G-THEORY CH 5

CHAPTER 5

THE UNIVERSAL
PRECURSOR OF EINSTEIN'S 'ENERGY' FORMULA E=mc^{2} DERIVED FROM G-THEORY:

ABSTRACT:

It is quite
fortunate for the universe that according to G-theory neither photons nor
gravitons are ATTRACTED to gravity by any accelerative or directional force or
they would all be very rapidly sucked out of the universe.

The task of
calculating formulas for a four dimensional universe is daunting. To expand
calculations to more dimensions is a far greater challenge to say the least. So
please bear with me as I attempt to explain the almost inexplicable.

In regard to
Einstein's ''energy' mass-distance per time' formula E=mc^{2}: First we will analyze the perfect universe
where 'energy' 'out' and 'energy' 'in' move instantaneously and equally, and
there are no losses to the cosmea and the 'energy' divergence number is
therefore zero. In this case the universe would be instantly and constantly
stable because the infinite number of photons would create an infinite number
of gravitons that by instantaneous photon emission-absorption divergence would
be evened out to equilibrium.

However as we
all should understand by now, 'energy' is lost in a non-enclosed system and the
same goes for the universe. As I have stated before; the universe is not
adiabatic so it is headed for entropy but there appears to still be a tentative
equilibrium at the moment (and if we can ignore slight changes in the cosmean
pulse), hopefully for the foreseeable future.

Because there
are losses to the cosmea and black holes, the only way for this state of
stability to be achieved and for divergence to remain (effectively) stabilized
at the moment (and even should photonic 'energy' decrease by stars running out
of 'fuel'), it is necessary for there to be a change in the RATE of 'energy'
divergence across the universe on either the 'energy' directed 'in' side of the
cycle or the 'out' side or both. If this couldn't occur the universe would be
in a significant state of permanent decay with the mass/weight/gravity/'c'
continuum degenerating at an observable rate before our eyes.

As it turns
out photonic 'energy' as well as all other forms of 'energy' are being lost to
the cosmea without any significantly noticeable decay effect in real time. This
can only be because of the fact that photonic emission absorption divergence is
remaining at close to zero by rate differential caused almost entirely by
photonic interaction with gravitons.

This
resulting equilibrium is probably sustainable for the near future because there
are still sufficient photons colliding in the universe from light being emitted
(both now and long ago) to do the job of keeping the 'energy' cycle going by
consequently manufacturing gravitons which mostly end up within AMOs to a
proportionally far greater extent than their banishment to the cosmea. Ask
yourself; is it likely that any object could pass right through the universe
without running into something? Well that includes gravitons, photons and
neutrinos.

However in
the long term it would appear that the increase of gravity would result in more
light from stars burning fuel, such that the balance wouldn't be stable. This
problem is solved by the additional phenomenon of trion (neutrino) scattering. Neutrinos
travel directly to other stars at 'c' and they are not expected to cause any
increase in gravity. Such neutrino scattering provides a negative feedback
mechanism for the universal energy loop because it is proportional to
temperature.
Refer to 'THE THEORIZED MECHANICS OF THERMAL ENERGY TRANSFER'
note at the end of the thesis.

ASSERTATION
CH5:

Now
(relatively speaking) the 'energy' cycle consists of photons going out and
gravitons coming in, less losses. Looking at the inward 'energy' side of the 'energy'
equation: 'y' (speed of gravity) is determined by cmf which under the
conditions of a stable GD remains at a constant average, and there remains a
resultant declarable constant ƒE (divergent 'energy'). This is in consideration
of the fact that the 'energy' in the out direction must be continuing to remain
fairly constant.

Effecting changes to ƒE is therefore totally
dependent upon the 'energy' out side by BBR and photons whose emission velocity
is NOT governed by a constant motive force and therefore a necessarily constant
'c'*. This allows us to calculate the 'energy' out, which is to be potentially
utilized by the universe, (E_{o}) minus 'energy' losses to the cosmea
by all pathways E_{e}. The result is E_{r }(resultant 'energy'
out) so now we have E_{r}=E_{o}-E_{e}.

*We
can usually reckon it to be constant for most purposes.

Now the actual
quantity of ƒE in equilibrium is equivalent with relative terms to the actual
matter-state 'energy' of the universe*.
Therefore if ƒE is seen to be constant, then E_{r} must be only
an equilibrium state constant by mediation through timely changes to E_{o}
and E_{e}, and it may be considered to have arrived at the ability to
maintain equilibrium by effecting changes in the RATE of E_{r} transfer.
This is because gravitons are fully causative of E_{r} but photons are
only partially and belatedly causative of ƒE E.
Note: Remember that the divergence number zero is not an actual number
defining 'energy'. It is simply a number defining equilibrium, so the ƒE
in the
formula is not zero it is actually a real value of universal 'energy' albeit
with constant losses being proportional to GD which is currently stable, so ƒE
still remains a constant (only in
equilibrium) with time delayed stability totally reliant on E_{r }.

