A REAL WORLD ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY:


I wouldn't recommend attempting to analyze the following should the previous mind experiment still remain incomprehensible.
The idea of 'particle caused gravity' by graviton transitions is one thing; having it being responsible for the laws of motion is quite another so please be aware that I am NOT representing that idea as being the case. Some of you who are easily able to understand the concepts of the theory of relativity may actually have difficulty in understanding how G-theory works because objectivity likely requires the faculties of a different part of the brain than subjective fantasy. Those so endowed with a pragmatic sense of logic will understand. All is not lost.




A MILD SELF SERVING RANT:


Perhaps some of the rest of you would be better served by trying to earn a living by writing science fiction novels! Such is the arrogance with which many of you treat 'deep reality physics' objectivists. I reckon on giving as good as we've gotten for a long time! I.e. –please forgive a moment of soliloquy- if it doesn't suit their preconceived 'fancy' then the theory usually becomes rejected out of hand and the theorist is often labeled with names that will remain unprintable or their web site will be deleted from threads by arrogant moderators or some such. "Oh how we 'know' everything, don't we?" You might deride in sarcasm--- Me: "I don't profess to 'know'. I'm just trying to present a plausible theory. You decide."
After that probably well deserved rant I feel a little better and I suggest you treat this with the old adage 'If the hat fits; wear it', but I will acknowledge that even for those who remain bare headed, this particle theory may be one of the most difficult concepts to even get precocious heads around. It was all extremely difficult for yours truly to fathom but I guess I'm probably a tad deficient in the brains department. However having experienced such difficulties myself I can empathize, so I will begin by analyzing some probable reasons why such conceptualization difficulties may be the case, and perhaps then be able to render the following dissertations to at least become usefully comprehensible.
I expect controversy to likely ensue regarding this presentation and that resistance to such a theory will likely be stiff because of the resident intellectual stubbornness against accepting the possibility of a conclusion which argues that ingrained assumptions are not necessarily true. Also there is an often noticed general resistance to perceived world view attacks which can be aggravated by a confusion very similar to 'pilot disorientation' which is able to cause brain freeze and result in wrong and fatal decisions.
This can occur when faced with instrumental evidence which is contrary to learned and felt subjective evidence which the pilot falsely believes to be the truth, and because of that he figures that somehow the instruments must be malfunctioning, or he just panics and simply can't correlate the two in any sensible manner at all and if he can't parachute to safety he's left to just scream his head off and flail around helplessly all the way down.
Unfortunately if you should persevere through this analysis you may well feel like 'following him in' from time to time in any case. Fortunately however you always have the option of bailing out with a parachute any time you want.
Perchance you can hang in there a bit longer: Especially in the case of this enigmatic particle theory the instruments may finally begin to be believed if we can just consider for a minute that subjective thought, felt observances and pre-learned mental content may possibly be false and/or misleading. This is the very knife edge of rhyme versus reason. Physics should be about learning and questioning; not just learning a dogma!
 Seemingly similar theories to this one have been rejected in the past mainly because of Einstein's equivalence principle wherein it is understood that there is a noticeable force when your body is under acceleration but not when traveling at constant velocity or (most prejudicially for Newtonian physics and one might presume G-theory as well) when free falling in a gravitational field; and there has been no previously plausible explanation for this other than general relativity. As well as that, the very idea that inertia and mass can be in any way caused by particle theory has been successfully assaulted as impossible. Until now that is!
Such historical resolutions (chalked up wins) may seem to be a powerful reason for immediate rejection of this theory as likely to also be pure drivel, but I suspect this will occur only if the G-theory gravitational phenomenology (which is fully explainable by classical physics and conclusively shown to be worthy of serious consideration) remains incomprehensible to weaker or inflexible minds.
To understand gravity by this theory one must imagine the (gravitational flux density) GD of incoming gravitons in any single direction as being greater than the outgoing GD (from a stationary body) because of friction on the gravitons which causes loss of velocity and energy input to nucleons (by way of energy conservation) via the process of gravitons transitioning the body/object/nucleon in question. This effectively creates a GD deficit shadow (GS) around any body/object/nucleon; so therefore anything consisting of atoms (hadrons actually). By our previous understanding we can perceive that the object now has effective G mass and gravity confer-ability.
Another object having a GS of its own, coming within range (infinite) of the GS of a different object colludes with a combined effect which causes a greater GS between the objects than at the vector resolved opposite directions (or simply the outsides) in comparison. Consequently, there now appears to be a gravitational attraction which (if you think it through) is actually a gravitational push! The net result sees the objects accelerating towards each other under the precepts of Newtonian (and perhaps surprisingly, Einsteinian) laws of motion until they collide.
Objects such as ourselves already in intimate contact with another object (the earth) have the maximum sum of the earth's and our own insignificant GD deficit shadow (GS) under our feet with slightly more GS above us (All within the solar-earth GSs), so we remain fixed in contact unless affected by the introduction of another force. We feel that full affect of such GS elicited G mass as our WEIGHT. Note: there is no Newtonian inertial mass derivative in weight. We are feeling a force and the retroactive force is not inertia it is another object having a relative force acting on it in the other direction.
So when we contemplate our weight exclusively and within reason we are experiencing a feeling which includes no other motion relative aspect of mass. By this we should be able to concur that G mass is able to conditionally be as significant as inertial mass ('mass') when it comes to comparing it to N mass. If someone were to give you a sidewise push then the inertia you felt would indicate N mass just as much as you feeling your weight should do. However when you are falling such is not the case. You don't feel any inertia but there is inertia or there would be instantaneous acceleration. We will now find out why you don't feel it.
There is a difference between being pushed sideways under acceleration and hitting or being continuously pushed up against a wall. Ditto with gravity. We only ended up with a bad relativistic solution attempting to resolve our lack of feeling gravitational inertia because the historical scientists treated objects as just lumps of matter but we now know better. Note: refer to Einstein's equivalence principle.
Because of the huge distance inequalities, the GSs of the sun (although real and very large -by density proportionality- in comparison to the GSe of the earth) appears insignificant to us sitting here on earth by way of comparison to that of the earth, which is the gravity we actually feel. There is a point between the earth and the sun where we would notionally be in relative gravity equilibrium and we would feel weightless. However at that location we must understand that our G mass is still a phenomenon but because it is balanced we won't feel it as we do our weight when the GS is unbalanced.
The effective GS (gravity) field of a body has been theorized by others to extend for a couple of parsecs beyond the body (which appears to be justified) because in G-theory the gravitons do not bounce off the body which among other inherent problems might otherwise be expected to result in the rapid backfill of the GS. However and in any case; that same assumption even if applied to G-theory is even more specious because it is derived from a prior assumption wherein the rebound graviton velocities are deemed to be case specifically different because in past theories the gravitons were assumed to bounce off the bodies in question. I intend to show that in G-theory there is a difference because the gravitons that have just transited a body have a proportional density relatable, decelerated velocity and 'energy' when compared to others traveling past the body and those that are approaching and this will affect the vector sum resolution of the supposed problematic rapid backfill. Note: Graviton mutual collision phenomenology is also to be addressed. Don't go all funny on me here. Remember that neutrinos are able to pass right through the earth, and even photons are able to pass though matter.
In a similar way by use of the previous mind experiment, some laws of motion can be demonstrated to be explainable by graviton theory but with an added twist.
Consider this if you will: Felt acceleration is an inertial effect causing us to feel a pushing force which is highly concentrated in our bodies on the side in close contact with the force. This is the same for centrifugal/epital force, decelerative inertia and 'felt' gravity. HOWEVER when being accelerated in a gravitational free fall; then because graviton transitional force -being gravitational inertial counterforce- is shared by the trillions upon trillions of nucleons within your body. This occurs also at high velocities in space whereby you mistakenly perceive the weightless condition of momentum, I.e. nothing), even though your GD is slightly out of balance -because of GTDv- and even though you are actually decelerating, you won't feel a thing out of the ordinary and neither will measuring instruments such as an accelerometer traveling WITH the object being considered. I.e. you! So accelerometers are in effect being rendered useless by being internally affected by the same GTD force they are trying to measure externally. Note: Please reconsider that the whole force of GD is not released within your body because of any assumption that the gravitons release all their 'energy' as a kind of friction. In fact they are only transiting perturbativly through your nucleons by dimensional separation and so they only actually cause a sufficient force which by GS differential (GTD) on earth allows you to perceive that you have the weight proportionality of 'one g' and upon exit-ing they carry the balance of their dualistic potential 'energy' with them.
N.B. This phenomenon is the reason that you don't feel gravity while in a free fall and neither does an accelerometer measure anything. There goes Einstein's explanation of the strong equivalence principle. Refer to the analysis of Einstein's equivalence principle. There remains no enigma here for any theory like G-rel to answer. However relativity is in serious trouble. 
By way of further explanation: This is one more important consideration when it comes to refuting Einstein's equivalence principle being used as proof for G-rel. Even though a body in free fall in a gravitational field is actually accelerating, a body or indeed an accelerometer will not register the accelerating force for the reasons stated as long as the local effective (altitude related differential) GTDg is the same, and this is generally the case for a small body such as your own within a low end gravitational field such as earth gravity*. However it must be noted that every object does have full gravitational inertia when falling in a gravitational field even if it is not measurable or tactile. TBE. Note: A vacuum is always assumed.
*Near a black hole all bets are off: TBE.

By the practical simplicity of G-theory, general relativity and the resulting time dilation by an accelerating frame of reference are no longer required. In fact the time dilation realized during a long freefall to earth would have to amount to minutes, and this does not fit with the geodesic model. Yeah, yeah, I know; adding another fantasy of space slowing down by space warps fixes that problem. Hang onto your hats and go back a bit; I have already shown herein and also in the introduction book that there is still a serious problem because the whole idea of space-time warping is scientifically absurd. On the one hand you have an accelerating reference frame falling into the body yet according to Hawking time slows down as it approaches a black hole. Such duplicity is very telling.
If you wish to do the 'pre-school' level math you will find that even during a fall from thirty meters the space time dilation would need to be about one second to allow for any notion of an accelerating reference frame supposedly causing the feeling of momentum rather than acceleration. This is far away from being the time calculated by geodesics.
Geodesicists should perhaps be advised to not gloss over such glaring holes in their equivalence principle theories because they really are easy to poke a half a brain through. This can be noticed in the following refutation of the absurd theory that objects in free fall are actually stationary and they are simply moving along with an accelerating space time reference frame, which (magically I guess) confers them with momentum.
Let's take another good look and (like scraping chewing gum off your shoe) savage this specious and pedantic geodesic contention by taking a different tack. Consider the following:
Take a large body in space and a smaller body being held in position within the gravitational field of the large body.
It must be reasoned in the geodesic case that the accelerating reference frame towards the larger body, being caused by the supposed geodesic space time warping affect, is passing through the 'held' object, in which case we can conclude (only subjectively by observational relativity) that the 'held' object has weight, which in effect means that if we switch our frame of reference; the object can be supposed to be accelerating against the space time reference frame, which is what supposedly gives it 'felt' weight.
Now we remove the withholding force and the object begins to free fall, but it is now considered by geodesic theory to not actually be accelerating at all but it is suddenly now in a state of momentum and simply being carried along towards the large body by the accelerating reference frame. However it should be noted that at the moments after dropping, the dropped object is still found to be accelerating at an accelerating acceleration relative to the geodesic reference frame yet somehow, all the while without inertia. Mmm, very strange.
 What? Does the accelerating reference frame just start falling in only when we drop the object? What happens to the geodesic manifold if nothing is falling? It must therefore only be a subjective entity -or all objects would have the same terminal velocity from falls from any height- and this presents an even worse problem of logic when any attempt is made to make such a subjective entity capable of producing a force. Oh yes that's right magic--- sorry mathematics; can allow even the absurd to occur!
It could be speciously argued that the accelerating reference frame must have had an effective height related velocity as it passed through the 'held' object in order to give it weight. However in response to this argument we should now expand on the previous problem:
 Now for the dropped object to faithfully follow the reference frame toward the body, it must by necessity, instantaneously decelerate to the instantaneous velocity of the reference frame, which actually means some other magical relative instantaneous acceleration or else the accelerometer will register the deceleration as the object effectively decelerates over time in order to 'catch up' with the reference frame. Either that or we must theorize the existence of another instantaneous time reference frame that's totally unrelated to the subjective geodesic frame and which operates in reverse.
This is all because the first geodesic time frame was concluded to have been already accelerating to give the object weight*, and now the object must attain immediate relative spatial motionlessness during the free fall without causing any felt inertia during the necessarily time delayed process. That flies in the face of the logic which can be stated:  WITHIN A CLOSED UNIVERSE INSTANTANEOUS ACCELERATION IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH REFERENCE TO ANY OTHER REFERENCE FRAME. 
It is the case in physics that momentum is only ever instantaneously achievable by the instantaneous removal of the motive force. In the case of the gravitational force being caused by the accelerating space time reference frame; when the withholding force is removed the downward motive accelerating force that we perceived as weight is still being applied. This is predicated by the fact that the withholding force is a counterforce and not an accelerative force.
However in G-theory this motive force is by G mass as GTDg which is spread proportionally across the nucleons as previously described so at the similar altitude an object will still not feel the inertia and an accelerometer will not register a reading. Note: More to come on this subject with regard to the full refutation of applied Einstein's equivalence principle and the correct mathematics of gravitational mechanics. 
*This has already been shown to be mathematically impossible in the introduction book. Any structural geodesic formulas, even if mathematically pure are unable to be parenchymally energized by F=ma. The irony that such a simple action formula as that can be the undoing of pages of mathematical manifold-structure formulas should not go unnoticed.

However the counter argument is likely to be that the withholding force is actually the motive force causing acceleration at the rate of the space-time acceleration. Now we are not so silly that we can't see that this is just the same argument put a different way, and the problem with disparate geodesic versus actual acceleration rates, as well as the secondary problem of the necessarily yet impossible instantaneous reference frame dependent deceleration or acceleration is still the case. 
When we drop an object; accelerative inertia is not what we observe. What we do see is that the object begins to accelerate with a constant acceleration by g=ma which is only modified slightly by another square law as it falls closer to the body*. However it is important to note that there is still no felt inertia, and including the mechanics previously touched on as well as the above analysis this is easily explainable by other aspects of G-theory as we will soon see.
*For all intents and purposes in the real world, this goes unnoticed and is an unnecessary conceptual fact. However this tiny fact will become a very important consideration in the further G-theory explanation of the supposed unfelt inertia and why a very tall accelerometer will actually give a reading. Some of you may have clicked to it already. You can start organizing a send-off for Einstein.

Another reckless and feckless relativistic argument is also able to subjectively conclude that the small object is stationary and the larger object is actually moving towards the smaller. This is similar to the drivel that 'relativises' the argument that the universe is actually spinning around the earth which is really stationary. Such stupid mind games are similarly full of holes and out of any proper context they have NO PLACE IN PHYSICS when presented as ACTUAL REALITY!
With regard to the contention between Minkowski and Euclidean space, it may be concluded that Minkowski space geodesics is simply a three dimensional model of a cartesian plane with time as the forth tensor which creates the 'trampoline' representation. However in Minkowski space there has to be a space tensor as well, which is the curved space between the gridlines in the Lorentz transformational manifold which is usually displayed by arbitrary gridlines in graphic representation.
There is nothing much wrong with the relativistic math*; In fact that math led to progress in mathematics full stop, however mathematics doesn't necessarily relate to reality or physics, and the ends never do justify the means, although visa versa can be OK.
*I will later show that the Lorentzian math is disproved because it disallows any notion of momentum, and also that the manifold is only a 70% fit to universal observations. That degree of error amounts to disproof by a wide margin. It must also be understood that the geodesic mathematics can't provide for the different terminal velocities we observe in gravitational freefall.

In the case of any relativistic geodesic model we are able to subjectively envision a velocity related set, where object velocity/kg is the quantization which is applicable to gravity changes in the geodesic deviation system within the same distance dimension within that metric. It all looks good on paper, but G-theory will show it is just a somewhat flawed mathematical model of a real physics, whereby the space time continuum may well be represented geodetically, but having the warp in motion is not a plausible consideration.
In mathematical virtual reality you are perfectly able to collapse the geodesic form (grid, net, whatever) to a flat cartesian plane which can be represented in the Euclidean metric in the most simplistic case by simply using inverse square law for gravitational calculations*. In such a transformation, all that changes is the metric, and the Poincare group becomes the symmetry group, and the tensors become scalars or scalar-form vectors or if you like, just vectors. In fact the relatable gravitational math between two bodies is the same for all geodesic models, so all those models therefore have problems associated with that phenomenon, which will be addressed further.
In G-theory the reality can be likened to a 'spatial Euclidean metric' with (the possibility of exclusively eigenvalue transformative) velocity-vectored scalar tensors.
*which isn't quite correct regardless of the theory, but I will generally be referring to it as an inverse square law with distance relationship in some cases. 

The missing gravitational inertia during freefall may seem to have been explainable by geodesics; but not so fast: The idea of gravity being caused by geodesic reference frames in accelerative motion towards a body which is itself bending and attracting the space time manifold* also contains awkward problems with respect to the speed of light and emr within the accelerating reference frame which is directly relative to g=ma, in which case m cannot equal E/c2 or we get g=a(E/c2) so the force required for a photon to escape earth's gravity would be 0.3125 x c2 N. So the mass of a base photon would have to be 0.9375e-16 kg which is absurd in any evaluation of geodesics because in that theory a photon must by reason be massless which is also absurd, TBE and it is conversely more absurd if a photon were to be declared to have such a calculated 'mass' because the value of that mass is vastly greater than the mass of a neutron.
*It is also very awkward if the Higg's field boson remains elusive. I predict it will or they will or they will grab the first available 'ring in' and crown it!

In G-theory, photons don't have a very significant mass even while traveling and by my calculations you will see that a gamma particle which is not really a photon at all* has around half the 'mass' of an electron while lesser frequency real photons have proportionally less 'mass'. Note: By G-theory ONLY NUCLEONS AND GREATER PARTICLES HAVE G mass which in addition to P mass is absolute N mass. All other particles except for trions only have fundamental P mass and if they do have some G mass by vibration (spin) that mass is able to be derived exclusively by perturbative affects in some circumstances. This idea helps explain noted mass enigmas and it will become important when we get to nuclear and quantum physics.
*The problem of whether or not a gamma ray consists of photons or particles may be considered to be a moot point. However by G-theory; gamma particles can be derived either by direct emission from a nuclide or by electron positron collision and other phenomenologies will be shown to cause this as well.

The case for a gamma being a photon or particle semantics issue is typically derived by the differing origination mechanics of the gamma entity.
To wit: it is currently questionable as to whether gamma 'photons' even affect photovoltaic cells or not. For most intents and purposes the use of the label of 'photon, particle or ray' is fine by me, but G-theory will use the term particle for gammas because it will show that a gamma particle as well as being one biracial half of an electron's magnetic dipole is therefore actually a magnetic monopole which as such is magnetically inactive but when combined with an anti-gamma particle by a gluon it then becomes constituted as a MAGNETIC DIPOLE. This might seem to suggest that magnetic fields actually consist of photons under currently acceptable terminology. I suggest that's a stretch too far. However a gamma particle and a magnetic dipole (magneton) still have zero rest mass, and will exhibit P mass only when moving at 'c'. A gamma particle may appear to be similar to a herein theorized ramaton but the difference is obvious and they are also dimensionally disparate. That's like saying a bird looks like a plane and drawing some non valid conclusions regarding similarity!
Returning to the discourse: Of course by G-theory this phenomenological dilemma is not then the case because the photon isn't concluded to accelerate against the accelerating reference frame so by the precepts of G-theory we must consider that in that situation a photon has much less mass than an electron when traveling, but then that's not what relativity supposes if it is even able to conclude that a photon does have 'mass' and in the case of a photon being determined to have no mass, gravity would be unable to affect a photon at all, so geodesics and relativity are stuck with the notion that photons can't have mass EVEN WHEN TRAVELING.
This has serious implications for those theories because of the notable proofs that photons exhibit the phenomenon of actually having mass, and Einstein's ring effect is supposedly caused by the gravitational lensing of light isn't it!? No! That's just a statement out of one corner of a relativist's mouth because by geodesics that would be being caused by the bending of space time. Which is it? Note: If light has no mass what on earth are scientists doing envisioning light sails for space drives? We would also be forced to conclude that light is a virtual 'energy', and photons don't exist. That should sit well with any meta-physicists, few of whom I doubt would have stayed around long enough to be still reading this though.
Either on the one hand; if as suggested by G-theory, a traveling photon does indeed have (graviton interactional inferred) mass but gains its velocity from the interaction, or if on the other it is supposedly bent by space time there is a real problem for geodesics in that; light would by that reason have to show an appreciable acceleration and deceleration as it either approached or was emitted from a body with a geodesic manifold. This would also have serious implications under the auspices of geodesic mathematics for communication delays to orbiting satellites which would be in the region of minutes (if time is actually contracted at the rate required by the supposed gravitational manifold) and of course without any 'sleight of hand' S-relativistic change in 'c' being the proposed velocity of emr (radio signals). So this can then only be seen to be a very significant problem for the geodesic form.
This is because the actually realized delay is only typical of the expected delay being caused by propagation velocity 'c' within a Newtonian inertial frame of reference where gravity is not significantly related to time (psuedo instantemeous) and HAS NO VELOCITY MODULUS AFFECT on photons whatsoever. This is an absolute and empirical model fitting contention of G-theory which in itself TOTALLY DESTROYS RELATIVITY*. Note: G-theory presupposes OTHER PHENOMENON to be at work and it will show that a photon has inertial P mass by PIR but zero gravitational G mass and there is actually another proposed and hard data fitting reason for Einstein's ring effect which will be explained herein.
*Of course the counter argument is relativistic in that it will be triumphantly shouted… "Light always appears to be traveling at 'c' regardless of an observer's reference frame". I am putting you on notice that I am going to remove any possibility of that appellation to S-rel by convincingly destroying that theory later in the thesis. That should stop the metaphisicism and the circular arguments that only attempt to prove themselves by themselves. I.e. … 'a' is because of 'b' …which is because of 'c' …which is because of 'd' …which is because of 'a'… ad nauseam.

