G-THEORY (excerpts from the thesis by R.K. BONNEY)

Required study--- G-theory basics.





It stands to reason that any particle which is the declared arbiter of mass should likely be the most commonly existing building block particle in the universe. Please give a hand for the trion and its biracial cousin the gluon (neutrino-antineutrino biracial pair). The neutrino is a trion but a trion is not just a neutrino. That sounds somewhat enigmatic but it will all be cleared up and you will understand the difference and the reason for the moniker 'trion'.


    FIRST OF ALL WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT MASS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WEIGHT. IN FACT THE TWO PHENOMENA HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. Weight is just another word for gravitational force, and the concept of mass REQUIRES A MOBILE DRAG ANCHOR. Blowing or sucking on ' your own sails ' explanations are a big no-no; as is simply ignoring the problem altogether.

Apart from gravity, the cause of mass is the most eagerly sought after ' holy grail ' of physics. The following is purely theoretical and it is logically consistent with higher order observable phenomenology. I have kept back my theorized lowest level fundamental matter mechanical constructs so that doesn ' t get stolen. Sorry but there are too many people on the planet to put my trust in them all.

The current paradigm suggests that the mass defect is equivalent to binding energy. Even though I obviously don ' t fully agree with that I must admit that proportionality between SBF and mass is likely the actual case but I will be bringing that connection to the fore later in the thesis. I have mentioned this here otherwise you will probably arrive at that conclusion on your own as we continue and wonder how I myself missed it. 

From the previous chapter, we can now see that AIR (atomic matter integrity resolution) is actually the sum of all the PIRs (Particle construct integrity resolutions) in any given AMO (atomic matter object) which -in effect- occurs outside the quark lattice. This includes all bonds.

Take a theoretical situation whereby we can disregard G-mass (gravitational mass) for the moment whereby particles are non vibrational. In that case the fundamental cause of mass comes down to the PIR of a gluon which consists of two dimensionally separated (across brane) biracial trions. Note: These cannot be construed to be ' super-partners ' because the particles would actually both be observable and they are also both causative of mass and particles of matter as we know it. G-theory has little in common with SUSY theory.

Whether the gluon were to be at rest or moving at a constant velocity with momentum it still maintains a constant biracial force which in one particular case fully accounts for SBF, and because I haven't included extra particles or forces/energy ' Am ' will still be exactly as we would expect.

Any external force caused by any differential motion when being applied to the gluon (which always occurs against PIR and by extension to AIR when any motive force is applied) will result in strong resistance to the consequentially attempted change to the biracial PIR state of the gluon ' s trion-pair positional relationship. (This will not occur under conditions of momentum or any form of rest or RF stability.) In other words the strong binding force causes P-mass and (subject to the laws of multiplicity), conditionally subjugated inertial N-mass (Newtonian mass) by its applied -biracial attraction elicited- strong force resistance to any attempted spatial change to its FORM (shape) by the phenomenology of particle integrity resolution (PIR). This is because it has to be the case that the trion ' s biracial binding force is the strongest force per unit size in the universe. It has a clear relationship with strong nuclear binding force which (nucleus size dependent) would only be one or so orders less powerful because of perturbative interference by a pesky muon. But that is for a very good reason which is analyzed elsewhere.

Now on the surface this appears to provide a strong case for absolute mass energy equivalence. Not so fast though! What we really have here is, summative P-mass appearing at a higher level as N ' mass-energy ' equivalence and in the real world the much greater and very significant AIR elicited N-mass becomes additive to provide the overall T mass (total mass) while the addition of both P-mass as well as G-mass (in a gravitational field) have very little affect in causing the  exhibition of the mass of nucleons and greater AMOs at rest or in low velocity momentum unless the gravitational field differential is significant.

So while actual mass energy equivalence may appear to be very close to being acceptable science, such phenomenology is empirically inaccurate. Note: It was the disparity between gravitational mass (weight) and mass calculations by E=mc2 which led science to the knowledge that mass and weight were different at the atomic level. They just don ' t quite know why. Patience!

Remember G-mass becomes very significant at hyper speeds and in strong gravitational fields. The weight you feel is actually inertial G-mass or gravitational force, which strongly affects any acc/decelerative inertia you may feel in the vertical direction on earth by one ' g '. This is why weight and mass of any description are two different things. The reason that we may have a lot of confusion is because science has haplessly tied weight to mass by the similar term kg.

If gravity is suddenly removed you won ' t feel your mass unless some other force is applied and then you would still feel your mass as T mass but the force required to make you feel the same weight would have to be a certain force* less the infinitesimal amount of G-mass (to end up as 9.80665N) which by reason of your actual speed through space and the vibrational energy of your internal particles, GTD (gravity differential) as well as G-mass are not quite zero respectively. Note: Refer to -The Newton kgF enigma.

*I can't state 1kgF here because of the confusion between weight/gravitational force and mass.


If we ignore the value of GTD caused by our speed through space we would be able to calculate the difference between mass and weight by subtracting the summation of the atomic mass defects of the generalized atoms in your body from the ' An ' derived mass (which is really atomic weight) to arrive at your mass. Suffice it to know that there is a difference and now you know why. So the unknown quantity of GTDv related G-mass in earth ' s gravity is now able to be calculated as being the difference between actual weight and calculated mass.

To enable an inertial counterforce to be elicited by AIR we must understand that the phenomenology is by the agency of the strong biracial force of the gluon bonds that summatively make up the quark lattices within nucleons. This mechanics causes mass which is exhibited by a counterforce against motion relative forces which isn ' t instantaneous and destructively-nucleon-shattering so there has to be a time delay component in the process. The required elasticity of the weak nuclear force is probably able to take some of the instantaneous retroactive force shock out of the system but that’s not enough. Note: I know the anchor is missing. Patience!

Such phenomenology utilizes the elasticity and subsequent energy loss via the electroweak nuclear force which causes a reactive force which is marginally less than any motive force and which also includes actions of the g and form factor forces as well as externally applied ' virtual forces ' .

The reason for that phenomenology to be insufficient for AIR to become actionable is that the counterforce is proposed to travel at ' c ' from the quark lattice--- via the weak force bosonic construct--- to the outer SBF gluons, and this would be still too fast for most objects under consideration to maintain integrity. In actual fact it is instantaneity which is the perfectly required action for instantaneous nuclear/object deprecation but fortunately time and laws are soon discovered and apart from some EWF elasticity a delay is necessarily introduced. The time delay required to soften the blow at the nucleon level is produced by the agency of PEP which disallows particle motion until the ' legal ' requirements are met, and this also predicates a slight -but unobservable at the macro level- delay in force retroaction. While the energy equilibrium in the universe remains stable, PEP sets a precise value to N-mass per nucleon. Note: Heavy neutrons are a special case. Please 'control-F' Beta Neutrons in the thesis.

So now we should be able to understand that mass is proportional to the energy lost during transition through the Higg ' s electroweak force construct that slightly modifies Newton ' s third law of motion to--- Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; 'less losses'. This cannot be seen to be M-E equivalence in the classic sense.

So on one level we may consider energy to be tied to mass but again and in a different way, M-E equivalence theory is denied by way of the lesser retroactive force because of the time delay caused by QIP and PEP -even if utilizing the finite speed of light- and more likely but conditionally -and to a much lesser but finely balanced and conditional relationship extent- the speed of gravity. TBE ( to be explained/examined.)

