations of exactly the same form are unable to exist as a mathematical solution which obeys the laws of mathematics except by relativity of simultaneity in SR which is only observational and not real Therefore we must conclude.

 

CONCLUSION

We can now conclude that S-rel and E=mc   2     are incompatible and E=m is an absurdity built on a deception! So the  question  of logic becomes. There can be only one solution: Either S-rel is wrong or E=mc2 is wrong and E=m is right, or The first two are both wrong and E=m is right, or they are all wrong Answer. considering that E=m is comparable with E=mv as an illegal variant--- it must be wrong. therefore either one or the other of the first two or both, are wrong. Which is it?

Note: Considering the messiness of the whole MEE paradigm; I suggest both--- but in any case it should now be a logical conclusion that energy mass equivalence is a false idea.

Moving on...

The stress tensor of a photon has instantaneous acceleration capability but once the photon is bound to or within another object whose RF doesn't include that capability then the photon's tensor capabilities become entropied. Energy is the relative component of stress between tensors which are connected by binding forces at the point of objectivity. The forces rule the spaces between the RFs and when two RFs have a relative displacement shift then energy has been used but only because particles must have been involved in relatable IRFs. No force-no motion-no energy.

The forces spread the conceptual energy by causing relative displacement between other related tensors which have equivalent/different particles to the prior interaction. Whether or not that results in an effect similar to the causative effect is of no consequence. The conservation of energy is a natural occurrence because the tensors are all in motion relative to the universal reference frame (URF-ERF which is moving in all planes and directions carrying trions. The list of multiplex tensors in G-theory of which there are eleven plus time* includes the gravitational tensor with the namesake particles, gravitons. No particle- then no stress tensor. All forces have spatial reach of some description.

*This number was derived without collusion with M-theory.

 

Mass is derived when a force which fundamentally arises from the RF interactions for the conservation of energy (towards cosmic stability) causes the responsive action which is resisted by another tensor because of its relationship via the trion/anti-trion biracial particle (which in atomic matter is via the Higg's electroweak superstruct) to the eos (cosmic) stress tensor. Gravity is connected to the stress energy tensor via the eos and this also causes a constant exhibition of mass via that phenomenon. This is explained in far greater detail in the thesis.

So we have E/t=m.d/t or E=md The relationship of 'c' with energy is analysed elsewhere in the presentation book and it is proved to not be squared. The reason that a great deal of energy is realized has nothing to do with the speed of light which is just a reflection of the standard propagation speed of light and emr outside of the eos. The reason is because of the binding forces which are themselves constrained to act at a similar speed as 'c'. It all becomes squared in the whole because the universe isn't flat, it has three physical dimensions and we notice the whole 3D 'shebang'. Any individual fundamental particle tensor and force is only acting on one plane relatable eigenvector. So for linear quantum motion (energy) E=mc2 isn't valid but E=md (and hf) is. Does that look the same as the classical Energy equation. Good because having two dissimilar equations containing the same terms is a faux par similar to the E=mad (sorry mgh) debacle demonstrated in the Newton's errors tab.

Note: three dimensional chemistry often demands E=mv2    and also E=mc2    if the speed of light is close to the actual propagation rate of the chemical/nuclear reaction.

Note also: E-mv is just E=md brought to terms of a second instead of one meter.

Having said that; whether the answers are right or wrong m=E/cis useful in quantum physics because it gives a definable and relatable value to an otherwise incalculable number. The quantum mass has no connection with classical mass except that conceptually they are both derived by the action of a force.

Energy and data is able to be transferred instantaneously across the universe in the eos without energy conservation violation because the reverse will simultaneously occur back to the source to complete the circle*. This might seem like a complete waste of time because no work was done and it would be an immeasurable action. Not so: Work is not associated with the energy of entropy in any situation. the energy which doesn't cause a rise in mass in macro objects is excused like this and in a way the excuse is right because that energy (particles) is removed from space time itself even though it is available back at the same position within the greater object when legally required.

