G-THEORY thesis CH1


CHAPTER 1

 

 

CHAPTER 1 : THE MULTIPLICITY OF G-THEORY

  • THE PARAMETERS AND LAWS OF THE DIMENSIONS-----------43
  • THE OVERWHELMING LAWS OF THE UNIVERSES ---------------46
  • AN ANALYSIS OF THE MULTIPLEX  DIMENSIONS-----------------47
  • THE MULTIPLEX TENSORS--------------------------------------------------53

 

 

G-theory proposes a (non-esoteric/metaphysical) dualistic cosmogony of multi-dimensionalism (multiplicity).

 

ABSTRACT:

 

This presentation includes a provision of the characteristics and laws of the dimensions. ('Dimension' is not always the meaning of the word as a measurement of physical displacement).

In that context within the Euclidian 'three dimensional' universe, the third dimension of depth/height brings the first two physical dimensions to life. In this theory other incremental abstracts are used which by themselves are deemed not to exist. (Incrementalization and digitization are common tools in scientific description). Lines such as waves and other shapes are infinitely assumable but it must be deemed that they do not actually exist and are useful only as tools for analysis and explanation.

Common theorizing of strings and extra bosons and of non existent particles such as tachyons may seem somewhat similar to the theorizing of particles entertained by this theory.  The difference is that the particles and dimensions theorized herein are deemed to not only substantively exist as scalars but to be subject to the existing and rigid scientific laws of their own dimension. They are either also able to be measured or their effects are measurable in the universe and they have no metaphysical or paranormal connotations. I.e. it is only infinitesimal size or physical characteristics and not dimensional status that may confer invisibility (non observability by any direct means) upon objects of matter existing in any dimension. Note: The cosmea would almost seem to be a parallel universe; however this is not probable because its effects are seen in the universe in many dimensions and in all likelihood cosmean matter also exists in the universe; hence I often use the combining term; 'cosmo-universe'. Atoms and all universal matter are therefore subject to laws pertaining to the cosmo-universe.

As is usually the cause particles are theorized herein for reasons of necessity. Behind every proposed theory there needs to be a rationale that lays out the necessity for the presentation of the theoretical elements so put forth. So at this point I will present the rationale behind the idea of multiplicity and explain the derivatives.

It has been found to be necessary when studying sub particle interactions, both in and outside nucleons, that many of the bosons must be capable of occupying the same space time. Whether permanently or fleetingly, it makes little difference; the problem is still the same, because this is in conflict with the relevant law of the four dimensional universe which prevents any object from occupying the same space-time.

We will now analyze some theoretical concepts of phenomena that appear to be able to allow or indeed enable this to occur with obvious universal legality.

The first and most obvious solution is to jump to the conclusion that sub particles (bosons) have no size and are therefore virtual or fictitious particles, which by extrapolation to the greater universe means that matter itself, if it consists of these particles, (a prime contention of G-theory) is also virtual and doesn't actually exist.

This idea contains an immediate problem for both physics per se and by extension the classical physics based G-theory because it allows the idea of 'meta-physicalism' to creep in, wherein there can be now no known mechanics which is able to keep biracial particles apart.

However as far as contemporary physics is concerned the greater problem becomes obvious in that this puts an empirical physics, that contends for the actual existence of matter, into spiritual and/or metaphysical realms. So this idea must be rejected as a possibility.

This realization of course has led to other postulations, one of which is the idea that some bosons are able to become time disjuncted in some 'magical' way such that upon colliding they can be 'seen' to temporarily inhabit different time 'zones'. If this were to occur it would require that either one or both bosons must 'disappear' from our own relative gaze, but then we are faced with a different dilemma of; where (oops I mean when) did they disappear to?

Apart from magic which was thought hopefully possible by the introduction of the Coleman-Mandula theorem but which became disappointingly disallowed in the current quantum paradigm by the extended Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem, we must then ask the question: What could possibly have caused or at least enabled the apparently time disjuncted disappearance? As well as that we must consider the fact that at least one particle must instantly reappear in some other time or dimension wherein it may or may not have an actual collision, and/or at least a perturbative influence on the original or new time or dimension upon either time re-entry or disjunction respectively.

Some postulated ways of solving such a problem are to for one envisage the further requirement for the preemptive time disjuncted transmission of data in order to allow interlocution to occur. Either that or envisage time disjuncts that are greater than the age of the universe such that the particles are able to be time disjuncted to a time when nothing else supposedly exists. This would also require an innumerable number of space/time 'pigeon holes' that would need to be able to accept or deny access to incoming particles which would all have to be controlled by some sort of 'super duper computer'. This is all just utter nonsense that I have engaged in simply to show the futility of going down that path.

There is no possibility for the current batch of theoretical models including supersymmetry to allow internal quantum symmetries to interact with Poincare space-time symmetries.  There has to be a more logical and rational solution. You've probably guessed what solution I mean by now!

If the time disjunctive dimensions are indeed to be non perturbative/able at the very least (where; upon deep consideration it must be concluded to be impossible), then we are constrained to conclude that bosons are restricted to the idea of dimensional disjunction and NOT SPACE-TIME DISJUNCTION, or otherwise please explain how they are able to communicate their existence or not by interlocution through such a non perturbative barrier as time in order for both the disjunct and/or the return to be made to the original dimension without the risk of simultaneous reappearance at the same space-time occupancy position as some other already existing particle. Note: Some form of disjunction is necessary for even β-ve decay to occur. This is analyzed in another section.

If you are in any way enamored by the idea of time travel, even for particles then I suggest you are studying the wrong book. By way of an answer derived from multiplicity theory; there are two conclusions which are able to be logically presented at this point. The first is that it doesn't really matter which dimension the boson remains in, but this remains problematical in consideration of the actual disjunct even if they aren't required to return.

The second is that the bosons remain 'entangled' and transfer limited data to each other regarding size and velocity which enables them to time the transition and reappear back in their original dimension after a calculated 'instant'. Upon further reflection this then seems to require that another data communication dimension must also exist. This is not necessarily so because they exist in the same space-time multi-dimensionally and are able to interlocute by force perturbation across the brane and in that manner prevent or limit any attempted coexistence (collision). I will expand on this.

In considering both the time disjunct and the MP proposals we should ask: What then can prevent a boson from jumping through a non perturbative time barrier to another time or dimension and reappearing right at the point of existence of another boson in that other time/dimension? Answer: The avoidance is only able to be by dimension shifts that DO NOT include any time disjuncts whatsoever and the bosons would simply come under instantaneous entanglement to avoid each other by mutual perturbative cross brane virtual force constraints*.

If in the other case; there then remained no interlocutive path to another dimensional disjunct then the bosons would either use repulsive 'energy' to move spatially or destroy each other into other sub-sub-particles perhaps even trions; and in the case of those and possibly other antiparticles, annihilate each other. This probability also then requires that there be laws associated with dimensions. Note: This means that some attempts at cross brane transitions will be botched but any simultaneously attempted space-time positional occupations will only result in a collision at (traditionally) a combined velocity of 'c' with randomized vector distribution. Whether this would result in annihilation of anti particles is unknown and it should be understood that the laws of physic demand imperfection and 'energy' losses.

Without having a full understanding of G-theory you may arrive at the conclusion that particles and 'energy' are the same thing, so by extension mass-energy (M-E) equivalence is conclusive phenomenology. This is only conditional: 'Energy' is indeed transferred by the motion of particles but not all 'energy'. Some 'energy' is not relatable to 'mass' per se even though it is all relatable to matter as well as forces deriving from matter.

*This would seem to be extremely problematical in situations where particle densities are immense and mobile such as in the innards of a star etc. This sort of activity indeed does occur, and a case to point is the limited effect a laser beam has on an intersection with an electron beam. The strange thing about the observational results during such an event is that they show that far fewer particles become involved in collisions than would be expected if there were only two time disjunctive dimensions, whereby one can easily see that half the bosons involved should become engaged at the very least, and that's not what is observed. In that case we would have to either conclude that there are many more time disjuncted dimensions with the same inherent problems of logic or we must recognize that there is something else going on here. I.e. by an action which is causing multi-dimensional perturbation through entanglement.

 

The problem with any other theory that predicates a (time, anti-time) dimensional model can be concluded to be only ratify-able by the necessary requirement that there must be an even proportionality between the quantities of bosons in both (or more) time dimensions. Either that or we must consider that one dimension is 'magically' considered to be the real and default dimension and the other/s to not be real. There is no known cause or even a reason for such a preeminent time dimension to exist or even remain preeminent. Also it remains the case that the problems associated with the previous time disjunct theories still apply.

Considering these problems perhaps we should either search for a mechanics of such speculative 'time travel' or constrain ourselves to searching for a better model of quantum mechanics which answers to the following necessary observations whereby we can have some bosons that are able to permanently occupy their own perturbative or non perturbative dimension as the case may be. These are free to roam their own dimension with full appearance of obedience to the normal laws of physics, and appearance is all that's necessary in the final analysis because the laws of physics are derived from observation and nothing more.