Many other problems for Einstein's equivalence principle and accelerated frames of reference exist in the literature. I suggest (in agreement with others) that the study of quanta effects during free fall will not bode well for such 'mind gamer' theories. Note: Sub quanta affects of gravitons are addressed elsewhere in this book.
If after this treatise, the idea of fully intrinsic 'mass', 'mass-energy' (M-E) equivalence* and gravity by accelerated frames of reference or 'falling gravity' still remain open to consideration, then it is likely that your comprehension of the mechanics presented herein is flawed. Either that or you could be pedantically addicted to mind gaming, wherein you remain entitled to indulge. Anyone else who can read and actually comprehend will soon recognize the extent of the ever expanding relativistic drivel, and will readily concur that in the case of the continuance of adherence to those problematical theories then a unified theory can never be expected and any related theories proposing actual causality of anything at all are 'shite'.
*I will accept that there is an apparent M-E relationship when considering G mass at the quantum level which is the apparent cause (but not legally supportive of the continuance of) vibration (spin) in some sub nucleonic particles. In that situation the G mass has been converted to vibration (spin) via graviton perturbative affects and for such particles except for photons E=hf is more accurate than E=mc2 which only applies somewhat to the remaining P mass of the particle which is NOT convertible to 'energy' unless by an external force which causes spatial displacement. Note 1: P mass is fully subject to PIR. Note 2: Graviton perturbative transitions provide a substantive cause for the perpetual motion observed in quantum spin. Apart from that phenomenon and without any other contenders, the quantum particles are required to maintain spin by some magical kind of perpetual motion which is just one more quantum physics' 'middle finger salutes' being gestured at the laws of thermodynamics.

Now we will return to the main thread and move to the subject of Newtonian laws abrogated by hyper velocity speeds:
The only reason for the stronger than expected 'g-forces' you would feel during travel at hyper velocities is due to IMPETUS. I.e. By the formula Ei =F/t* the differential force of gravitons (GTD) passing through the nucleons of your body at low velocities is only sufficient to cause an extremely low impetus with an amazingly (and unnoticeably) long time constant, whereas the short time constant of a 'felt' acceleration is caused by a similar impetus but with a greater force over a shorter time.
*Impetus is not inertia because it is related to the time duration of the event and it is more related to 'energy' like the watt-second but it can subjectively be considered to be a felt force like inertia. It could be called a Newton-second if you will. Refer to impetus definition. In some sense it is subjectively 'energy' per time as well. However this is not a typically useful mathematical equation per se because of force variability. It simply holds an idea. 

One formula for the extra force felt as inertia Fi caused by GTD elicited space drag at hyper velocities could be---
 Fa+Fi=ma+ (v2/2) (√(1/2.v) /1/2.v in kg.
 This includes acceleration inertia and is a possible calculator of the force required to accelerate the AMO at different velocities. In any case, if acceleration is zero it must be dropped from the formula because it is a rate of a rate, so zero in this case simply means none. So that means that under a state of momentum the 'a' is dropped from the equation. Note: With no accelerative force being applied this gives a space drag (friction) at 1-10 m/s which is essentially zero as well as an insignificant inertial force per kg of momentum at 1m/s of 0.0000---. so by the results in list 1 it's beginning to look 'tweakable' until we apply an accelerative force and end up with the results in list 2 that clearly don't fit with observed reality. However along with another formula (which I won't submit at this stage because this is just an example of an idea), all the formulas I have tried (including parabolic and hyperbolic*) also give results of drag force at speeds of five to ten km/s that definitely don't fit with real world observational data. All this is demonstrated below in two separate lists of calculated results.
Because gravity works under the auspices of inverse square law, it stands to reason that the obvious solution is by reason of the drag force increasing by the square of the doubling of velocity. None of this is testable in the real world so we must utilize robust theorizing and reason. So in light of that, the only formula that I have obtained acceptable results from is an inverse square formula that I will therefore be deriving final results from, in a following section. This is all simply to demonstrate that exotic mathematical forms are not necessary to add credence to any theory, and it stands to reason that an inverse square form of velocty versus drag is the likely candidate. 
*From this we can probably gather that the universe is not made from a truncated cone. If any of you think that the universe is actually made out of mathematics; then why don't you step out in front of a mathematical bus and prove it!
In support of the later use of the inverse square function it is a recognized fact that the most prevalent mathematical functor in the universe is the inverse square law.
Below you will find the calculated inertial drag force from two obviously incorrect formulas--- Neither parabolic nor hyperbolic results are shown for reasons which will be forthcoming. You can easily see for yourself that these two are far from being a possible model fit to real world observances.

LIST 1 LIST 2
0.02kg    0. 0125kg…… at 10m/s (right here this needs to be almost zero). 
0.06kg      0. 0707kg….. at 100m/s
7.1kg       50kg………--- at 5km/s
7.7kg       77kg………   at 10km/s (12.54kg)    23kg at 100km/s
39kg        4330kg…….. at 1/2 'c' 
76kg        9188kg…….. at 0.7c
128kg     11929kg…….. at 0.9 'c'
684kg     21210kg…….. at 'c'.

I am leaving the results of inverse square law (from a calculated upper drag force at 'c') for a later time where it is more relative to the argument being presented.

Now the force in list one is the force required to act against the drag in order to allow momentum, and so then this force may be considered to be inertial mass at momentum, so by E=mv we can calculate the 'energy' in Joules*. This would then be 6.36e12J at 'c' just for a one kg object to maintain momentum; an unlikely event by all accounts. The required 'energy' is still 1.299e12J at ½ 'c'.
Even though the results at low velocities need to be approaching zero; this is tantalizingly close to my forthcoming reverse calculations by inverse square law from a calculated upper limit of velocity in a following estimation where at ½ 'c' I get 12,2000N, but by the previous calculation we only have 4,3300N which is still massive drag force by any account. 
*Refer to chapter 10 if you can't agree that E=mv at momentum!

Inertia is simply the felt (and often measurable) force experienced by any significant rate of change of motion and it is mainly realized because of N mass. Inertia may not be felt when an impetus value exists which has an extremely long time constant, such as in the case of classical momentum. There is still 'insignificant but real' drag force at low speed momentum. However the full impetus value is not even realizable until the time is up –which is pretty much never- and the inertial force caused by an insignificant low velocity G mass in such a case may not even be measurable.
Note: This theory insists that momentum does not have an infinite time constant or instantaneous acceleration would be possible because then there would be zero impetus, and by transposition of the formula Ei =Ft to t= 0/F then t=0 would be the result. Momentum is actually a very long period decay which agrees with any reading of the laws of thermodynamics. Here is one of those situations wherein we assume momentum to be constant velocity because we presumptuously observe things from our own reference frame at our own expense. Newton was wrong. There is no such thing as momentum which is actually perpetual motion! ---There he goes agai! How dare he refute Newton?
In both cases; by F=ma the intrinsic density ('mass') of the subject under study has not significantly changed. What has changed is the force and there is a negative acceleration.
What this is declaring is that GTDv caused G mass acts in exactly the same way as classical 'mass' does at low speeds and therefore the same laws apply, but it also proves that momentum cannot be inferred to a body as a constant velocity, and this becomes noticable at hyper speeds, and this lends credible support to G-theory which actually provides a physical phenomenology rather than a mathemagical one!
So we can all recognize that under conditions of perceived momentum with a minimal velocity caused GTD. (I.e. GTDv), the GTD causes only an infinitesimal force over an extremely long time constant which gives us a miniscule value of impetus 'i'. Now in the real world a strong force can give the same value 'i' with a very short time constant. We notice that condition as fast acceleration and we sometimes even feel (measure) the reactive force as inertia. It is only then it is able to be called felt inertia.
If you are following this explanation you may by now be asking the obvious. How is it that we 'feel' and measure 'g-forces' that appear to be far greater than that which can be provided by the actual velocity relative change in GTD? What is the real cause of N mass that enables the phenomenology of felt inertia? What are we being held with? Is there something that's trying to hold us to our position? But how can that apply to momentum. I'll tell you now that momentum is relative and there is a solution as you will see.
Those questions are being asked because you are astute. Apart from space drag, there is something else going on that provides the phenomenology that allows the experience of acc-decelerative inertial force to be felt at all, and this includes real world velocities. This real world phenomenon is due to a linear law with relationship to any force attempting any change in motion of any AMO and it is derived at the sub fundamental level. Any appellation to GTD mechanics for this phenomenon at low velocities or momentum must be resisted because in such low speed cases the GTD is not appreciable with any small rate of change of spatial displacement. So gravity can't possibly be the cause of inertia or mass.
In analyzing the motion of AMOs, we first must understand that 'mass' in the condition of momentum (although some definately is conditionally G mass caused by GTDv) appears to always be there and therefore it becomes an easy leap to assume it must therefore be intrinsic to AMOs. However; 'Mass' isn't actually there when an AMO is at rest or in a state of momentum. This is because (if we ignore fundamental particles for the moment) it derives from a mechanics occurring within nucleons which is fundamentally tied to a lower fundamental cause of mass only during the application of force. Secondly we should recognize from the previous analysis of space drag that the GTDg which can give a 'g-force' to objects in gravitational GS fields is also sufficient to provide accelerative inertia (as well as kinetic 'energy' of momentum) to objects being accelerated by other forces in the same GS field and even greater inertia in pure GD of deep space. What the?
To understand part of the impending analysis necessarily requires some understanding of quantum physics, but even though we haven't covered that yet, I must offer an explanation at this point or you may reject this theory outright; and rightly so. Note: This is a basic explanation which is to be expanded in the following technical section in order to arrive at the fundamental cause of mass etc. I am intending to show that inertia in all cases is a 'conditionally variable' elastic force acting against a previously unrecognized 'rock solid' but somewhat weakened fundamental anchor.
Nucleons within an object under consideration achieve non instantaneous states of parity with any changes in GTD. This is a deep elastic process which has profound significance in impulse and rebound mechanics. This is also the case of the interaction between the quark lattice and the overall nuclear electromagnetic factors. However for every single nucleon observed in lone existence, that relationship is an almost instantaneous constant (at 'y'), while all the other higher order atomic elastic relationships are variant because of PEP and therefore exhibit differing and more elastic mechanics in their bonding relationships. Note: Ponder the difference in elasticity between a lump of plutonium and a 'super ball'.
Now we should understand that GTDg caused by GS can be very great indeed in proportionality to the nucleon density of the object being analyzed; however velocity caused GTDv is actually quite weak and you might think it could never cause enough inertial mass to prevent objects from traveling at 'c'. It should be recognized that there would actually be significant GTDv caused space drag by which (if it wasn't for some power-law drag formulas similar to those described earlier) we would be probably calculating space drag by the erroneous formula. Fd : (Vm+Vo)-(Vm-Vo) where Fd is drag and Vm is the maximum graviton velocity 'y' and Vo is the velocity of the AMO 'v'. In pure form this would be---

 Fd = (y+v)-(y-v)
 
This is a linear relationship which is not what we would expect when it comes to the forces acting against objects attempting to travel at velocities approaching 'c'*, so because of the very reasonable assumption from observational parameters that graviton transitional force is by a squared function with velocity we could also end up with the relationship drag force formula Fd=((y+v)-(y-v))2 wherein 'y' can be considered to be any velocity differential summative to 'v' and then the whole formula reduces down to Fd=2v2 which relates in a homologous sense to the inverse power law I have used in direct defiance of the Lorentz curve in the 'technical' section at the end of this chapter. NB: This only applies to particles that are directly subject to G mass WHICH EXCLUDES GRAVITONS which only have a miniscule and perturbative relationship and they are also the fundamental cause of G mass and therefore legally exempt.
*This is a reasonable expectation because we have never observed any object in the universe traveling faster than 'c' even though there are forces out there that would otherwise be fully capable of providing enough motive force for this to occur in some instances.

As far as the velocity limit for AMOs is concerned the fastest observable velocities are seen at the point of black hole matter ejection via flares otherwise referred to as superluminal ejectors. I have actually calculated the upper limit of Fd (space drag) in the technical section following this chapter. Note: It is impossible to be sure of the true drag formula because as yet we don't know what the graviton drag relationship with matter is. A clue could be in the gravitational constant -or better still my new G-less gravitational formulas which are definitely inverse square related- I guess. TBE
However leaving this for now we will address inertial mechanics in its relationship to G-theory.
 





DEFINITIONS: G-mass (Gravitational transitional/perturbative mass) & N-mass (NEWTONIAN -electroweak force related- INERTIAL MASS)
…under thermodynamics and quantum resolution. Note: in G-theory the wave function is NOT the only theoretical quantum operator. I will show that there is a unification to be had between Newtonian and quantum physics but not quantum mechanics which has a convoluted and unclear relationship with the QED factors and many other variables which will be analyzed as we go on.


The following includes a postulation of THE LOWEST FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF MASS and why F=ma and 'g' is 9.81m/s/s (approx.) and the possibility that 'g' is probably not a long term (age) constant.
The fundamental cause of inertial mass is dealt with in another chapter. For the purposes for this explanation it should be sufficient to recognize that it does exist because no sense will be made of the later analysis if this section is not studied first.

The universe runs on the laws of thermodynamics and significantly with regard to the following; the law of the conservation of 'energy' as well as the noted sustained resolution of base mechanical or objective integrity at various conditional levels. These two are related and derived from a fundamental lower order phenomenology, which will be addressed later. 
If mechanical integrity becomes compromised then 'energy' is lost. If 'energy' is added or subtracted integrity resolution becomes threatened or affected. So such affects may not necessarily cause a noticeable loss of base integrity, but they can see either a change in temperature and/or motion of all descriptions by the energy related force. Whether the motion occurs or not, the force will always be in existence and internally, 'energy' will be used and emitted to somewhere.
Magnetism is probably the single most enigmatic of all the forces which can observed by their actions. Externally applied magnetism is in essence an injection of 'energy' which is attempting to breach the fundamental base of mechanical integrity' which is a conditional possibility. Conversely; extreme gravitational force is also able to conditionally cause nucleon g-factor alignments resulting in magnetic fields*. This is the only relationship between gravity and magnetism.
The take away from this is; that powerful magnetic fields are able to magnetize or physically change objects and it is possible for this to become noticed as a form of breach relating to AIR (AMO integrity resolution), resulting in the gain or loss of capability for the object to apply a formerly existing force. Here we have the strange case where AIR is compromised and 'energy' doesn't appear to have been used. In that particular case we must assume the 'energy' has been internally displaced within the AMO in such a manner that it causes a repositioning of atomic magnetic dipole relationships which doesn't cause a necessary change in temperature because a storing effect has taken place*. The energy is still there. Note: Refer to the section GRAVITATIONAL/INERTIAL MASS and E=mc2, in chapter three. 
*This is related to the phenomenon where energy can be added to an atomic system without any apparent change in its mass. TBE

The force exerted by magnetism results in non-thermal 'energy' input because the energy is produced by a moving (relative) force, and the only internal resultant in an AMO, (apart from possible electron flow and subsequent heat generation), is motion of particles and factors or the whole object extending to the possible breakdown of bonds (mechanical integrity) by g-factor distortions within the nucleons. These higher order magnetic force affects will also cause temperature rise and thermal emission whether observable or not.
*This predicates that it is gravity that causes magnetic fields in universal bodies but not vice versa. Other forces can produce local magnetic affects. Note: I have no way to test such a postulation so it must stand alone as just that.
 
Felt inertia is caused in part by the inelastic and therefore time delayed response to the nucleonic parity variations caused by the changing quantum motions within the AMO in question (including electron and other bonds), and inertia (exhibiting mass) therefore is similarly related to the conservation of energies and mechanical integrity by AIR.
An explanation of the mechanics could possibly be; that inertia is mediated by AMO integrity resolution (AIR) against strong binding force to electroweak force (EWF) being further and implicitly related to the conservation of 'energy' as well as a required lower fundamental anchor (TBE). Assuming the proven existence of such an anchor for now; the following is an explanation of the probable mechanics: in this manner energy being lost to the cosmea is returned at the lowest fundamental level as -believe it or not--- mass!-. How? You'll need to bear with me for awhile on this.
Nucleons in AMOs exhibit an inelastic and instantaneous resistance to any attempted change with their internal matrix relationships via the EWF. Such fundamental resistance is caused by PIR and via the strength of the SBF and by the herein proposed quark lattice inelasticity (QLI). The higher generational level AIR force is also relatable to (by a lesser and varying extent) to electron bonding and other mechanical bond forces etc. and inertia must be mediated by the elastic forces intrinsic to the EWF, and this allows the acceleration rates that we observe without necessarily causing any deprecation in AMOs but 'energy' is necessarily lost from the system resulting in temporary energy disparity even though internal conservation was strongly sought. I.e. The electron bond and weak forces are not inelastic like the SBF and in particular the quark lattice. Such condition would render them absolutely intransigent, and nothing would ever move spatially, it would simply deprecate to sub quantum particles! Inertial force is also highly proportional to nucleus nucleon densities (because this affects observable N-mass, with some (insignificant but real) disproportionality to nuclide size and shape*. Note 1: The law of the conservation of 'energy' has not been breached because the system is not closed. If it is considered that the cosmo-universe is a closed system (erroneously), even then the conservation law has been upheld because the 'energy' has just been transferred to another place and returned again via a surprising phenomenology call the derivation of fundamental mass. However the universe is so large that 'energy' and time become a canonical conjugate so for all intents and purposes we can presume a closed system.
Note 2: The determination of rest state 'mass' and its derivation is another subject wherein a single nucleon will exhibit a slightly disproportional inertial mass than a complex nuclide with the relationship even extending to variant atomic radius issues. The mass difference is not fully related to binding 'energy' and in G-theory, mass-energy-equivalence becomes matter-energy-equivalence. There is a critical difference any proposed M-E equivalence is time delayed and not the 'real deal'. Refer to the relevant section.
The inertia/inertial mass being discussed here is only applicable to nucleons, nuclides and greater objects and NOT electrons and typical leptons. See the previous page.
*Obviously to the astute; a strong relationship to isotopic mass deviations is noticed here, and this is to be comprehensively dealt with in a later chapter.

Regardless of whether an object is at rest or traveling with momentum, any force attempting to cause a motion relative change in an AMO will cause this slightly weaker counterforce (because of elasticity and said energy losses), which are vector summed and directed back in opposition to the motive force*. This is because any force applied to any AMO in any manner is seen as an attempt to change the shape or integrity of the AMO by forcing the SBFs within its atoms to react against an almost intractable lower fundamental force anchor whether in motion or at rest; (TBE)** which is precisely what elicits the inertial response and the cause of such will be examined later. This has nothing to do with any supposed intrinsic 'mass' possessed by or externally thrust upon the AMO such as gravity or magnetism.
In subjective analysis: Until a force is applied in an attempt to cause a change in its motion relative status; under these circumstances an AMO outside of any GD (gravity) should probably be considered to have NO INERTIAL MASS AT ALL.
*This is essentially in accordance with Newton's second law of motion but with thermodynamic losses recognized.
** This is impossible in Newtonian physics but the explanation will be forthcoming.

You may now object; that if the AMO has no intrinsic mass then the motive force is still only pushing against the pathetically weak EWF that has no strong attachment to any internal anchor that can be yet recognized, and so the inertial force would also be similarly weak. I must admit that this seems to be a very reasonable objection, but the previous scenarios were presented in order to think all possibilities through and show that combined fundamental forces are not as weak as they may have been considered to be, and thought should probably be given to the possibility that there is another previously unrecognized fundamental force at work as well: via a Higg's boson construct .TBE
So now we might consider that there are two phenomena at work as follows.
1/ Objects resist any attempted acc-dec changes within a state of graviton transitional equilibrium (in space vacuum) by the action of AIR which resists any force attempting to upset the objective integrity of a nucleonic matter object (NMO).
2/ Objects resist GTDv by power law via AIR as well, which can only cause the exhibition of negligible spatial gravitation friction disparity at low speeds; however, as we have just seen an object will exhibit an increased inertial 'mass' affect by velocity related GTDv at hyper speeds. 
Perhaps it's time for another mind experiment.
Consider the case wherein velocity caused inertial G mass/force by GTDv is extremely small at real world velocities up to about a speed of 1000kms/s. But also consider that it is a requirement for AIR force to become active under conditions of high velocity momentum. This is because there can be no inertial force able to be retro presented from any object that has no mass, so in that theory the poly-directional force of graviton transitions -holding objects in a constant squeeze- would be a crucial necessity and so THAT FORM OF MASS IS EVER PRESENT in AMOs as G mass; even though relatively weak. Note: Right now you have a recognizable force of 9.81N/kg acting on your nucleons even though you are probably ignoring it while you sit and read this. However there is another unfelt force of general omnidirectional gravity which helps hold you together. It also forms spherical bodies. No--- not the kind you get from over eating LOL.
So nucleons and AMOs do always have some mass even when not in motion but rather than it being an intrinsic feature of matter, it is continuously being caused by GTDg even when an object is weightless in orbit. Think of the Earth. Note: PIR force is only applicable to the law affecting sub fermion particles which are actively resisting forces that are either trying to get them to occupy the same space time or change their space time relationships, and to a great extent so is AIR at the nucleon level TBE.