The interactions outside of space time might be instantaneous but the transfers by forces across tensors takes time because of the sub quantum biracial force relationship which is directly related to Planck's constant and quantization, so we never see instantaneous energy transfer whatsoever. There is no such thing as instantaneous energy conservation or transmission. The eos has no notion of time just conservation and entropy but the branes are forced into quantization of action as well as the economy of action**.   Note: This is all apparent  weirdness  but it is exactingly explainable without any requirements for time, mathematical or other conceptually arduous mind warps. It is straight multiplex physics that anyone can understand without fooling their mental faculties. G-theory can only explain the inexplicable by the theorized existence of parallel dimensions (tensors; not realities or universes) which are interactive under jurisprudence. Brane definition - membranes between tensors. The smallest particles of matter saddle and traverse these branes but this takes force and that is the fundamental cause of mass. Others have cottoned onto this idea but they don't have a fact fitting mechanics either for the behaviour of the particles or the transfer of mass to higher order particles and macro  objects.

That idea happens to be more intuitive than space-time warping or irrational time disjuncts which take a significant amount of faith or capitulation to academic peer consensus. Such subservience to the status quo is not in the least a necessity because most folks simply can't actually conceptualize the relativity theories and they just learn the stuff to get a pass and carry on.

Now coming back to measuring quantum entanglement. The entanglement will cease to be observable once a measuring device is inserted because the energy conservation would be met in an immeasurable instant and the state will be normal again and entanglement will have become abrogated between the particles under evaluation. However as long as we can actually detect a state then we have data whether we sent it or not. The universe communicates instantaneously. Light has a purpose to be revealed in the book which is only weakly related to energy conservation across the universe. The requirement for rapid energy transfer is for at least one instantaneous -or at least a close to instantaneous- energy transporter. Note: Remember the notion is only regarding the motion of particles and not energy ‘stuff’ per se.

BBR* also has this function but both of those methods present delays. This allows temperature differences to exist which allows the existence of biological life. Entanglement only occurs when the eos is one of the tensors and it is reasoned that most other tensors abrogate the ability, otherwise energy conservation would be instantaneous and we would have a single temperature universe and no motion, because force would be likewise abrogated in very short order.

*In G-theory the term 'black body radiation' (BBR) is returned to sanity and it refers to non/sub photonic energy transfer, and the body may indeed be black. This is usually energy transfer over excruciatingly small distances and is a necessary component of convection.

These tensors know nothing of a Euclidean universe or time. Each RF tensor is itself an island. It is only involved in the 'program' under the cosmean laws. It occupies the same space time as other tensors. Time is just a juxtaposition of simultaneity but nevertheless action is 'now' and not ever 'then' relative to the present. Three dimensional structures are built by universal law of Euclidean bond arrangements caused by electromagnetic repulsions and attractions as well as gravity. Time is not a tensor; it is an intuitive constant. (Occam's razor anyone?)

Now this all starts to sound like the universe is some sort of massive computer. Yes; it is the only quantum computer so far invented, and yes we are constructed and held together via that computer which has a continuously running program. This doesn't make us not-real. If we walk in front of a bus we will pay the consequences because bonds are made to be broken and the eos can't patch that up. In comparison the 'zero universe theory' treats us as mathematical avatars. G-theory accepts that your body mind and spirit are real. We don't quite know how the body ticks yet, let alone the mind and spirit.

Questions might be raised considering the possibility that those latter fuzzy bits might actually be connected  to a greater or lesser extent to parts of the data stream. This might help explain the savant syndrome and higher order behaviours noted in some individuals of species than others. I did have to go and wax philosophical didn't I?

*The likelihood of this occurring over any great distance is statistically slim in any matter dense location. If two particles collided in deep space then quantum decay might occur and a sub particle/s might disappear into the eos to who knows where 'far far away' and return instantaneously as something else with a slightly noticeable delay which would only be caused by brane-tensor delay mechanics. Such a delay causes energy loss which would be simply reflected in the waveform of particle vibration. The eos instantaneously scavenges particles out of necessity. The eos acts as a data port for the universe. It never goes without particles for filling energy conservation requirements but conditionally when the tensors are accessible. This is all achieved by a programmed law. The eos doesn't think! It acts in response to data inputs and it outputs from the programmed cosmean processor to addresses.