In such a dimension whereby these bosons are able to collide and interact with other various particles in the same dimension, (and unless entanglement otherwise requires a dimension shift due to multiplicity law) then it becomes the necessary case that other laws must apply singularly and specifically to individual dimensions.

 

Interlude: It is a conclusive observance in physics that some bosons do actually collide (often with counter-predicative results), while others 'seem' to pass right through each other. Some also exhibit perturbative affects while others either don't as they would be expected to, or the affect is somehow limited.

In all observations of physics the 'nothing's perfect' rule always applies and anomalies will be noticed; such as the historically logged observation of particles simply appearing from and disappearing to nowhere. This strange phenomenon as well as weird situation of biracial particles not assimilating as expected every time they come into contact. Such strange observances have been made in high 'energy' particle physics experiments.

In order to 'invent' a better model we need to take notice of two observational phenomena. Firstly in the objective analysis of the laser and electron beam interaction (whereby a sub normal level of particle interaction is noticed), we can see that this is much less than the expected result if only two time disjunctive dimensions were to be involved--- and in any case we have already noted the impossibility for any sort of time disjunctive phenomenon to be the case.

Secondly we might take into consideration, that with some long lived biracial bosons; trions, W bosons and neutrinos in particular, that there would have to be a rock solid permanence to their time disjunctive dimensions to allow these bosons to occupy a semi perturbative dimensional disjunct for billons of years. This also applies to electrons and more so to muons and like anti hadron relatives.

Just because we live in a universe which is biased towards matter doesn't preclude the existence of some anti hadrons which don't just combine with matter and annihilate. In fact some muons are able to act like anti atoms and the muons are even able to interact with matter hadrons as in a mu-mesic hydrogen atom. Refer to the previous mu-mesic helium experiment reference.

With reference to muon decay extensions proposed to be relativistic by exhibiting time dilation: This is based on many assumptions

 1/ that a cosmic ray is traveling at 'c'. (In G-theory it is likely to be a proton (or beta neutron or 1H ion?) which would not be traveling at 'c'.

2/that scintillaton detector measurements of decay times are meaningful in the real world.

3/ that the energy of impact with atmospheric atoms is the same as that from man made generation and emission of muons.

Main objections:

a/ Muons can be very long lived otherwise how could mu-mesic experiments be able to be carried out? Note should also be taken of the existence of muonium.

b/ Scintillation detections also show that just about everything else including some fermions decay at the same rates as the muons!

Conclusion: This is a fortuitously convenient observation that was opportunistically pounced upon with an interpretation thus garnering specious results by evidentiary bias and blatant disregard for assumptive disqualifications.

Particle physics is in many respects a flimsy science which is somewhat akin to looking at a candle (with the sun behind it) through a welding mask and then trying to count the photons that come from the candle. Robust theorizing is probably the only way forward.

If you need further evidence of this muon relativistic 'proof' debacle you can find the original experimental decay findings on---

 

http://faculty.mint.ua.edu/~pleclair/PH255/templates/muon/muon.pdf

 

You should notice that the determinations were a bit like statisticians declaring that, because they got a shot which landed ten yards to the left and another one ten yards to the right that they hit the target. To be fair I'll offer another source which concurs with a decay lifetime of about 2 µS---

 

http://isnap.nd.edu/Lectures/Laboratory/16_Muon_Lifetime.pdf

 

For a 'bo peep' at the relativity-supporting interpretive analysis (assumptions and all) go to---

 

http://thespectrumofriemannium.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/log041-muons-and-relativity/

 

In response I refer you back to objection a/.

 

Returning back to the thread: On the face of it, this probably means we should be engaging in the development of a theoretical construct of permanent and separate dimensions rather than wasting our time theorizing multiple time disjuncted dimensions, which is being done in some theories.

However upon any serious contemplation of such, it must reasonably be concluded that the time disjunctive dimensions are only possible where one is time and the other is non time. Unfortunately this is still fraught with the other problems previously mentioned, so in the piecing together of G-theory it was determined that all of the dimensions must operate by cross brane perturbation but permanently exist within the singular dimension of the chronos save the eos and the cosmea (the latter being essentially non universal, and likely the stuff of black holes) which are not at all related to our time but to the infinite timelessness of the cosmea. In a way Stephen Hawking is right when he says that time stops inside a black hole and that time began at the beginning of the universe. It's just that this wasn't the creation mechanism as he supposes.

The eos (and cosmea) only has a conditional and perturbative virtual force relationship with the other dimensions. If any of these dimensions under evaluation were able to think, they would think they were acting instantaneously. Note: Speculative (caveat applies): The gravitos is the only other dimension where the time may be thought to be 'warped' and it could therefore be this phenomenon which allows the hyper velocity of gravitons by only giving them relativistic appearance of such speed; however the only time dimension we humans and the general cosmo-universe of matter are seen to exist in by reason of the overwhelming relevance of the preceding arguments, is the chronos. Therefore in retrospect such a postulation regarding the gravitos is soundly rejected. We are forced to conclude then that the gravitos is able to support hyper velocity speeds, even though this is in direct defiance of special relativity.

It should be also noted that within the eos trions are singularly capable of infinite speed in the eos dimension because the eos is a cosmo-universal form of the cosmea and it is still restricted by the introduction of time from intruding into other dimensions at all however the reverse is not the case. This might cause you to conclude that trions actually travel in the cosmea. This is all open to further subjective discussion; however the following presentation should clarify things. That is if such a thing requires clarification at all.

Examples of dimensional shifts and conditions are examined within the following pages. An example of a photon passing right through an electron without any significant perturbativity would be by the photon and electron entanglement mechanics whereby the photon moves instantaneously from the perturbative photos dimension into the non-perturbative gravitos dimension where it remains for essentially zero time and it instantaneously returns to the exact position and eigenstate that it was in before the electron had arrived. Yep sounds like magic but show me the physics law that disallows it!

Even though it took a miniscule amount of time for the electron to transit the point of collision, to the photon a zero value of time was taken up in the process so both the electron and the photon seemed to pass right through each other without either of them experiencing any change in their eigen or 'energy' states. I.e. they continued on, velocity and direction unabated. Note: the analysis of this phenomenon in the relevant section is specifically applicable to the photon in strict analysis.

So however If a photon happened to collide with another photon in the gravitos because of the 'nothings perfect' law, a resulting eigenstate change could result, and the observational conclusion would be that the electron beam perturbed the laser beam and visa versa. Other perturbations may be caused by near misses, which would be caused by cross brane perturbative entanglement affects between the sub bosons being carried within the electron and photon. Note: This whole G-theory is interactive, in that any or all phenomenology may not be understandable without the others.  


ASSERTATION CH1:

 

The dimensions of this theory: (Asterisks are applied to the dimensions already declared to exist under the current paradigm).

The Euclidian dimensions:

1/LENGTH*

2/BREADTH*

3/HEIGHT*

The fourth dimension of time I.e.…

4/CHRONOS*

The extra dimensions by G-theory:

5/PHOTOS (not for the family album! Pronounced "foe-toss")

6/GRAVITOS

7/PROPOS

8/MAGNOS

9/FORCE-FIELD (QED) (electro-weak interaction)

10/CHARGE-FIELD (QED) (electroweak interaction)

11/EOS

12/COSMEA: (Not really a dimension of the universe, but one could say of the 'ultraverse'). However the cosmean brane is postulated to transect the cosmo-universe: TBE Note: COSMOS; is a synonym of universe.

 

13/ANTIMATTER DIMENSION (COSMEAN BRANE): This dimension is required to exist to enable matter and anti matter to occupy the same space time without annihilating each other. In such a case it is typified by biracial gluons (but not neutrinos of both signs) which are often the particles that are exhibiting the existence of various non cosmean branes. This dimension is not considered to be time disjunctive. G-theory postulates the existence of parallel matter anti matter universes* which are both observable as the one we recognize to be our universe of matter. That's probably just a random happenstance because it could have just as easily been the reverse: TBE.

*These are not universes providing alternate realities. They are permanently and intimately combined to form our one cosmo-universe.

 

Twelve or thirteen dimensions may seem a little daunting at first but it may be comforting to know that as well as the 'founding four' and including number eleven there are usually only one or two others in play for any particular universal activity or causation of atomic properties, and they simply allow the overlap of space at sub atomic levels or enable actions which may otherwise seem 'other-worldly' but which all translate back to the observed properties and motion of matter. We actually only notice these extra dimensions within the Euclidian framework. Such extra dimensions facilitate motion, propagation, force to motion--- 'energy' transfer and all properties of matter, and they cannot be singularly observed.

Such multi-dimensional behavior becomes proportionally restricted by increase in the size and/or complexity of particles and at the level of AMOs it is completely voided.

The dimensions listed after the first four are multiplex dimensions which only have application to quantum states as well as (conditionally) the universal field but not to nucleons and above. These dimensions know nothing of the first four; they are constrained to conform to the original matrix scalar vectors set by the preeminent cosmean matter structure considered to be the framework inherited by fully formed atomic matter.