Fundamental note: Whenever an ion is mentioned, unless otherwise stated it should be considered to be a fully electron stripped positive ion (cation).
 
Take an ion in space and squeeze it between two forces. This will cause an elastic retroactive force acting against the squeezing forces which is caused by the action of the EWF, binding, columbic, g-force and form factors within the ion. Until the squeezing force is sufficient to overcome those gravitational forces. The nucleon forces will prevail with essentially EQUAL force acting against the squeeze. This will use 'energy' but not binding 'energy' -It's an ion- The ion will regain lost energy from that continuous work as often as possible from the environment by BBR as well as from the transiting gravitons themselves to continually fuel that retro force, but its temperature will see a conditional increase because of variable time delays involved in re-achieving temperature equilibrium. This increase isn't noticable in a single ion but in something the size of the sun---
Now in understanding this; take an ion (now presumed to have no other evident mass than G mass) and now consider it to be in spatial motion with an insignificant but very real GTDv induced inertial 'mass' at momentum. The ion can be considered to already be exerting a counter force against the now more unilateral GTDv force and it can now be concluded from that to have slight N mass and kinetic 'energy' just from gravity alone. This mass however may be considered to be so insignificant as to be miniscule at very low real world velocities but mass nevertheless and incredibly massive GTDv related inertial mass at hyper velocity.
With that in mind consider this: Take an ion in space and at absolute rest whereby it has no motion relative to the URF; which is not some arbitrary reference frame but one which is definable by the GD of the whole universal space. This stationary ion can be concluded to exhibit no evidence of mass other than G mass which is now internally fundamental and always the same whenever the ion is in a stable GD without being subject to GS or spatial motion and it actually then requires a motive force to elicit some N mass otherwise apart from temperature no other mass concept such as N-mass would be observable. In that state its T-mass is its G-mass Note: This sounds very much like it but it is not M-E equivalence. However it must be pointed out that ground stae or even rest stae mass is fundamental and it is the onlt PIR mass that some particles posess. So the use of ME equivalence in sub particle physics is fine. But it doesn't relate to the universe at large because we are going to find the much of the mass and energy of higher order particles such as hadrons and therefore all AMOs derives from somewhere else other than gravity. There is a light-gravity energy loop and there is another more massive energy loop that even involves black holes. Let's imagine that energy dissapears into a black hole. However the conservation of energy isn't violated if it comes back somehow is it? Interested yet?
However the value of such a force being utilized for that motion is of NO CONSEQUENCE but if it is a virtual force it must have a component of motion otherwise magnetic or coulombic repulsion/attraction dynamics which act in accordance with the pertinent laws of space-time would operate by the formula for INSTANTANEOUS initial motion which would ridiculously be V=v where 'V' is the velocity of the force and 'v' is the ion's velocity. This is simply to show that virtual forces can also have only almost instantaneous velocities of application (propagation velocity; usually 'y') otherwise the motion with regard to the fields is relative but regardless of that; motion (application) of a force is always required to cause a change in relative motion between objects and this also applies to quantum states but in that case the motion relativity is completely different. TBE
Now if we apply a much larger force in any direction: The ion then exhibits observable inertial mass and it will ACCELERATE and we will see an almost perfectly mirrored acceleration of its retroactive (but weaker) force (almost instantaneously but elastically) in the attempt to retain its ionic integrity (shape) and by AIR it will now exhibit more inertial mass according to F=ma.  This is because for another reason apart from gravity the internal 'yolk' of the atom got 'dragged' behind. It got caught on something. It has an anchor TBE. 
Of course this retroactive force causes the appearance of an inertial mass which is notionally the same as gravitational mass if the motive force is the same as 'g'. This is the salient point for us to recognize because in both cases the AIR is in jeopardy -in different ways- and inertial retroaction is the result. So now we are able to derive a law:
LAW: THE RETROACTIVE FORCE THAT IS EXHIBITED AS INERTIAL MASS FOR AN OBJECT THAT WEIGHS 1kg IN EARTH'S GRAVITY (at sea level) WILL IN EVERY CASE BE EXACTLY ONE (which is only 'approximately' 1kgf or 9.81 Newtons per kilogram in the gravitational inertial case). This law is able to be evinced without taking any 'energy' losses into account because the historical derivation of weight has by default already taken into account the resultant and slightly imprecise counterforce that is essentially a necessary (laws of thermodynamics) deviation from Newton's second law of action reaction. The imprecision is predicated in the fact that 1kgf is not exactly 10N/kg. (9.80665N) and this is related to the derivation of the various fundamental particle masses which exhibit some definable differences.
It is therefore able to be stated with an acceptable degree of accuracy that: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" even when the action is an acceleration, and a sub relative of this is that "every force has an equal and opposite retro force". However the reason that the retro force is actually observably less is not just limited to mass differences -or we would have mass energy equivalence- but because of 'energy' losses at every 'bond' level right down to and including the force derivative from the fundamental 'anchor' point even under the supposed state of momentum as well as the portion attributable to quantum particle which are exempt from G-mass .and some even from N-mass. They have definable mass type variability.
This is all firmly related to the third law of entropy* which is subjugated to the 'nothing's perfect' tongue in cheek law. IF THIS WASN'T THE CASE AND NEWTON'S REACTION LAW WASN'T IMPERFECT BECAUSE OF THE MASS AND TIME RELATED 'ENERGY' LOSSES etc. IN THE REAL WORLD THEN; NO FORCE WOULD BE ABLE TO CAUSE ANY MOTION THAT WASN'T INSTANTANEOUSLY AND TOTALLY DESTRUCTIVE. Fortunately we have elasticity in that system and what we do end up with is a rate of acelleration enshrined in F=ma. (Goldilocks happenstance) Refer to CH3.
*This means that the local acceleration rate by F=ma may actually be set by the current local rate of 'energy' loss in thermostasis, or more likely the total currently realized thermostasis of the whole universe caused by the 'energy' return loop losses explained in another chapter. If the formula were to actually be locally restricted then surprisingly Lorentz might be right about locally relative time frames of reference being able to be different throughout the universe but only in the sense I have already explained which isn't related to relativity but systematic energy differences. Therefore it should be understood that this would only be the case for the stated reasons by GD anomalies causing gravitational tress tensor variations, and not by time warping. It would only have something to do with the differences in local time measurements by any and all means (yes aging as well) because all motion except the actual speed of light would be locally different BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE LOCAL RATE OF 'ENERGY' LOSSES. 
I lean towards the idea of universal thermostasis and a fairly constant relative 'c' across the universe otherwise we would notice near field differences in F=ma that were temperature dependant, which we don't; so the phenomenon must be subjugated to the speed of light (and gravity) which are the two arbiters of one part of the dualistic 'energy' return loop which regulate the general universal 'energy' stasis with an overall time delay. Refer to the derivation of the G-theory 'energy' formula in a later chapter.
However this still leaves a problematic observational-relativity phenomenon towards the edge of the universe and near black holes. This; to some extent could be seen to occur around galaxies themselves. This only becomes problematic for universal observations if the speed of light ACTUALLY exhibits relative difference between us and those areas of space and nothing is travelling faster than the speed of light: Which some galaxies are. This has been comprehensively analyzed elsewhere in the thesis and on the neuvophysics.com website.
With this 'local restriction' idea I fear I may have opened up another can of worms but the likely fact is that the locally realized rate of 'energy' losses is FIRMLY RELATED to the third law of thermodynamics and THEREFORE F=ma IS AS WELL! The possibility that 'g' might not be a constant under similar 'earth mass' GSe conditions in a different GD should probably not go unrecognized either.

Now leaving that possibly contentious footnote behind and returning to the real local world: This means that the ion in the mind experiment we are conducting, will apply whatever retro-force is materially available relative to it's 'weight' in order to retain its shape but this force is limited by the mechanical bond forces including (in all atomic cases) the elastically weak binding force and in higher order AMOs, atomic electron bonding force involving nuclear 'g' and form factors which have a constant relative value which is unrelated to temperature although other bond forces are*. This means that if an object deforms it will not exhibit the same acceleration rate as a more elastic object and more 'energy' will released as heat etc.
*Consider the difference between striking a solid piece of steel compared with a molten drop. The molten steel retains far more nuclear integrity than electron bond integrity.
At this point I must raise the obvious question: Do hot objects of similar mass exhibit different weight than cold objects? The answer to that will be very telling with regard to the contention in the previous footnote.

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

The effect of this in the actual mechanics can be found in the mind experiment which begins in the following paragraph: In -otherwise theoretically inelastic- objects such as single ions, this inertial mass theory REMOVES INTRINSIC MASS FROM the idea of BINDING 'ENERGY' EQUIVALENCE AND SHIFTS IT TO…
 'NUCLEON QUARK-LATTICE POSITIONAL INTEGRITY EQUIVALENCE'.  This relates mass to the 'pion' balanced FORCE which holds the lattice in position within each nucleon; in which case even the single nucleon can be declared to possess perfect inertial N mass which is hardly the case in the standard 'binding 'energy'/mass equivalence' model.
This is fundamental AIR force which is proportionally but elastically just as causative of overall time delayed* N mass as the WBF is, and the same mechanics relates to a far lesser degree to other sub particles that have some appreciable mass, even though AIR and real world N mass derives from the PIR phenomenology -singularly applicable to those particles- as well as N and G mass, wherein we derive T mass by a summation of those individual 'masses'. Note again: A fundamental relationship with gluons will be addressed in a later chapter.
*A rubber ball has a very elastic time delayed response but it all equals out in the end.

Mind experiment: Take a lone hydrogen ion (nucleon) considered to be positioned in a completely perfect vacuum in space without any other external forces acting on it. Imagine it to be like an egg with a yolk representing the quark lattice. This yolk is held centrally by the interplay of the forces within the whole egg including the elastic ultra-weak binding force which may be considered to be the white (everything else aside).
If we now apply a motive force to one side of the egg, the shell will begin to move in the direction of the force but because it is anchored (for reasons described elsewhere) the egg will react with a limited and slightly elastic retroactive force against the motive force in an attempt to preserve the relative positional integrity of the shell yolk structure. So it is with the nucleon, but by a fundamentally different process of course. The problem with fundamental mass is that something else is trying to keep the spatially positional integrity of the 'yolk'. I.e. with real nucleons there must be some literal anchor! Patience; there is.
The profound and iterated part of this mechanics of mass is that it precludes any fundamental relationship between mass and binding 'energy'. The derivation of 'mass' descends to the lowest fundamental order of particles being trions. 
The rest G mass of a nucleon at STP is strongly dependant on GTD and the N mass is beginning to look phenomenologically relatable to the 'quark lattice (SBF gluons inclusive) by elastic weak force relationship'. Strong binding force therefore becomes predominately just a fairly inelastic and powerful agency of N mass inertial transfer which is the main elastic arbiter of AIR. Phenomenologically, SBF is no different than the agency associated with any other bonds and mechanical connections with regard to the AIR of any AMO. The only difference is the variations in the degree of strength and elasticity of the various bonds involved.
If a motive or crushing force is of sufficient strength the AMO will begin to sacrifice its integrity in a 'pecking order'. The first to be deformed is a gas, which is followed by liquids and powders and other loose aggregations, then weak mechanical, strong mechanical and crystalline, chemical bonds, this is followed by the strong binding force in the nucleon matrix and finally and surprisingly perhaps, the bond that holds nucleons together; the electroweak binding force. Wow; paradoxically it appears to not be so weak after all and it may be quite the misnomer!
All of these forces are not summative and the 'weakest link in the chain' law applies and it is iterated that the electroweak force isn't as weak as its name suggests. It takes high 'energy' 'deep inelastic scattering' to get quarks out of a nucleon and that is by a relatively more powerful force.
Gravity is a force which acts with predominant affects on the quark lattice of nucleons, from which the vector affects are spread to the whole AMO over elastic time, and it is only felt whenever a withholding or opposing external force is applied. Depending case specifically on the GTD force and internal forces involved, the integrity of the AMO may be overcome. E.g. By the hyper GS that exists near a black hole or by diamagnetism near a magnetar perhaps.
When a withholding force is removed the object is only required to move at a sufficient rate of acceleration which is fully determined by the 'g' and the nucleon integrity, whereby in an earth 'g' we have it measured at about 9.81N/kg with an acc. rate of about 9.81m/s/s*. This means that the AIR force is fundamentally but elastically related to the weak force and the quark lattice positional integrity, which concludes that nucleons will exert an AIR force of almost 9.81N/kg against ANY motion relative earth value 'g' force that attempts to cause ANY change in the nucleon integrity by any iota.
An object falls after being dropped by the retroaction of AIR force in order to relieve the GTDg force which was previously squeezing the nucleons while it was being restrained.
* The form m.s2 is often used. But that's an incorrect form because the term is NOT an equation. Of course we know what is meant.

When it comes to externally applied mechanical motive forces, the amount of AIR retro force is still ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME as 'g' in proportionality to the observed force at real world spatial velocities; however we notice phenomenologically differing mechanics acting on AMOs with differing properties.
We may sometimes notice a different and disproportionate bond force interrelationship. This is realized as a bond force retroaction which may spread from a single point source which then results in uneven deformation of the AMO, and bond failures may occur disproportionably across an object. I.e. Before the total failure of the bonds in the whole object, permanent deformational structural damage may be observed at the point of impact which would declare a strong inverse square law relationship in the elasticity of bond forces within the AMO.
In iteration: The tiniest attempt to cause a change in the shape or other integrity of a nucleon will result in a proportionally similar AIR caused counterforce, such that the MINUSCULE GTDg across an AMO being held in any gravitational field in a vacuum is theoretically the same MINUSCULE GTDa across an object being accelerated at the same rate as the G-field by an externally applied motive force*.
*Such a small 'a' shows the relationship to AIR except that in the real world there are 'energy' losses caused by AIR and these have been taken into account but not retro-related to gravitational acceleration, otherwise the g-force would be 10N/kg. Obviously this would only complicate matters but it needs to be understood.

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

From all this we can conclude that without all of the above universally legal phenomenology, inertial and gravitational mass could not exist in the universe and (as described previously) the formula for motion would be Fv=v.
The observable mass of AMO's can then be considered to relate (by AIR) to a reflection of atomic/molecular/mechanical binding and bonding forces as the case may be. Externally induced forces will cause inertial mass to become evident and along with nucleon AIR and Q-L PIR, it is initially caused by the spread of reactive forces from the weak force's elastic electromagnetic resistance, to any distortion in the atomic nucleus relative to electron orbit spatial relationship, and this can also be extended to include mechanical bonds. In other words all objects with entity integrity combine all the forces in their arsenal in order to maintain their mechanical shape and integrity*. This includes single nucleons and ions, which both offer an instantaneous elastic retro force to motive force via the ultra weak force.
*This should not be take to mean that circular and centered are the necessary condition of the 'state' of atoms and lower order particles.

Even though it may be counterintuitive on the surface; we will shortly see how rest state is able to be phenomenologically similar to the condition of momentum and yet very strangely be still observed to retain the same anchoring force mechanics. That appears to be 'unworldly' science, you say! Yup, but wait.
In summation: This retroactive phenomenological behavior utilizes binding, bonding and electromagnetic forces etc. which apart from possible spatial motion, cause 'energy' to be emitted as heat and also BBR but this is soon replaced by the phenomena already discussed. In fact; when considering AMOs it would seem to be that all nuclear binding forces are the greatest agency of the retro force, although crystalline electron bonding force can come in at a close second in some AMOs.
Under conditions of gravitational acceleration (freefall) in a vacuum whereby there is neither a 'point' nor any 'other' externally applied motive force; no retro force is operative that relates elastically back to any singularly identifiable points of reference. In this way we can resolve that each nucleon and atom is only reacting unobservably against its neighbor* and this is why there is no significant difference in the gravitational acceleration in free fall between a feather and a lump of lead and why no inertia is 'felt' during gravitational freefall.
The forces previously discussed only become operative when the object 'lands' and then you will notice the difference between the two. Who wouldn't rather have the feather fall on their toe than the lead? This phenomenology ratifies the weak and strong equivalence principles without resorting to relativistic solutions.
*This predicates that there will be an internally induced temperature rise during gravitational free fall. With a 'g' force of only 10N it is unlikely that such would be observable in earth gravity. I.e. the E from E=mv only amounts to watts**/sec/kg and any 'energy' from internal motion that wasn't the kinetic 'energy' component (which will be released on ground impact) would rapidly radiate via BBR and some probably undetectable IR radiation.
**Please refer to the Joule and watt-second relationship.

From this it can then be concluded that any object of nucleon size or greater which is mechanically held at rest in a gravitational field appears to have a 'nucleonic density proportional' motive (accelerative) force acting against it (weight) and all the previously mentioned forces are in play in the attempt to maintain objective integrity. This doesn't work out too well for a blob of jelly, because I suspect there is a great lack of atomic and or mechanical or chemical bonding forces. However it must be considered that the internal nuclear binding forces are not on vacation or the jelly would have no weight.
This means that AIR has no affect on weight or acc/dec, it simply acts to attempt to maintain atomic and objective integrity within the by now obvious constraints. IT ALWAYS CAUSES THE APPLICATION (OVER ELASTIC TIME) OF THE SAME RETROACTIVE MAXIMUM 'POSSIBLE' FORCE AGAINST ANY MOTIVE FORCE WHICH IS TOTALLY PROPORTIONAL TO NUCLEONIC DENSITY but unilaterally net sum zero in overall affect on freefall* until the point of the loss of objective integrity. This maximum possible force is observationally recognized in F=ma. If that force results in the loss of objective integrity then so be it. Go on give that piñata, or the balloon full of flour another whack with the baseball bat. What happened to F=ma?
*I.e. the observed result is exactly the same for the feather as the lead.

In AMOs this resistive retro force expands in a variably elastic manner to add further and proportional resistance to the accelerative force which is causing attempted distortions to the atomic or molecular matrix in more complex AMOs. In other words the reactive force occurs over varying observational time frames proportional to mass-density relationships.
At some particular point with increased acc/dec forces acting on an object, AIR forces can be overcome and in that case the acc/dec force causes a loss of objective integrity. Have you ever dropped a china plate on the floor, or seen a video of an atomic bomb? These are two cases wherein different AIR forces have been overcome. Violent impulse impacts of force can actually cause the AIR to be compromised very quickly and the atomic/molecular/mechanical bonds may actually be severed with barely any observational change of spatial motion in a larger mother object E.g. a bullet passing through a steel plate. I.e. most of the 'energy' is used in object integrity destruction rather than being transferred as kinetic 'energy' of spatial motion. Of course some is transferred to the motion of shattered particles and fragments but much is released as BBR and heat.
We can analyze the affect that a point source force (by reason of the force differential across an object) exhibits upon its application.
The force causes an attempted nucleon compression as well as a real compression of the atomic/molecular/mechanical constructs within the matrix at the point of contact. This is passed through the object by the previously stated mechanics and it becomes transferred to the apposite side of the object where it becomes realizable as a bulge on that side.
Disregarding elasticity; we NOW HAVE an initial SPATIAL DISPLACEMENT evidenced in the object and if the compressing force remains constant the action continues proportionally and we then notice an increase in the rate of that spatial displacement until a changed shape integrity is resumed. The result is fleeting acceleration to deceleration of a small part of the whole. The exact opposite is happening to the bullet.
Gravitational inertial mass is caused by a similar differential vector sum of forces which is (in it's case) ONLY being directly applied to nucleons by graviton transitions but the atoms/molecules etc. once again display a resistance to the motive force of GTDg. Severe GTDg force (gravity) is also able to cause the destruction of bonds but in a completely different way TBE.
In both cases the resistance is proportional to but NOT ALWAYS ELASTIC enough exhibit a change in linear motion. F=ma only applies to a theoretical perfectly elastic object where deprecation and 'energy' loss are not taken into consideration. However with the classical measurement of mass and acceleration we have what we have which is a reasonable approximation of reality at STP and in earth gravity.
The retroactive resistance forces extend to and are mainly caused by the fundamental forces, namely biracial binding forces and chemical bonding forces, the latter being by agency of both the omni lateral 'g' and form factors. Note: This will be analyzed in more detail in a later chapter.
Losses also occur by BBR, internal convection to other atoms and molecules and sometimes by photon emission as well. This loss is in some way proportional to the elasticity of the nuclear filling matrix etc.



PREDICTING SLIGHT 'WEP' VIOLATIONS:

THE FEATHER AND THE HAMMER: Better known as the weak equivalence principle… an expanded analysis.