By way of a little iteration I will redefine the above and state that AIR (or in some ways even PIR) would be unable to keep objective integrity if it wasn ' t for PEP and elasticity. Sometimes even PEP and elasticity are insufficient at the nucleon level and above, and objective deprecation or fission is the actual result.

PEP could be considered to be a dimensionally caused constraint related to the dimensions of the eos and the chronos, which are the only two dimensions that G-theory proposes to exhibit a time elastic relationship with each other. Time remains a rock solid constant but the eos conditionally fails in its attempts to mimic the cosmean state of time ignorance. This is why instantaneity is only ' almost ' in the universe.

The eos always loses that battle in the very short term but the actually realized non-instantaneity is that phenomenon which allows the incremental motion of particles. Remember the law; -no time no motion?- This enables the retroactive force which meets the requirements of equal and opposite reaction (less energy losses and cosmean-law quantum particle exemptions).

QIP and PEP are the cause of the energy losses because of the time delay, otherwise E=m WOULD BE THE CASE but we all know that in actual fact E=mv (or some arguable variant). If this was not the case then the reaction (even though elastic perhaps) would be abrupt and equal. Arguably worse perhaps -than the probable annihilation of the objects involved into trions- there would be no spatial transfer of linear motion because the retro-force would be locked to un-delayed time and be exactly equal to the motive force.

Time itself is unable to be delayed so it has to be the motion that exhibits the delay, and even if not noticeable in real world AMOs, this is exactly what occurs at the quantum level. E.g. A ' Newton’s cradle ' executive desk toy seems to exhibit a perfect and instantaneous transfer of energy between the balls. This is just an optical illusion. There is actually a delay and noticeable elasticity which causes a resultant loss of energy in that particular system as well as all others within our universe. Note: the quantum world must be regarded differently for reasons given in this thesis.

So I will restate here that PEP is the prime arbiter of N-mass at the quantum level. Even light is never emitted unless it is quantasized, so QIP is required as well as PEP which is arbitrated and modulated by elasticity as well as Fermi states at the level of the nucleon and atom respectively. This also includes other bonds in higher order AMOs.

This still leaves an open question: What holds the quark lattice -and other biracial fundamental particles within the atomic structure which then extra-dynamically extends to the whole atom/object- (what holds it) anchored, especially if one considers the possibility of it being in a motion relative state of momentum which obviously involves spatial displacement? How can we possibly conceive of a fundamental anchor in that case and also an imperfect anchor that doesn't slam the brakes on instantaneously? I.e. The anchor point would have to be moving as well and that seems impossible!

Answer: There is a fundamental anchor point which applies to gluons, quarks and some other specific fundamental particles which is revealed in a following section. Significantly the quark lattice is likely to be extremely inelastic, and as such it presents an almost equal and instantaneous counterforce against any force that attempts to change the integrity of the quark based mechanical system. This occurs because any force being propagated through the quark lattice is going to present a force to one side of the lattice a split second before the other with an obvious instantaneously (almost) evaluated force differential being applied. Thus an almost instantaneous* force which is in exact proportion to both the velocity and strength of the external force and it will be almost totally mirrored back into the weak force mechanical structure back to the applied force. This will cause a vibration in that structure which will result in energy loss (photons or BBR) by sympathetic changes to the g and form factors and the quark lattice will move unilaterally within the nucleus and elastically cause the whole nucleon to move and derive F=ma; or if prevented emit energy as particles by quantum law of energy conservation.

The quark lattice itself is locked to G-statistics and it is expected to take the time relevant to one quarter wavelength of its (temperature but not pressure independent) resonant frequency in order for it to transfer the force to the weak force bosons. So it is not perfectly inelastic. Note 1: G-statistics is similar to B-E statistics except for the non relativistic relationship to pressure and atomic radii: TBE.

Note 2: The fundamental mechanics is expected to be a stated because the Q-L is bound to fundamental biracial force via the Q-L cosmean brane. Refer to the section proposing the very fundamental cause of mass at the lowest non vanishing point of existence.

*We have already proved that instantaneity of motion of all greater than fundamental generational forms of matter is impossible. However the time taken for the Q-L to move is probably less than a femtosecond at the speed of gravity--- for reasons that will be forthcoming.


Before following further with this analysis I would suggest a visit to and note the conclusion drawn.

I will print out below the conclusion by Vince Bagnulo 2006 -verbatim in the parenthesis.


4 Conclusion

'' A theory of scattering has been presented and used to describe electron-proton scattering.

It has been shown how the quark hypothesis has the physical implications of Bjorken scaling and the Callan-Gross relation. Experimental evidence was presented supporting these claims.

Furthermore, the fact that the three quarks postulated to form the proton do not account for all of the momentum in the proton has provided evidence for the presence of gluons in the proton. These were the goals put forth in the introduction and as they have been completed, this text now draws to a close '' .

Another important excerpt from Mr. Bagnulo ' s master ' s thesis is also parenthesized as follows.


'' Thus, only 54% of the momentum of the incoming proton is accounted for by the proposed quarks. Consequently, there must be other constituent particles of the proton that are carrying the missing momentum. As was previously mentioned, the quarks interact through the strong force and so they must be exchanging gluons. These gluons are capable of carrying momentum so they must have P-mass. Furthermore, the gluons are capable of forming quark-antiquark pairs. The original three quarks, the two up and a down, are called valence quarks, and these unattached gluon formed quarks are called sea quarks. Thus, Eqn. 6.16 provides evidence for the presence of free gluons within the proton. '' Note and italics mine: Mr. Bagnulo correctly uses the term ' strong force ' and he also utilizes the term P-mass independent of myself .


Now back to the assertation: The quark lattice will likely react differently to externally applied forces than it does to internally applied graviton or other perturbative forces but this is a moot point because we humans have already derived the measurement of mass from weight!

It is to be understood that quark lattices are being continuously hit with a barrage of forces from internal quantum level activity. In this case the quark lattice reaction is mechanically the same but in any system the overall result with regard to mass is a zero sum game. This predicates that quantum P-mass has little contribution to actual N-mass regardless of the assumed P-mass of any quantum particle and in some cases there is no connection.

Thus it now becomes feasible rather than ignominious to announce that '' a bottom quark has more mass than a silver ion '' for instance. Prior to G-theory such a quandary should still have been considered to be model destroying for the contemporary quantum physics models. They would have been justified in announcing that quantum mass therefore has little to no relationship with actual atomic mass and now you know why.

This all leaves us with the questions: What anchors the quark lattice? And how can it be possibly considered to be anchored while in momentum? These are profound questions. The answer will be shown to be derivable from G-theory quantum physics.




G-mass (Gravitational mass) & N-mass (Newtonian inertial mass) ---under thermodynamics and quantum resolution. Note: in G-theory the wave function is NOT the percieved quantum operator. I will show that there is a unification to be had between Newtonian and quantum physics but not quantum mechanics which has a convoluted and unclear relationship with the emr factors and many other variables which will be analyzed as we go on.



The following begins with a summary of the preceding and an expansion on the subject of mass -which includes a postulation of THE LOWEST FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF MASS and why F=ma and why ' g ' is only 9.81m/s/s (approx.) and the possibility that ' g ' is probably not a long term (age) constant- follows.