**The idea that the economy of action which results in straight paths for the trajectory of particles (not subject to other forces) being caused by the waveform 'trying out' every possible path  and settling on the straight path because the wave function doesn't cancel, is likely to be considered ludicrous under the microscope of the full examination of such a process against what is observed in reality. Refer also to the section... Light wave or particle?

 

 

QUESTIONING LAWS

  Physicists and mathematicians have fundamentally different approaches to describing reality. The essential difference is that physicists adhere to certain logical principles, any violation of which would amount to a miracle; whereas the equations of mathematics generally are oblivious to physical constraints. This leads to drastically different views of what is, and what is not, possible for cosmology and the reality we live in. Physics that adheres to these logical principles is known as "deep reality physics". (Meta research    http://metaresearch.org

 

 

This might appear to be a fine policy and it is, up to the point of known knowledge but where knowledge is based only on assumptions and hypotheses then questioning laws and principles is valid so long as the questioning doesn't usurp the factually known jurisprudence of the law or principle. Some first hypotheses that are open for such conditional questioning are...

 

1/The first law of thermodynamics

The law is fine for closed systems. The questionable assumption with regard to the universe is that of an infinite universe that doesn't lose energy to the cosmea (external cosmos).

The assumption is invalid because it isn't provable and it is based on preconceived religious ideas of there being a certain finite and non entropic energy value for the universe.

The assumption that if the universe is not infinite that the enclosing space is an empty, infinite, involute of the outer universe which is non efficacious.

This also includes assumptions regarding black holes.

With regard to the first law it is possible that energy is escaping the universe at a rate determined by the G-theory particle-phenomenological entropic energy balance and that black holes are just parts of the comea (vacuum) existing within the universe. ---hence my name for the cosmos (vacuum)... cosmo-universe.

 

2/The second law of thermodynamics (entropy simply means disorder)

The second law of thermodynamics suggests that entropy is eagerly sought by the universe in that things naturally progress from low entropy systems to high or in other words from order to chaos.

This can only be a generalized law which is being usurped by fundamental interference. The rise of  order, complexity and life and even the sustenance of life point to an intelligent breach of the second law.

Another breach is in the fact that when some substances burn, the end products have formed stronger and more orderly bonds than the original substance so they have less entropy. This is a system which has been triggered to change entropic states which it then self energizes by oxidation which is an automatic reduction to a colder less entropic state which is in conflict with the law stating that entropy will always naturally increase. The second law suggests that the energy should go from a high entropic state to a low one but that in the process the end results should also be in a higher state of entropy.

The rise of living organized systems is a severe violation of the second law. The second law prohibits the spontaneous rise of life, let alone it's sustenance. However once you are born the second law begins to erode at the order until you eventually succumb to it's clutches. So we can consider that the law is not violated overall in time.

 

3/That time and space have symmetry and by reason can be transposed or at the very least can have symmetrical distortions of the co-invariant sort.

G-theory will promote the probability that the continuance of the rate of spatial displacement of the momentum state is not true and that space is full of gravity particles (hyper-velocity gravitons) while time is invariant and empty of impediments to rates. The two dimensions therefore are not compatible, and space drag is a physical phenomenon.

 

4/That electric and magnetic phenomenon are transposable.

This is disputed on the grounds that eo and uo are vastly different and any transposition of these would be an absurdity.

5/That there is a fourth dimension which provides electron orbital energy state data.

G-theory will show that the levels are digital harmonics of the interrelationships between g and form factors and these are also responsible for symmetry breaking. You can only envisage a forth dimension if one is required for support of another assumptive theory. Such a dimension is completely unnecessary.

6/That mathematics beautifully describes the wave function of matter and the behaviour of the universe.

This is true in principle but a dangerous assumption when applied to reality in that being philosophically bent on seeing the patterns and forms of the actual natural phenomenon as a mathematical dynamic rather than obtuse representations removes the ability to observe or theorize the actual phenomena which produce the order in chaos and by so doing limit the ability to theorize outcomes and predict or fantasize in effective directions.