The best way to analyze the rate of fall of two objects with dissimilar weights (masses whatever!) in a vacuum is probably to perform the mind experiment at the nucleon level.
Take a single nucleon being held at height in a vacuum at gravity 'g'. Because of the relevant Newtonian law; the nucleon when dropped will fall at the expected acceleration rate. By understanding the prior analysis of AIR and PIR by G theory this is then able to be recognized to be because of the miniscule GSe caused GTD across it which is 'reacting against' that g-force.
Knowing that all individual nucleons have similarity in regard to GD 'gravity' (and specifically in the earth gravity case GSe), if at the same time we drop a theoretical group of bound nucleons lined up at right angles to the GS field. They each have the same forces acting on them and together they will fall at the same rate as the much 'lighter' single nucleon.
Going further with this; we will now align the long group with the gravitational field. They now have a varying altitude and by inverse square (g) law the lowest nucleon in the line, is considered to be horizontally level with the single nucleon in the first example and within its own system it has the greatest gravity acting on it, being ALMOST similar to the gravity on the single nucleon. Only almost! Because of the inverse square law with increasing 'altitude' the gravity varies and it is less at the top nucleon compared to the others down to the one at the bottom, so the group would be the expected to accelerate (fall) at a slower rate.
This is not what we observe however, because this problem is neatly offset by the slightly less GS caused GTDg across each nucleon because of combined nucleon GS shadowing which is summative with each additional nucleon and by consequence this becomes wholly applicable to the group as a complete object per kg, so in such a case there is proportionately less AIR force operating against the now lower overall gravitational inertial force and the acceleration rate turns out to be the same.
However, and very significantly; if the string of nucleons reached to a mile high as against a mile across (radially) the inverse square (g) law of decreasing gravity caused by GS backfill is not exactly counter reactive and this would actually result in the larger object stretching elastically and falling more slowly because of that 'energy' loss, and it would also have measurable inertia if it was an accelerometer. Note: if you came in late: This actually refutes Einstein's equivalence principle in its support of GR. This principle (but not the weak and strong equivalence principles per se) will be savaged further in a following argument.
We can take this mind experiment up through growing orders of magnitude until we reach the hammer and the feather and the result will always be essentially the same; but subject to conditions which will be evaluated later, including one of which I will initially address here.
A beam balance measuring mass is often thought to be the best way to measure mass; but you may be being misled. It will only accurately read the correct mass if THE COUNTERWEIGHTS ARE MADE OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE as that which is being weighed. Even though that's not a real problem in reality; the reasons for this will be forthcoming and are important for the understanding of the true physics involved. If we continue to ignore evidences that we pompously consider to be of no consequence to us from where we sit observationally within the vastness of the universe then we are doing a grave disservice to the discovery process.
If you are sure that the gravity is exactly 10N/kg then (if you could actually find an accurate one) a gravity scale (spring weigher) would be more accurate for measuring the mass of substantively different objects of the same relative height* at the same relative altitude. This sounds very nit picky and possibly a little counterintuitive but the above experiment and the later analysis of atomic and elemental space filling characteristics will combine to show cause for gravity to be seen to act slightly differentially on differently shaped atomic and molecular geometric arrangements and densities, and in such cases there will be a deviation in the measured mass from the actual mass whenever a beam balance is used in the standard manner. Note: This experiment only holds true to objects that are of very similar size. 
*I repeat: This might all sound counterintuitive; but it needs to be understood that such a phenomenon is not necessarily proportionally related to Sg, especially when you compare metals and gases and it has G-theory significance when analyzing atomic mass-weight relationships.




 F=ma AND MASS


Paradoxically; the simple and underestimated formula F=ma is probably the most profound formula ever recognized. Believe me; apart from G-theory it holds promise for serious hurt and trouble for many scientific world views of the universe INCLUDING RELATIVITY.
Faced with the dilemma of: If m=F/a, whenever we have a situation when there is no force and hence no acceleration, then we must now notice that the formula is m=0/0 and mass is therefore zero. What? An object has no mass when there is no accelerative motion? We have now arrived at an extremely bewildering and perplexing problem, but I told you so: Nah nah na nah nah! Note: This situation occurs whether an object is at rest or in a state of momentum.
Apart from just tossing it up on the shelf of mathematical incongruities which is already sagging under the weight of other similar problems, the only reasonable deduction is that 'm' is not 'the intrinsic constant which is the 'energy' value' that the traditional paradigm has supposed, so then in accordance with G-theory it becomes a variable*. Whoops sorry! Here we notice another problem because at the quantum level it would appear that we would then be faced with E=0c2 as a possibility!
*Not the 'mass or not' that others propose either.

Now the relativists must continue to argue that 'm' is actually a constant and that acceleration is never zero because of an infinite number of (miraculous) accelerating time frames of reference. If they wish to go down that path, then reason will have become captive to intellectualism and their efforts to explain such an infinitely applicable phenomenon without causality (and I prophecy the same) such theorizing will eventually lead to a world of hurt and ignominy. Note: In fact, applied relativity is really metaphisicism and quasi science. The real reason that acceleration is never zero is that it is not a rate. Velocity is a rate while acceleration is a change of rate so when the rate remains constant in m/s the acceleration is no longer applicable. Acceleration is either something or nothing and is able to be simply dropped from any formula when v is constant.
Another way of saying this is; if velocity is a line parallel to the 'x' axis, then for ANY value of 'y' ∆a is never zero. I.e. there is either the existence of some definable rate of 'rate change' or non existence. However it now stands to reason that a rate such as velocity IS able to be zero, meaning stationary
Take the example of an object being held stationary in a gravitational field. In that situation it may appear that the applicable equation according to F=mg would be F=m0. This doesn't mean that the force is zero by the mathematical result of calculating m x 0. In this case it must be conceptualized that 'g' (a) is non existent and that the force is still in existence but now the mass simply isn't observable but only the gravitational force F (subjectively thought to be) pushing down on your hand as WEIGHT. So g-force only exhibits weight and NOT mass.
So in that case F=00 or weight. This is the actual case and it could only be speciously construed to be F=m. In mathematical equations when a=zero it is simply dispensed with because 'a' is a rate of a rate. Wow! Is that mass-force equivalence? Yes but only conditionally. We are going to discover later that 'mass-energy' equivalence does exist in a manner which is not completely divorced from the quantum 'binding 'energy' idea but that's conditional as well. I.e. by the lost inertial retroactive mass which allows the universal phenomenon of motion. This mass is related to the equal 'energy' usage by both the pushed object/force and the pushing object/force. This is fundamentally related to all the forces in matter and not just the SBF as is the case with the misnomer SBE which in any case is only part of the mechanics.
 By simple and reasoned deduction, inertial mass can therefore be seen to be just an elastic resultant of any given force being applied to any object from nuclides right through to more complex matter forms and mass is not some intrinsic possession of every piece of matter.
For the following analysis it should be noted that any AMO which is declared by any theory to contain intrinsic mass in its greater self (which is not caused by lower generational fundamental forces and therefore not subject to Newton's reaction law because it is a phenomenon without an anchor) should be able to undergo (non elastic) instantaneous changes in acc/dec rates from rest and momentum states, and this would have to be judged as being a substantiated and accepted fact of that particular theory or else the theory is shown to be flawed. Total mass is actually the vector sum of the individual fundamental particle P masses which act elastically within all AMOs whose individual P masses must be anchored to a fundamental yet movable and almost intractable objective force point. Think about it! Even the smallest particle with 'mass' you want to push around will provide a retroactive force which derives from that internal anchor. No other theory is able to provide the necessary mass anchor.
The theory of intrinsic mass of AMO's or bodies without relationship to the lowest fundamental causes of mass down to vanishing point is fallacious. This must be true because instantaneous (non elastic) acc/dec is never observed to be the case. Such an absurd phenomenon would most notably have to be declared to actually occur upon the cessation of an accelerative force on a nucleon or AMO which would need to cause an INSTANTANEOUS cessation of the acceleration which would be expected to result in an instantaneous conversion to momentum with constant velocity. It should be clear that in the non theoretical classical Newtonian sense, all AMO's offer an elastic reaction to any application or removal of force whether it is instantaneous or not, or measurable or not.
There are only two mathematical conditions whereby such a phenomenon could be possible. I.e. when force is either infinite or zero and of course the first is impossible and the second speaks for itself. Note: The phenomenon in AMO's remains more or less elastic, but with the idea of intrinsic mass it is impossible for there to be an instantaneous change in the rate of acceleration which would result in an instantaneous deceleration to the condition of momentum. However having said that: The converse fact is that a change from acceleration to momentum actually seems to require a deceleration of the instantaneous type! Of course this is still impossible because such is a cessation of action which is always elastic and not instantaneous. 
The previous examination of the phenomenon of mass may have seemed to be a ridiculous hair splitting exercise but have no doubts; you will soon see the reason for it.
We should all be able to recognize that infinite force is impossible. However it can be shown that real world forces are able to cause an ALMOST instantaneous transfer of momentum from one object to another via a very elastic impulse collision whereby the objects maintain a high degree of AIR within a very short time frame because of their high level of bond integrity.
We are all no doubt familiar with the executive toy which consists of very elastic* steel balls hanging side by side (Otherwise known as Newton's cradle) whereby the lifting and dropping of one ball at one end results in the almost instantaneous transfer of momentum through several similar balls to the ball at the other end which swings pendulum like into the air and back again until eventually all the kinetic 'energy' in the system is used up.
This 'experiment' actually demonstrates the two types of forces which we have been analyzing. Both GTD and AIR forces are involved in the process.
If the balls were perfectly elastic the transfer of momentum would be instantaneous by instantaneous acceleration and it would be a theoretical perpetual motion device. However because of some inelasticity and the resulting loss of 'energy' by photons and BBR to the environment, this is not the case and for other reasons as well the system loses motion relative 'energy' as a result.
The law of the conservation of mechanical 'energy' still applies but it is the elasticity which causes internal perturbative vibrational changes as well as external direct changes in atomic matter. Both changes in motion are considered to be work done and 'energy' is released by BBR or even as photons, and there is no possibility of perpetual motion because the open system loses mechanical 'energy' as both quantum and sub quantum 'energy' so the work capability of such a mechanical system is reduced proportionally.
*Elasticity can be subjective. You might think that a rubber ball is elastic, and that a hard object such as a steel ball or a glass marble would be inelastic.  Not so fast; try the experiment of dropping a glass marble (Please don't use steel as the floor might crack.) on a hard ceramic tiled floor and you will be surprised to notice that it shows similar elastic rebound characteristics as a super ball. So it is for the steel balls. 




A SHORT DIGRESSION introducing a later subject.


However within nucleon quark matrices perfect instantaneity* is theorized to be almost exactly the case due to quark lattice inelasticity (QLI) which we will go over in a later chapter. Note: THIS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE ELASTICITY OF S-REL SCATTERING MECHANICS.
*Instantaneity in the process of sub particle retention during graviton transitions where kinetic 'energy' is transferred and not conserved at the point of transition. Some 'energy' is lost but the total 'energy' is conserved in the greater universal sense even though some is lost by the transiting graviton and gained by the quark lattice. Because of the graviton velocities being considered herein this transfer for all intent and purposes is instantaneous.
Note: because of the probability that up quarks carry twice the momenta of down quarks it is likely that protons are more involved in gravitational phenomena than neutrons. This would be thought to be difficult to be proven experimentally because of the weak equivalence principle. However the prior assertations should give a clue to how this might be achieved. Clue: Does isotopic variance in ions violate the weak equivalence principle?.. or the 'energy' resolution in the LHC? Here is a possible thesis for a master's degree. Although it might be difficult to gain access to the LHC!.. a linac perhaps? I wish! …such a violation or statistically modulated 'energy' variation would subjectively prove my GTD theory of asymptotic hypervelocity inhibition.

The atomic electron bonds in a very elastic material like those steel balls are also extremely stable in a mechanical sense and the force at the point of collision is ALMOST instantaneously transferred evenly through each atom (especially nucleons) within the object. (AIR)
In this same manner the forces derived from graviton transitions becomes equally (or perhaps unequally as alternately theorized) shared by the nucleons in an object. In both of these cases the force transfer within the nucleons is almost INSTANTANEOUS but it is theorized to occur at 'c'.

Welcome back: From this we are able to conclude that in our 'world' an equal force can be seen to cause an equal rate of acceleration against the resistance of nucleons applying a lesser counterforce to changes in acceleration because of slight disparity of the force being applied across each elastic particle (atoms etc) and resulting 'energy' loss. This is entirely regardless of the nature of the force being applied and the mass is proportional to the nucleonic density of the objects and not exactly in accordance with the atomic density as supposed. Note: Very small particles can show anomalies, and this is to be phenomenologically addressed.
The profound conclusion is that 'mass' is elicited by any motive force whether inertial or gravitational, magnetic or electrostatic, and it is equally proportional to force as is acceleration. So mass is proportional to any force which results in free motion and inversely proportional to acceleration. Note: Outside of relativistic considerations; this conclusion seems to result in the necessity for a change to Einstein's formula to make it read E=Fc2 or some other variant when dealing with inertial N mass of AMOs. This won't be necessary but the idea has further implications for the expansion of G-theory with regard to quantum physics which will involve a plethora of bold contentions, and this will all be forthcoming.
Another conclusion we can draw at this juncture is that a falling object can have weight without any intrinsic N mass being predicated from that. I.e. as indicated by the appearance of an object (being thought to have zero accelerative inertia) as it is falling in a vacuum. Note 1: The very instant any force is applied in order to measure a weight then N mass will be elicited by AIR. This means that any object (including an accelerometer) in a gravitational field under low velocity conditions has weight but essentially NO significant N mass. There are no AIR forces in action against N mass and the accelerometer will not register any 'strain'. However it must be noted that G mass remains fully operational and acting against the Newtonian reactive counterforce and it is this force interaction which is the cause of the non measurable gravitational inertial force which causes the acceleration 'g' which is being observed. G mass becomes more evident and possibly measurable with summative GTD increase due to altitude differential. This also has implications for refuting Einstein's equivalence principle to being not supportive of G-rel causality: TBE
Note2: This just means that GS force is still related to gravitational inertial mass (G mass) which still obeys the law which states that a known value of force acting on a known constant object of atomic matter will cause a known acceleration rate regardless of the cause of the force: In this case being G-inertial mass on any AMO in a GS acting by GTD against AIR.
The obvious objection to this will be; that an object at rest in a gravitational field still has vibrating or rotating particles so it must still have 'mass' because of that internal motion.
If you are referring to this as causing N mass in a single nucleon I disagree; because the particle motion being caused by GTD in the falling nucleon is vector sum zero and this is only P mass which is calculable by E=hf. So Einstein's equivalence principle only exactly applies observationally to a single (similar) nucleon and above.
I ask you; can any object at rest accelerate itself? Any accelerative actions within the individual nucleons of an object have a result of net sum zero (actually less because of losses). Any internally generated changes in vibrational amplitudes or frequencies from any bilateral external 'energy' transference will neither cause any change to the N mass nor give rise to auto-spatial motion. Only a unilateral change of GTD will result in the detection of G mass in a falling AMO. N mass is still being exhibited in any falling object by the Newtonian action-reaction law. Note: Elasticity may see some relative motion of a nucleon with regard to its linearity, but it is always summative around zero when the nucleon comes to rest.
Any overall internal changes in vibration are a result of changes in the density of sub quantum particles within the object, being caused by a GTD change as an AMO falls and this subject will be examined elsewhere in this book.
Such variation of quantum level vibrations would also be concluded to cause no change in any object's N mass but only a change in observed temperature which in no way means a change of the 'energy' content as mass but only sub fermion quark lattice particle density. Note: The change in temperature ('energy') should be calculable by E=mc2! This would be thought to be because of a change in the MASS of particles gained or lost by the object. In that case this would be just another nail in the coffin of conventional nuclear physics whereby many (most?) sub fermion particles (SFPs) are declared to have no mass. In any case 'energy' gain doesn't cause any change in mass.
This postulation can also be seen to refute the idea of mass 'energy' equivalence being singularly caused by nuclear strong binding force. In fact 'energy' described as being supposedly transmutable with mass by the formula E=mc2 doesn't actually exist. In fact we just saw that N mass is proportional to work done by force, such that the formula m≈w/t is more apt. (where work is actually relatable as impetus because of the time factor). Transforming this formula by the formula Ei =Ft, then---
m≈Ft/t
m≈F
So mass can be seen to be conditionally proportional to force in relative terms and not 'energy'*. So what we now have is almost force mass equivalence but ONLY when the force is causing free acc/dec in space or conversely as we saw before; preventing acceleration in a gravitational field and it should be emphasized that there is no hint of transmutability. (Are you confused yet? Don't worry it gets worse.)
*The problem recognized by science is in being unable to calculate the actual force of gravity or inertia accurately by pure mathematics. This is because the two extents of possible force are infinity and zero and that, is very mathematically problematical so we only have experimental measurements to rely on.
On the other hand 'energy' is simply E=mv so couching all motion in terms of 'energy' usage is mathematically attractive but it results in faulty conceptualization which leads to discord in the academy and finally resulting in the SBE debacle.

Now we seem to have a problem with F=ma because it could obviously be made to read F=Fa which seems rather absurd. It is! Appearances however can be deceptive because conditionally there is no problem.
The formula F=ma is OK for general use for spatial motion where m is N mass. However the general paradigm speciously assumes intrinsic mass. The actual formula by G-theory is F=Fa only when stated as F=(Fm-Fr)a* where Fm is the motive force and Fr is the AIR reactive force. This then declares that mass is actually the observed force resultant after 'energy' losses because mass is actually the measure of the resistant FORCE against spatial acc/dec derived by AIR theory which further derives the reasons for the 'energy' losses. THE SAME RESISTIVE FORCE (Fr) APPLIES TO ANY ATTEMPTED CHANGE OF (ACC/DEC) TO THE VIBRATIONAL AMPLITUDE OF SUB QUANTUM PARTICLES. This is the phenomenology that permits the perturbative-inelastic transfer of the spatial motion of gravitons to attempted spatial motion (force) to any AMO which becomes subject to changes in GTD. Note: Temperature change will not have the same affect because there is no spatial vector component to the change in the density of particles within nucleon Q-Ls.
*Whenever the forces are the same 'a' will be zero but if the forces are caused by opposing AMOs, 'energy' will still be lost within those object systems, even though their mass will essentially remain the same.

I can now make the astounding conclusion that there is no actual 'energy' stuff in the universe as there is considered to be within the current paradigm. The sum of universal mechanics is simply force causing motion which causes work to be done with purely a conceptualization of 'energy' being carried. The work is the motion of objects and whether they are either visible or invisible quantum particles the work done is seen as 'energy' used.
So, 'energy' is just a perceived summation of losses caused by any acc/dec resulting in the motion of a quantity of particles over time but then being couched by sleight of hand in kinetic 'energy' terms by Ek=(Fm-Fr)v. The actual 'energy' loss during acc/dec is not equivalent to mass as the resultant force Fm-Fr. It is only proportional because 'energy' is not relative to time while acc/dec is. This is because acc/dec is a rate of a rate and not a constant rate as is 'v' and this legally allows a kinetic 'energy' calculation because momentum is considered to be the same as rest state* relative to any other reference frame of motion so which has the kinetic energy? In the case of kinetic 'energy'; such 'energy' can in no way be even in consideration for equivalence with mass because velocity and at least motion of momentum is required to be in evidence for any calculation of such 'energy'.
*This restriction over the legal contemplation of any 'energy' other than kinetic 'energy' from being calculable over any component of time actually poses a serious logical dilemma for E=mv2 and any relevance to E=mc2 which brings into question its legally acceptable use in such applications as in the calculation of binding 'energy' for instance.

We will however continue to use the term 'energy' in the kinetic energy context which is the general idea of the transfer of the capacity to perform work to any other location, but by G-theory we should realize that the term only describes a collection of essential actions/or not, and it then becomes only a tool which just like wavy lines etc. doesn't actually exist as an entity able to act in its own right. Note: some 'energy' is the conceptualization of particle loss and gain in AMOs. This results in the concept of temperature.
By this we may consider that an object in momentum or at rest has potential 'mass' rather than 'energy'. By the same reasoning an object under acc/dec has kinetic 'mass' times force and not 'energy'. An object in motion of any kind would be considered to have 'work potential' Wp or actually 'potential impetus' 'ip'.
Now we must understand that all this makes too much of a meal for convenient use in classical physics beaus it then makes a confusion with F=ma, so we can keep that as is and live with the concept of 'energy'. This whole seemingly needless argument has only been deemed necessary in order to refute certain contentions of quantum physics which have left it in disarray and recognizably not cohomological with classical physics, and more importantly; to advance G-theory. 