The lowest fundamental particle (trion) is considered to be formed in the cosmo-universal field by the interrelated junction of three multiplex dimensions, one of which (outside of atomic matter) is always the cosmea or eos. These form the point branes which form the idea of a particle even though if they could think they would think that they were extending across an infinite space but they only appear at the point if necessity as determined by cosmean law which causes the forces and fields to dictate the terms of existence and structure. In this way all such brane junctures are the derivatives of the related notion of sub particles.

However subjective it may be, the cosmean pattern causes structure within particles which extends to nucleons. This is a theory to be fleshed out in the following pages. In G-theory; spinning electrostatic point source particles made of 'who knows what'  forming magnetic-dipole spin moments is not at all a valid mechanics because there is no known capability in any physics to allow such unempirical phenomenology to even be considered. Note: Refer to the matrix structure of nuclei in a later chapter and the thesis in totality whereby a particle theory relating to both fundamental and nuclear particles is aggressively presented to challenge the metaphysical dogma pervading in the academy regarding such physics disobeying virtual particles possessing no legal causation phenomenology.

The proposed positioning of particles within nucleons is fully in compliance in any observance of nature by the interactions of biracial and electromagnetic force derivatives. These are patterned in accordance with the Q-L---Higg's---SBF spin zero fundamental structure*. This structure disintegrates and annihilates when damaged. This of course takes a great deal of force because the electroweak interaction is even stronger than magnetism.

However this force is able to be overcome in large nuclei resulting in a Higg's annihilation which causes the SBF pion to leave the scene and the SBF becomes dysfunctional at the relevant nucleon bond point and nuclear decay is often the result.

The Higg's boson is only able to exist for long in this construct. Unlike other bosons which can show statistical mass deviations the Higgs will not, because the electroweak force structure is totally consistent although reversible depending on the fundamental charge of the appropriate lattice quark.

The Higg's boson is never regained from anywhere including a postulated Higg's field. Once a nucleon has decayed it will never exist again. This is in spite of some unsubstantiated evidence that W-bosons decay into protons. What was observed would more than likely be some misidentification of another 1+ve particle like a +muon.

While I'm on the subject I will iterate: It will become recognized that antiparticles are not necessarily the mirror twin of themselves. Such anti-self-subjectivism is true for trions, and probably gauge bosons as well. TBE

*This is the answer to the fourth fundamental question posed on the website front page.

 

Spin -unless otherwise stated as quantum spin or spin state- herein is usually referring to sub particle vibration (especially not fermion spin) which is considered necessary to provide the energetic state which gives rise to appreciable mass and therefore continence of function. This is not caused by some sort of perpetual motion in violation of the laws of thermodynamics; the spins are continually being reenergized by a process which is empirically legal and forthcoming.

Universal laws of classical physics are preempted by cosmean laws at the quantum level. This gives legal empiricism to the otherwise exotic and metaphysical nature of quantum mechanics and the standard theory. Multiplicity also allows for some apparent symmetry violations as well as orderly conditional space time co-existence. TBE


 

 

THE PARAMETERS AND LAWS OF THE DIMENSIONS:

 

 

When addressing the laws of dimensions in comparison to the laws of the universe, it can be stated that the observable laws of the universe are caused by the interaction between its dimensional parts and cosmean laws. The universal laws so resulting must be equal to the sum of its dimensional counterparts, because such higher order (preeminent) laws may be different and sometimes even seem to be the opposite of what may be said of any particular dimensional law on its own.

This dimensional arbitration is what essentially ALLOWS FOR QUANTUM PARTICLES TO OFTEN APPEAR TO BE OPERATING UNDER DIFFERENT LAWS THAN THE NORMAL LAWS OF PHYSICS, because they are! This has often proved to be a dilemma for physicists, but with the G-theory model, that doesn't need to be the case because the particles are simply behaving in accordance to dimensional law in the microcosm.

This is because the relevant sub quantum particles are typically IN another dimension/s and so extensionally subject to the law of that dimension/s. The summation of such dimensional laws acting either directly, perturbativly or by interlocution becomes the higher order universal law which applies to the macrocosm wherein (because of the greater size relative to force disparities in evidence) the phenomena are not perceivable in the actions of greater universal AMOs.

By way of clarification: When we investigate the outworking of universal law as it applies to the macro universe, we are only observing behavior according to such laws which are truly the sum of specific multiplex laws, and these don't act out on their own in any macro universal sense.

By way of iteration; in consideration of dimensional laws so acting at the quantum level, the particles involved would sometimes seem to be ignoring the universal laws of classical physics. That is the case because in that situation they are conditionally subject to the laws of their respective multiplex dimensions.

It may still appear conclusive to some imaginations that such dimensions are really parallel macro-cosmean universes that exist with their own set of laws. This idea should be rejected, because no dimension can act alone and be observable or causative of anything outside of dimensional interactions which give rise to the observable macrocosm. The dimensions are deemed to be interactive and so cause the net sum of the universal laws which are known as the laws of physics. I strongly suspect that there are no alternate realities outside of some willful subjection to fantasy!

The benefit of a theory like G-theory may be in reaching a better understanding of the forces that shape our world and give us insights into the true limits of possibility which are not necessarily the same as those supported by current understanding and in so doing enable us to find ways of *(not changing any proven universal law) but to be able to manipulate dimensional effects to temporarily interrupt certain restrictions set by the unaffected sum of the universal law.

*We may be unable to change any laws, but what if we can find a way to prevent or enable the interaction of dimensions at will and so temporarily circumvent a law or two?

In such a case we in no way would be disproving laws of physics, we would be simply acknowledging that universal law is only in place because of a similarly strict set of dimensional laws and it would only be that interaction we would be seeking to conditionally abrogate. Such dimensions are also affected by forces which don't necessarily appear to directly apply to the universe itself**. Again universal law is seen to be 'resultant' law by the summative interaction of law sets.

The salient idea is that even though we are legally prevented from changing any of the laws themselves we may be able to manipulate the sets in a way whereby we might be able to vary the sum of law sets acting on particular quantum particles at will. In this way we may be able to temporarily adjust or interrupt the behavior of universal micro objects and perhaps in the future even extend such abilities to the macro scale.

 

**E.g. biracial charge is not functionally or definitively similar to electrostatic charge. The latter is the universal outworking of the former lower-generational dimensionally constrained micro charge, and therefore coulombic affects cannot be found to, or even be expected to act between the two.

 

Einstein has placed a speed limit on universal travel. Certain fantastical ideas that have no underpinning from any observable science at all have been presented in order to hopefully enable the limitations of such a speed limit. G-theory also recognizes a speed limit but in contrast to relativity it provides an actual substantive phenomenology of causation. By understanding plausible causation we are then potentially able to embark on scientific endeavors to perhaps allow us to manipulate and utilize the science which may in turn give rise to prodigious future technologies. G-theory may well provide a gateway towards the removal of the bulwark placed upon the idea of hyper-velocity space travel that Einstein has left mankind with.


 

 

 

 

THE OVERWHELMING LAWS OF THE UNIVERSES:

 

 

The first law states: Nothing can occur without causality and everything that occurs is by the action of a true force/s regardless of the specifics of such force or its point of origin.

The second law of the universe is: Any effect (or force) that causes consistent observations which result in a law being evinced IS NOT ITSELF NECESSARILY COUNTER-SUBJECT TO THE SAID LAW OR EFFECT.

The third law of the universe states that no objects of nucleon size or above can occupy or appear to occupy the same space time. Neither can they even attempt to occupy the same space-time without the release of 'energy'. Sub nucleon particles may only appear to occupy the same space time by dimensional separation.

The laws of the cosmea: The cosmea subjectively appears to exist only in the physical dimensions (meaning non Minkowski space). Within those dimensions there exist particles called praetoms (from pre-atoms). Praetoms have potential 'energy' (at ground state?) of some degree above that of any universally extant nucleon.

The cosmea is unaffected by the dimensions of space-time (being the founding four) and because it exists at 0o k it is therefore not subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and its potential 'energy' only exists as cold dark motionless cosmean matter*. There is no motion within the cosmea; however the cosmea can be seen by our 'observer'. It only exists because of the physical dimensions in which it is contained. The laws and possible options for the cosmea can be likened to a sleeping giant, laying dormant until wakened by a real and present threat to its existence.

*Not to be confused with 'mass'.

 

The first law of the cosmea is: Should it become damaged it will attempt to instantly repair itself.

The second law of the cosmea is: The cosmea will exert an instantaneous and (default to) continuous cosmean-'velocity' motive-force (cmf) across a rent in the attempt to instantaneously close it. (Instantaneous motion is not measurable as motion because it takes no time and therefore also expends no 'energy').

So the third law of the cosmea is: Motion is not possible in a steady state cosmea, and 'energy' is unable to be expended, such motion would be concluded (without further explanation) to be self contradictory to the first laws and so the theory immediately appears to be specious. There is however another dimensional law which I will introduce shortly that will allow for the motion of the cosmic particles.

A principle we must note is that virtual particles are possible and indeed necessary. However a causation and plausible mechanics must be proposed to enable any reasonable validity. G-theory responds positively; does yours?

 

RULE: Dimensions are not responsible for any causation or affect. They can provide no force nor introduce any energy or remove the same. They are just pathways for sub particle behavior, no matter how apparently weird.