*Keep in mind that divergent 'energy'
ƒE
can only return
to an effective instantaneous zero divergence number and not go negative (
ƒE
=E_{r}
only at zero divergence).
Note: This means that there was most likely
an initial rapid resolution of divergence disparity (by power law), which by
necessity requires a much higher initial speed of 'c' and possibly even 'y'.
This gradually ended after a slow leveling out period which we currently
observe as typified here on earth by a steady state 'c'.

Slight changes to 'y' would be deemed to be
irrelevant for this calculation because of its already extremely high speed.
This however would have to be factored in for any more complex and accurate
formula computations. However measurements of 'y' seem to be rather problematic
at this stage.

Now E_{d}
has a proportional affect in causing 'effective rest mass' by setting the speed
of light and so it can be stated to be causative of all rest state G masses and
'notionally masses per se' at STP with appropriate terms. So we then have the
formula.

E_{r}=ƒE .c^{2}
or being transposed ƒE =E_{r}/c^{2} and being stated: Resultant 'energy'
(an obviously phenomenal value) in the universe is equal to divergent 'energy'
(ground state 'mass') times light speed squared. (The squared function is
simply because Einstein used one for a specious reason but we'll deal with that
later and let the formula stand for a comparison with Einstein's formula. The
equation is a Hamiltonian because the 'energy' losses are by inverse square law
in relationship to proximity to the cosmea, and the losses are mostly carried
at 'c' because of photon graviton collision phenomenology).

The favorable
and intuitive mechanics for this would be; that should any 'energy' state
change in the universe, there should theoretically be a subsequent and
immediate change in the rate of 'energy' transfer by instantaneous E_{r}
change in order to maintain 'energy' equilibrium, and the formula could then be
stated as E=my or perhaps E=mc^{2} (sound familiar). However such is
NOT the case and the facts are that 'energy' takes TIME to move over distance.
(We can call that a law!) But in observing the size of the universe it is obvious
it would take a great deal of time. So it is clear that since creation, time
(set in concrete) has been conveniently employed by the utilization of a
decreasing 'c' (now stable) from an initially very high speed.

Because of
reasons described elsewhere in this book (even with a decrease in 'c' and
because of its now steady state speed) it is this light travel lag that enables
the equilibrium that we now enjoy, whereby we exist in multiple 'goldilocks'
zones, and because of this profundity life goes on.
Note: It may also be of profound interest that the temperature
limitations of our existence which is measured in tens of degrees, is only a
very, very thin and otherwise tenuous line on the universal thermometer which extends
from zero k to tens of trillions of degrees k.

If in the
distant past some action occurred which resulted in a change in cmf, or a loss
of some GD or something turned off a heap of galaxies then we could be in real
trouble very soon, because although we might expect that the rate of 'energy'
transfer out of the universe would need to be balanced by an appropriate
increase in the speed of light, it is of concern to note that by a reduction in
the resultant 'energy' in the universe then because Ed is rate dependent, and
by the formula E_{r}=ƒE .c^{2}, the speed of light would
actually decrease even further and compound the problem in the long run.

In other
words the relative 'energy' stability of the universe is dependent on there
being sufficient time delayed 'energy' moving through it, full stop; and it is
the delay of divergent 'energy' being transferred and being caused by a now
constant 'c' which is buying us time. How much time is an unknown because we
don't know how long the universe has been in the current state of equilibrium
and we can't really SEE out there very far, can we?

The end
result of this is that because the speed of light at the time of creation of
the universe was almost infinite but it quickly decayed by a decay curve as
gravitons began to fill the universe and thereby enabled the rapid achievement
of a stable GD. From this we can deduce that the universe can be nowhere near
as vast or as old as we believe.
Note:
This assumes that we are not yet seeing the light of the most distant galaxies,
or if we can; then this fact can't be determined and the question remains open.
Apart from this, it seems reasonable to suggest a much younger universe and
that if we were to notice any slow down in the speed of light or any change in
the 'energy' output of the sun or any reduction in the measurement of weight on
earth then maybe we should be concerned, because the end game may already have
begun.