The lowest fundamental cause of inertial mass is dealt with in another chapter. For the purposes for this explanation it should be sufficient to recognize that it does exist otherwise no sense will be made of the following section or the later analysis if this section is not studied first.

WEBSITE NOTE: Refer to the 'Preeminent cause of mass' section that follows this. If you skip this section you may be unable to understand it.


The universe runs on the laws of thermodynamics and significantly with regard to the following; -the law of the conservation of energy as well as the noted sustained resolution of base mechanical or objective integrity at various conditional levels. In other words everything pretty much stays physically or systematically intact. These are all related and derived from a fundamental lower order phenomenology, which will be addressed later.

If mechanical integrity becomes compromised then energy is necessarily lost but only to the external environs. Conversely if energy is added or subtracted to a system then integrity is affected. Such affects may not necessarily cause a noticeable loss of base integrity, but they can see either a change in temperature and/or motion, characteristics or properties of all descriptions by force. This is because whenever energy is introduced even by less volatile means as light* or BBR, -and whether obvious motion occurs or not- the force will always be in existence and internally, energy will be used and emitted to somewhere.

*Less volatile is relative: I draw your attention to a cutting laser!


Magnetism is probably the single most enigmatic of all the forces we can observe by their actions. Externally applied magnetism is in essence an injection of energy by force which is attempting to breach the fundamental base of mechanical integrity ; which is possibility. Conversely; extreme gravitational force is able to conditionally cause nucleon g-factor alignments resulting in magnetic fields*. This is the only relationship between gravity and magnetism.

The take away from this is that powerful magnetic fields are able to magnetize or physically change objects and it is possible for this to become noticed as a form of breach relating to AIR (AMO integrity resolution), resulting in the gain or loss of capability to apply a formerly existing force. Here we have the strange case where AIR is compromised and energy doesn ' t appear to have been used. In that particular case we must assume the energy has been internally displaced within the AMO in such a manner that it causes a repositioning of atomic magnetic dipole relationships which doesn ' t consequently cause a necessary change in temperature because a sub-quantum storing effect has taken place*. The energy is still there. Note: Refer to the section GRAVITATIONAL/INERTIAL MASS and E=mc2, in chapter three.

*This ability for objects to receive energy without conditionally exhibiting either a change in temperature or mass is covered in the thesis elsewhere, and it is a significant proof of G-theory.


The force exerted by magnetism results in non-thermal energy input because the energy is produced by a moving (relative) force, and the only internal resultant in an AMO, (apart from possible electron flow and subsequent heat generation), is motion of particles and factors or the whole object extending to the possible breakdown of bonds (mechanical integrity) by g-factor distortions within the nucleons. These higher order magnetic force affects will also cause temperature rise and thermal emission whether observable or not.

*This predicates that it is gravity that causes magnetic fields in universal bodies but not vice versa. Other forces can produce local magnetic affects. Note: I have no way to test such a postulation so it must stand alone as just that. Call it an educated guess.


Felt inertia is caused in part by the inelastic and therefore time delayed response to the nucleonic parity variations caused by the changing quantum motions within the AMO in question (including electron and other bonds), and inertia (exhibiting mass) therefore is similarly related to the conservation of energies and mechanical integrity by AIR.

An explanation of the mechanics could possibly be; that inertia is mediated by AMO integrity resolution (AIR) against strong binding force to electroweak force (EWF) being further and implicitly related to the conservation of energy as well as a required lower fundamental anchor (TBE). The following is an explanation of the probable mechanics:

Nucleons in AMOs exhibit an inelastic and instantaneous resistance to any attempted change within their matrix relationships via the EWF. Such fundamental resistance is caused by PIR and the strength of the SBF and by the herein proposed quark lattice inelasticity (QLI). The higher generational level AIR force is also relatable to (by a lesser and varying extent) to electron bonding and other mechanical bond forces etc. and inertia must be mediated by the elastic forces intrinsic to the EWF, and this allows the acceleration rates that we observe without necessarily causing any deprecation in AMOs, but energy is necessarily lost from the system resulting in temporary energy disparity even though internal conservation was strongly sought. I.e. The electron bond and weak forces are not inelastic like the SBF and in particular the quark lattice, which condition would render them absolutely intransigent, and nothing would ever move spatially. It would simply deprecate to sub quantum particles! Inertia is also highly proportional to nucleus nucleon densities, with some (insignificant but real) disproportionality to nuclide size and shape*. Note 1: The law of the conservation of energy has not been breached because the system is not closed. If it is considered that the cosmo-universe is a closed system (erroneously), even then the conservation law has been upheld because the energy has just been transferred to another place. However the universe is so large that energy and time become a canonical conjugate and for all intents and purposes we can presume a closed system.

Note 2: The determination of rest state mass in its derivation is another subject wherein a single nucleon will exhibit a slightly disproportional inertial mass than a complex nuclide with the relationship even extending to variant atomic radius issues. The mass difference is not fully related to binding energy and in G-theory, mass-energy-equivalence becomes matter-energy-equivalence. There is a critical difference. Refer to the relevant section.

The inertia/inertial mass being discussed here is only applicable to nucleons, nuclides and greater objects and NOT electrons which are basically the connection system for atomic matter so in that regard they transfer inertial force. See the previous page.

*Obviously to the astute; a strong relationship to mass is noticed here, and this is to be comprehensively dealt with in a later chapter.


Regardless of whether an object is at rest or traveling with momentum (constancy of motion--- not the erroneous use of the word to mean kinetic force), any force attempting to cause a motion relative change in an AMO will cause this slightly weaker counterforce (because of said energy losses) to be vector summed and directed back in opposition to the motive force*. This is because any force applied to any AMO in any manner is seen as an attempt to change the shape or integrity of the AMO by forcing the SBFs within its atoms to react against an almost intractable lower fundamental force anchored whether in motion or at rest; (TBE)** which is precisely what elicits the inertial response and the cause of such will be examined later. This has nothing to do with any supposed intrinsic mass possessed by or thrust upon the AMO.

In subjective analysis: Until a force is applied in an attempt to cause a change of motion relative status under these circumstances an AMO outside of any GD (gravity) should probably be considered to have NO INERTIAL MASS AT ALL.

*This is essentially in accordance with Newton’s second law of motion but with thermodynamic losses recognized.

** This is impossible in Newtonian physics but the explanation will be forthcoming.



Definitions:    GTDg--- Graviton velocity transition differential (gravity)

                       GTDv---   Graviton velocity transition differential (velocity)

                       ' y '---             The velocity of gravity- the speed of light squared.


You may now object; that if the AMO has no intrinsic mass then the motive force is still only pushing against the pathetically weak EWF and so the inertial force would also be similarly weak. I must admit that this seems to be a very reasonable objection, but the previous scenarios were presented in order to think all possibilities through and show that combined fundamental forces are not as weak as they may have been considered to be, and thought should probably be given to the possibility that there is another previously unrecognized fundamental force at work as well: via a Higg ' s boson EWF superstruct .TBE

So now we might consider that there are two phenomena at work as follows.