 

 

 

 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE MULTIPLEX DIMENSIONS:

 

 

LENGTH: Length is a straight line of indeterminate spatial coordinates, of infinitely small width and height stretching across the cosmo/universe that (similar to the following two dimensions) cannot be bent, by any theorized distortion of space or geodesic manifold. Euclidean space is rigid.

 

BREADTH: Breadth is a straight line with similar characteristics stretching across the cosmo/universe at right angles to the length.

Together they make Cartesian planes and sets of planar lines of which there is an infinite number.

 

HEIGHT: Height or depth is also a line that cannot be bent bringing dimensional matter into existence only by enabling objects to be identified having been formed and currently existent in three dimensions. The cosmean and/or universe themselves may be such objects.

These three dimensions are called the Euclidian physical dimensions and they are interchangeable with each other and are sometimes incorrectly referred to as the dimensions of the universe or space.

 

CHRONOS: Time (a) Universal time in its elemental and absolute constancy. "Old father time keeps marching along" anon. This is intuitive knowledge. Counter-intuition is usually related to irrationality. The minimalist concept is most often the correct one so the burden of proof should be on the complex and strange.  

The first law of the chronos: Time allows motion and work to be done by the use of 'energy' through force. (No time no motion)

The second law of time is that (conditionally subordinate to laws of individual dimensions on a case specific basis) no objects in the same dimension can occupy or attempt to occupy the same space at the same time without the release of 'energy' (work being done).

The third law of the chronos is:  AMOs colliding at velocity will be subject to vector law of the force because the force-field dimension is existent within the dimension of time and all collisions between AMOs are in some way elastic, so their motion within time will be conditionally changeable.

The fourth law of the chronos is that time is a constant regardless of observational frames of reference which are only mind games when they are considered to be the actual real time. The true subjective evaluation of time is that it is only the relative present, historical, future and past (by light propagation delay) observational separation of physical events. E.g. two objects are observed individually from a vantage point in space. They are noted to be traveling at 100m/s towards each other. An observer on one of the objects sees the other object approaching at 200m/s and visa versa. That's a prime example of observational frame of reference ambiguity because the two observers are in different observational reference frames.

At this point I might also ask a profound question for you to chew on. Which object/s contain/s the kinetic 'energy' of momentum?

Relativity is mathematically able to remove such ambiguities but in so doing it CANNOT change time. The relativistic math so applied is purely an observational fix and not a reality changer. Time is the same everywhere in the universe. It's just the data that takes time to arrive or get there as the case may be. I we want to get relativistic about things then scientists should be utilizing relativistic math to solve for the Schumann resonance to keep operational integrity with the mars rovers say. The gravitational time warp should probably fix that though if time only warps for gravity and not for emr? Oh sorry I should be doing S-rel because of 'c' constancy. Oh my mistake. Obviously the two are incompatible but oh well here goes. I agree with the constancy of 'c' but G-rel warping of space makes mincemeat of S-rel. This is because the warped time required in order to keep 'c' constant should affect gravity for any body moving through space. We don't see that with the earth do we? The only problem I have is that if both 't' and 'c' are to be held to be constants as I suggest then I'm going to have to seriously refute both relativities. Don't fret that's easy, and coincidental with doing that I will be presenting phenomenologies for both gravity as well as the emission variability of 'c' without causing any change to 'f'. It's that simple. Relativity has passed its 'best before' date.

I must now address the other subjective forms of time that can confuse the issue of understanding the chronos.

Observed time: Related to the human observance of time from life to death. All such mental determinations of time are relevant to individual experiences and personally subjective frames of reference. Observed time is not an absolute constant and lends itself to mind game confusion. Such things that have been stated are: "This only appears to be the real time to you and your measuring devices with which you measure the universe. To someone else in a different location, his observed time and measurements may be different to yours yet real to him in any similar sense".

Such postulators actually declare this to be in accordance with actual constancy of time difference. In other words they truly carry the meaning of separate existence in different dimensions of time and are therefore specious. In such a case then you might live to be seventy years and the other person in another time dimension might only live to be one second relative to you but relative to himself he lived out his seventy years also.

According to such drivel, no possible sense can be maintained with regard to any observances in the universe. This would also be problematic with regard to any contemplation of relative time consideration when it comes to the civilization span of any race of aliens you might fantasize about.

This is all subjective irrational gobbledygook. Duh! The ability of the human mind to dredge up sewage and contemplate it as roast duck without giving heed to nostrils or even eyes for any reasonable evaluation of its palatability is legendary. Serious empirical examination is the only key to avoiding a bad case of scientific Montezuma's revenge.

This sort of thing does not lend itself to scientific understanding of the universe. If the whole observation and measurement deal is that subjective then we might as well give up now and go fishing! Either that or waste our time arguing concepts on endless blogs of non learning.

In the first mentioned case: It's not the time that changes, it's just that slight differences in other parameters at different locations are what may cause an observational 'rate' change. Everything else is observational relativity. So there goes Einsteinian relativity per se!

Measured time: This practical time is really an arbitrary number based on observances of our own solar systems planetary motions. (On mars the second, day and year are different). However it would be a mistake to assume that because the Martian second is different, that this would disprove E=mc2 on Mars. This is because the relationships within the calculations of scientific formulas using the Martian second substituted in them all; would end up with the same result and still remain an enigma for the 'Martian Einstein' to evaluate, and the same disputable theories would be the result.

Time measurement by planetary rotation and orbit has been superceded by cesium (or the like) atomic clocks, which is a patently obvious irony when you consider the laxity with which relativistic science treats chronos time. The other thing about atomic clocks is that they are sensitive to gravity (altitude) and inconclusively to temperature. So it adds insult to injury to suppose that measured time should be treated as a meticulous constant. The only true constant is the chronos.

This is not nit picking; all things being equal, current generation in situ clocks are phenomenally accurate and therefore have a close relationship to chronos time. In G-theory the chronos time is deemed to be the constant so an understanding of the real variables can take place.

The reason that cesium clocks must be reset for space travel, specifically GPS satellites will be shown to not be because of relativity or the lack of gravity (weightlessness) they are experiencing but because of the change in GS that they exist in by the change of ALTITUDE.  Experiments have been undertaken in attempts to prove either S-rel or G-rel (who knows) by flying atomic clocks from a-b in aircraft and up to 10,000kms in a rocket. These have both taken the clock to altitude so even by G-theory you will get the same result so that doesn't prove relativity. It only proves the math.

Measured, observed and chronos time have all mistakenly been taken as extra variables when attempting to understand the so called space-time continuum.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen criterion has also been used in an attempt to understand certain enigmas with physics and the apparent disobedience of quantum physics to the standard laws. G-theory will readily address this. I have no problem with Einstein's mathematical gravitational theory (in that it provides a modified geodesic model which generally seems to fit with observed results), or with his slit/s per se, only with his pseudo gravity, box and clocks and the other relativistic assortment of spaceships, trains and lifts etc.

As previously touched on, G-theory will show that quantum physics does not need to obey all the laws of physics because such physics is the discipline of observing and theorizing the behavior of particles, some of which are the actual multi-dimensional CAUSE of the laws of physics, and causative functions are not subject to the laws they cause as per the second law of the universe! In such a case, G-theory then must render relativity to be treated as obsolete science. In that case G-man is constrained to conditionally debunk it.

In analysis of problems associated with 'c' and light wave propagation; any assessment that the relativistic label can be pinned to the idea that time may be dis-related to motion is absurd. If not; why not extend the stupid idea so that we can state that because angularly vectored spatial displacement (wave amplitude) is unable to be propagated by a light beam because it is already traveling at 'c' and admit that there can be no such thing as light wave frequencies (or any other frequency for that matter) because even dis-relating time from motion makes ANY SPEED AT ALL equivalent to 'c', so in that case even defined frequencies become an impossibility for any data propagation.

This weird idea of dis-relativity has arisen because by relativity each color of light would only be able to propagate its wave information by the existence of a different frame of reference for each supposed frequency, but then the actual wave speed in all cases would be faster than 'c'! That's absurd because they are all traveling at the same linear speed 'c' and therefore the same reference frame must be applicable to all frequencies.

If because of that impossibility, wave motion is once more enlisted for color data propagation in order to vectorally modify the speed of each light color then 'c' becomes a variable and S-relativity comes under threat by this circular self refuting argument but it is actually destroyed by the only supposition left; The first one, in which such destruction ironically occurs in the ultimate vain attempt to save relativity. I.e. that time must be dis-related to motion. When such circular impossibilities abound, Einstein's relativity models may be concluded to be under serious threat. This is further indicated by other more ridiculous suppositions about light wave propagation that aren't worth the ink. Note: A thorough analysis of the subject of light and its propagation will be undertaken in following chapters and this wave problem will actually be just made to go away, so this cannot actually be seen as a full refutation of relativity per se, rather a refutation of wave theory.