What we are
also able to deduce is that the mechanic being mathematically described by real
'energy' formula E_{r}=ƒE .c^{2} worked well to bring the universal
divergence to an equilibrium*, even though E=mc^{2} is only precisely
true at an infinite 'c' for a timeless instant, and as well for ground state
photon 'energy' per se. At the moment the calculation is modulated by time, and
calculus must now be used to calculate the rate of 'energy' transfer. However I
can't see this achieving any useful purpose for now.

*This
fits with my previous contention in prior arguments that at the quantum level,
any E that is notionally equivalent to 'mass' must only be the resultant 'energy'
used in causing any motion when in consideration for usage in the formula E=mc^{2}
which I have proven should be E=mc for the linear 'energy' component of photons
only and E=mv for other 'energy' used to cause any given velocity of momentum.
In the formula above
ƒE
is actually the 'energy' used by the universe and as
such it is equivalent to matter lost by the universe and only conditionally 'mass'.

At the moment
the universe has the appearance of stability even with the extremely long time
constant (or rate of E_{r} change) currently realized. However even the
formula E=mc^{2} does indicate that if E (E_{r}) decreases
because of a reduction in 'energy' 'fuel' in the universe, … 'c^{2}' would
see an immediate and proportionate decrease as well. However this steady state
of equilibrium is the observed case; but as my formula suggests it may
eventually cease to be the case, only to be further but belatedly decayed by a
decrease in 'actual mass'* by time related decay of ƒE .
Note: In skew time the billons of years could possibly mean tomorrow!
And we must also consider that at the moment any loss of gravitonic traffic
from here on in, might result in a change in overall temperature decrease which
can be taken as an irreversible given (even if 'c' could again reach a higher
speed). The effects of any significant
change in GD may be too horrible to contemplate!

*By
G-theory; if E_{r} is lowered then it is 'c' which must be concluded to
be the main variable which must be reduced on the other side of the equation
because by this theory, actual T mass at STP is not fully dependent on the P
mass residing within nucleons (which has been explained earlier), and therefore
'energy' is able to be lost as sub particles and photons without an expected
proportional change in universal mass as
ƒ
E , but instead (while the equilibrium
is maintained) the universal temperature will exhibit a decrease. So global
temperature decrease is a given apart from any 'man caused' activity.

Therefore
we have it that 'E=mc^{2}
' and its multiplex G-theory variant 'E_{r}
=
ƒE
.c^{2}
'
are formulas that for different reasons can only be truly accurate for all 'energy'
calculations at one instant; being the instant of the 'big kafuffle' and,
because the divergence component injected by time delay causes the
relationships in the formula to lag over time, (now being assumed to be billons
of years with respect to the latter formula), we can conclude that both formulas
are useful in showing that universal 'energy' is actually non sustainable over
infinite time, but with the E_{r}
formula the 'instant' is being
stretched by divergent 'energy' of fusion. This predicates that there is mass 'energy'
equivalence in fusion, and therefore the N mass of a star can be determined to
be proportional to its brightness. THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO ITS T-mass (MASS)
because a star's G-mass is typically very great and variable in relationship to
its density.

So this also
adds to the contention that E=mc^{2} is only perfectly true in two
states. The first being zero equals zero times 'c' squared. (Actually 'c' can
be any value.) This can only occur in the infinite cosmea or in an infinitely
small universe or space which of course doesn't exist. The second state would
be an infinitely large universe which is not losing 'energy'. Such a universe
also doesn't exist because we have already determined it to be logically
impossible.

The only
thing that will enable E=mc^{2} to be able to relate to a constant
value of 'c' in a three dimensional space with a volume greater than zero, is
if the two other elements E and m are in a stable and instantaneous state of relationship.
'c' is not the determinant of E and m, rather 'c' is dependent on the values of
E and m.

For its
application in the macro universe, the whole equation is distorted by time
(rate really, because c is actually d/t) when c or 'y' (in the case of gravity)
is any number less than infinity in a closed or constantly energized system
with realizable volume.
Note: The only G
mass 'energy' equivalence I allow is GD caused ground state G mass being
relatable but not physically transposable with graviton divergence 'energy'.
This is because the GD is directly proportional to the density and velocity of
graviton transitions. This is only deemed to apply at the photonic mass level
which is in the general vicinity of other quantum particle G masses, which is
why E=mc^{2} is a fairly accurate approximation formula in those
circumstances at around STP and below.