GRAVITATIONAL 'INERTIA & ACCELERATION'


Continuing on from the previous conclusions: An object only accelerates at a faster rate as it falls in a gravitational free fall because the GS of the body is proportionally squared with altitude, so the object falling always 'thinks' it has momentum at every altitude even though motion observed as an (increasing) acceleration rate is the result*.
This remains applicable even apart from relativity and includes the postulation that an accelerometer would be unlikely to measure such acceleration anyway. Note: 'Accelerating frame of reference' and 'accelerating frames of reference' are two different postulations. In general relativity the time frame of ref. is supposed to be accelerating. In G-theory the object in free fall could be considered to be passing through an infinite number of changing frames of ref. in line with gradually increasing non-inertial accelerative forces which in general are proportionally equal to the changing GS (g) by the same power law. This is not metaphysic because in this case we have a phenomenological cause. I.e. graviton caused GTD!
*Such subjective anthropomorphous descriptions such as 'feels' and 'thinks' etc. being applied to inanimate subjects, are useful tools for explanation but care should be taken that they don't hijack the interpretive agenda. In fact they really have no place in physics at all.
For instance it has been stated that an object in gravitational free-fall 'feels' no accelerative force (inertia). The object of course actually thinks or feels nothing at all. The observation from the point of view of physics is that a falling accelerometer registers no reading.
However a very long spring falling lengthwise into a gravitational field would stretch and in so doing it could be considered to be a basic accelerometer which is in actual fact, measuring gravitational inertia. 
This removes one of many reasons for the case for curved space to be able to remain valid, and it becomes obvious that Einstein's equivalence principle was not well thought through because it didn't take altitude into account and it speciously assumed a constant gravitational field acting evenly and not differentially across the falling object. But wait there's more on the way! Note: I have dealt with space-time warping in another place.





EINSTEIN'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE and
the substantive g-theory interpretation of the Einsteinian,
relativistically subjugated mind experiment of
'the lift free-falling in a vacuum'. Note: Please refrain from knee jerk reactions and objections until the end of this treatise because all is not what it seems.
 
First of all you need to understand how you have been fed the party line of G-rel by dubious explanations as follows---
"An object follows the curved space time in its best attempt to follow a straight line." is the simplified explanation of G-rel. I have shown that this is impossible in another section by demonstrating that the curved space time travels at a vastly different velocity than the object so it becomes an implicit reality that a 'fictitious' force is being exerted on the object by the curved space-time travelling through it. So it stands that you have been lied to by that simplistic explanation.
The next little doozy you will be told is that--- "In the first instance the gravitational force exerted on an object is proportional to its mass, and secondly that the  acceleration  an object feels in response to a force is inversely proportional to its mass. Therefore the gravitational acceleration of an object is independent of its mass."
That sounds really good as it flows off the tongue, even if it is derived by mixing  a law of  inertial motion with a law of gravitational motion and beulah a miraculous understanding is achieved!
Let's be a little more circumspect and analyse both those unspoken equations and see exactly what is being speciously proved here.
First instance we see--- F=mg
Second a=F/m
Substituting--- a=mg/m
a=g
 
The previous explanation was specious and fraudulent! All that has been shown is that gravitational  acceleration and inertial acceleration are the same, and no way has the original conclusion been substantiated as being Einstein's equivalence principle--- just the strong equivalence principle. Connection has NOT been established.
 
 
Therefore Einstein's equivalence principle is an abuse of the strong equivalence principle by (in that manner) falsely purporting that the latter supports general relativity.
The 'lift' mind experiment is often given as proof positive for such time warp geodesics. The following is a slight variation of how it goes but first: The great genius Einstein decided that 'feelings' have a role to play in physics in that he concluded that because a body can't 'feel' anything when falling, then it can't be under a condition of  acceleration  caused by a (pushing or pulling) force so gravity couldn't be an actual force. It must be either fictitious or a function of another phenomenon entirely. So he famously concluded that space-time distortion was the cause without understanding that there was another possibility more able to hone Occam's razor.
What's with this 'not feeling' anything bit? Of course you feel something when you fall in a gravitational field. You feel a sudden  weightlessness ! It is a total lack of the understanding regarding the true derivation of mass that leads to the debacle where the feeling of weight when held must be concluded to be caused by a constant acceleration when there is none and conversely, a feeling of no acceleration when there actually is some. One failing of relativity is in explaining this duality without requiring either some sort of fictitious force, or else the parts of your body are required to be 'space-time' dis-related and you are therefore existing in an infinite number of pieces residing in different time zones--- talk about 'transportation'!
The experiment: A lift is free falling in earth's gravity in a vacuum. You are inside with an accelerometer. There is a hole in the lift, and prior to being lifted to the top floor a vertical line of fixed horizontal light beams were positioned at regular intervals and aligned so they would shine in precisely the same manner through the same hole as the lift falls past. Note: They were each checked horizontally when the lift was directly adjacent to each one and an adjustment was made to accurately direct where the lights shone on the other side of the lift. Each one was set up to shine on exactly the same spot on a vertical scale on the wall on the other side of the lift.
Once the lift was lifted back to the top where you boarded with your accelerometer, and the lift was then dropped, it accelerated at 'g'  and during that acceleration you felt no inertia and the accelerometer  didn't  show any as well, so because of that you are considered by Einstein to be in a state of actual momentum even though you have observable acceleration. This is the enigma that G-rel attempts to solve by this mind experiment assertation.
As you fall past the light beams (before you fall to your death!) those lights shine sequentially and horizontally through the hole as you pass by each one with increasing speed, and because of the increasing speed of the fall and the finite speed of light, each light beam which is traveling at 'c' strikes the wall on the other side of the lift at a slightly higher spot than the one before, and you would notice the spot moving upward along a vertically mounted scale as you accelerated while notionally in a condition of momentum. Note: In some forms of the experiment a single fixed light beam is shone across the lift. I have utilized this form for clearer conceptualization. I hope!
Now regardless of the experimental form you wish to use; because you are considered to be in momentum and yet the light has  perceptibly  curved upward; this means that relative to your reference frame (as effectively being in a similar inertial state as being stationary or in momentum), and with all the other facts being ignored, it must therefore have been the space time which curved to give you the appearance of acceleration. Relativistically speaking it's the same as you being stationary (or in momentum) in space and seeing a light beam gradually curve upward. So if you are not accelerating because you feel nothing and your accelerometer shows nothing; G-rel must be true because what else could have caused the light beam to curve upward other than a space-time dis-relationship function?
ANSWER: First of all it must be recognized that the same thing would happen if you carried out the same experiment in deep space with a rocket engine instead of gravity as the motive force. It is purely a vector resultant observation. We should already understand that. The main G-rel argument derives from--- while gravitational inertia is the same as accelerative inertia, freefall is not felt or measurable as inertia  and relativity is the only answer. Wrong!
So the difference in the rocket case is that you would feel the inertia of acceleration and the phenomenon would consequently be completely predictable. Because of that, the only condition that makes this to be notionally relativistic when in gravitational freefall is qualified by the following statement. "If you feel no inertia then you must either be stationary or in a state of momentum". And it then follows that, because of that your time must  be dilating as you accelerate during the fall so in that case the velocity difference is due to the curved time warping with proportional ('c' constancy relative) acceleration into the planet, such that time goes faster the closer you get to the surface, and it is this phenomenon that gives your falling reference frame the appearance of time dilation. Damn! All I ever seem to get is 'dime' dilation.
Now I could fall further into this conceptual meat grinder and argue points about the problems inherent for the geodesic manifold upon analysis of the variation in terminal velocities, as well as implications for the speed of light and the probable reverse affect on its bend as you fall into different time zones. But I don't need to risk the total mental exhaustion implicit in such arguments because the experiment has a far more severe (model destroying) and previously unrecognized problem or two; the first of which is the quite understandable but specious contention which considers that "because you don't feel or measure inertia must mean that the inertia  doesn't  exist". I have explained the reasons for this trite logical argument (which is based on a flawed 'dark age' historical understanding) to not be valid by the G-theory presentation of new science which changes the understanding and destroys the puerile logic; so we can now move to the second problem which can no longer be just 'fobbed off'.
PROBLEM: let's say the lift is three meters across. Light travels at 3e8m/s. let's be fair to the experiment and say that the lift is falling at an incredibly fast 100m/s as it passes the beam. By simple math we know that it will take the light 1e-8 seconds to cross the lift in that time and the lift will have fallen by 1e-10 meters in the same time. That's one millionth of a millimeter; and regardless of any minor (illegal) adjustment to relative 'c' contemplated because of the warping time frame; can anyone reasonably call that a measurable upward curve?
In order to try and make it measurable then: Let's create a flat earth* and make the width of the lift many kms wide and with all fairness in mind, the height of the accelerometer proportionally as large. Then in that case both the light bend scale as well as the accelerometer should both be able to register a small measurable reading. Because they both will; they both sort of cancel each other out don't they? So in that regard the experiment is a failure at proving what it proposed. In fact without some severely unfair subjective allowances and dis-allowances being perpetrated, it pretty much proves the case for the opposing team! Don't you think? Maybe you don't think!
*Now I'm going to be dubbed a 'flat-earther' ):
 
The failure in being able to take a useful measurement with a small accelerometer is in this context similar to the reason for the inability to take any actual measurement of the bending of light in a small lift. This is why it takes a long vertically aligned accelerometer to register a reading. This problem is ostensibly removed by the relativists by reducing the spatial reference frame to almost zero and simply appealing to such disadvantageous subjectivism.
"Aha!" You cry--- "that's just the gravitational differential with height relating to altitude causing such distension that you say is an inertial force. That's caused by the altitude differential force."
Me! "You've got a valid point and this is arguable but now I've got you where I want you. Right about there you inadvertently insisted that gravity was a force and not just the relativistic mechanics of an object following the geodesic down to the center of the earth as Einstein especially specified in the first instance; which we saw right at the beginning."
You should understand that such a fundamental understanding of what relativity was supposed to achieve by time dilation in a warped geodesic* is actually impossible otherwise ALL OBJECTS WOULD FALL AT THE SAME RATE AND ACHIEVE THE SAME TERMINAL VELOCITY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT THEY FELL FROM.
*If you know your relativity then your idea of warped space and relativistic lengthening is dealt a severe and fatal blow right at the conclusions section but that still doesn't solve the impossibility noted right here.

So now you are forced to admit that the mathematics of G-rel causes the force of gravity and not only that--- the true gravitational force doesn't concur with the geodesic or the math. It's just speciously suggested that it all works with a 'wink and a nod'. ---you call your pompous egotistical selves physicists!

CONCLUSION
So there is a gravitational force and there is inertia--- otherwise we would have instantaneous acceleration by reason that we should by now understand that the fictitious G-rel geodesic is an impotent sire to gravitational mechanics. The reason we don't feel the reactive gravitational inertia and also why an accelerometer won't react to it is explained in the preceding section.
Another problem is that even though Einstein's equivalence principle declares gravity to be geometric, we all know that gravity operates by inverse square law yet Einstein's field equations do not (except for the well known fudging equation). He can't have it both ways. There is either a 1/a2 geodesic or not. I will endeavor to show further phenomenology wherein consistent with observation, a falling object is truly accelerating, but with a false measurement of momentum being caused by the inability of any small instruments to measure the inertia for two reasons. This is in addition to good preliminary reasons that I have previously presented in the thesis. Note: The interpretation that an object in freefall is experiencing the same nil inertial affect as an object in the condition of momentum. (I.e. Einstein's equivalence theory which has supported the idea of space time warping geodesics by the introduction of an accelerating reference frame) has already been shown to be specious in the introduction book as well as by this analysis. (But wait there's more!)
Now the very astute might see that a conceptual problem remains when relating those two phenomena. All that really serves; is to show that there is an altitude differential case when a measurable inertia is able to be presented which can be mathematically considered by Newton 's big G formula.
This is noted in classical physics as the gravitational differential across any object in a differential gravitational field* which is by the way speciously thought to be the reason for the semi diurnal tide phenomenon on Earth but that's another subject. This differential exits even in free-falling objects so it must be declared that Einstein erred when he suggested that a free-falling object was subjectively considerable as being in the same condition as an object with momentum. That is not the factual case because a free-falling body is actually being stretched by two opposing forces. Be that as it may by reasonable scientific evaluation however, that altitude 'differential' problem also readmits a used spanner into the 'time warp' works when we consider the rate of acceleration of the warp compared to the motion of the falling object and this difference has been previously analyzed (in the G-theory presentation. Order an E copy from the contact tab).
*Refer to 'supplement'.
 
So if that's not enough: The real problem lies in the previous statement that's conditional for any relativistic time warping to be up for consideration. It is the statement: "If you feel no inertia then you must either be stationary or in a state of momentum". I will conclusively demonstrate that to be a specious contention by the following assertation.
 
 
 
ASSERTATION
 
First consider the fact that when the lift, your body and the accelerometer are falling as one in a gravitational field, you are all being accelerated by a force called gravity. If you are only able to consider a 'fictitious force' to be in operation, then such drivel must be refuted as non-science which must be vigorously opposed by all empiricists.
If however as I suggest, the force is very real and caused by GTDg being elicited by the GSe, then that force MUST be considered to be acting very close to equally and separately on every nucleon within every object which is falling (at the same notional altitude*). This means that the accelerative inertial force is acting on each nucleon and summed en masse and so it is being shared evenly throughout your body as well as the accelerometer. ---DITTO THE COUNTER-FORCE. So in that case you won't feel it and the accelerometer won't measure it BUT INERTIA IS STILL THERE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ACCELERATING TIME WARP ARGUMENT IS REJECTED! So it now stands that the real reason why you feel no inertia in the gravitational case and yet you do in the accelerating spaceship is because of the specifically different mechanics in operation for each case and not for any other reason. Subject closed!
*---allowing for a fairly even proportion of protons and neutrons in each object. This is a given in all of these experiments.
 
According to Newton 's third law, the inertial counter-force on each nucleon is nominally equal to (but slightly less than in reality because of losses) the accelerative force. By summation; this means that the accelerative force is greater than the counter-force by about 10N/kg. That vector resultant 'g' force has been derived experimentally, and by  'g'  being an extremely small resultant  acceleration  caused by the vector resultant of two almost equal and opposite forces being legally bound by the second law of motion and the third law of thermodynamics, this then declares that gravity is a much stronger force than previously realized. The counter-force is not only absolute when an object is being held stationary in a gravitational field and felt as weight but it is similarly absolute during inertial acceleration (but with a slight difference as examined elsewhere).
This in no way suggests that while you are standing on the ground space-time is passing through you. On the contrary it is gravity in the form of gravitons that are passing through you and  differentially  through the earth. That; you can feel as weight only because of the inertial pressure exerted against your body by the surface of the earth/ lift floor etc. When you fall however the inertial force on your nucleons actually becomes greater as you accelerate -but that's not noticeable and another subject- so as you fall the gravitational differential remains essentially inversely proportional to altitude.
By way of an expansion on this theme: You are able to get an idea of the actual force when you yourself are being held stationary in a gravitational field (E.g. standing on the ground) you are able to feel the accelerative force of gravity (not the space time-warp or even the space-time warp) because the ground is acting as a notional point source counter-force on the bottom of your feet which extends proportionally up through your body. If there was no Newtonian counter-force and you were dropped; theoretically you would accelerate to infinite speed in an instant! So once again it is obvious that the acceleration rate 'g' is caused by a vector resultant of two forces the first of which is caused by the  gravitational  differential GTDg and the other force -that Newtonian inertia- is still in action as proven by F=mg being the same as F=ma.
When you were being theoretically accelerated in space by the rocket engine, the inertial counter-force was acting through the back of your seat and ditto. However in the example of gravitational freefall there is no notional point source of force which acts on any small object that is either able to be felt or allow for a differential measurement. It is similar to the orbit case. Note: They all lie! You do actually feel it. It is the feeling of weightlessness.
The GD attrition experienced by gravitons transiting a large body is nucleon density (nominally mass) proportionally similar to the GD attrition through any lesser (atomic/nucleonic matter object) AMO, and these both consequently result in a different observed GS (gravity field). So we can conclude that the differential internal forces acting on bodies and objects when falling in a gravitational field are actually trying to tear them apart. Strong gravitational fields with very large gravity differential (GTDg) caused by altitude differential mechanics have been known to tear bodies such as comets apart (Shoemaker-Levy 9). Elastic objects will be seen to distort under conditions of acc-dec in space and would undergo somewhat similar but  greater distortion while falling into extreme gravities. I rest this case.
When different sized objects exist in similar GD-s (gravities), then during gravitational freefall the local GS-es (changed gravities) are proportional, and the GTDg across each nucleon of each object is subsequently similar, therefore acceleration rates are proportionally the same in response to those similarly G-mass proportional GTDg accelerative forces which results in the observation called the 'weak equivalence principle'. It is just the sum of the affect on each nucleon and this relates to within two percent of the perceived mass. Refer to the 'Newton kgf enigma' tab at neuvophysics.com.
Such an action really causes a vertical stretching phenomenon which in low value GS fields such as in Earth's gravity goes 'unfelt' and immeasurable in small objects because of there being no realizable application of any observable unilateral force which is what actually causes us to feel inertia in other circumstances and it would only then be measurable in such a case. When free-falling towards a black hole you might feel something perhaps.
Consideration should probably be given to the notion that if there is a small distensional phenomenon, tiny accelerometer  and/or strain gauges may not be sensitive enough to measure gravitational inertia when the GTDg across them is so close to zero by being mostly shared by the instrument's nucleons as well. This lack of measurability stands as being just as problematical for the previously mentioned measurements of the bending of light under similar conditions. Note: By not confessing that the bend in the light beam in the lift experiment would actually be immeasurable the relativists may well have been guilty of committing one more scientific fraud. Otherwise I could just as easily declare that your body actually stretches vertically during the freefall. Both are subjectively the case but they cancel each other out as evidences. So this I have just attested to in another way.
 
It must be considered that the forces across an object in gravitational freefall are distensional* while the forces applicable to an object subject to GTDv (space drag) are compressional and would be also unfelt until severe enough. In order for a similarly unfelt drag force to equal the unfelt free-fall force (in a gravity of 1g) by the phenomenon of space drag would require a very very high velocity. We will be calculating a likely velocity range and drag curve shortly.
*A small droplet of liquid falling in a vacuum would likely have such distension masked by the surface tension forces and so it would not be observable. In a very large sphere of liquid  however,  it would, and we have already noted that extreme gravitational forces can even tear a free-falling body apart.
 
By distensional this means that if we were to observe a sphere of water falling in a gravitational field then (disregarding surface tension forces) it would be observed to be egg shaped, with the length being aligned with the vertical. This is because of altitude related gravitational force differential. Basically by F=ma we can see that the bottom of the object is attempting to accelerate at a faster rate than the top because of the inverse square law of gravitational force strength with increasing altitude.
If it is still able to be envisaged that the distention is caused by the warping of time/space then this would have to also declare that the top of the object would exist in a different time relative to the bottom. Regardless of the length of time imagined this would then require a time disjunct between even the very smallest of particles within the object. This consequently means that they would lose all force and perturbative connections between each other and the object could not maintain integrity. Imagine that your bottom half existed in a different time zone than your upper body. You could walk off from the waist down and your trunk would follow later. In the interim your body halves would be spurting your blood into space. Not much chance of a happy reunion huh?
If we return our thoughts to a less gory subject such as the distended water object and decide that we must now also distort space to solve that problem we very problematically find that the gravity differential no longer exists and the elongation of the object would not occur and it would only be an appearance. The problem with such a space-time distortion theory is that elongation does indeed occur and even very noticeable with larger bodies falling in massive gravities. What is most problematical observance for relativity is that it also doesn't occur in hard objects when it should.
The Moon for instance is ostensibly falling (the supposed  acceleration  is just a twisted interpretation) towards Earth whilst experiencing the condition of weightlessness. However it is a known fact of science that it undergoes tidal elongation stresses caused by the gravitational field of the Earth and visa versa*. The visa versa we notice as a significant portion of the tidal phenomenon by what is called the 'tidal force'. Yes the Earth would be exhibiting a different solar tidal solution even if the moon didn't exist; but tides nevertheless. Note: The factual reason for diurnal tides is covered in the thesis.
*Small objects like astronauts don't feel it but large bodies do because of the different radius of orbit relating to both the close and far sides of the body from the central body e.g. moon--- earth. This has everything to do with centripetal/centrifugal force mechanics and not gravitational acceleration. 
 
 CONCLUSION:  
Even during freefall, gravitational inertia tidal forces exist so we are able to conclude that an object free-falling in a gravitational field is not in the same condition as momentum; it is acting under a vector resultant of inertial forces and therefore Einstein's equivalence principle is specious, and general relativistic space-time distortion gravitational theory is also a specious mathematical monstrosity. This may be concluded as a result of that tidal affect between the moon and earth as well as the other logical arguments presented above.
In case you missed it: Now you will likely argue that the gravitational distension is actually relativistic lengthening because the space is also stretched in line with the time contraction and it is that which allows the accelerating object to appear to be in momentum. Problem. Not all objects actually distend (relativistically lengthen). If it was a relativistic affect then no object could resist the appearance of lengthening and they do.
INTERESTING CONCLUSION:
There is no felt inertia in the direction of motion when in orbit and the reason is similar to that given for gravitational freefall; which is all described above. There is also no gravitational elongation in orbit as there is in freefall. Therefore orbital mechanics is a perfect fit to momentum and not to the idea of orbit being a continuous gravitational acceleration which is currently proposed in order to speciously prevent the herein stated GTR and STR collision at the point of orbital mechanics. I have also shown on the home page of neuvophysics.com how scientists fraudulently confuse and abuse GTR and STR to suit their agenda driven purposes.

FINAL CONCLUSION:
Relativity is hogwash!