1/ Objects resist any attempted acc-dec changes within a state of graviton transitional equilibrium (in the vacuum of space) by the action of AIR which resists any force attempting to upset the objective integrity of a nucleonic matter object (NMO).

2/ Objects resist GTDv by power law via AIR as well, which only exhibits negligible spatial gravitation friction disparity at low speeds; however, as we have just seen an object will exhibit an increased inertial mass affect by velocity related GTDv at hyper speeds.

Perhaps it’s time for another mind experiment.

Consider the case wherein velocity caused inertial G-mass/force by GTDv is extremely small at real world velocities up to about a speed of 1000kms/s. But also consider that it is a requirement for AIR force to become active under conditions of high velocity momentum. This is because there can be no inertial force able to be retro presented from any object that has no mass, so in that theory the poly-directional force of graviton transitions -holding objects in a constant squeeze- would be a crucial necessity and so THAT FORM OF MASS IS EVER PRESENT in AMOs as G-mass, even though relatively weak. Note: You do have a resultant force of 9.81N/kg acting on your nucleons even though you are probably ignoring it while you sit and read this. This however is just a very small component of the actual force of gravity which is helping hold you together.

So nucleons and AMOs do always have some mass even when not in motion but rather than it being an intrinsic feature of matter, it is continuously being caused by GTDg even when weightless in orbit. Note: PIR force is only applicable to the law affecting sub fermion particles which are actively resisting forces that are either trying to get them to occupy the same space time or change their space time relationships, and to a great extent so is AIR at the nucleon level TBE.


Fundamental note: Whenever an ion is mentioned, unless otherwise stated it should be considered to be a fully electron stripped positive ion (cation).

Take an ion in space and squeeze it between two forces. This will cause an elastic retroactive force acting against the squeezing forces which is caused by the action of the EWF, binding, columbic, g-force and form factors within the ion. Until the squeezing force is sufficient to overcome those forces, they will prevail with essentially EQUAL force acting against the squeeze. This will use energy but not binding energy. The atom will regain energy as quickly as possible from the environment by BBR as well as from the transiting gravitons themselves to continually fuel the retro force, but its temperature will see a conditional increase because of variable time delays involved in re-achieving temperature equilibrium.

Now in understanding this; take an ion (presumed to have no other mass than G-mass) and now consider it to be in spatial motion with an insignificant but very real GTDv induced inertial mass at momentum. The ion can be considered to already be exerting a counter force against the GTDv force and it can now be concluded to have N-mass and kinetic energy just from gravity alone. This mass however may be considered to be so insignificant as to be miniscule at very low real world velocities but mass nevertheless.

With that in mind consider this: Take an ion in space and at absolute rest whereby it has no motion relative to GD. This stationary ion can be concluded to have no evidence of mass other than G-mass which is always the same whenever the AMO is in a stable GD without being subject to GS or spatial motion and it actually then requires a motive force to elicit some N-mass otherwise apart from temperature no other concept such as N-mass would be observable. In that state its T-mass is its G-mass Note: This is not M-E equivalence.

However the value of such a force being utilized for that motion is of NO CONSEQUENCE but if it is a virtual force it must have a component of motion otherwise magnetic or coulombic repulsion/attraction dynamics which act in accordance with the pertinent laws of space-time otherwise the formula for INSTANTANEOUS initial motion would ridiculously be V=v where ' V ' is the velocity of the force and ' v ' is the ion ' s velocity. This is simply to show that virtual forces can also have almost instantaneous velocities of application (propagation velocity; usually at ' y ' ) otherwise the motion with regard to the fields is relative but regardless of that; motion (application) of a force is always required to cause a change in relative motion between objects and this also applies to quantum states but in that case the motion relativity is completely different. TBE

Now if we apply a much larger force in any direction: The ion then exhibits observable inertial mass and it will ACCELERATE and we will see an almost perfectly mirrored acceleration of its retroactive (but weaker) force (almost instantaneously but elastically) in the attempt to retain its ionic integrity (shape) and by AIR it will now exhibit more inertial mass according to F=ma.

Of course this retroactive force causes the appearance of an inertial mass which is notionally the same as gravitational mass if the motive force is the same as ' g ' . This is the salient point for us to recognize because in both cases the AIR is in jeopardy -in different ways- and inertial retroaction is the result. So now we are able to derive a law:

LAW: THE RETROACTIVE FORCE THAT IS EXHIBITED AS INERTIAL MASS FOR AN OBJECT THAT WEIGHS 1kg IN EARTH ' S GRAVITY (at sea level) WILL IN EVERY CASE BE EXACTLY ONE (which is only ' approximately ' 1kgf or 9.81 Newtons per kilogram). This law is able to be evinced without taking any energy losses into account because the historical derivation of weight has by default already taken into account the resultant and slightly imprecise counterforce that is essentially a necessary (laws of thermodynamics) deviation from Newton’s second law of action reaction. The imprecision is predicated in the fact that 1kgf is not exactly 10N/kg. (9.80665N)

It is therefore able to be stated with an acceptable degree of accuracy that--- '' Every action has an equal and opposite reaction '' even when the action is an acceleration, and a sub relative of this is that--- '' every force has an equal and opposite retro force. '' However the reason that the retro force is noticeably less is because of energy losses at every ' bond ' level right down to and including the force derivative from the fundamental ' anchor ' point even under the supposed state of momentum as well as the portion of quantum particles which are exempt from N-mass.

This is firmly related to the third law of entropy* which is subjugated to the ' nothing ' s perfect ' tongue in cheek law. IF THIS WASN ' T THE CASE AND NEWTON ' S REACTION LAW WASN ' T IMPERFECT BECAUSE OF TIME RELATED energy LOSSES etc. IN THE REAL WORLD THEN NO FORCE WOULD BE ABLE TO CAUSE ANY MOTION THAT WASN ' T INSTANTANEOUSLY AND TOTALLY DESTRUCTIVE, but what we do end up with is F=ma. (Goldilocks happenstance) Refer to CH3.

*This means that the local acceleration rate by F=ma may actually be set by the current local rate of energy loss in thermostasis, or more likely the total currently realized thermostasis of the whole universe caused by the energy return loop losses explained in another chapter. If the formula were to actually be locally restricted then surprisingly Lorentz might be somewhat correct about locally relative time frames of reference being able to be different throughout the universe. However it should be understood that this would only be the case for the stated reasons of GD anomalies causing gravitational tress tensor variations, and not by time warping. It would only have something to do with the differences in local time measurements by any and all means (yes aging as well) because all motion except the actual speed of light would be locally different BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE LOCAL RATE OF energy LOSS. However at the moment this remains unclear.

I lean towards the idea of universal thermostasis and a fairly constant relative 'c' across the universe otherwise we would notice near field differences in F=ma that were temperature dependent, which we don't; so the phenomenon must be subjugated to the speed of light (and gravity) which are the two arbiters of the energy return loop which regulate the general universal energy stasis with an overall time delay. Refer to the derivation of the G-theory energy formula in a later chapter.

However this still leaves a problematic observational-relativity phenomenon towards the edge of the universe and near black holes. This; to some extent could be seen to occur around galaxies themselves. This only becomes problematic for universal observations if the speed of light ACTUALLY exhibits relative difference between us and those areas of space. This has been comprehensively analyzed elsewhere in the thesis that the speed of light is a universal reference frame constant. Read it first before you knock it!