For instance: Is it more feasible to envisage a mathematical space ship travelling faster than the speed of light or one which is manipulated by the control of say gauge bosons to enable travel at such speeds? Removing the supposed mathematical limitations on speed in order to enable higher speeds is impossible. Interfering in a phenomenon to achieve that desired result (should it be achieved) overrides the simplistic math (but not known applicable laws) and simply produces another mathematical description which could never have been derived from the math itself, because mathematics deals only in simple generalizations and patterns, statistics etc. Mathematics is unable to derive laws!

Even Schrodinger's equation when applied to the universe cannot work if the necessary requirements for the assumptions of a certain statistical outcome are not included in the equation. In other words there may be many unknown factors. The equation is also thwarted if the laws to which it applies are being conditionally usurped which they are.

Laws are laws; but they need adjustment when uncertainties and new knowledge becomes available because it's not the laws that make the world go round; it's the fact of the world going round that leads to observances from which we can derive laws that appear to suit all occasions. This is a philosophical argument and the jurisprudence of causation theory lies writhing at the feet of many a violation.

7/The gross assumption from philosophical roots giving support by universal commonality of consensus; that gravity is a pulling force acting between objects and bodies and that gravity applies to all particles of matter.

There are two assumptions in there.

(a)                     That gravity pulls like a string from a gravitational geocenter. That this as an arbitrary assumption there is no doubt. There is no phenomenology which can produce such a force at a distance, especially one which supposedly propagates in one direction and has an affect in the reverse direction. This would be acceptable as the maintaining of the 'magic' of gravity but when a theorized phenomenology which removes the magic and changes the direction is presented, then perhaps it should be studied with great interest.

(b)                    That all particles are subject to gravitational force. This cannot be proven and many doubts have been cast on supposed proofs. The idea is paramount to bolstering the theory of general relativity and it is discredited and shown to even be predictably false by the G-theory phenomenology.

8/That particles have actual rotational spin. Not supportable by proof and such spin infers a serous violation of the laws of energy conservation and thermodynamics. However as I previously stated we can question laws in areas where assumptions reign. This doesn't appear to be a viable action in consideration of the assumptions being; that particles are fully affectable by gravity and therefore are not exempt from jurisprudence, and it then stands that they must obey the laws of thermodynamics also. The only other alternative is that they are able to be considered to behave according to an a-priori fundamental law. This is a contention of G-theory which introduces a consistency of vibration proportional to gravitational perturbation but not rotational spin.

9/ Everything is definable by wave function, phase changes and symmetry.

It's not! And there is no super-symmetry, or strings. Yes the bosons and sub bosons are different faces of the same entity but where G-theory deviates radically from M-theory lies in that very premise as well as in another even more radical premise... That the only way to explain the enigmas which stick like chewing gum to a shoe is for the forensic analysis which predicts that the universe is under the control of a super quantum program which is mostly predictable; leading to laws and principles, but a program that is itself above the laws it only conditionally abrogates. Hence the rise and sustenance of life and order from/in chaos.

Who or what is running the program is entirely up to your own opinion. The theories surrounding those issues are ageless and most likely very profound.

 

The following is a tantalizing preview into G-theory. It has been camouflaged but you should get the picture.

 

EXCERPT FROM THE PRESENTATION THESIS

...If you want to take a quick peek: In the following section I show a simplified (2D) diagram* of a beta neutron (figure one) which is proposed to exist not just physically in 3D but multi-dimensionally as part of the fermion matter context as well. This diagram is missing the electroweak force (EWF) construct for purposes of clarity. I will lay that out below. Contrary to common theory, this diagram shows that a beta-neutron most likely consists (simplified) of three mesons which are quark, anti-quark pairs that are bound together by gluons. These meson biracial pairs are themselves bound to each other by gluons as well. From this we can see that quarks contain a lot of bonding gluons (-W Z -W) or W –Z W) or perhaps other configurations consistent with the bonding requirements which are proportional to color charge. We are likely to discover that those combos are all (so called Higg's bosons). This of course suggests that Higg's bosons are not singular particle identities or singular gluons. In fact by mass addition it would appear that a Higg's is the complete gauge boson part of the electroweak structure. The Z bosons are positioned across-brane with half in one dimension (tensor) and half in another dimension across a cosmean brane as in (1/)