GTDv, GRAVITON TRANSITIONAL INERTIA AND SPACE DRAG (asymptotic hypervelocity inhibition):
  
Having exhausted all the logical macro explanations available with regard to a non relativistic Euclidean universe, and in order to be able to answer the by now obvious objection that gravitons must have mass to enable them to provide any rebound motive forces on each other (insignificant) as well as well as the obvious problem realized with their ability to pass through AMO's with mutual perturbation, it's time to pull out the big bore caliber gun of multiplicity. This theorized mechanics also solves for a similar currently recognized enigma of how neutrinos are capable of exhibiting the same phenomenon of passing right through the earth for instance.
Now we are able to conclude by all of this that real world velocity resrictive force caused by space drag is still proportional in a small but unobservable way to GTDv by some power law (which we can subjectively consider to be restricted to linear and flat at low velocities). However to be responsible for some component of decelerative inertial force at hyper velocities it must also be seen to be concurrently proportional to the rate of change of GTD by the relationship… GTD force:∆ GTDv and d: v2 ('d' is drag). Note: The resistant force against the acc/decelerative force increases by square power law with velocity as well, so the GTD velocity curve has the affect of bending the rate/force curve, so it can't be considered to be linear except at low velocities. (…and even restricted to our own backyard; perhaps!)
Regardless of the origin of inertial force; this of course means that in all cases any object being accelerated must be offering a fixed density proportional Newtonian retroactive force operating (by some as yet un-presented fundamental phenomenology) against any other force attempting to cause a rate of change of spatial motion (I.e. acc/deceleration including spatial direction). Note: This is probably consistent with a dimensional interaction with the cosmea being caused by the first law of time as first described in chapter 2 and explained by biracial force statistics. TBE. This recognizes that all forms of external acc/dec forces as well as the observed mass are fundamentally caused by particles at some level attempting to occupy the same space time as other particles. 
In this case then: Fi= Ft+Fg. Inertia(Fi) may then be seen to be a combination of the force presented by time (Ft.t)(t=vector) to the attempted rate of change of motion because of quark lattice inelasticity within nucleons, and in addition as case specific frictional drag force caused by GTDg/v (Fg). This is where the 'against SBF' part becomes the preeminent nuclear agency of atomic integrity resolution (AIR). Note: Centripetal force is thought to be caused by the fact that the object is accelerating* into ever-changing angular frames of reference with regard to both GTDv and AIR and the rate of change of acceleration is proportional to angular velocity. Although G-theory doesn't collude with that; you won't feel centripetal force-centrifugal inertial force differential in orbit because the differential is acting equally across all the nucleons in your body as well and that force is far less than the gravitational squeeze your body is under at all times.
*NOTE WELL: This is only relatable to an infinite number of angular moment tangential inertial reference frames and not geodesics or GTR which is only applicable to accelerating reference frames. So this means that the 'accelerating' as stated is a case of mistaken identity. In that case the reference frame of earth comes under the theoretical auspices of STR and not GTR. Here the two different time warps clash!
GTR and STR: I won't go right into it but if you imagine that the instantaneous moment of motion was tangential and at right angles to the sun then the gravity geodesic is acting inwards and the sun-earth relative IRF for STR time warping isn't in existence because there is no relative to or from motion between them but there is between the earth and other objects in the universe. How then do those two relate at all? They don't! GTR completely abrogates STR whenever there is acceleration and visa versa. So because the earth isn't accelerating -which is just an opinion being forced, and now you understand why- it is no longer under the auspices of GTR but only STR and that is a farce.
ALSO: OK That's just one explanation being put forward that I dredged up from somewhere but since when did an acceleration ever cause a force? Here we have a confusion of notions and concepts. It's a force which causes acceleration so once again we have the fictitious force supposedly causing the acceleration of the earth around the sun. Even the geodesic trampoline model can't work without an existing force called gravity! The same supposedly real model can't work without a force either!

Now taking a theoretical stance: If the AMO in question was fully inelastic and it was struck by another exactly similar object and both objects completely maintained their integrity then the force against the incoming object would be exactly equal to the force applied by its direct collision and the incoming object would theoretically have its component of motion (energy) fully transferred to the second AMO. In such a case the inertia would be exactly equal to the force caused by the velocity difference between the two. This is in keeping with Newton's third law of motion.
Accelerations and decelerations like that can however be caused by a different and perhaps continuing force being applied by other AMOs of greater size or nucleonic quantity/density. And the inertia then becomes a function of time and the 'felt' inertia in the greater object is ostensibly less. However a bullet colliding with your much larger mass might refute such a conjecture.
Regardless of felt observances, the law is not violated because the inertial force over a constant time is exactly proportional to the force being applied. (I.e. impetus). So the inertial force at low velocities is the sum of the acc/dec and resisting forces as per Newton which might otherwise be quite puzzling unless we consider that the singularly GTDv caused force at these velocities is so close to zero it is truly insignificant.
This would tend to support my initial contention (in refutation of Lorentz) for something resembling a Taylor series curve with a very flat and substantially zero lower portion of the velocity axis of the velocity versus (GTDv induced) inertial force curve*. Note: No observationally (experimentally) derived empirical laws are abused by G-theory.
*Both my inverse square law and big G derived curves are only somewhat similar to the Lorentz's curve but unlike his curve those two curves are capable of being computed from an upper calculated limit of drag force versus velocity. So for that reason they are then able to be worked backwards in order to calculate realistic results. It remains possible to predict the likely curve by universal observations, and under any evaluation both of my proposed curves are based on 1/a2 law. Currently the Lorentz curve only provides a 70% or so fit to astronomical data from binary pulsar observations! Note: Even though the original GTDv formula given above was almost linear and flat, it becomes modified by the agency of AIR as the GTDv attempts to change the integrity (shape) of objects by compression with increasing velocity.
Another explanation with some iteration is that this is caused by the AIR effect, which is by a vector summed combination of all of the forces (mobilized to  keep the integrity of the object) acting against the GTDv in direct opposition to the motive force at any given velocity. The accelerative force required needs to be continually increased by power law in order to continue to accelerate the object any further at the same rate**.
The effect if this AIR force may be considered to be similar (but linearly modified) to the cubed power law of wind force through a wind turbine. In the previous hypothetical case an object being forced (by externally applied rear acting force) to approach 'c' velocity would become severely flattened. This is of course somewhat shape dependant and it assumes a cylinder traveling lengthwise, and as in that particular case the real world observational reality of the wind turbine turns out to be by square law.
**This may provide a very realizable inertial force on your body at serious velocities.

At zero to low velocities; both rest state and a state of momentum appear to be exactly the same thing to nucleons and therefore AMOs. This is because there is no realizable motive force being applied which is attempting to upset the AIR or the arguably implicit cosmea-universe collaboration*. Note: With G-theory there is no notion of linear or rotational relativistic frame dragging caused by the momentum of objects TBE.
*Refer to the fundamental cause of mass.
 
Both GS caused GTDg as well as AIR affects, are capable of inducing an extremely powerful force. They only appear to be weak in the latter case within a few hundred kilometers per second of rest state equilibrium or -in the first instance- in weak gravitational fields.
Another very real subjective problem is that we tend to humanize a force as being weak or strong by felt effects. For example if we are walking at just one meter per second and we run into the bedroom door in the dark, the force exerted on our forehead appears to be very strong indeed, because it hurts. That force is in fact extremely weak and even on an earthly scale it wouldn't even register anything of significance -relative to the cosmological scale- on any 'force level meter'.
If the earth -which is traveling through space at about a 250km/s- were to suddenly stop. Then I suspect you might notice some serious inertial force caused by GTD force transposition; again by impetus felt as impulse inertia. Sorry about felt: You mightn't feel a thing. Even an accelerometer might be instantly flattened.
The 'not' force--- centrifugal inertial force also appears to be strong to us, once again because of its felt effects here on earth, in fact the force that causes you to experience say ten 'g' when all the molecules in your body may appear to be trying to leave the scene at once through the back of your seat, is once again a very very weak force which wouldn't register on the cosmo scale either.
Using felt force to determine the value of force in the cosmological scheme of things is at best misguided. Our opinions of temperature but (more relatively) velocity are also clouded, and the latter by reason of the pathetically low real world velocities that we consider to be fast. We are able to perceive inertial force from acceleration, deceleration and changing direction and to us they may appear massive. Only an instantaneous impulse event of world shaking proportions would even show a flicker on our force meter however.
So in simpler terms: We might conditionally feel some inertia because of some resistance offered by gravity force particles (offering the tiniest resistance force to individual nucleons in our bodies), but in the main by the agency of AIR mechanics, and this is applied equally (almost) against any attempted acc-dec movement away from the state of relative 'rest state equilibrium' we exist in. Any object with a velocity of momentum which is below the critical velocity capable of causing an effective GTDv elicited inertial G mass can be considered to be in general equilibrium. Note: However during motion-relative changes at lower velocities the greatest force causing inertia is integrity related, and is caused by AIR against the gluon-gluon-quark lattice relationship. Without such a mechanics of AIR even our bodies would fly apart by application of the mildest of forces! TBE.
At some imagined point within a super GS field that exists around a black hole say; let's imagine that the actual GD there is (for example) about half, and because of the square power law of graviton friction, bodies are then able to orbit at millions of miles per hour before encountering the critical GTDv point that prevents such velocities at normal GD. This is but a theoretical and not calculable velocity supposition which may be supported by universal observations. This means that orbit velocity limits are proportional to the gravity of the system they are orbiting in.
This also presupposes that objects orbiting the earth say; might show a minuscule length change proportional to spatial orientation. If such were to be measurable then we would have a severe argument on our hands. When I've finished this thesis I might get round to calculating the predicted result. Until then; is anyone up for homework? You will need to calculate the Fd from my table of calculations which is coming up. Fg is zero. The result should be a compression in the angular tangential direction of travel. The best that can be said is that scientists are being typically 'cute' when they explain an orbit as being the acceleration of an object falling around the body acting towards its center. The orbit angular momentum and inertia are very real, similar to any object in freefall but in this case caused by a possibly significant inertial component of GTDv.
So we can conclude that at all velocities we must observe the correctness of both the impetus formula and AIR, and leave our feelings at the door when we go into this analysis because even though graviton transitional perturbative impetus can only be experimentally observed at extreme velocities due to power law, it is still in operation at low velocities even though swamped by the affects of AIR. Note: Bosons are not subject to AIR because heat (photon) loss caused by impacts can be emitted in any direction but they are conditionally subject to PIR of perturbation and also during collision events; even though some sub particles are exempt from inertial affects. This is why gravitons are theorized to be the major cause of--- linear motion relative transfer to nucleon resident bosons--- because they only act perturbativly within the inelastic lattice in nucleons. This phenomenon will be analyzed further on and is dimensionally constrained to be mostly perturbative but particle (thermal) transfer is also a reality within the QL. 
Care must be taken to not confuse inertia with impact or impulse per se.  A bullet fired from a gun has momentum and its target impulse reaction results in the breaking of atomic bonds, (not necessarily nuclide bonds). The velocity was provided by a chemical process. In the case of a rotating slingshot the 'energy' and velocity is from human biological chemical relationships at work in the exertion of winding up the sling to terminal velocity. Even if the angular velocity remain the same, the projectile is being forced to continue to move out of equilibrium of linear momentum until the release, whereupon it remains on the last tangent it was being forced to, and having attained such momentum it travels in a theoretical straight line until impact.
Inertia (which realizes no internal energy use or object deformation or change) was -subjectively speaking- involved in both the wind up and the impact but with both being quite different. The first was a somewhat inelastic inertial event and the impact would be a very inelastic impulse event, if the projectile struck a clay wall for instance. Theoretically the impetus value was however the same for the initial and terminal events. Note: because we know that two times the 'energy' is measured by the lifting of a known weight for a known distance in earth's gravity -in one second- we can also calculate force required to do that but only if the time taken was the value also given or else we must alternatively derive energy by moving the object sideways or the same distance irrespective of time , and with the idea of force this is generally relative to one second for calculations of force from velocity and 'energy' in terms of F=ma and E=mv. Impetus is force per time dFdt which is more relatable to 'energy' per se than force, so force may actually be considered to be 'energy' but only relatable in terms of impetus.
One could equally say that an object struck a blow with x 'energy', but that's more relatable to the internals of the object, but x impetus relates to the acceleration of the internally unaffected object and is relatable to time of any given duration but not confined to a second. Kinetic energy relates to inertia. Refer to impetus definition. This is only conceptually derived because true 'energy' usage is not necessarily related to duration. 
With the sling shot; the initial event was very elastic, but upon hitting a clay wall with an impulse say, both the 'energy' as well as the impetus were still the same. IT WAS ONLY THE TIME CONSTANT THAT WAS DIFFERENT. So impetus then is very relatable to mechanical kinetic 'energy' or inertia but it bears no relationship with any 'energy' thought to be intrinsically possessed by matter (speciously as mass) because it is not relatable to ground state potential 'energy'* TBE. Kinetic 'energy' carries the value of the impetus within the object in motion. So impetus is also the measure of the transfer of potential to kinetic 'energy' (and visa versa) as potential force proportionality with time to produce the concept of inertia.
Impetus 'I' is any force acting over any time to produce the kinetic energy relatable to the inertial event which infers mass and acceleration relative to only one reference frame. I=Ft F=ma (I=m.a.t) This bracketed equation is just an expansion. Inertia doesn't relate to duration. It's the instantaneous measure of force. So inertia isn't a real force and similarly Impetus is not a real energy. They are only conceptual tools. I hope! lol
*Once again this is the salient point in defense of the possibly questionable derivation of impetus which otherwise seems to be just a useless appendage causing term confusion. However I fully agree that it's probably unnecessary for application in classical physics; in that 'E' will generally suffice. Considering that; it must be noted that in general science the actual term confusion always lies with the term 'energy' which is bandied about and misappropriated with gay abandon. Term confusion can never lead to a good outcome which is why I'm trying to relate concepts with their terms.
In fact we now have it in the real world that 'momentum' is being used instead of kinetic energy. Momentum is entirely something else and they should be using the notion of impetus. Energy F.d is to inertia F.? as impetus F.t is to force F.?. Note: ? means no specification. Subjectively and colloquially; inertia is the instantaneously perceived energy while force is the instantaneously perceived impetus. Energy, force and inertia and momentum are terms being bandied about as we see fit. That is the nature of the beast; so please forgive me if at times I do likewise. All clear as mud?

Any instantaneous action or release of an object in a gravitational field always causes a bilateral acceleration or a deceleration (shock) of extremely small duration because of elasticity, regardless of whether the motion is linear or angular. This may be easy to understand when a force is being applied such as a bat striking a ball or the recoil of a rifle; the reverse case is a similar affect occurring upon the instantaneous cessation of an accelerating force. That fact is often overlooked because it is more difficult to comprehend. This affect is spectacularly realized if the object is say a balloon full of water.
When you think of the forces at work in the universe, you must consider that any forces that we can notice, even including a nuclear explosion are still only operating around the point of universal 'energy' equilibrium, with perhaps only a nuclear bomb causing a flicker on the cosmological force meter.
We may be traveling though the universe at 250km/s (give or take). The almost infinite velocity of gravitons (as we shall soon calculate) is 'squillions' of times greater than that, and so we still exist on the very flat end of the power curve of velocity versus drag, which is why the effect of such seemingly significant GTDv is not felt at all. As to why graviton force is not a 'felt' force until gravity (weight) or external force is applied and only at hyper velocities outside of those fields will be further analyzed later in the chapter.
Some might argue that if such a strong force is holding objects in equilibrium then the massive force of the graviton transitions should generate heat which is commensurate with the forces involved, and we really don't see that do we?
In small objects the rate of convection and radiation is sufficient to keep them at ambient temperatures. However with cosmo-universal bodies we do indeed notice this. It is the preeminent and prime reason that stars continue to shine and one of the main reasons that even planets the size of our earth heat up from the inside. Note: This heating from the inside has been offered as a historical objection to push gravity theories. I offer it in support of transitional graviton push gravity because the phenomenon of BBR was unknown at the time and it was reasoned that a body such as the earth would continue to heat up to a far greater temperature than we observe.
Now with that explanation why don't you in turn? Please explain the conservation of 'energy' with your own gravitational model which must then include massive gravitational inertias (work being done) without any heat being released! Work without 'energy' usage? That's a suspicious science. How can gravity by any cause at all, being a force resulting in motion, operate without heat being produced? Please explain!
It is important to note that the core of Jupiter is several thousand degrees Celsius. Even more enigmatic is the temperature of the core of Neptune which is a planet located so far from the sun that its outer surface is in the region of -200 degrees Celsius while its core is molten and about the same temperature as Earth's. These planets must get their internal heat from somewhere. So far, only G-theory has offered any reasonable solution to these problems whatsoever.
From this we can gather that momentum of an object at universal rest is very similar (but not precisely) to an object traveling at around 250km/s and -for most intents and purposes- to an object apparently at rest on earth. So we can also conclude that it's not necessary to make any changes to the classical physics of motion as taught in the class room. However considerable mention should be made of the predicates of G-theory to inform students in preparation for possible future studies that may be undertaken at higher tertiary levels.
By further conclusion G-theory allows the traditional idea of an object at rest having similar 'felt' properties as an object with momentum, but that cannot be the case at hyper velocities, or for that matter objects accelerating in gravitational free fall. Note: Refer to 'Einstein's lift'---
So with all this firmly in mind; first let's analyze what happens to a nuclide being bombarded by gravitons (or their affects both perturbative and physical) passing through it at hyper-velocity: Electrons aside for the moment.

Take a lone nuclide/or ionic nucleus -in deep space away from all external affects of galaxies etc.- being so affected; and you would likely notice a motion of vibration somewhat similar to 'Brownian motion' of particles. The pertinent proposal here is that multiple graviton transitions through nucleons create friction in the nucleon by modified PIR* and the averaging eigenstate resultants sees the nucleon in a vibrating equilibrium.
*…sort of a combination of deep inelastic scattering, whereby a graviton occasionally loses particles (thermal energy) to a quark lattice but the force transfer from graviton to Q-L is mainly by limited perturbation. By this phenomenology we can arrive at the perception of 'energy' transfer and transfer of force or momentum. This has already been addressed in part and it will be analyzed further.

Take a larger AMO and apply the same principle; we now have a multitude of nucleons being bombarded by the passage of an incomprehensible number of gravitons and the whole object then has a net continuous PIR force imparted by the gravitons. Note: This creates drag friction and consequential transference of 'energy' (for heat/motion) to the nucleons by means of gravitons losing velocity, and consequently, sub particles, which all becomes eventually moderated by BBR emission. Because of losses caused by BBR, this maintenance of 'energy' above ground state in deep space is often translated to mean self induced 'energy' including the self conservation of spin by some magical perpetual motion mechanics. Please explain!
If the gravitons only traveled unilaterally they would cause the AMO to accelerate in the direction of graviton travel to finally equal the terminal velocity of the fastest graviton*. However; thankfully for us the average reality in deep space is that graviton transitions are multilateral and even. This is called GD and GS in the nonlinear gravitational shadow of a body. This is an extremely important concept for the explanation of the mechanics of this theory. Space is generally fairly gravity isotropic.
*This would be instantaneous acceleration except for the fact that (apart from the affect of PIR and AIR in AMOs) gravitons have varying velocities and therefore variable transitional drag, so there must be a realizable acceleration rate under these conditions which will be calculated shortly.

At close to infinite GTD which would almost be the case in this mind experiment, AIR actually becomes insignificant and PIR is the absolute phenomenological agency.
 