Note (a): With this ' local restriction ' idea I fear I may have opened up another can of worms but the likely fact is that the locally realized rate of energy losses is FIRMLY RELATED to the third law of thermodynamics and THEREFORE F=ma IS AS WELL! The possibility that ' g ' might not be a constant under similar ' earth mass ' GSe conditions in a different GD should probably not go unrecognized either.


Now leaving that possibly contentious note behind and returning to the real local world: This means that the ion in the mind experiment we are conducting, will jurisprudently apply whatever retro-force is materially available relative to it ' s ' weight ' in order to retain its shape but this force is limited by the mechanical bond forces including (in all atomic cases) the elastically weak binding force and in higher order AMOs, atomic electron bonding force involving nuclear ' g ' and form factors which have a constant relative value which is unrelated to temperature although other bond forces are*. This means that if an object deforms it will not exhibit the same acceleration rate as a more elastic object and more energy will released as heat etc.

*Consider the difference between striking a solid piece of steel compared with a molten drop. The molten steel retains far more nuclear integrity than electron bond integrity.


At this point I must raise the obvious question: Do hot objects of similar mass exhibit different weight than cold objects? The answer to that will be very telling with regard to the contention in the previous note (a).


AIR force is conditionally an almost equal retro force that is sufficient to counteract any attempted NUCLEON DEFORMATION AGAINST QUARK LATTICE DISPLACEMENT with respect to the weak BF relationship with the SBF gluons*. This is regardless of the actual motive force being applied to the AMO which is being transferred elastically over time to each and every nucleon by normal connective bond phenomena.

*This phenomenology will be established in a later chapter.


The effect of this in the actual mechanics can be found in the mind experiment which begins in the following paragraph: In -otherwise theoretically inelastic- objects such as single ions, this inertial mass theory REMOVES INTRINSIC MASS FROM the idea of BINDING energy EQUIVALENCE AND SHIFTS IT TO---
' NUCLEON QUARK-LATTICE POSITIONAL INTEGRITY EQUIVALENCE ' .  This relates mass to the ' pion ' balanced FORCE which holds the lattice in position within each nucleon; in which case even the single nucleon can be declared to possess perfect inertial N-mass which is hardly the case in the standard ' binding energy/mass equivalence ' model.

This is fundamental AIR force which is proportionally but elastically just as causative of overall time delayed* N-mass as the WBF is, and the same mechanics relates to a far lesser degree to other sub particles that have some appreciable mass, even though AIR and real world N-mass derives from the PIR phenomenology -singularly applicable to those particles- as well as N and G-mass, wherein we derive T mass by a summation of those individual ' masses ' . Note again: A fundamental relationship with gluons will be addressed in a later chapter.

*A rubber ball has a very elastic time delayed response but it all equals out in the end with some initial energy loss to the environs which are returned for parity. Energy conservation has been satisfied.


Mind experiment: Take a lone hydrogen ion (nucleon) considered to be positioned in a completely perfect vacuum in space without any other external forces acting on it. Imagine it to be like an egg with a yolk representing the quark lattice. This yolk is held centrally by the interplay of the forces within the whole egg including the elastic ultra-weak binding force which may be considered to be the white -all else aside-.

If we now apply a motive force to one side of the egg, the shell will begin to move in the direction of the force but because it is anchored (for reasons described elsewhere) the egg will react with a limited and slightly elastic retroactive force against the motive force in an attempt to preserve the relative positional integrity of the shell yolk structure. So it is with the nucleon, but by a fundamentally different process of course. The problem with fundamental mass is that something else is trying to keep the spatially positional integrity of the ' yolk ' relative to the whole egg . I.e. with real nucleons there must be some literal anchor that satisfies both ' stationary ' and ' momentum ' ! Patience; there is.

The profound and iterated part of this mechanics of mass is that it precludes any fundamental relationship between mass and binding energy. The derivation of mass descends to the lowest fundamental order of particles being trions and not the SBF junction.

The rest G-mass of a nucleon at STP is strongly dependant on GTD and the N-mass is beginning to look phenomenologically relatable to the ' quark lattice (SBF gluons inclusive) by elastic weak force relationship ' . Strong binding force therefore becomes predominately just a fairly inelastic and powerful agency of N-mass inertial transfer which is the main elastic arbiter of AIR. Phenomenologically, SBF is no different than the agency associated with any other bonds and mechanical connections with regard to the AIR of any AMO. The only difference is the variations in the degree of strength and elasticity of the various bonds involved.

If a motive or crushing force is of sufficient strength the AMO will begin to sacrifice its integrity in a ' pecking order ' . The first to be deformed is a gas, which is followed by liquids and powders and other loose aggregations, then weak mechanical, strong mechanical and crystalline, chemical bonds, this is followed by the strong binding force in the nucleon matrix and finally and surprisingly perhaps, the bond that holds nucleons together; the electroweak binding force. Wow; paradoxically it appears to not be so weak after all and it may be quite the misnomer!

All of these forces are not summative and the ' weakest link in the chain ' law applies and it is iterated that the electroweak force isn ' t as weak as its name suggests. It takes high energy ' deep inelastic scattering ' to get quarks out of a nucleon and that is by a relatively more powerful force.

Gravity is a force -mechanics explained elsewhere- which acts with predominant affects on the quark lattice of nucleons, from which the vector affects are spread to the whole AMO over elastic time, and it is only felt whenever a withholding or opposing external force is applied. Depending case specifically on the GTD force and internal forces involved, the integrity of the AMO may be overcome. E.g. By the hyper GS that exists near a black hole or by diamagnetism near a magnetar perhaps.

When a withholding force is removed the object is only required to move at a sufficient rate of acceleration which is fully determined by the ' g ' and the nucleon integrity, whereby in an earth ' g ' we have it measured at about 9.81N/kg with an acc. rate of about 9.81m/s/s*. This means that the AIR force is fundamentally but elastically related to the weak force and the quark lattice positional integrity, which concludes that nucleons will exert an AIR force of almost 9.81N/kg against ANY motion relative earth value ' g ' force that attempts to cause ANY change in the nucleon integrity by any iota.

An object falls after being dropped by the retroaction of AIR force in order to relieve the GTDg force which was previously squeezing the nucleons while it was being restrained.

*M.s 2 is often used. But that’s an incorrect form because the term is NOT an equation. Of course we know what is meant.


When it comes to externally applied mechanical motive forces, the amount of AIR retro force is still ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME as ' g ' in proportionality to the observed force at real world spatial velocities; however we notice phenomenologically differing mechanics acting on AMOs with differing properties.

We may sometimes notice a different and disproportionate bond force interrelationship. This is realized as a bond force retroaction which may spread from a single point source which then results in uneven deformation of the AMO, and bond failures may occur disproportionably across an object. I.e. Before the total failure of the bonds in the whole object, permanent deformational structural damage may be observed at the point of impact which would declare a strong inverse square law relationship in the elasticity of bond forces within the AMO.

In iteration: The tiniest attempt to cause a change in the shape or other integrity of a nucleon will result in a proportionally similar AIR caused counterforce, such that the MINUSCULE GTDg across an AMO being held in any gravitational field in a vacuum is theoretically the same MINUSCULE accelerative force differential across an object being accelerated at the same rate as the G-field by an externally applied point motive force*.