In actual fact the whole argument of whether a light beam traces a wave that actually travels faster than 'c' is a moot argument because the linear beam may be considered to be the carrier of the wave data and it remains possible that it's only the linear component of the whole which is the subject of the upper limit of speed in space according to the precepts of relativity. So the whole argument just becomes a distraction and on that note I will not be addressing it any further here. I seem to have just 'saved' relativity but only to completely destroy it by other more impressive methods.

Real or actual chronos time cannot be truly measured because it can't be trapped or contained as an object. However allowing grand flexibility and abusing ones mental privilege to contain it within various reference frames provides the ultimate restriction on the ability to fundamentally understand anything else at all. Therefore for the sake of sanity (or at the very least rationality married to logic) why not realize the obvious and call time a constant which is directly relatable to observed motion, and let all else then be deemed to occur in relation to it from our own individual reference frames. Of course (now) this will mean rejection of both theories of relativity and most other geodesic models including Lorentzian and other forms as any contenders for any causality of anything at all. Note: G-theory will be able to be considered as the most reasonable option for most causality once you recognize that the theory removes the historical impediments which have been placed by the theorists and objectors all, as bulwarks in the way of a genuine scalar model.

Lorentz invariance has never been proved either by the yesteryear experiments which involved rotating charge drums or by utilizing the latest in High tech equipment and know how. Refer to http://physics.princeton.edu/romalis/articles/Pospelov%20and%20Romalis%20-%20Lorentz%20Invariance%20on%20Trial.pdf  or just google 'Lorentz invariance on trial'.

If you choose to just google Lorentz invariance--- on the menu page you will find a mathematical proof for Lorentz invariance. This just proves that the math is correct if it were to be as you say. The mathematics for non invariance will be just as true for that case also. MATHEMATICS PROVES SQUAT!!!!

On the same page as the above link you will find another article blatantly stating that Lorentz invariance has been proved. Take your pick! There are several Lorentz invariance violations noted on the record.

 

Other experiments are typically ridiculous in that by attempting to prove that time dilates with altitude they are willfully ignoring the other alternative that altitude affects the rate of quantum activity and hence clocks and not time per se. In fact what they believe is ludicrous not just wrong they are delusional--- obviously intelligent but agenda deluded and hence devoid of common sense. Refer to the article 'Gravity's affect on time' at---

  http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/17/gravitys-effect-on-time-confirmed

 

---wonderful science--- woefully biased interpretation!

 

Time (b): Cosmean time or (non-time): An evaluation of its relationship with universal time causes the subjective understanding that cosmean time is instantaneity where infinite or zero speeds are the only two possibilities*. Time which exists in all places forever and ever, must then actually exists in the cosmea but it is totally redundant while the cosmea is in the state of no motion at all.

*This may sound odd but both of those speeds have objective relativity to time (a) and via versa. However if you could transport yourself into cosmean time then an infinite number of such events might seem to be able to occur within the framework of universal time without any actual historical time being spent in cosmean time. That is the true and absolute relativity. Stephen Hawking may be right in that time is stopped inside a black hole but according to G-theory the clock doesn't gradually slow down as it approaches the black hole. Note: I will be debunking all of the supposed 'proofs' for all relativity except the purely observational.

 

Because the cosmean time dimension is also a function of the universal dimension of the eos which only recognizes cosmean time. I have called our observable universe the cosmo-universe. Note: no cosmean event is auto-possible because any such attempted event is instantaneously annulled by the first law of the cosmea.

If it wasn't for the conditional necessity for universal events to sometimes exhibit instantaneous rise and fall times in their universal time actions then the idea of cosmean time might seem to be just a subjective waste of time (sorry!). However as the work progresses you should come to see another reason for why cosmean time is the only time recognized by the eos. Hint: B-E like (G) statistics and 'quark lattice inelasticity' Note: This is not the same as the 'deep inelastic scattering' of particle physics fame even though it was that phenomenon that actually gave me a clue which led to later contentions of this theory.

 

 

 

THE MULTIPLEX TENSORS

 

PHOTOS: The 'foe-toss' like in WWE! The photos dimension consists of virtual dimensional lines (tines) as transmission containment for photons across the universal field. Tines are unobservable yet real. They are ruler straight and without any other laws of dimensions interacting with them the photons will remain on their tine within the four classical dimensions. This is the result of cosmo–universal interaction. Note: The phenomenon of 'gravitational lensing' will be analyzed in shocking detail.

The speed of light which is emitted by the Zo boson biracial W boson separating cosmean brane in the electroweak force structure (EWF).TBE is determined by the Quarks in the protons responsible for the photon emission, which by interlocution with other protons in closed density proximity (by g and form factors) and with reference to the eos they become the unwitting determinants of the temperature state of the universe by GD and eos parameters. Therefore they emit light at a speed in proportion to the eos data value of the field derived from GD (gravity) in the eos dimension's continuing attempt to enable the most efficient return of atoms back to the cosmean state as praetoms. Note: This GD reading by protons is very nearly instantaneous. Refer to the section where the speed of gravity is calculated.

 

GRAVITOS: The gravitos dimension also exists in and has become conditionally counter subject to the physical dimensions. It is also subject to the chronos and force-field dimensions but none of the others. It is an enabler of the propos and interacts with the eos and the photos to effect gravity (GD, GS and GTD caused G mass) as will be explained.

 

PROPOS: The propos (for propagation) is controlled at the quantum level by nucleons (predominantly protons) and most probably in conjunction with other particles. As we have just learned the proton determines the speed of propagation of not only light but charge, magnetism and 'emr' in its vicinity. This is also by taking the cosmean temperature via gravity: TBE.

The propos is the dimensional medium for emr particle propagation. G-theory promotes the idea of the waveless propagation of both light and 'emr' without the agency of an aether or any other propagation medium, and more importantly, without mutual interference whether directly or perturbativly. I.e. This theory postulates that the upper spectrum of the 'emr' continuum may actually consist of sub infrared photon quanta, which to some extent is also reasonably explainable by wave propagation theory in which light propagates via the photos and 'emr' propagates via the propos. With such separation it can be concluded that the two won't interact with or affect each other even though there may be some frequency overlap of the emanations.

Wave propagation may indeed exist as a result of forces acting on fields projected into the magnos and charge-field dimensions, from zero hertz being a steady unilateral force up to an unknown maximum frequency but these are subject to permitivity and permeability laws and as such, wave mechanics is not deemed to be the propagative phenomenology for either light or emr over distance (space) just electromagnetic force.

Electromagnetic radiation will be shown to be by a type of wave propagation that's virtually 'digital' and as such it is caused by, even-frequency, spatially-displaced and pulsed particle packets, and it doesn't require a medium for propagation.

Emr; being effectively wavelike is in some aspects able to be transmitted in a way that's somewhat cardiod and or polarized by the utilization of selective methods of wave reinforcement and mechanical polarization techniques. Reflection and evanescence are also explainable. At microwave frequencies, maser phenomenology is recognized. Microwave radiation exists at the overlap zone between emr and light, and cavity resonance charge affects cause notional electron beams to be emitted*. One of the fundamental reasons that light is declared by G-theory to not be an emr as well as not being transmitted as a wave is that lasers are not at all nodal. Side nodes are a constant feature of directional emr wave propagation. In that case these are a result of the near field electromagnetic affects which themselves are only perturbative and not propagatory.

*Refer to the section on synchrotron phenomenology.

 

 

INTERJECTION:

 

 By now you might be taking pause by reason of the mental conundrum which may be caused by the difficult notion of multilateral dimension affects. Such a problem is likely to best be ameliorated by the old story of the flying astronaut in the third dimension, traveling above a single plane 2D universe. He does not affect the flat universe and it does no affect him; but by its existence it allows his transverse flight in three dimensions. Imagine if he touches down on the flat universe. What would the 'flat universians' observe? Could he affect them? Could they affect him? What would they make of his shadow or footprint?

 The point is; that actions in separate dimensions are able to have no affect on actions in another spatially concurrent dimension under certain circumstances but they may be able to have perturbative affects. If the astronaut stood on some glue on the flat universe he just might find himself in a condition of dimensional entanglement with probable perturbative affects. Trick question: Would he be able to squash flat earthians? Silly: They're already flat!

In order to further elucidate multiplicity as portrayed in G-theory: Consider for instance that right now you only live in a two dimensional universe (plus time). Also consider that your block of land is also flat and two dimensional and that the sky in the vertical direction is another DIMENSION that's not one from your world of experience, even though you might be able to conceptualize it. A bird can fly across your block (in time) without affecting it, except perhaps for the slight affect of its shadow or a little 'message' it may drop.

That is an example of the multi-dimensional affects which are under consideration in this treatise. The bird not only caused a perturbative affect of reducing the 'energy' arriving from the sun as it flew over. It also caused a physical affect that you are wiping away across your flat eye. This only means that objects in different dimensions may pass through (bye) each other with either limited direct contact, perturbative affects or no affects at all.

It is also important to consider that objects in the same extra dimension also maintain existence within the 'two physical dimensions plus time' universe, so they are able to collide or affect each other within normally expected constraints which include the normal laws of chance and probability. E.g. the bird might collide with a wind turbine blade that exists in the third dimension! You as a 'flat earther' would only notice the 'imprint' of the turbines support post and the shadow it may cast. As a citizen of that flat world you are aware of the sun because of the light and shade it casts; you just can't see it. Note: Let's not get too 'jiggy' with this or someone's eyes will soon be glazing over.

