G-THEORY CH 5




CHAPTER 5

 

 

THE UNIVERSAL PRECURSOR OF EINSTEIN'S 'ENERGY' FORMULA E=mc2 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=mc2:  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, (Eo) minus 'energy' losses to the cosmea by all pathways Ee. The result is Er (resultant 'energy' out) so now we have Er=Eo-Ee.

*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 Er must be only an equilibrium state constant by mediation through timely changes to Eo and Ee, and it may be considered to have arrived at the ability to maintain equilibrium by effecting changes in the RATE of Er transfer. This is because gravitons are fully causative of Er 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 Er .

  *Keep in mind that divergent 'energy'  ƒE   can only return to an effective instantaneous zero divergence number and not go negative ( ƒE  =Er 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 Ed 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.

Er=ƒE .c2 or being transposed ƒE =Er/c2 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 Er change in order to maintain 'energy' equilibrium, and the formula could then be stated as E=my or perhaps E=mc2 (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 Er=ƒE .c2, 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 Er=ƒE .c2 worked well to bring the universal divergence to an equilibrium*, even though E=mc2 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=mc2 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 Er change) currently realized. However even the formula E=mc2 does indicate that if E (Er) decreases because of a reduction in 'energy' 'fuel' in the universe, … 'c2' 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 Er 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 , 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=mc2 ' and its multiplex G-theory variant 'Er = ƒE  .c2 ' 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 Er 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=mc2 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=mc2 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=mc2 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=mc2). 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 mc2. 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 Paris has been changing and instead of recognizing the GD proportional 'effective mass change' possibility postulated by G-theory, unwitting scientists are now embarking on the construction a much 'prettier' one. If this keeps occurring then the change in the weight of a standard will never be recognized as being caused by a change in GD subsequently causing a change in effective weight, rather some other reason will be sought.

The mass standard in Paris has already lost about 50 micrograms of weight. This loss is predictable by G-theory and may be significant if you proportionally calculate the loss of the mass of the sun by averaging measurements of the solar GSs halo variation by orbital variations in the orbit of mercury. …Anyone? Note: weight change is caused by a change in GSe 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 GSs and GSe 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.