A SUMMATION
IN SIMPLE TERMS:

What all this is saying is: In the beginning
light speed decayed quickly as GD increased and this 'energy' increase caused
an increased N mass (Actually ƒE which is the m of traveling sub particles as
per E=mc^{2}). This brought about a state of equilibrium because of
photon-photon collisions resulting in the loss of photon 'energy' (gravitons)
along with the equal ability of photons to emit and reabsorb gravitons (being
proportional to GD) and hence stabilizing the balance of photons and gravitons
to the point where E and m result in the currently observe value of 'c'. At
quantum levels, where E, m, d and t are extremely small, E can be almost
determined to be equal to mc^{2}. To assume T mass 'mass' 'energy'
equivalence from this may be tempting but it's a real stretch and it can only
almost apply to particles external to nucleon quark lattices that only have P
mass! Confused?
Note: Gravity doesn't
affect the P mass of sub nucleon particles just their wave function which is
their 'energy' state measure in lieu of temperature.

While
sufficient light has been produced in the past to continue to facilitate
divergent 'energy' balance, the current state of equilibrium will continue to
be observed. If however most of the galaxies that we can now observe in skew
time are about to, or have already entered the cosmea or black holes, then we
could be moments, decades or centuries away from an unstoppable decay in 'energy'
and therefore temperature and 'mass' and unfortunately the impending non
existence of life.

This is NOT a
doomsday prediction, it simply means that our 'thermometer' of the state of
things should probably be gravity (very specifically weight) rather than relying
on what we see with telescopes no matter how powerful they may be. Telescopes
can only see what 'used to be', a very very long time ago. Gravity is a great
deal faster at delivering the 'tweet'! I.e. it is likely measurable in minutes
or less from anywhere across the universe.

The problem
with the paradigm of considering weight to be a constant in a constant
gravitational field is that Avogadro and other scientists never in their
wildest dreams believed that 'mass' could be able to change without relationship
to the number of atoms in a mole.

We have the
enigmatic situation that the mass standard in

The mass
standard in
_{s} halo variation by orbital variations
in the orbit of mercury. …Anyone?
Note:
weight change is caused by a change in GS_{e} but mass change is caused
by a change in overall GD. So under circumstances of GD change then a mass
change will be observed regardless of a constant 'n'
of atoms because of the resultant loss of G mass and not necessarily N
mass. Having said that: I figure that any change in the G mass of the sun will
cause a proportional change in GS_{s} and GS_{e} and therefore 'weight'
as well (not when measured by a beam balance though).

Also by
foolishly fixing the measurement of the standard meter to a component of a
variable called light, we may be condemning ourselves to never be able to
measure any changes in 'c' because we will in effect be using 'c' to measure
itself. This measurement technique is also assuming that the frequency of light
is dependant on its velocity. Remember; assumption is the mother of all bleep
ups.

Ok duh! So we
can remove the mystery surrounding the famous formula if we at first reorganize
that 'c' is not just some fortunate fluke of nature, but just the natural end
result of the universe coming into 'energy' balance. (In another universe 'c'
could be different but the relationship of the terms would be the same). This
is because rest mass is dependent upon internal nucleon N mass which in turn is
dependent on GD decay which slowly but inexorably results in the DECAY of 'c' which
is now at the apparent state of constancy pursuant to the limited window of
time through which we are able to observe. I.e. if 'c' hadn't decayed, then the
universe would either be far too hostile for life to exist, or it would have
run out of fuel long ago!
Note: An
Australian physicist by the name of Barry Setterfield has shown interesting
interpolative data from measurements of 'c' taken throughout our contemporary
time window which inconclusively shows a possible slowing down of the speed of
light. However a trend cannot be ruled out.

Now we can
perhaps have a less technical but expansive description of the hypothesized
behavior of the relationship between GD and light (photon emissions of all
kinds) and the resulting effects on the universe and even the implications for
the future of the human race.

First of all
it must be recognized that photons have the ability to both emit gravitons as
well as soak up other gravitons they encounter. If this wasn't the case then
equilibrium of any kind would never have been reached and could never be
maintained!

Imagine the
conditions at the beginning of the universe where there was a large GD (or
graviton density) with gravitons traveling at a similar and almost infinite
speed right across it. Stars are fusing everywhere and light is streaming
across the universe in all directions at super high speed as well.

Imagine that
the cosmea has been struck somehow, and like any elastic object when struck it 'rings',
typically with initially high impulse response which quickly attenuates due to
elasticity delayed 'energy' loss. This could also be likened to a bouncing ball
in basic respects.
Note: the cosmea is
almost totally brittle whereas the universe is elastic.

