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=mc^{2}... How about the extended version?..

E^{2}=m^{2}c^{4}+
p^{2}c^{2}

...which should really
be in terms of E and not E^{2}. 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.c^{2}
E.sec=m.c^{2}/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.d^{2}/t (t=1)
Instantaneous E=m.d^{2}. 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=mv^{2}
^{
}
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=mc^{2}.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
p 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=mc^{2}; 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 time^{2}-distance^{2}
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=mc^{2} 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=mv^{2}
and
also E=mc^{2}
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/c^{2 }is 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 e_{o} and u_{o} 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 (^{1/2}Z
.
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<^{1/2}Z
.
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/c^{2}

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
"
(^{1/2}Z
.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