An example under vastly different circumstances: Atoms above zero k are in constant motion. Photon quanta as individuals or in strings (whether polarized or random), as well as atoms are affectable by bilateral force field effects. (This brings us to the dimension of forces and fields). The interlocution between atoms and molecules (with or without crystalline structure) results in some bizarre effects on light, especially at media event horizons, as well as when light travels past universal bodies.

In the first instance; the case specific, individual or combined interlocutions between electrons and photons (approaching, departing or passing by) create vector force fields that can become attractive, patterned, and oscillatory or diffraction anomalous. This is not surprising if elasticity and nodal effects (which are common in physics) being caused by accelerative, decelerative and elastic multidirectional forces are operational on any object. This tack appeals to the substantiation of 'field and signal' physics.

However chaotic things might seem; randomness is never an option under these circumstances, so such things as birefringence (double diffraction), the Goos Hansen effect, spatial displacement and other effects are not surprising and are presently giving rise to technologies. What I find as surprising is that with the discovery of the 'optical tweezers' effect, thoughts of anti gravity don't appear to have even arisen!

At this point it is necessary to discus protons in particular: The protons of elemental atoms are theorized to all be DIMENSIONALLY DIVERSE (because of sub-nucleonic neutrino and perhaps other observable affects) even though they might seem superficially similar*. They may be thought to partially and conditionally exist in different dimensions, and all disparate elemental nuclei will therefore have differing vibrations (spin) and other characteristics, and their effects on electrons and photons may be vastly different, dependant on the quantum dimensional parameters, as well as the universal state, temperature, nuclear and dimensional states they exist in.  This might give us a clue to how light photons really do pass through solid matter.

*The main point to all this is that certain forces can cross dimensional boundaries.

 

MAGNOS: The previous dimensions including the magnos as well as the charge-field are the only dimensions that exist exclusively having proximous relationship to all atoms and AMOs, The effects being proportional to the atomic density of the atomic objects. All Atoms exhibit forces and fields which include both electrostatic and magnetic. A constant voltage electric field is a static field that supposedly has a 'build' velocity 'c' (per Maxwell) and spatial depletion by inverse law in proportion to distance. It is an open loop field of radiating lines of 'energy' that exhibits an electrostatic effect which can be directly measured.

A magnetic field is a 'force' field with a notionally similar build velocity and attenuation as an electric field. It is usually somewhat angularly vectored opposite to the electric field and it cannot be broken to facilitate the insertion of measuring devices. It can only be observed by effects. These two fields are both mutually exclusive but co-effective.

The perturbative affects of the motion of electrons in a conductor are causative of magnetic fields and magnetic fields are causative of the motion of electrons in a conductor, but according to G-theory, NOT in space (outside of a conductor) by any interaction of electrostatic and magnetic field components. There is no such thing as charge force 'stuff' or energy 'stuff'. All fields are only relatable to a required field exhibiting particle/s.

However the macro electric field is caused by external electrical 'energy' input to a conductor and the magnetic field has both the electrical 'energy' as well as objective properties of materials being the candidates for possible causations but both fields are fundamentally energized by protons and to lesser extent neutrons to which electrons respond. Electrons are effective in modulating the overall charge eigenstates.

The magnos contains an almost infinite number of dimensional field-lines existing as well within the solid framework of the four dimensions of space-time. These are the basic dimensions required for the existence of magnetic fields by interaction with the magnos which determines the velocity (in its absolute sense) and separation of the magnetic lines of force.

Magnetic fields differ from electric fields with regard to the first fact; that the size of an electric field -being governed by inverse law over distance- is determined by the value of electric field-strength. This is regardless of the size of the charged object.

Conversely and significantly for G-theory: The size of a magnetic field within the confines of a field decay power law is determined not only by the strength value of the source of the field (gauss) but by the SIZE of an object with vectorally aligned summation of contributing lesser dipoles exhibiting the magnetic dipole effect*. Note: Similar to tines, G-theory envisages that magnetic field lines (MF lines) stretch right across the universe and they become distorted and concentrated and expanded according to local affects of matter which is capable of affecting them by local dimensional affects being reacted to by the magnos according to the applicable laws. In this way they become bent to form magnetic fields.

The magnos dimension and the charge-field are both dependant on the force-field dimension but not visa versa!

*Otherwise an electron would exhibit a lesser magnetic spin moment than a proton when the reverse is actually the case: TBE.

 

FORCE-FIELD dimension: The force-field dimension is responsible for the dissemination of trions as internal energy (gravitationally derived 'energy') between nucleons, and from nucleons to electrons via the QED fields. This 'energy' transfer occurs at a rate determined by this dimension and is then called convection and quantum number respectively. That rate is likely to be at 'c'.

The convection does not appear to occur because of an atomic density-proportionality relationship. I contend that its determination is more dependent on the time taken at 'c' for each atom to complete its own charge and magnetic field transfers to electrons with full regard to PEP and Fermi states. The average time taken to do this could be found by 1/Cb (Coulomb number) seconds pulse-length between nucleons which would be similar for electrons for obvious reasons and absolutely applicable to charge propagation through conductive AMOs. Any delays changes in the field propagation from nucleus to electron results in differing electron positional status and is all under control of the nucleon according to the QED statistics described herein. This is determinable from a later chapter. Uncertainty principle still applies.

The time taken to do this is expected to not vary from atom to atom in a single line of atoms but once we have a macro AMO then electron interrelationships between atoms will affect this thermal and charge data transfer speed; which in turn affects the coefficient of thermal conductivity of various materials as well as the electrical conductivity. If the process is slow then both kinds of conductivity will be lessened but not equally; because as far as the transmission velocity of charge goes. It is under control of PEP so it is always the same I.e. 'c' ---and the electrical conductivity has to do with different electron behaviour. This is all described in the various subjects dealing with electrons. (This idea may need to attract further research but I have undertaken a robust analysis of the specific heat relationship with energy in a later chapter).

The force-field dimension along with the eos also underpins the forces that include nucleonic electroweak, SBF as well as molecular bonding forces. It also controls the transfer of vibrational 'energy' through atoms in a manner which obeys vector law. It is also the local dimension through which charges and magnetic fields propagate at 'c'.

 

CHARGE-FIELD: The dimension responsible for the application of charge to particles. Charge particles of two different types are intrinsic to ALL greater particles. The resultant measurement of charge on a particle is fundamentally due to a surplus of one or more cross-bane -ve or +ve biracial particles which can build by particle population density to a far greater electrostatic charge in volts*.

Fundamental trion particles which are conditional to the charge field dimension are massless and they have no active attraction or repulsion to each other in a motionless separated state or within a bound fermion, quark lattice (Q-L) or quantum packet. It is only when combined with the force-field dimensional characteristics that provide a brane that these particles are able to exhibit a charge of any description. They don't exhibit any charge other than flavor outside of a nucleus. Then they are referred to a neutrinos. The forces that control the behavior of sometimes massless particles and the difference between biracial and electrostatic charge will be analyzed later. Note: biracial QCD is also withheld for later analysis.

*In this case the actions of the charge-field and force-field are dependent on temperature (The measurement of the 'energy' state) such that the net charge in particles is temperature dependent to some degree. It is unclear whether this can be said about the relationship between the magnos and the force-field with a similar resultant temperature affect on magnetic fields. This perhaps should not be confused with a magnet becoming demagnetized by heat, although the connection might be found to be significant.

In a nucleon this coulombic charge is the net of the quark fundamental charges because the Higg's ultra weak structure along with the magnetic dipole structure exhibit symmetry.

 

EOS: (the vacuum) This dimension is not to be confused with the charge field which operates in conjunction with the force-field dimension. Like the cosmea, the eos is not affected by time. It instantaneously (as it can) delivers data concerning the atomic nucleus charge balance across the universe and universal 'GD constant' data to the same, and it sets the speed of light and gravity. It is also the dimension which at first caused matter and not antimatter to become the default atomic nature of the universe, by the simple reason that it had preeminence, and it still currently controls the biracial charge in quarks. The cosmea was the complete and somewhat incomprehensible object of cosmean matter, and the eos is an inseparable bilateral dimension of the intertwined cosmo-universe but it effectiveness ceases at the surface of nucleons which are in an electron valence bound state. Note: evidences of this latter statement will be forthcoming.

Local emfs and charges are able to temporarily override the eos in some respects because the force-field dimension and the magnos take precedence within bonded atomic matter. If the eos didn't exist it would be likely that spacecraft going to other planets could be struck by lightening because of the likelihood of charge differences between planets. However this is a moot point because without the eos the universe wouldn't even exist.

But in any case, a strongly supportive reason for the postulation of the existence of the eos is that the whole universe appears to be 'earthed' or 'grounded'; (to put it in electrical jargon) along with the proposed dynamic 'energy' return path as well.