IMPLICATIONS OF PUSH GRAVITY IN LOCAL SPACE and the conservation of energy with slight stress energy tensor loss to gravity which returns that energy back to the source (in the mean):

Extra graviton generation (and hence increased GD) is proportionally more likely near universal bodies than in deep space. This idea does away with the need for postulations such as 'dark matter' which have been derived as being necessary to show reason why galaxies are able to keep objective integrity. I.e. the GD in proximity to universal bodies is greater -and bent- than it is in deep space and so we can also (by G-theory) envisage a GD nodal variance in some proportion to general universal matter population and a proportional change in light speed but not wavelength (frequency is energy RF relative). Unfortunately this would be thought to also leads to changes in local URFs. This allows different rates of energy expenditure but the G-theory relativity makes any time changes unobservable so the whole thing is unobservable and the time frames and laws are the same everywhere.
In order to understand what I am talking about in a theoretical manner we must remove other unnecessary parameters from the discussion. However in real world calculations and projections, such things as the affect of graviton drag on the solar wind and heliosheath must also be taken into consideration.
This whole reverse gravity postulation may well be quite novel and foreign and perhaps even unpalatable to the current batch of 'thinking inside the box' 'cut and paste' scientists, and I know and can well understand that there is a common propensity for certain 'elitist' scientists to treat anyone with a different view of how the universe works as a 'crackpot'. However I am confident that even though the G-theory 'worldview' will not be perfect, it should probably give pause for the curious scientist to at least contemplate a review of the classical understanding of light, gravity, energy, force and mass.
Please understand that I am not engaging in some gratuitous spoliation of physics for fame or fortune. I couldn't care less if relativity is right or wrong per se. I am seeking to theoretically find the cohomology between the very large and the very small because without that understanding future technologies -that even now may lie outside the realm of imagination and which may one day become possible- may remain pitifully unrealized and traditional relativity theory will ensure that.
Having interjected my own podium with that perhaps somewhat 'Freudian slippish' introspection, I will now offer another novel postulation; that the heliosheath of the sun is caused by the affect of increasing GD (by modified inverse squared (g) power law of the GS of the sun (GSs)), whereby it can be concluded that the velocity of the solar wind particles will rapidly decrease at the event horizon of the heliosheath. But this would likely occur in a somewhat modally elastic manner because of the formation of cosmic particles due to the 'energy' change (temperature elevation) involved which will in turn affect graviton production in ways that would cause anomalous behavior around that deep space demarcation zone. Note: This is because cosmic particles are considered by G-theory to be strange nucleons and able to perturbativly interact with gravitons.
Such a phenomenon also occurs by photon activity in proximity to the solar corona and that is the probable cause of the solar modulation of true solar inverse square law of gravity. Note: Refer to the following explanation for the Mercury problem later in this chapter.  
Because the whole solar system is moving through space along with its heliosphere, the shape is likely to be sort of elongated and trailing the solar system or perhaps even comet like. This proposes that what the heliosphere is running into is gravity pure and simple. The mechanics involved are akin to a denser object passing through a less dense medium. That is the case and it refers back to my conjecture that GD is nodal and more dense around universal bodies and systems.
This all raises the realization that ALL AMO's can be transited by gravitons and that the whole heliosphere has its own GS and that GD is only very intense in interplanetary space overall but not as incoming gravitons to the solar surface, albeit with nodal variance. This means that GS (not GD) is variable and imbalanced. This would then predict that all nuclei from the level of single nucleon and above would have to exhibit G mass (weight) by a temperature rise in any state of either gravitational equilibrium or differential including freefall and deep space GD, and further remove the idea of 'energy' mass equivalence to teeter on the edge of the WPB! However lower generational particles except for trions and possibly a couple of others* would be determined to only have potential N mass as P mass and would be only subject to internal atomic matter forces and/or the eos but not gravity or more so but conditionally; not even inertia. Other particles exclusively respond to gravity but not inertia. There is about a two percent imbalance in the outcome. Note: Refer to 'Newtons errors'.
*The reason will be forthcoming.
The sun creates some gravitons as extra gravity which ends up through the whole solar system. This doesn't significantly dilute it's surrounding and massive graviton density shadow it only promotes the gravity cell called the heliosheath. Remember gravitons are also perturbed by matter and the outdoing gravitons are mutually perturbed by the solar wind all the way out such that the heliosphere has a net numerical increase in gravitons with a net numerical decrease in velocity and energy and the solar wind particles will therefore pile up against the more energetic incoming graviton assault. However there is an overall net energy loss from the solar system  as light and gravity. 
Other theories hypothesize some sort of space or charge particle gas or dark matter that the heliosphere is running into*. In competition with such straw grasping fantasies, I confidently present this G-theory to the academy for serious consideration. Note: If it has not yet been recognized; it should soon become obvious that G-theory provides rational answers to an awful lot of academic quandaries (holes in the theories) which have been left 'on the shelf' by all other theoretical proposals to date.
*NASA suggests that the solar system is currently colliding with a cloud of charged particles. This is probably because they are misinterpreting the gravitons they have unknowingly discovered! Gravitons are charged particles when you consider that they have varying biracial charge values. The singular and profound concurrence that the NASA discovery has with the G-theory model is that space is not empty.

G-theory proposes that all objects with motion in interstellar space and being exclusively subject to GD will in theory eventually decelerate to zero velocity. This of course seems to be at odds with classical physics, but I have just addressed that subject, and in any case it would usually take so long that it would never be really be noticed unless your name is 'Pioneer'! Yes, it's a fact; the Pioneer and other spacecraft are slowing down and accelerating into the sun at a greater rate than expected! "Mmm; strange, is that!" thought Yoda.
What G-theory suggests by way of an explanation, is that the solar wind of the heliosphere is colliding with the massive GD of deep space and it eventually slows to such an extent that it actually stops in a manner similar to waves lapping on a sea shore. This just means that at that juncture the collision phenomenology is quite elastic and nodal especially with relationship to the angle of attack.
This actually shows that momentum of particles in the solar wind is negated and that some particles are actually becoming pushed backwards at the edge whereupon they collide with more energetic outgoing particles with subjectively predictable results. Note: This predicates a drag force which is slowing the whole solar system. That's likely to be true except for galactic center force frame dragging: Please refer to the sections dealing with galactic orbits and solar force frame dragging.
Is the solar system entering a GD node in space? Is gravity increasing? After all I have it on good authority that the 'g' acceleration rate has gone from 9.8m/s/s to 10m/s/s in the space of a couple of centuries!
It has been demonstrated that a force acting perpendicularly to the axis of a system with elliptical angular momentum precesses smoothly. (Penn. S.U.) Perhaps then it could be the case that we are actually running into an decreasing* GD node (and have been for ages) which to some astrophysicists elicits the idea of a 'dark' galaxy interacting with our own galaxy. Perhaps it's an approaching black hole. …Just a thought OK: You'll probably stop laughing after you've studied the chapter on black holes. Note: There have been many changes in measurements and constants over the space of a couple of centuries or so. These anomalies are usually fobbed off as measurement or interpretive data errors made by disadvantaged historical scientists. And this; from scientist that while remaining blissfully unaware of the absurdity; measure the speed of light by its own parameters! For g---s sake.
*If this sounds counterintuitive then let me explain that GS (GD) decreases as a body is approached. GS is proportional to altitude. GTD is inversely proportional. An increase in GS increases the gravity of the whole system. This means that the proportionalities just declared are not the same.

Meanwhile 'back at the ranch': Take an atom or a massive object which receives 'energy' by the 'drag friction' force of gravitons in GD: TBE. The graviton force is exerted equally in all directions towards the center of an AMO existing in equilibrium and average motionlessness. However because of graviton velocity loss through atomic (nucleonic) matter you have a greater force on the event horizon or the outer most regions of the object than at the center and in the case of massive objects (bodies) as I have explained you now end up with an equal force all around pushing towards the center of the object. The greater the density of nucleons in the body the greater the proportional force!
By this theory, you should by now recognize the reason behind the idea of 'push' gravity and also one reason for one component of the 'mass' of individual objects (I.e. GTD or G mass), but contrary to current beliefs about gravity, having an even flux being applied at the outer regions of the body as well as its center*. In fact gravity is only able to be subjectively and erroneously considered to be emanating from the center of a body, and G-theory makes it very plain what the actual mechanics are and it's not the false centralized gravity attraction theory. Note: Pressure increase towards the center of the body still occurs. It appears that Gauss' gravitational pressure postulation may be correct. However G-theory restates Gauss's law to read "The gravitational flux through any closed surface is proportional to the enclosed 'nucleon number'. ('mass' Gauss) There is a slight difference. TBE
*This agreement with Gauss, in no way promotes any idea that there is no compressive force on a body or object. There is; but it becomes applied as being unilaterally greater at the outside than the inside. This has no appreciable affect on a small object. But for large bodies the affect is very noticeable. Ask any deep sea diver.

This brings us to the conclusion that (apart from other reasons) by the laws of the conservation of 'energy' and the zeroeth-law of TD, that all AMOs gain 'energy' by decelerated graviton transitions. (This is why planets heat up from the inside). The effective GTDv mass of an AMO or body does not significantly change by reason of self RF velocity until the object accelerates to about half 'c' because up to that velocity the average GD differential (GTD) remains about the same (by reason of the inverse 'power' laws just described). This is because any graviton velocity increase force affect in the forward direction is offset by the decrease at the rear in an extremely non linear manner as an object's velocity increases. What does happen as the velocity increases then? We will soon see. A final note: The fact that gravitational and inertial acceleration on earth are very similar may seem to be just another one of those annoying coincidences that we are surrounded by, because gravitational acceleration changes from planet to planet while inertial acceleration doesn't.
Einstein was the first to realize that inertia and gravitational acceleration were only the same when the forces causing the accelerations were the SAME and more importantly that they have no other fanciful connection. The 'head scratcher' has always been that the gravitational accelerative forces have been unable to be measured in an object accelerating in gravitational free fall. This dilemma I have explained above in part, and by the overall G-theory in full. Acceleration rates of objects in space at earth orbital 'r' are related to 'g' only because WE HUMANS MADE IT THAT WAY. TBE. If we lived on Mars then the value attributed to 'g' would be different as would the kilogram and second etc. and all of that would be related to the radius of Mars and we would end up with a different but just as relatable 'meter' etc.
Also note that inferred 'mass' is not velocity related. E.g. an object traveling linearly at say 1/2 'c' will still remain subject to sideways external forces as if it were at rest. In direct conflict with the flawed STR--- G-theory declares that its mass doesn't change significantly at all.
The two reasons (which also apply to classical gravitational attraction theory as well) that an accelerometer is unable to measure free fall accelerative inertia are. 1/The accelerative force does exist but it is being exerted evenly through your body as G mass (this includes the conveniently small accelerometer) which is similar to the affect you would notice if you were to accelerate an AMO in space with an equal pushing and pulling force on each nucleon in the object*. In that case the accelerometer (having the forces applied to it directly) would register nothing also. 2/If the free fall is of sufficient duration the GTD across a very small AMO may come very close to equilibrium even though acceleration would still be occurring because of the squared proportionality of the changing GS and consequently GTD.
*For this to be observed; ONLY the actual spring or compressive measuring part of the old fashion accelerometer must be subject to the two different accelerating forces being applied above and below in lesser and greater altitude related gravity. In tiny solid state or mechanical accelerometers the effective forces are being applied virtually equally to each individual nucleon within the device with a resulting zero sum game being realized in both cases because there will be (acceleration case specific); zero compression (or in this case) expansion capable of being measured even though it exists.
For modern solid state accelerometers then, apportioned nucleon force sharing is the explanation required. THAT BEING THE CASE I HAVE LIMITED THE MAIN ARGUMENT AGAINST APPLIED RELATIVISTIC STRONG EQUIVALENCE PHENOMENOLOGY TO THAT SOLE ANSWER.

Of course even after we have destroyed the relativistic argument, it still remains likely that many geodesists will discount these contentions, yet happily consider that a light beam traveling at right angles to the direction of the gravitational fall through the same accelerometer will be considered to have a significantly measurable bend!? Is that more excrement I see being thrown into the fan of reason? Note: Some electronic instruments are unable to measure beyond certain limitations. In fact: No electronic instrument, no matter how sophisticated, ever measures anything. The outputs are given values that are programmed by the humans who choose what those values are going to be. I.e. they are calibrated; and when they approach measurements around the level of electron quantum values the technologists are in very vague and murky waters indeed and such phenomena are usually interpre-measured by perturbative effects against predictive calculations from S-rel and Lorentz. Remember I support the relativistic math but I don't accept ridiculous experiments or metaphysics.
 





THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF 'MASS':

It stands to reason that any particle which is the declared arbiter of mass should likely be the most commonly existing building block particle in the universe. Please give a hand for the trion and its biracial cousin the gluon (neutrino-antineutrino biracial pair).

FIRST OF ALL WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT MASS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WEIGHT. IN FACT THE TWO PHENOMENA HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. Weight is just another word for gravitational force, and the concept of mass REQUIRES AN ANCHOR. Blowing or sucking on 'your own sails' explanations are a big no-no; as is simply ignoring the problem.
Apart from gravity, the cause of mass is the most eagerly sought after 'holy grail' of physics. The following is purely theoretical and it is logically consistent with higher order observable phenomenology. I have kept back my theorized lowest level fundamental matter mechanical constructs so it doesn't get stolen. Sorry but there are too many people on the planet to put my trust in.
The current paradigm suggests that the mass defect is equivalent to binding 'energy'. Even though I obviously don't agree with that I must admit that proportionality between SBF and mass is likely the actual case but I will be bringing that connection to the fore later in the thesis. I have mentioned this here otherwise you will probably arrive at that conclusion on your own as we continue and wonder how I missed it.  
From the previous chapter, we can now see that AIR (atomic matter integrity resolution) is actually the sum of all the PIRs (Particle construct integrity resolutions) in any given AMO (atomic matter object) which -in effect- occurs outside the quark lattice.
Take a theoretical situation whereby we can disregard G mass (gravitational mass) for the moment whereby particles are non vibrational. In that case the fundamental cause of mass comes down to the PIR of a gluon which consists of two dimensionally separated (across brane) biracial trions.
Whether the gluon is at rest or moving at a constant velocity with momentum it maintains a constant biracial force which in this case fully accounts for SBF, and 'Am' would be  still be exactly as we would expect (it is).
Any external force caused by any differential motion when being applied to the gluon (which always occurs against PIR and by extension to AIR when any motive force is applied) will result in strong resistance to the consequentially attempted change to the biracial PIR state of the gluon's trion-pair positional relationship. (This will not occur under momentum or any form of rest or stability.) In other words the strong binding force causes P mass and (subject to the laws of multiplicity), conditionally subjugated inertial N mass (Newtonian mass) by its applied -biracial attraction elicited- strong force resistance to any attempted spatial change to its FORM (shape) by the phenomenology of PIR. This is because it has to be the case that the trion's biracial binding force is the strongest force per unit size in the universe. It has a clear relationship with strong nuclear binding force which (nucleus size dependent) would only be one or so orders less powerful because of perturbative interference.
Now on the surface this appears to provide a strong case for absolute mass 'energy' equivalence. Not so fast though! What we really have here is, summative P mass appearing as at a higher level as N 'mass-energy' equivalence and in the real world the much greater and very significant AIR elicited N mass becomes additive to provide the overall T mass (total mass) while the addition of both P mass as well as G mass (in a gravitational field) have very little affect in causing the  exhibition of the mass of nucleons and greater AMOs at rest or in low velocity momentum. So while actual mass 'energy' equivalence may appear to be very close to being acceptable science, such phenomenology is empirically inaccurate. Note: It was the disparity between gravitational mass (weight) and mass calculations by E=mc2 which led science to the knowledge that mass and weight were different at the atomic level. They just don't know why. Patience!
Remember G mass becomes very significant at hyper speeds and in strong gravitational fields. The weight you feel is actually inertial g mass or kgF, which strongly affects any acc/decelerative inertia you may feel in the vertical direction by one 'g'. This is why weight and 'mass' of any description are two different things. The reason that we may have a lot of confusion is because science has haplessly tied weight to mass by the similar term kg. If gravity is suddenly removed you won't feel your 'mass' unless some other force is applied and then you would still feel your mass as T mass but the force required to make you feel the same weight would have to be a certain force* less the infinitesimal amount of G mass (to end up as 9.80665N) which by reason of your actual speed through space and the vibrational 'energy' of your internal particles, GTD as well as G mass are not quite zero respectively. Note: Refer to neuvophysics.com –The Newton kgF enigma. 
*I can't state 1kgF here because of the confusion between weight/gravitational force and mass.

If we ignore the value of GTD caused by our speed through space we would be able to calculate the difference between 'mass' and weight by subtracting the summation of the atomic mass defects of the generalized atoms in your body from the 'An' derived mass (which is really atomic weight) to arrive at your mass. Suffice it to know that there is a difference and now you know why. So the unknown quantity of GTD related G mass in earth's gravity is now able to be calculated as being the difference between actual weight and calculated mass. 
To enable a counterforce by AIR we must understand that the phenomenology is by the agency of the strong biracial force of the gluon bonds that summatively make up the quark lattices within nucleons. This mechanics causes 'mass' which is exhibited by a counterforce against motion relative forces which isn't instantaneous and destructively-nucleon-shattering so there has to be a time delay component in the process. The required elasticity of the weak nuclear force is probably able to take some of the instantaneous retroactive force shock out of the system but that's not enough.
Such phenomenology utilizes the elasticity and subsequent 'energy' loss via the ultra weak nuclear force which causes a reactive force which is marginally less than any motive force and which also includes the g and form factors forces as well as externally applied 'virtual forces'.
The reason for that phenomenology to be insufficient for AIR to become actionable is that the counterforce travels at 'c' from the quark lattice… via the weak force bosonic construct… to the outer SBF gluons, and this would be still too slow for most objects under consideration to maintain integrity. In actual fact it is instantaneity that is the potential action but time and laws are soon discovered and a delay is introduced. The time delay required to soften the blow at the nucleon level is produced by the agency of PEP which disallows particle motion until the 'legal' requirements are met, and this predicates a delay in force retroaction. While the 'energy' equilibrium in the universe remains stable, PEP sets a precise value to N mass.
So now we should be able to understand that 'mass' is proportional to the 'energy' lost during transition through the Higg's electroweak force construct that slightly modifies Newton's third law of motion. This cannot be seen to be M-E equivalence in the classic sense.
So on one level we may consider 'energy' to be tied to mass but again and in a different way, M-E equivalence theory is denied because of the lesser retroactive force because of the time delay caused by QIP and PEP -even if utilizing the finite speed of light- and more likely but conditionally -and to a much lesser but finely balanced relationship extent- the speed of gravity. TBE
By way of a little iteration I will redefine the above and state that AIR (or in some ways even PIR) would be unable to keep objective integrity if it wasn't for PEP and elasticity. Sometimes elasticity is insufficient at the nucleon level and above, and objective deprecation or fission is the actual result.
PEP could be considered to be a dimensionally caused constraint related to the dimensions of the eos and the chronos, which are the only two dimensions that G-theory proposes to exhibit a time elastic relationship with each other. Time remains a rock solid constant but the eos conditionally fails in its attempts to mimic the cosmean state of time ignorance. This is why instantaneity is only 'almost' in the universe.
The eos always loses that battle in the very short term but the actually realized non-instantaneity is that phenomenon which allows the incremental motion of particles. Remember the law; -no time no motion?-. This enables the retroactive force which meets the requirements of equal and opposite reaction (less energy/force losses).
QIP and PEP are the cause of the energy losses because of the time delay, otherwise E=m WOULD BE THE CASE but we all know that in actual fact E=mv (or some arguable variant). If this was not the case then the reaction (even though elastic perhaps) would be abrupt and equal. Arguably worse perhaps -than the probable annihilation of the objects involved into trions- there would be no spatial transfer of linear motion because the retro-force would be locked to un-delayed time and be exactly equal to the motive force. Time itself is unable to be delayed so it has to be the motion that exhibits the delay, and even if not noticeable in real world AMOs, this is exactly what occurs at the quantum level. E.g. A 'Newton's cradle' seems to exhibit a perfect and instantaneous transfer of energy between the balls. This is just an optical illusion. There actually is a delay which causes a resultant loss of 'energy' in that particular system as well as all others.
So I will restate here that PEP is the prime arbiter of N mass at the quantum level. Even light is never emitted unless it is quantasized so QIP is required as well as PEP which is arbitrated and modulated by elasticity as well as Fermi states at the level of the nucleon and atom respectively. This also includes other bonds in higher order AMOs.
This still leaves an open question. What holds the quark lattice -and other biracial particles within the atomic structure- anchored, especially if one considers the possibility of it being in a motion relative state of momentum which obviously involves spatial displacement? How can we possibly conceive of a fundamental anchor in that case?
Answer: The quark lattice is inelastic, and as such it presents an equal and instantaneous counterforce against any force that attempts to change the integrity of the quark mechanical system. This occurs because any force being propagated through the quark lattice is going to present a force to one side of the lattice a split second before the other with an obvious instantaneously (almost) evaluated force differential being applied. Thus an almost instantaneous* force which is in exact proportion to both the velocity and strength of the external force will be almost totally mirrored back into the weak force mechanical structure. This will cause a vibration in that structure which will result in 'energy' loss (photons or BBR) by sympathetic changes to the g and form factors and the quark lattice will move unilaterally and cause the whole nucleon to move and derive F=ma.
The quark lattice itself is locked to G-statistics and it takes the time relevant to one quarter wavelength of its (temperature but not pressure independent) resonant frequency in order for it to transfer the force to the weak force bosons. So it is not perfectly inelastic. Note 1: G-statistics is similar to B-E statistics except for the non relativistic relationship to pressure and atomic radii: TBE.
Note 2: The fundamental mechanics is because the Q-L is bound to fundamental biracial force via the Q-L cosmean brane. Refer to the section proposing the very fundamental cause of mass at the lowest non vanishing point of existence.
*We have already proved that instantaneity of motion of all greater than fundamental generational forms of matter is impossible. However the time taken for the Q-L to move is probably less than a femtosecond.

Before following further with this analysis I would suggest a visit to http://nuclear.uwinnipeg.ca/theses/vince_thesis.pdf and note the conclusion drawn.
I will quote the conclusion by Vince Bagnulo 2006 verbatim in the parenthesis.

4 Conclusion
"A theory of scattering has been presented and used to describe electron-proton scattering.
It has been shown how the quark hypothesis has the physical implications of Bjorken scaling and the Callan-Gross relation. Experimental evidence was presented supporting these claims.
Furthermore, the fact that the three quarks postulated to form the proton do not account for all of the momentum in the proton has provided evidence for the presence of gluons in the proton. These were the goals put forth in the introduction and as they have been completed, this text now draws to a close".
Another important excerpt from Mr. Bagnulo's master's thesis is also parenthesized as follows.