 

1/  -W (1/2Z . I . ½ Z) W   Note:  . I . depicts the inter-dimensional cosmean brane and it is likely to have become a Zo boson when transformed as part of a Higgs. Half of itself is occupying the same space time as the other half in another tensor. That is the only super-symmetry I will envisage.

The forced symmetry breaking process becomes...

2/  -W<1/2Z . I . 1/2 Z>W

Biracial muons are supposedly the annihilation products of Z bosons but that's likely to be an interpretation error. The annihilation products of the Higgs are a W boson biracial pair and a Zo boson uniracial brane splitting phenomenon.

 

m=80.385+91.1876/2 GeV/c2

m=125.9788 ...Predicted Higgs masses 125.3 ± 0.4 and 126 ±0.4 (courtesy Wikipedia) (Others: 125 to 127 or more divergent).

 

So you have to agree; that the math is statistically perfect for this postulation but not if you view it through the perspective of annihilation. The true lens of analysis here is to consider a dimensional shift of half of the Zo boson into the cosmean brane. When detected during an LHC collision event THE HIGG'S BOSON IS STILL ATTACHED TO ITS BRANE. (Refer to a later assertation.) The annihilation products will therefore include particles which would not be expected for normal arithmetical addition of masses. High energy physicists have pretty much got a hold on that one. In light of the proposals of the G-theory model, this model seems to have legs wouldn't you agree?

I present the following as the 'extended symmetry' part of the model.    

 

THE HIGG'S ELECTROWEAK FORCE SUPERSTRUCT:

 

When the Higg's superstruct is intact the weak force and electromagnetic symmetry is bound and the electroweak force is now displayed and mass is produced in higher order nuclear or atomic matter objects (AMOs) via the Q-L to SBF Higgs highway as shown below (3/). Now I considered earlier that the W boson and muons are the weak force bond components from quark lattice gluons to the SBF gluons. The electroweak force is broken into two separate electromagnetic and weak force components and strangely enough these are the theorized components of the Higg's boson. As far as whether or not a Higg's field exists; I think yo'all might be dreaming. But who am I to say?

You should see from below that the Higgs field is nothing more than the electromagnetic stress tensor in G-rel but only a decaying EM field in G-theory.

3/ (Q-L) G " ñ " G " -W " (1/2Z .I. 1/2 Z) " W " G " ñ " G (SBF)

" denotes elastic phononic interaction as Yukawa couplings (only in the scalar sense). The dimensional branes are aligned with these.  G (gluon -WZW) (ñ pion)... ( . I . ) indicates the cosmean brane... semi expanded; the EWF structure is as depicted..

 

(uQ -WZW " ñ " -WZW " -W Zo W " -WZW " ñ "-WZW (SBF)

 

By the G-theory model a pion is W-W I W-W or... WW I -WW which if added in wouldn't allow the model to fit across the page. Now you shouldn't be so surprised when so many particles are exhibited during collider collisions. G-theory also predicts a stupendous number of neutrinos to be flying around the universe because these W bosons are neutrinos when out of the nucleon. Note: I refer to this structure as the EWF or Higg's superstruct. The Zo boson has cross brane symmetry.

This bulwark of... W-WZW-WW-WW-WZW existing at the SBF junction prevents other nucleons from further ingress than a 'smidge'. The full superstruct presents its quark determined SBF uniracial charge and it is statistically reversible in neutrons. The EWF superstruct representation shows the connection from an up quark to uniracial +ve strong force. The opposite will be the case for a down quark. This means that each proton has three binding possibilities for neutrons. This is very conclusive and clinching evidence for the G-theory model.

If this all looks like gobbledygook then you will need a copy of the thesis.

 

 

 

 

neuvophysics.com