The reason it is considered to be a dimension with the capability of instantaneous data transfer is that there has never been any noticeable short term 'mass', gravitational or any other anomalous effect or furthermore any other dimensional characteristic (that cannot be explained by standard physics) which has been measurably observed upon the cessation of any emf or force. At least none which is able to exhibit any remaining 'energy' or binding force surplus or defect in any nuclei. (Not including ionization which is quite different). Note: Charge transference between atoms in near-field relationships is under the control of the force-field dimension and has been shown to occur at 'c'. Ditto SBF and EWF.

Some weird effects discovered in quantum mechanics/physics can be explained by the eos. A law of physics states that no two adjacent similar fermions can be in the same state*. I.e. by way of simplification for this example; if one is up then the other must be down. Now all loose particles and surface atoms in the universe are connected together in some relationship by the eos. As well as that, two adjacent fermions have a direct eos connection called entanglement**: If they can be seen to exhibit this inverse bilateral relationship and you move them apart, and then change the state of one individual fermion, the other one will flip or flop (spin) in inverse concert. This is because one; the eos connection is instantaneous and two; because of this peculiar eos phenomenon, the two particles are never actually apart as far as perturbation by force data is concerned until they become absorbed as part of a more massive body. That's a dimensional disjunct which includes the dimensions of euclidean space but NOT TIME . Note: In both quantum physics and mechanics, ' is the relationship being observed. I have another 'spin' on spin: Refer to the definition of spin. Quarks are exempt when there are three bound by gluons. One particular baryon has quark whose spins are all in the same state. In general the principle applies to Q-L external states.

*There's plenty of time for the quantum twins Pauli and Fermi later!

 

**Fermions within AMOs only have intimate connection within to adjacent fermions, and entanglement can only occur between unbound and unattached particles that have multi-dimensional relevance and spin compatibility.

 

Some analysts of this effect have concluded that no data could have been exchanged, so in so doing those analysts must by default have envisaged a metaphysical, magical or perhaps even religious phenomenology for such an occurrence. Of course we can logically conclude that data was indeed transferred instantaneously because as we have just noted; in the instantaneous dimension of the eos (in space), the particles are never 'actually' apart for the purposes of the eos facilitated data transfer regardless of any observed spatial distance. Connection with 'near' electromagnetic fields is perhaps the only thing that can release them from the eos, and in that case they will then lose the entanglement and behave normally again. Whew! Whatever normally is! Is that like asking what is, is?

With sub atomic particles this effect is called entanglement, synchronicity or non local correlation. Recent studies have shown the effect to have occurred between two atoms as well. In this instance the effect was termed interlocution. Note: The eos is also thought to be the conveyance dimension of BBR as trions. Considering the speed of gravity it is highly likely that this would occur instantaneously because trions have no 'mass' and are under the singular control of the eos in the far field. Because they have no 'mass' or inertia trions might be considered to be able to move spontaneously in any manner but unfortunately they are conditionally confined by the interacting forces of the universe, and they move and find their existence (as the fundamental particles of all matter) accordingly. The trions are only brane juncture phenomena but the conservation of energy forces their continued existence according to the CMF charge across the universe. The CMF can change proportionally with losses to the cosmea but the charge remains the same by inverse proportionality to the 'matter' (read energy) content of the universe.

However it is likely that the trion transfer is by a mechanics similar to what we might considerer to be transportation!

 

In a following chapter I will present a more expansive description of the operation of the eos and some of these weird sounding concepts will begin to sit more comfortably I guarantee it!

Accumulation of near-field atomic and molecular charges due to electron depletion or overpopulation even to the resulting far-field effect of lightening are examples perfectly explainable by normal physics, (but with a novel explanation to be presented herein), and are caused by lower fundamental order (charge field) biracial charge effects. 

A proton is able to combine its electromagnetic fields in spatial patterns at various frequencies (dependent on internal and external forces and fields) to facilitate propagation of the field data via the propos. The electron is thought to be greatly involved in the creation of an atom's field/s but it is deemed by G-theory to play no part in the emission of either an emr wave or photonic data for any propagation whatsoever; or in the latter case, if ever an electron emitted a photon quantum it would lose half its 'mass' every time it did so, and no atomic mass is ever lost by photon emission so logically this lack of electron involvement must be acceptable as being the case. Note: The very idea of electron light emission therefore requires the wave theory of propagation, wherein the 'energy' to the electron is able to be re-supplied by emr from the nucleus in disregard for the reverse (or equal) requirement stated elsewhere. This will all be shown to be 'cart before he horse' specious reasoning. Gamma particle emission through electron decay will be shown to be via a different phenomenology than that proposed by current quantum physics. These new proposed theories will be shown to be supported by the hard data while the current ones are definitely not.

The eos enables oscillating electric and magnetic substances to have their 'energy' passed into the universe at the speed of light, subject to pertinent laws and phenomenology. Apart from the almost substantiated formula E=hf, I am making some changes, not to Lorenz's or Maxwell's etc. laws, but to the method and mechanics of transmission of electromagnetic 'energy'.

I don't know why the propos exhibits the same propagation speed as the photos except I surmise that they are both caused by one and the same reason (which will be addressed below) so unlike Maxwell and Einstein, I don't see it as logical to conclude that light is an emr simply because it has the same velocity.

This theory dictates that the propos (radio) is a different dimension than the photos (light), but in forthcoming analysis I must admit that at the quantum level the dimensions become almost like parallel universes. The eos is theorized to provide the actual force affecting both the photos and the propos and so causing the emission velocity of emr as well as photons and therefore giving them some inconsequential but subjectively understood kinetic 'energy' of momentum.

It must be understood that any dimension is able to exist within Euclidean space without being similar in any way shape or form to a relatable but true Euclidean physical entity. Multiplex dimensions only appear at the points of necessity and the same can be said for the (apparently virtual) branes separating the dimensions.

Here come the 'big spanners in the works' which I have thrown in by evaluation from the viewpoint of G-theory!

1/ 'mass': 'Mass' is not substantive. Matter is substantive. 'Mass' is an effect. 'Mass' doesn't cause gravity at all; and while I'm on the subject neither does magnetism.

2/ paradoxically; the laws of motion are caused by the same forces that actually cause 'mass' and gravity to exhibit effects.

3/ photons and lesser fundamental particles may have no apparent mass because they may be partly causative of 'mass', and only for the reasons which will be forthcoming. However, most are conditionally considered to exhibit particle mass (P mass): TBE.

Perhaps you may already be aware that neutrons are not just useless protégées hanging out with protons. They are a main receiver of a major mass affect. Their inferred 'mass' is declared to definitely NOT be proportional to the sum of the P mass by simple summation of the gluon number and then adding that to the G mass by GTD or GS values. This makes rest state T mass or just 'rest mass' fairly dependent on the numerical number of nucleons per cm3 and also slightly yet significantly in some inverse proportion to such density. The reason for this is because the inner nucleons of any object will have slightly less mass being observable as a slightly lower nuclear strong binding force (SBF)* by having a slightly lower G mass being generated. TBE.

*…force not 'energy'.

 

Also by the same principle contention (which in its basic essence confers with classical understanding); larger atoms are declared to (proportionally) have slightly less overall binding 'energy' per effective mass than smaller ones. This effect can be noticed by a cursory glance at the standard binding 'energy' curve.

 This reduction effect only begins to become noticeable when the nucleus is large enough to have the inner nucleons shadowed by the GS (gravity shadow) of the outer nucleons. Note: This will not substantially affect the 'mole' because that is a comparison of grams of substances with an acceptably known atom count, and both substances will be affected fairly equally within known density proportionality relationships.

Some deviation from the SBE curve will be readily noticed, especially with smaller atoms and with larger atoms for differing reasons which should by now be beginning to become obvious, suffice it to say it is determined to be dependant on firstly; fewer sample sets of nucleons and even their position within the nucleus in smaller atoms, and secondly; the quantity of nucleons for larger atoms. Mass differences will also be noticed with the various isotopes of course. Note: The pronounced and largely inexplicable kink in the curve will be convincingly explained by this thesis.

As an example: The 1H isotope of hydrogen has much lower (unused) binding 'energy' and lower 'mass' because it only has a proton in the nucleus and so it only has proton plus electron mass.

However it can be shown by band spectra analysis that the neutron has more 'mass' than it should if you were to simply add an electron 'mass' to a proton. Two specific examples measured in both 'energy' units and 'mass' units are as follows.

 

		Example one: In 'energy' units (using E=mc2), the masses are:
			
		proton: 938.272 MeV/c2,
			
		neutron: 939.566 MeV/c2,
			
		mass difference = 1.293 MeV/c2,
			
		electron: 0.511 MeV/c2.
			
		 
		This mass difference is not binding 'energy'; it is ground state 'effective mass' difference, with binding 'energy' left intact. The binding 'energy' is significantly greater at about 28.3MeV.
			
		 
		Example two: in kgs---
			
		Mass of hydrogen nucleus (proton plus electron): 1.672649e-27kg,
			
		Mass of deuterium nucleus: 3.343637e-27kg, which is 0.001661e-27kg heavier than the result gained by doubling the mass of the hydrogen proton/electron. Again it is impossible for this mass difference to be binding 'energy'.
			