*Such a small 'a' shows the relationship to AIR except that in the real world there are energy losses caused by AIR and these have been taken into account but not retro-related to gravitational acceleration, otherwise the g-force would be 10N/kg. Obviously this would only complicate matters but it needs to be understood.


In the end AIR stops at the weak force which only exhibits an instantaneous AIR force capacity of 9.81N/kg with an applied force of one ' g ' . At fundamental levels below the AIR phenomenology, mass is provoked at those lower generational levels by PIR. We will later be able to utilize this knowledge for further calculations. Note: An unstable nucleus ' strong binding force can be overcome by a single ' hot ' neutron. The only way that a nucleon itself can be destroyed is either by hadron particle collision which comes under the mathematical auspices of AIR, or at extreme GTD, or perhaps if it should become completely saturated with vibrating SFPs (sub fermion particles) which means it would be deemed to have reached the critically high BST at which point (at standardized pressure) it will be turned into quark gluon plasma and/or others particles such as muons, pions, positrons or negatrons*. If such an event is conditionally assisted at the event horizon of a black hole it could become a praetom.

*To be introduced. These are G-theory proposed negative charge particles which are very short lived and mistaken for electrons.


From all this we can conclude that without all of the above universally legal phenomenology, inertial and gravitational mass could not exist in the universe and (as described previously) the formula for motion would be Fv=v.

The observable mass of AMO ' s can then be considered to relate (by AIR) to a reflection of atomic/molecular/mechanical binding and bonding forces as the case may be. Externally induced forces will cause inertial mass to become evident and along with nucleon AIR and Q-L PIR, it is initially caused by the spread of reactive forces from the weak force’s elastic electromagnetic resistance, to any distortion in the atomic nucleus relative to electron orbit spatial relationship, and this can also be extended to include mechanical bonds. In other words all objects with entity integrity combine all the forces in their arsenal in order to maintain their mechanical shape and integrity*. This includes single nucleons and ions, which both offer an instantaneous elastic retro force to motive force via the ultra weak force.

*This should not be take to mean that circular and centered are the necessary condition of the 'state' of atoms and lower order particles .


Even though it may be counterintuitive on the surface; we will shortly see how rest state is able to be phenomenologically similar to the condition of momentum and yet very strangely be still observed to retain the same anchoring force mechanics. That appears to be ' unworldly ' science, you say! Yup, but wait.

In summation: This retroactive phenomenological behavior utilizes binding, bonding and electromagnetic forces etc. which apart from possible spatial motion, cause energy to be emitted as heat and also BBR but this is soon replaced by the phenomena already discussed. In fact; when considering AMOs it would seem to be that all nuclear binding forces are the greatest agency of the retro force, although crystalline electron bonding force can come in at a close second in some AMOs.

Under conditions of gravitational acceleration (freefall) in a vacuum whereby there is neither a ' point ' nor any ' other ' externally applied motive force; no retro force is operative that relates elastically back to any singularly identifiable points of reference. In this way we can resolve that each nucleon and atom is only reacting unobserved against its neighbor* and this is why there is no significant difference in the gravitational acceleration in free fall between a feather and a lump of lead and why no inertia is ' felt ' during gravitational freefall. One single nucleon would fall at the same rate.

The forces previously discussed only become operative when the object ' lands ' and then you will notice the difference between the two. Who wouldn ' t rather have the feather fall on their toe than the lead? This phenomenology ratifies the weak and strong equivalence principles without resorting to relativistic solutions.

*This predicates that there will be an internally induced temperature rise during gravitational free fall. However with a 'g' force of only 9.81N it is unlikely that such would be observable in earth gravity. I.e. the E from E=mv only amounts to watts**/sec/kg and any energy from internal motion that wasn't the kinetic energy component (which will be released on ground impact) would rapidly radiate via BBR and some probably undetectable IR radiation.

**Please refer to the Joule and watt-second relationship.


From this it can then be concluded that any object of nucleon size or greater which is mechanically held at rest in a gravitational field appears to have a ' nucleonic density proportional ' motive (accelerative) force acting against it (weight) and all the previously mentioned forces are in play in the attempt to maintain objective integrity. This doesn ' t work out too well for a blob of jelly, because I suspect there is a great lack of molecular and or mechanical or chemical bonding forces. However it must be considered that the internal nuclear binding forces are not on vacation or the jelly would have no weight.

This means that AIR has no affect on weight or acc/dec, it simply acts to attempt to maintain atomic and objective integrity within the by now obvious constraints. IT ALWAYS CAUSES THE APPLICATION (OVER ELASTIC TIME) OF THE SAME RETROACTIVE MAXIMUM JURISPRUDENT FORCE AGAINST ANY MOTIVE FORCE WHICH IS TOTALLY PROPORTIONAL TO NUCLEONIC DENSITY but unilaterally net sum zero in overall affect on freefall* until the point of the loss of objective integrity. This maximum possible force is observationally recognized in F=ma. If that force results in the loss of objective integrity then so be it. Go on give that piñata, or the balloon full of flour another whack with the baseball bat. What happened to F=ma? AIR was compromised.

*I.e. the observed result is exactly the same for the feather as the lead.


In AMOs this resistive retro force expands in a variably elastic manner to add further and proportional resistance to the accelerative force which is causing attempted distortions to the atomic or molecular matrix in more complex AMOs. In other words the reactive force occurs over varying observational time frames proportional to mass-density relationships.

At some particular point with increased acc/dec forces acting on an object, AIR forces can be overcome and in that case the acc/dec force causes a loss of objective integrity. Have you ever dropped a china plate on the floor, or seen a video of an atomic bomb? These are two cases wherein different AIR forces have been overcome –not an air war lol-. Violent impulse impacts of force can actually cause the AIR to be compromised very quickly and the atomic/molecular/mechanical bonds may actually be severed with barely any observational change of spatial motion in a larger mother object E.g. a bullet passing through a steel plate. I.e. most of the energy is used in object integrity destruction rather than being transferred as kinetic energy of spatial motion. Of course some is transferred to the motion of shattered particles and fragments but much is released as BBR and heat.

We can analyze the affect that a point source force (by reason of the force differential across an object) exhibits upon its application.

The force causes an attempted nucleon compression as well as a real compression of the atomic/molecular/mechanical constructs within the matrix at the point of contact. This is passed through the object by the previously stated mechanics and it becomes transferred to the apposite side of the object where it becomes realizable as a bulge on that side.

Disregarding elasticity; we NOW HAVE an initial SPATIAL DISPLACEMENT evidenced in the object and if the compressing force remains constant the action continues proportionally and we then notice an increase in the rate of that spatial displacement until the changed shape is restored and integrity is resumed. The result is fleeting acceleration to deceleration of a small part of the whole. The exact opposite is happening to the bullet.

Gravitational inertial mass is caused by a similar differential vector sum of forces which is (in its case) ONLY being directly applied to nucleons by graviton transitions but the atoms/molecules etc. once again display a resistance to the motive force of GTDg but this time from the inside quark lattice out. Severe GTDg force (gravity) is also able to cause the destruction of bonds but in a completely different and related way. TBE

In both cases the resistance is proportional to but NOT ALWAYS ELASTIC enough exhibit a change in linear motion. F=ma only applies to a theoretical perfectly elastic object where deprecation and energy loss are not taken into consideration. However with the classical measurement of mass and acceleration we have what we have which is a reasonable approximation of reality at STP and in earth gravity.