If we
consider that situation where light is behaving as we have just noted and GD is
very dense. In such a graviton dense situation, it stands to reason that light
will soak up proportionately more gravitons than it emits and equilibrium of
sorts will be reached over time. However this will then cause a reduction of GD
which will in turn cause a reduction in stellar fusion which will consequently
cause a reduction in light, so gravity will be therefore be initially observed
to be pulsing up and down in value as the universe rings, and if both
velocities remain constantly high you might have observed a pulsing of GD
measured at first in minutes or so, and gradually becoming less frequent* to
end up pulsating over time periods of years or even decades. If left occurring
like it initially was for too long it would've eventually torn planets and
planetary systems apart, if they could have even formed in the first place.

*Amplitude
attenuation of this event was caused by 'energy' losses to the cosmean.
Frequency change was caused by the change of the rate of 'energy' divergence,
which phenomenon has just been fully explained.

Fortunately, (by
way of a reason which will be forthcoming in a following chapter) the speed of
light began to slow down according to a power law and the time taken for light
travel across the universe became increasingly delayed and the resulting
fluctuations in GD became of longer wavelength and amplitude and it was also
reducing in nodality. (To reiterate: This decrease in amplitude was because 'energy'
(particularly as P mass) was also escaping from the universe).

Note: If you object to this light speed change
scenario and ask; where is the proof? Why not take a look at the vast array of
different colors in the observable universe. And also; how many stellar bodies
may have had their light so frequency shifted that they now only APPEAR to emit
x-rays which may well be velocity and or Doppler shifted ordinary light?
Because of these reasons I feel justified in taking the higher ground in posing
this question: I contend that G-theory is more reasonable by its ability to
provide solutions than other theories so I must put the onus of proof on the
current offerings. So where is the disproof even?

Also I must wonder why reference frame 'c' change
is such anathema to 't' changers!

This decay
ostensibly occurred until a point has now been reached where we currently
notice slightly anomalous, fluctuating and very long wavelength GD pulsations,
and this is then the 'steady' state of equilibrium that we find ourselves in
today, which we might confidently assume (for no good reason apart from recent
historical and geological observation) will continue unabated for the
foreseeable future.

I've got some
bad news for you sunshine! Even if the speed of light has stabilized, there
could be another unexpected GD (gravity) pulse coming our way because by
clinging to improbable paradigms we have failed to make sense of the evidence
provided (not only in physics) but also in geology and astronomy etc. to enable
us to effectively predict possible outcomes!

In the past
these gravity fluctuations have likely caused planets to shift orbits, changed
the rate of stellar fusions and at some state of super gravity the solar system
could have included a binary pulsar for a while with even the possibility of
Jupiter undergoing fusion for a universal sized 'while'.

During these
periods (and there could have been many of them in the past) planets could have
switched orbits, undergone severe gyroscopic precession, with the consequential
planetary internal turmoil resulting in massive polar shifts and magnetic field
reversals. No life would have been possible during these earlier hot or cold
and extremely violent events.

These were
the times when planets even collided and many moons were formed. Perhaps woe
betides us should the next pulse become recognized as being portentously
imminent! Let's just hope it isn't.

Past
geological history suggests that the last pulse was a low GD 'wave' which
predicated a colder sun, which may have only resulted in an ice age and a minor
polar shift but still with a magnetic field reversal. Logic then declares that
the next half cycle of the pulse should be a high GD wave resulting in a hotter
sun. It might be a good time to invest in an air conditioner manufacturing
company unless of course the last warm pulse was missed in prehistory and the
next cold pulse is now on its way. In the light of this premise I wouldn't be
overly concerned with human caused climate disruption.

Of course, if
we are still noticing the effects of the last cold 'wave' and we are ignoring
simple facts like loss of mass in a certain Parisian 'mass standard' then we
very likely won't see anything coming by reason of either head in the sand or
clouds syndromes, but in any case we could simply hide our corporate head any
place dark and warm we like and blame any warning signs on man caused global
warming!

To explain
all this in simple terms: Imagine that there was no such thing as time. In that
case the eos (being torn by two conflicting forces) would instantly reach a
state of force resolution. This is because the process would be inelastic.
However the introduction of 'time delays' puts elasticity into the equation,
and then the whole process becomes a bit like twanging a taught rubber band.

The eos has responded to this by reducing the tension on the universal 'rubber band' and it has achieved this by reducing the speed of light, and this gives you a similar result as if you reduced the tension on your rubber band a little bit and you would notice that the frequency of the 'twang' would subsequently be reduced in some proportional manner. Yeah, yeah; the instantaneous amplitude would increase (E=hf), but that's not the point. Please remember we are not discussing either a closed 'energy' system or instantaneity. In this case we have a stress emr tensor and a gravitational tensor and energy conservation is kept between the two as well as all other tensors.