		 
		Now these effective mass differences will not affect binding 'energy' by very much; it's just the fact that they are even observably different which lends support to G-theory, (as does the complete binding 'energy' v nucleon density curve, kink and all).
			
		Of course binding 'energy' is really a force*. G-theory understands it is the 'energy' which would have to be used in the process of forcing the nucleons apart. However this theory proposes; that the idea of binding 'energy' is being caused in one sense by biracial attractive force in gluons (via mesons) and by gravitons (in another). The gravitons do not have significant mass (because they are causative of the greater form of G mass) even so, they are still force carrier particles and behave in a similar manner to neutrinos which affect electrons in a kinetic way. 
			
		*G-theory is not attempting to refute nuclear physics. It is simply going about the mechanics of tying together 'mass', 'energy', gravity, motion, magnetism, electricity and a few other things. It is seemingly more correct to call this binding force and not binding 'energy' which in quantum physics has a loaded connotation and is based on a herein refuted false premise.
			
		 
		If the nucleons return to near ground state their apparent loss of mass would be deemed to be directly caused by transitional graviton force effect loss. (TBE) The reason is simply that in that state they would now be left with a G mass deficit, which in calculations of 'mass v 'energy', the formulas and ensuing results will be similar. E.g. by E=hf a low 'f' results in a low 'E' and by E=mc2 a low 'E' supposedly results in a very low to not existent mass. However the mechanics and credibility of each formula are completely different, and will be explained in due course. 
			Note: Binding force and 'mass'/gravity are deemed to have no definitive connection apart from GS caused anomalies which among other things, show up as the mass defect as well as the problematic intricacies of the binding 'energy' curve which will all be addressed in detail. In nuclear physics which deals with basically stationary internal nucleon particles in general assessment; G mass is the main (if not almost the total) component of rest 'mass' and also the major component of the mass defect in nucleon binding mechanics. N mass only becomes apparent (as explained in other forthcoming phenomenologies) when a spatially motive inertial force is applied and E=mc2 doesn't apply to inertial mass. What this means by a profound postulation is that rest 'mass' is concluded to be mainly caused by universal gravity GD (not to be confused with earth gravity or weight).
			

This means that the evaluation of rest masses of particles by m=E/c2 is only gravity being declared as mass and not by the lost mass of thermal energy Einstein was wrong; experiments have conclusively shown that an object exhibits no gain or loss of mass proportional to temperature. By way of a simplified preliminary explanation: In the case of a proton existing in the gravitos dimension alongside the neutron; the proton must transfer sub-boson trions (notionally 'energy' but really basic sub boson particulate units carrying force which confer G mass, and which have been received by a graviton transition) to the neutron for parity reasons. Eventually even reemission through BBR unless it (proton) instantly receives sufficient external 'energy' quantum value from multiple transitions and or other 'energy' sources in order to emit a photon or more. This process is especially required to meet the requirements of Quantum Integer Principle (QIP) conditional upon the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP).

The graviton also loses wave function by mutual perturbation with other less energetic particles it (dimensionally) passes through which have a (instantaneously evaluated) decaying wave function and their WF is preserved and their condition of mass is also conserved. Classical linear and angular inertial mass is never exhibited unless such motions are declared. The vibrations of various particles is a conditional constant with such conserved wave function being related to the universal field by CMF and the resultant gravitational energy supply. If a graviton was stopped by a nucleus the energy exhibited would be significant and the inertial mass of a graviton would be revealed to be far greater than any boson mass. However as we are going to find out a graviton only exhibits notional mass as it transits. TBE

The effects, laws and observances explained by G-theory involve the particle theory of light as well as a particle theory of everything (except the fundamental virtual forces of biracial charge force and the higher order, EW force, SBF, coulombic charge force, electronic (protonic?) entanglement and force from a distance as well as electrostatic fields and magnetism) including 'mass' and gravity propagation. Below I have presented some of the science being explained by my theory.

  • why stars began and continue to shine;
  • 'space friction'… hyper velocity drag in space;
  • red shift in outer galaxies;
  • why the outer galaxies appear to be accelerating outward;
  • why the night sky is not a sheet of low background light punctuated by stars;
  • what causes gravity and black holes and what causes the laws of motion;
  • the anomalous behavior of binary pulsars and why most galaxies have the shapes they do including the enigmatic spiral form;
  • the astrophysics (and some nuclear) mass discrepancy;
  • how planetary spins and orbits are maintained;
  • why (if there was no substantive counterforce), Lense-Thirring frame dragging and solar wind and other frictional forces would not allow the retention of orbits and spins; (significantly and especially for earth), mainly because of the 'energy' loss from tidal friction. What is that counterforce?
  • why large planets don't exist in the inner solar system;
  • why the moon appears to be moving away;
  • what the heliosheath is really running into;
  • the hyper-speed of gravity;
  • Newton's missing inertial frame of reference found;
  • the real reason that atomic objects can't travel at 'c' or beyond;
  • how some particles can and do travel faster than 'c';
  • why an object in gravitational free fall appears to feel no inertial force;
  • why there is no need for the postulation of dark matter by strings;
  • what dark matter/'energy' really is;
  • the missing 'mass' of the universe found;
  • plasmas both cold and hot;
  • an exhaustive analysis of the singularly particle behavior of light including lasers, reflection, diffraction/refraction, polarization, absorption, opacity and translucency, light nodal observations and interferometry including Einstein's slit, diffraction gratings, birefringence, fringe shift, spatial displacement, evanescence, luminescence retention, Cherenkov radiation and the photo-electric effect, the real synchrotron emission mechanics  etc.
  • the probability that gravity may not be constant;

·         the possibility of anti-gravity;

·         a particle theory of gravity;

·         the probability that the speed of light is not a constant;

·         the continuing creation and balancing of gravity by light;

·         the effect of plasmas on gravity and light;

·         what really causes supernovas:

·         quantum physics anomalies explained away;

·         the mass defect explained away;

·         what causes quanta and why quantum integer and sub quantum steps apply to every sub nucleon particle except the lowest order sub-fundamental particles;

·         atomic dna and the true structure of atoms and nuclei;

·         why there are far more particles in atoms than currently imagined;

·         why more sub bosons can be added to atoms and not cause a 'mass' increase but only a temperature rise;

·         solutions to the problems with E=mc2

·         'vis viva' E=mv or 1/2mv2; which is it?

·         why there can be no unifying theory between any of the relativistic paradigms; neither can there be a cohomology of those with any arms of physics;

·         what happens to photons traveling in a string or packet when entering a media event horizon (boundary);

·         the real reasons that cesium clocks must be readjusted to enable GPS satellites to function accurately;

·         why planets create their own heat;

·         what actually causes fusion;

·         why the sun is cooling down;

·         What are radio waves? really!

·         why light and emr don't require a medium for propagation;

·         what 'mass' is and the fundamental cause of 'mass'.

·         Why gamma particles are not considered to be photons even tough they travel at 'c'.

·         Why protons are responsible for the emission of photons while electrons emit gamma particles;

·         What prevents electrons from simply crashing into the nucleus because of Coulombs law of attraction?

·         why the eV is a charge (force) and not 'energy' and the real electron 'energy' is in J.s. If its just for mathematical reasons then say so!

·         The calculated mass of a photon quantum;

·         We have seen the derivation of the atomic 'energy' equation;

·         Why the Gravity Probe B, synchrotron mechanics and other pretentious experiments don't PROVE relativity. They will be shown to actually disallow its plausibility;

·         Problems with the HTXE probe;

·         Why the theory of relativity is a subjective 'croc' and much, much, much more.

Whenever a new theory is presented that purports to provide answers to current questions, it may elicit more questions than it answers. If this is the case and the questions don't simply relate to theory expansion then that theory should be immediately suspect, especially if the original questions still remain unanswered. I must admit that G-theory does rouse some further questions but my response to this is that such a perceived problem is outweighed by the proposal that those questions are of the stated order and it also answers a great many more questions than it creates. Some of the questions that remain are traditionally obtuse and will probably remain fundamentally unanswerable.

An example of such questions is: What causes the proposed electron photon attractive force if photons have no charge or magnetic field? The short answer is that the solution lies with the electrons and this will be analyzed.

Suffice it to know that there are answers forthcoming but for now we'll move on and rhetorically question some unknowns of contemporary physics: What is charge and magnetism actually? And what causes them? What causes any virtual force at all for that matter? How are electrons able to take it upon themselves to drop an 'energy' level and emit a photon? There are many, many more questions that will be successfully answered by the dictums of G-theory.

I would be treading on dangerous metaphysical ground and perhaps even find it necessary to use the 'm' or even the 'G' word if I were to suggest that there must be pre-eminent or proactively invisible yet unknowable reason for causality. Notwithstanding this, if I myself or others fail to provide logical answers then such questions will remain open at the level below know-ability. However I consider that the cause of origins is a moot point when physics is the subject matter in hand.

I am bound to make some mistakes in this thesis, but please don't go pointing the finger until you have substantive answers to the numerous existing problems and conundrums that I raise in this book, many of which you might wish would remain unquestioned and swept back under the rug of disregard.