The retroactive resistance forces extend to and are mainly caused by the fundamental forces, namely biracial binding forces and chemical bonding forces, the latter being by agency of both the omni lateral ' g ' and form factors. Note: This will be analyzed in more detail in a later chapter.

Losses also occur by BBR, internal convection to other atoms and molecules and sometimes by photon emission as well. This loss is in some way proportional to the elasticity of the nuclear filling matrix etc.







By way of an expansion of the mechanics preliminarily suggested  in chapter 3 under the sub heading of ' The fundamental cause of mass; ' lets take the theoretical case of a singularly existing fundamental, indivisible non vibrating particle: I.e. a massless (trion) all alone in an infinite space of true nothingness. We should be able to comprehend, that without the agency of a biracial force its motion relative or theoretical state of momentum will remain unchanged and the particle can be considered to have no mass or kinetic energy (Ek=mv so Ek=0v=0. it would be unobservable and likely undetectable.

Under that consideration; for any meaningful assessment to be made we must theorize the existence of some counterforce that will resist by force, any attempted change by another motive force to the rest or momentum motion relative state of the particle.

Once we have the theoretical counterforce in place we will only then be able to contemplate the phenomenon of an actual ' rate ' of acceleration while the motive force is being applied, and upon its cessation we can conclude that the particle will now remain in momentum at the new velocity if the counterforce only acts against any acc-dec force and the acceleration is by reasons explained elsewhere is not instantaneous. The trion biracial pair (gluon or in the case of a nucleon- the Zo boson) has then exhibited the appearance of having mass and may be said to exhibit mass.

We should now contemplate this further, in that by this occurrence, work has been done and energy in the minuscule force system has been expended (lost) and the gluon has obvious mass. If this is the true case then the work done and the energy used could be calculated by Ei=Ft .t. Even though it isn ' t necessary for that formula, the mass of the particle will also be calculable during the event by m : Fm-Fr where Fm is the motive force and Fr is the retroactive resistant force which in every case is the lesser of the two, or there would have been no motion relative change. There would have just been an attempt. This is actually the case in the intrinsically relative analysis because of the extreme inelasticity (but not total) in that tiniest system and zero energy and mass would be detectable from that fundamental system. Note: This appears to be ridiculous because we are able to contemplate that gluons are being spatially moved within atoms in stupendous quantities all the time. The subject of the fundamental cause of mass is covered in a preceding chapter. If the motion of inelastic particles seems untenable, please refer back first and then read on for the coming answers in a later chapter.

From this we can see that force is not always noticeable and we consider (biracial force) F b= ±0 (equilibrium). In that case we can see that m=Fs where Fs is the negative sum of the two forces. In all cases where they are not equal Fs=Fm-Fr and mass is exactly proportional to Fs which allows a rate of acceleration towards F b should Fa be the greater of the two opposing forces. If Fm is zero then F b is zero. When F b is not zero we can just call Fs the resultant acc-dec force Fm. Note: ---bold b because it stands for biracial force which is a constant eigenstate (value/vector) in any state of momentum.

So now we can conclude that ' delta ' Fs : F.a which because m : Fs converts in the macro sense to the real world F=ma of Newtonian fame.

In order to provide a real world counterforce we may consider the following: If we begin with a trion and are to now introduce an anti-trion across a cosmean brane we would then have a very strong but elastic cross brane bond (most likely by 1/a4 law with increasing distance.) which by way of difference to the coulombic unlike charge attraction this bond is under the control of the cosmean laws as biracial unlike charge attraction. This is proposed to be the lowest and paradoxically strongest order of the phenomenon of PIR elicited mass.

Considering the hypothetical whereby the cosmea (or other branes as the case may be) rescinds its other laws we will evaluate the following:

1/ such a cross brane -of any type- combination will offer a counterforce against any force which attempts to change the bond positioning in any manner. (This is actually what also gives us nuclear SBF*) but the brane will offer zero counterforce against any attempted positional change to the momentum relationship of the trion biracial pair (gluon etc) within itself. Only external mechanical or perturbative forces will cause any reaction.

*---as well as the difference between the force and the counterforce giving rise to the legally empirical formula F=ma by observation.


Any understanding of counterforce is only in relation to the direction of any applied motive force which is attempting to evoke a relationship change between the two trions. Such counterforce is applied in the opposite vector direction to the linear or tangential force (in the case of angular momentum whereby in a situation of orbit the side forces are exhibited but in sidewise equilibrium).

This biracial force is similarly active regardless of any unaffected velocity (momentum) including zero (stationary) and it is also the fundamental force that relates to PIR which expands to AIR at the atomic level via quarks and the weak force. Theoretically we now have P-mass being exhibited which necessitates a rate of acceleration because of losses due to the necessary elasticity consistent with the third law of thermodynamics.

If the gluon has no spin moment then its realizable mass would be almost insignificant to zero and it would likely take some position-ally relatable arbiter of a particle system of interactive forces in order for any of its unobservable mass to be exhibited.

2/ whether existing in an unperturbed state at rest or in momentum, the gluon and the brane will act according to rest state law and offer zero counterforce and exhibit zero linear inertial mass between each other. I.e. The particles are massless within themselves. They don ' t carry mass.

3/ an extreme force of sufficient strength is able to separate the bound trions and even thrust them through the brane upon which (outside of a quark lattice they might undergo mutual annihilation (simply vanish into the eos) but most travel as neutrinos and anti neutrinos of various flavors dependant on the complexity of the gluon multi-structure they derived from. They can split up and join in space, but that ' s another subject. Note: The unaffected bond force of a SINGLE gluon may be unassailable by any external forces under the current energy state of the universe. The existence of strings of an unknown ' n ' of gluons is possible in deep space. It requires relatively extreme direct or perturbative forces originating from matter to break them apart. The nuclear SBF may be considered to be activated and sustained by the agency of a string of perhaps four gluons. E.g. A theoretically probable connectivity could be… Proton quark lattice gluon--- proton SBF gluon--- neutron SBF gluon--- neutron quark lattice gluon. This is very basic.

Any gluon bound construct that consists of three biracial gluons or more will result in an electrostatic charge particle*. When the QG plasma originally cooled, many different and mostly short lived gluon constructs were likely to have been formed. Many were useful for the creation of greater generational forms of matter. Strings of bosons so formed also interconnected and in some case they became magnetic dipole particles**. You should understand that these particles will be absorbed into fermions whenever the opportunity presents itself, conditional with parity and energy state laws.

*uniracial trions don't exist as perceivable matter. If they do exist. We just can't say where if they're not doing anything. Such uni-charge particles may be considered to be almost undetectable.

**That's also dark matter/antimatter which I would consider to only be likely to occur in Q-G plasma. However once released from the plasma, strings of gluons might travel through space at speed (?). Such strings can be length limited by becoming gauge bosons in their own right.



4/ The brane could be concluded to be virtual, and as such it would be deemed to by itself exhibit zero perturbability and zero resistant force capability and any forces would be necessarily by trion biracial attraction and always seen as vector aligned to the axis of the cross brane trion attachment. This is always similarly vector aligned almost instantaneously to the vector of the applied force.