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

The quark lattice will likely react differently to externally applied forces than it does to internally applied graviton or other perturbative forces but this is a moot point because we humans have already derived the measurement of mass from weight!
It is to be understood that quark lattices are being continuously hit with a barrage of forces from internal quantum level activity. In this case the quark lattice reaction is mechanically the same but in any system the overall result with regard to mass is a zero sum game. This predicates that quantum P mass has little contribution to actual N mass regardless of the assumed P mass of any quantum particle.
Thus it now becomes feasible rather than ignominious to announce that "a bottom quark has more mass than a silver ion" for instance. Prior to G-theory such a quandary should still have been considered to be model destroying for the contemporary quantum physics models. They would have been justified in announcing that quantum mass therefore has little to no relationship with actual atomic mass and now you know why.
This all leaves us with the questions: What anchors the quark lattice? And how can it be possibly considered to be anchored while in momentum? These are profound questions. The answer will be shown to be derivable from G-theory quantum mechanics.
 





GRAVITATIONAL/INERTIAL MASS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH E=mc2


If you thought that the two relativities were full of space time quandaries. Wait and witness the relativistic madness that ensues with full indecipherable relativistic jargon and assumptive clueless reasoning when it becomes plain that E=mc2 only applies to photons at 25 degrees Celsius and that the 'energy' formula fails to predict the expected extra mass for objects that have been externally heated. We will arrive at this particular problem at the end of this exposition, but for now let's start at the beginning.
Now, we have already come to realize that gravitational and inertial mass are caused by two different phenomena. The forces involved in each case cause the same acc/dec, but with respect to gravity, GTDg is required for any elastic inertial mass at all to be elicited by the function of AIR as a pure summation of the G mass of all of the nucleons within an AMO while inertia from mechanical motive involves a 'vector summed spread' of a point or other force which may actually result in greater 'energy' losses and less apparent inertia. Whether or not such is conditionally the case with respect to any and every cause, the two inertias are fundamentally different so weight is not always equivalent to mass by a slightly variant relationship. The reasons can be found at neuvophysics.com on the 'Newton kgF enigma' tab. Note: ---magnetic force aside which operates via extreme power law and isn't included here.
Now in consideration of atomic mass: First of all it should be noted that conditionally PIR caused inertial mass is fully elastic and there is no gradual deceleration when some sub particles collide outside of the dimension of the gravitos and perfect elastic scattering occurs. However If a sub particle collides inelastically with a nucleon and therefore becomes fully assimilated then the law of F=ma in the form a=F/m comes into affect because the nucleon is subject to 'mass'.
All inertial mass regardless of whether it is caused by GTD, AIR or PIR is in some way caused by the law preventing objects from occupying the same space time through the perturbative biracial forces acting between gluons. 'Mass' of any description or in any form can be stated thus: 'MASS' IS THE OBSERVED RESULTANT OF THE FORCES THAT HOLD AN OBJECT TOGETHER AND IS EXHIBITED IN THE RESISTANCE TO CHANGE OF MOTION CAUSED BY AN EXTERNAL FORCE. This includes gluons which are held together by strong biracial force and which are carriers of 'momenta'.
Now by this statement you could immediately jump to the specious conclusion that by reason of 'SBE' this concludes that E does =mc2 and that a form of 'mass-energy' equivalence' is being stated. However this cannot be true in any case for any object greater than a single cation so it is therefore refuted. The mechanical integrity forces (supposedly 'energy') are not limited to strong binding force and the disassociation of mass from energy is especially so in all other cases.
In fact the doubt about E=mc2 is a no brainer in the first instance, in that there is an observable mass disproportionality with the varying proton-neutron binding points; by example Ne has a greater overall binding force than U but by E=mc2 this shouldn't be the case at all. Also consider that if mass is thought to be derived from binding 'energy' then even though it is a recognized fact that hydrogen has mass; I must ask the question: Where is the binding 'energy' in a 1H nuclide? On this one point I could rest my case. You would of course object that such mass is only the mass of an electron but wait there's more--- I'm asking that stupid sounding question for a reason.
The reason that the eV is utilized is because even actual atomic mass is unable to be calculated by m=E/c2. Go ahead try it. This is a profound problem for E=mc2. Of course an AMU to eV conversion formula has been tabled, but it is a significant problem when E=mc2 is utilized for 'energy' and mass as weight is used for atomic mass!


PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE CAUSE OF THE MASS DEFECT:
 
We could conclude from this that the mass of a 1H isotope derives from its proton's internal interweak force plus the bond force of one electron because there is no SBF. Now we can correctly assume that because these two forces are different then the mass component evidenced by each force will be relatively proportional to the total force. We could perhaps then conclude that the 'energies' are proportionally different but that in no way suggests equivalence only conditional and observationally variant proportionality. This is because BBR is currently unable to be detected and this will result in statistical errors when comparing calculated energies with measured energies.
In consideration of the masses of the proton and electron; we can extend this line of reasoning to consider the idea that even though (it will be later shown) one is almost the anti-particle of the other; they have differing masses which paradoxically, is NOT proportional to their individual particle densities. Note: This is because of variant spin statistics which under the current paradigm has no known cause. By G-theory a cause will be theorized as being yet to be specified multi-dimensional perturbation phenomena.
However a 1H nucleon still has a greater inertial mass, not because of any binding 'energy' but because it still has a triune quark lattice as well as SBF gluons and probably multiplex sea gluons (that are not all being used as derivers of mass) and it is the EWF elasticity against the quark lattice inelasticity which is far more responsible than these gluons as being the provider of the anchor which allows the perception of a far greater mass in a proton than an electron. THIS IS NOT BECAUSE A QUARK LATTICE OR GLUON HAS A MUCH LARGER NATURALLY CONTAINED MASS. THE REASON IS THAT THE Q-L IS THE MAIN ARBITER OF MASS AS N mass BY 'AIR' PHENOMENOLOGY via the weak force Higg's superstruct. TBE
Now by G-theory we are able to conclude that an electron does have a PIR caused slight inertial N-mass WHICH IS SIMILAR TO a positron. A positron is essentially a proton that has no presence in the gravitos and which has a baryon* type hadron in place of a Q-L, so neither of those have any significant gravitational mass (or weight) and next to no AMO relatable N mass, because that requires the agency of a quark lattice and weak force respectively.
By the converse reason, it can be recognized that if it wasn't for the AIR effect caused by a proton's quark lattice to SBF gluon Higg's pathway, a proton would only ever have the inertial mass of the value which can be attributable to an electron or positron, but because it still retains a Q-L, then in comparison with a neutron the proton has an almost similar G mass (weight) and (paradoxically) an almost exactly equivalent N mass, and therefore it exhibits the total inertial mass of a neutron less the weak-force-negative P mass of 'a few gluons and an anti-neutrino'. (I.e. an electron). That accounts for most of the mass difference.
This is all in substantiation of the forgone conclusion; that as well as external motive forces, GTD is also causative of AIR becoming effective. So then the extra missing mass of a proton plus electron compared with a neutron must be something other than 'binding 'energy'. In singularly evaluated nucleons a small portion of the mass defect is attributable to the loss of several small biracial bonds caused by the separation of those bonds during ß-ve decay when those gluons became scavenged by the femtospace and emitted as photons. This is obviated because of the baryon that has been removed from a neutron in the ß-ve decay process which gives the proton an extremely and almost insignificantly weaker quark lattice retroactive force capability which affects the proton's N mass by only about 0.00001 amu which is statistically zero but still well within the range of error of the 'mass' defect: TBE.
*Not a true baryon because the three quarks are not tri-connected.

Now we must also consider that, at rest state in a theoretical space without a GD (because below the level of nucleons it has little to no affect); an electron by PIR and the resulting deficit of nuclear binding gluons (that were left behind with the proton) would have far less inertial mass than a proton which still retains a quark lattice which engenders potential AIR mechanics and subsequently N mass which the electron is without. Under the same evaluation a neutron would be seen to have slightly more by the reason of having a slightly greater gluon density outside the quark lattice. It still remains the case that this portion of the mass defect is almost zero. Note: For atoms that contain hundreds of nucleons it may be considered to be significant at around 0.003 amu. However that result is being affected by the increased GS of the whole nucleus, so such results should be considered to be inconclusive at best. 

Pondering such novel considerations; we can soon recognize that here on earth the GSe caused GTD component of mass is hardly to be 'outweighed' by the summative PIR inertial mass of the lost baryon (and anti-neutrino). So the lost mass is not accounted for by the electron PIR mass.
The lost mass is (conditionally) AIR caused G mass of the Q-L, LESS the PIR caused P mass of two gluons and an anti-neutrino, and this makes any proton appear to have more N mass than the P=mass that was lost as an electron, and still close to that of a neutron. This means that it's the loss of half a Neutron's quark lattice in the conversion to a proton and electron during ß-ve decay which leaves two half bound biracialy affected gluons in the proton which in turn causes almost zero mass defect and the defect of those two bonds only affects the AIR by that infinitesimal amount when comparing a neutron with a proton electron combination. In which case; the P mass component of the mass defect* is concluded to be totally caused by the breaking of a couple of biracial force bonds. Note 1: only that component of mass is arbitrarily able to be called M-E equivalence. However if you reanalyze the above you should see why such an absolute subjective relationship is not the case at all.
IF YOU CAN APPRECIATE THAT 'ALMOST ZERO' IS SIGNIFICANT THEN A SUBJECTIVELY QUANTITATIVE AMOUNT OF 'ENERGY' IS USED IN DOING THIS BUT THE LOSS SUSTAINED DURING SBF SEPARATION IS NOT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 'ENERGY' LOST DURING ANY ß-ve DECAY PROCESS. HOWEVER THE 'ENERGY' LOST BY THE INERTIAL PARTICLES IS CALCULABLE BY E=mv.
This may be achieved by subtracting the Am from the Aw and multiplying it by 'c' (which would likely be proportional to the velocity of separation and not M-E equivalence. Bye, bye E=mc2).
Note 2: The kg-m-s-N and 'J' are all relatable and tied to the mass and diameter of the Earth etc. The eV is a derivative of the necessity to compel E=mc2 to SOMEHOW apply to electrons and supposedly (by other devious and assumptive reasoning) then to all fermions and other particles but it really comes unstuck in analysis of the proportionality of the deviation of the mass of any particle/object from that of an electron or its AM. I still contend that E=mc2 is only exactly relatable to E=hf for a photon at ground state, and only almost at STP.
Note 3: All P masses being evaluated herein are considered as already being weak force connected to match the real world mass affects. The baryonic and mesonic P-masses are much larger in a stand alone evaluation than they appear to be when locked within a hadron.
*The technical assessment of the erroneous mass defect calculation of contemporary quantum physics will be analyzed in the relevant chapter.


OTHER QUANTUM MASS RELATIONSHIPS:

Now in an atom; the inertial mass of the nucleus relative to the electron shells is elastic whereas it's individual PIR masses and similarly the PIR mass of the electron are not. It should also be an important consideration that the low inertial mass of a sub particle may be temperature related, but this phenomenon would be swamped by the AIR or GTD caused G mass of nucleons and larger AMOs, which are not.
Now we should be able to consider that the inertial mass of any nucleon is far greater than the more inelastic P mass of electrons and some sub particles. Now if the temperature rises towards BST and the particle density (Sp) of a nucleon proportionally increases, then the nucleon begins to suffer by increased and more even proportionality of inelastic P mass when compared to its elastic G mass content. I.e. by PIR and AIR respectively.
Hopefully we should by now understand that it is 'sub nucleon PIR' mechanics and 'ionic AIR mass' which is EXHIBITED AS N mass as well as a significant amount of G mass in an ion; and this is effectively responsible for the generation of the formula F=ma*. So now in this hyper high temperature case where inelastic P mass is significantly increased, we will need a revised formula.
*G mass is caused by gravitational force in compressive tension, and this causes it to appear insignificant at low velocities where GTD is low. However in Earth's gravity it is the main cause of the mass defect, yet with insignificant affect on N mass at low velocities: TBE.

The revised formula at BST is: F=(me-mi)a ---where 'me' is elastic G mass and 'mi' is inelastic P mass. So by this we could conclude that at hyper high temperatures it would become noticeable that mass is decreased and a lower force would be required to cause any given acceleration to AMO's. What?! Newton would roll over in his grave. Sorry; I think he's already restless. So what happens is that the extra P mass we can pump in more photons which are just boson packets and those bosons have perturbative P mass as well as G-mass and the mass will remain conditionally the same.
If that's not controversial enough; even though there is much controversy in the academy over the following particular subject, it is the contention of G-theory that even at real world, but very high temperatures, hot objects should be observed to have slightly LESS inertial mass than cold objects, and because AIR is elastically associated with GTD to provide a retro force against any object free falling in a gravitational field the object with lower mass would paradoxically 'but perhaps imperceptibly' be heavier and fall faster.
Having said that, it must be noted that the extra implied weight by lower inertial mass, creates great and manifold problems for E=mc2 and there ARE A HOST OF RELATIVISTIC OFFERINGS  ALREADY ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN THE DILEMMA. Perhaps those theorists might give credence to this analysis.
I won't be holding my breath. They are having a great old time tying to correlate the fact that E=mc2 declares that there should be an increase in mass proportionality with temperature increase and that the observed lack of extra mass is so concluded to be relativistically fixed by a variety of ridiculous models*, which very unfortunately refuse to fit with their supposedly 'related' relativistic gravitational models.
So in that case if the attempted cohomological manifold correlating formulas have no valid cause and can't relate to the infinite number of variant manifolds, their conclusion therefore literally becomes "The gravitational field 'energy' is 'unrelated' to the 'energy'-momentum tensor". Of course they are quite able to declare that in a subjective mathematical sense. We on the other hand have just considered a sublimely plausible and mechanistic connectivity for those two phenomena by G-theory. I.e. now we have a candidate for true cohomology.
In conclusion we can see that there are three different types of masses, being gravitational mass by GS or GD: Large particle, IONIC, AMO or cosmological body inertial mass by GTD, being G mass, as well as AIR elicited N mass (being 'mass'), and P mass of smaller quantum particles by PIR, being explained: BOSONIC INERTIAL P mass DOESN'T OPERATE PROPORTIONALLY UNDER THE NEWTONIAN FORMULAS OF F=ma and F-mg BECAUSE THOSE PARTICLES MAY BE DIMENSIONALLY STRANGE TO THE GRAVITOS AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY PERTURBED BY GRAVITONS UNLESS THEY ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE QUARK LATTICE. SO YES IT IS TRUE: QUANTUM MASS OPERATES UNDER DIFFERENT LAW; AND THIS IS SOLELY CAUSED BY PIR CAUSED P mass PHENOMENOLOGY, WHICH IS ONLY IN OPERATION DURING COLLISIONS AND PERTURBATIONS**. Note: P=mass is much less than G mass by proportion to matter quantity, and the value is thought to be calculable when a realistic mass defect value becomes available.
*In reading the intellectual arguments formulated against each others theories it becomes obvious that the greater part of relativistic intellectualism is actually engaged in the learning of the jargon. Those that are linguistically challenged are seen to be at a disadvantage. That my friend; is egotistical intellectual bullying, which can't be contributive to leading to any useful consensus.
**Paradoxically and with seeming support for M-E equivalence, such collisions always result in 'energy' loss. The loss is not by 'energy' per se, it often includes particulate matter emissions and scattering.

At this particular juncture the idea that mass is 'energy' in some other matter form might still be hard to shake. That's OK for now. I will postpone addressing the actual lowest order phenomenology of the creation of mass until later in the book for reasons which you will soon realize. (HINT: Some is by biracial forces via the 'energy' losses in the electro-weak elastic bond. This is because at the lowest fundamental level, any perception of the idea of intrinsic mechanical inertial mass must be resolved because otherwise Newton's reaction force must always then have something 'magical' and ridiculously non-solid to push against even when analyzed down in ever decreasing orders of magnitude).
Otherwise Newton's reaction force becomes… force-reaction-force-reaction-force-reaction… ad infinitum. I.e. you can't have a retroactive pushing force with nothing grounded behind it. Other than a biracial lowest order force anchor, the only possible and unconvincing grounding anchors we are able to consider at the fundamental level are the remaining virtual forces other than SBF and notionally gravity: TBE.
 





THE AFFECTS AND LIMITS OF HYPER-VELOCITY MOTION:

Now would probably be a good time to investigate the cause of the affects on inertial mass by hyper velocity motion.


PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION:

What we have so far concluded is; that when considering AMOs at STP and for all intents and purposes on our terrestrial orb, acceleration rate per unit force, as well as momentum can be considered to be constants. Now at first with real world velocities in mind we will begin.
Consider a pendulum having much greater return force acting on it (I.e. The gravity of earth by the sum of constantly changing angular vectors, as explained by normal physics) returns to zero velocity in a much shorter time than a similar object in space with or without linear momentum because it would theoretically go around with perpetual angular momentum and it is obvious that gravity produces some kind of friction which must be amplified in any gravity differential such as a gravity geodesic.
Our object is located in space without an earth or other gravity geodesic to help or hinder in any way and in this exercise an object will appear to have momentum and so travel on in the direction predicated by the original motive force, speed and direction unabated. If we have taken notice of the previous assertations on this subject headed 'GRAVITY, MASS AND MOTION' we should understand that this is not the case at hyper velocities and this will be also found to be by a friction similarly caused by gravity differential but this time one being elicited by velocity.
As we previously noted; if we attempt to accelerate the object to extremely high speeds we would notice the problem of increasing GTD by what we might initially expect to be by linear law. This is differentiated by an increasing GS occurring on the downstream side of the object and a GD increase in the forward direction. This causes a frictional drag force in the supposed linear proportion to the speed (As mentioned previously, somewhat like drag on an object traveling though air, but not entirely), until we reach a point that we can no longer find enough 'energy' in the universe to force the object to accelerate any faster. In that case the occupants of an imaginary space ship would be severely flattened along with their ship by extreme, non accelerative, GTDv caused g-force. Einstein theorizes that near the speed of light an object would appear shorter. G-theory suggests that an object will actually be very, very short indeed, with no appearances necessary! (The maximum speed attainable by an object consisting of nucleons has been theorized by others to be about half 'c'. I tend to concur, but for very different reasons than those historical ones).
We have already discovered the reason for drag in space on objects in momentum. With momentum we know that it effectively requires an equal force (being a similar impetus value acting by GTD force over any time period) acting in the reverse direction to decelerate an object to zero within the same reference frame. Side forces and inertia are caused by AIR vector effects. Momentum being confined to linear is simply realized because without a force acting against the object in a sidewise vector direction the object is in sidewise GTD equilibrium.
Inertia experienced by an internal 'passenger' at low velocities is simply the physical transference of motion relative kinetic 'energy' to said 'passenger' inside the object having the force applied to, often ending up in an impulse collision with the inside of the 'carriage'.
With some regard to weight and mass differences: On earth there will be a slight difference caused by the fact that a mass is being affected in sideways equilibrium by GD while it is GSe that affects weight in the vertical direction in earth's gravitational field. If either of those were to change we would observe mass/weight anomalies*. Everything else regarding mass and weight are essentially as per classical physics. It is only the historically accepted mechanics that are in doubt as per the previously stated arguments.
*It must be realized that it was the measurement of weight which led to mass units in the first place; so there is a direct relationship.
Notwithstanding this, current mass values should remain constant whereas weight values are able to be observed to change with differing gravitational circumstances. E.g. The weight of an object on the moon will be less than on earth; however its mass by nucleonic density and therefore its momentum will be immeasurably similar to its earth value.

No other changes to the laws of motion including planetary and/or gyroscopic precession and conservation of angular momentum, the Coriolis Effect, centripetal force or anything else are elicited by this theory as it only attempts to explain known law by a different phenomenology. This becomes more logically justifiable because this new AIR/GTD and gravity theory ties in well with quantum theory as will be described. Note: This theory has no problem with a mathematically subjective Einsteinian general relativistic theory of gravity, (I'll simply allow it to create its own problems) because G-theory doesn't challenge general relativity per se. It simply presents a more logical mechanistic and hence probable cause of what we observe, and then ties it all into quantum physic as well. Is that a hard act to follow or what?
It must be recognized at this point, that because motion caused GTDv is so miniscule at real world velocities it doesn't cause ANY SIGNIFICANT ORBITAL DECAY IN THE PLANETARY ORBITS by space drag. For the same reason, momentum can be considered to be a constant.
However this was one of the problems facing the original Le Sage push gravity theory, as well as the almost immediate gravity particle back fill of a bodies particle shadow (GS) which would be expected because the gravitons bounced back with less 'energy' and then lost more 'energy' by bouncing off each other in that theory which is all acerbated because the gravitons aren't transitioning as they are in G-theory. These are significant problems which G-theory overcomes. Are there any more objections? Note: For those who hold to the simplistic backfill problem as a means to reject push gravity per se as a viable theory; it may be of some consequence that neutrinos that are only created in stars -and not by photon collisions- could also be responsible for some transitional gravitational affects which might lend themselves to the amelioration of such an imagined backfill problem and could also have implication in the explanation of the mercury problem as well as providing a stabilizing force for the maintenance of the orbits of the planets: TBE.
This may be thought to be postulative at best but the very idea does remove any ironclad subservience to the supposedly problematic backfill phenomenology. So such subjective objections are no longer able to be rationally held as proof positive against the possibility of G-transitional graviton theory which also presents a plausible reason for the high degree of 'energy' conservation in rebounding gravitons. Such an explanation also promotes a reason for a fairly stable gravity value (GD) throughout the universe.
This brings us to the need to address the reason that planetary orbits have remained stable for such long and preposterous periods of time. The rational evaluation of the matter is that without an orbit stabilizing mechanism, after billions of years none of them should be in existence. Oh no not another goldilocks phenomenon!