So the counterforce is absolutely predicable in every case, and that predicates the ability for related and specifically pertinent laws of physics to be able to be set in stone. This however still presents a problem that seems to only have a magical solution. I.e. how can the conditions of stationary and momentum appear to be the same? I have addressed this in overview in a previous chapter (above) but I will provide G-man ' s simplified answer shortly.

It is possible that particles might be strings of gluons with a charge balancing quark on each end and they would still be exhibiting extremely little perturbability and therefore PIR, so in that case they would have an almost non existent mass. I.e. such a particle is basically, a dimensionally shifted meson. The idea of VERY large baryons with three quarks interconnected nucleon like) by strings of gluons is not out of the question. If one of those encountered a micro black hole, the black hole and the surplus gluons that would be sucked into it by the limited perturbability caused by a micro extreme GS could likely become a quark lattice and a proton could soon be born*. Such mechanics would be considered to have only been applicable to any great extent in the early universe. Note: This means that gluons are slightly perturbable by gravitons, specifically those that have an odd number of trions ' onboard ' .

Any such baryons created in a stellar environment would quickly be united with micro black holes which would be thought to still be continuing to be created in stars. The likelihood of such black holes growing larger than a proton is statistically zero.

So many baryons would be thought to escape a star; not only neutrinos? Absolutely: Because the baryons can ' t all be absorbed into micro black holes and conditionally they don ' t exist for more than trillionths of a second. Note: remember that bosons and sub bosons that are taken into the micro black holes that are probably bound to become quark lattice femto black holes would-be thought to not just disappear, by reason of mechanics that has already been described.

*Surprisingly and profoundly; this means that nucleons could appear to rise from nothing, straight out of the vacuum in the current universe.


It should be possible to separate gluons into biracial trions (neutrinos and antineutrinos) in the  LHC. The CERN physicists may have already done so and may also have actually found the Higg ' s boson* but as I have already suggested, if they are looking in the wrong energy range then it won’t be. However observing trions may be as problematic as observing a graviton if the trions and brane instantaneously vanish into the eos and expel other lesser particles**. Note: Trions and their specified brane being the W and 1/2Z boson** respectively have extremely short ex-bond lives that are determinable.

*Stop press they actually may have! Apparently their decay rate was long enough lived for them to be observable. **Refer to chapter 20.

**This is consistent with the accepted possibility of particles which are observed decaying into other lower order particles which they weren't thought to consist of. This is not referring to positive decay, rather during the mechanics of annihilation.

The Higgs and gluon as well as the graviton are thought to be responsible for the fundamental phenomena of mass and gravity respectively by the herein proposed mechanics. This refers to the 'Higg's boson graviton collusion' part of the extended symmetry model.


Now if we were to theoretically add a large quantity of sub quantum particles that have elastic and equally distributed repulsive and attractive perturbative forces acting on them into this universe; what we will notice from this would be a vibrating mess of particles constantly striving to reach a state of equilibrium which is a statistical probability under the zeroeth law of thermodynamics.

When this theoretically does occur we can also theoretically consider them to now be in a closed system and they can then be concluded by the ' observer ' to have a single system mass because they are constantly moving but with a zero sum accelerative component. This mass will not be exactly the same as the potential mass they would be expected to exhibit should they finally clump together*. This is called the mass deviation and it is analyzed elsewhere herein and we can ignore it for the moment.

So until then we have E=mv because the system has a continuance of motion by the continuance of the activity of force but with zero linear force resultant. Does this perhaps sound descriptive of a greater fundamental particle with supposed ' spin ' perhaps? If that ' s the case we would notice it now has a consistency of overall elastic vibration (s), so then we can derive E=Vs or in another form E=hf.

This is not a quantum delineated but a number ' n ' of those particles (which if dimensionally separated, perturbativly act in exactly the same manner) but their dimensionally constrained group numerical velocity value is now quantifiable at a certain ' n ' value strangely termed in energy per second by the derivation of a constant called Planck ' s constant (h) such that the static ' energy ' (velocity) of a quantum of bosons is calculable. I.e. a base photon quantum is determined by the formula E=hf.

*Once they clump together they only have rest state potential energy, and if they do enter the dimension of the cosmean--- ground state Ep. N.B: The mass discrepancy doesn' t apply to sub quantum particle systems only nucleons and above where quark lattices are formed and filled within them.


However in this equation both ' h ' and ' f ' contain components of ' m ' and ' vs ' respectively in the above but m=E/v is still the case, but because of the amplitude of the vibration at any given photonic frequency we are only able to conclude that E=hf only relates as E=mv at ground state and (theoretically for the purposes of mathematics) instantaneously upon photon emission at STP. So in both cases we can take the ' h ' to equate to ' m '* , which as we saw before relates to Ei=Ft .t. Note 1: In a closed quantum system such as a photon the acceleration is net sum zero so it can be ignored. So the energy in Planck ' s constant fully relates to the work being done by the fundamental forces inside and accounts (almost?) totally for the mass of a photon before emission and upon reception with respect to nucleons. Note 2: F=ma does not apply to photon emission!

*Again this is not M-E equivalence. The energy term is a misnomer.


If we now apply a -theoretical- linear motive force to a photon within a quark lattice, and having already considered that Ei=Ft .t gets the same result as E=mv*, then if we combine that latter formula into the form E=hf for vibrational motion with E=mv of linear motion we can find the energy used and usable (Et) in the photon by the formula Et=hf+mc. Note: In large body inertial mass a vast quantity of forces are in play and any given system is not considered to be closed mainly because of the activity of similarly vast unbalanced quantities of BBR and thermal emissions and receptions, so real world F=ma stands as per Mr. Newton but E=mv and E=mv2 as well as the variants of those formula in gravity only conditionally stand in the real world as we have just seen. The universe may be a closed system but does anyone want to volunteer to mathematically push the universe and declare the force required to accelerate it at an appreciable rate?

*Iteration: By F=m because there is no 'a' in a ground state system.





The most fundamental cause of mass is actually derived from the cosmea which is the infinite space which cocoons the universe. The trions have no mass of their own. The mass arises from the almost inelastic brane resisting any change to the positioning of the trions across it. The brane only exists as a subjective reality between the trions. In fact it is everywhere! That ' s enigmatic I suppose but yes this is where we need to have the enigmas not in classical physics.

There is no violation of energy conservation. There is no energy used. The motion of distortion of the brane is all elastically returned without loss. This can only occur within dimensions of the cosmos where there can be no energy loss. Energy loss is limited to within our universe because of the law of entropy. This is because energy is being lost back to the cosmos in other ways. The cosmos is attempting to repair itself. The wound is our universe. Note Refer to ' The origin of the universe ' tab .

It now appears that I have put the origin of mass outside our universe. Yes and no: The two are combined as the cosmo-universe but the two also operate under very different laws.





G-mass is theorized to operate via a different phenomenology which subsequently derives inertial mass by similar perturbative mechanics as that described above. This is fully examined in the thesis, as is the reason why some of the mass of the universe is missing. Refer to the ' Newton kgF enigma ' tab for the evidence of the G-mass inertial mass difference.