INERTIAL FORCE AND ENERGY LOSS; THE CAUSE OF REAL WORLD MOTION:

 

 

The following may initially seem to be another insult. You may feel piqued by my attempting to engage you 'high falutin' scientists' in one more elementary school physics lesson. However because of the subject matter, it behooves us to reanalyze some simple mechanics because of new subtle 'cause and affect' differences inherent to G-theory. Hopefully this reinvention may begin to bring goodies to the table of empty plates. In order to fill the first plate I'm now going to restate the profound contention that an object at rest or in a state of momentum essentially has NO MASS; or any that can be measured. Note: internal energetic motion within the object is caused by G mass which we can safely ignore for this assertation.

After this intrepid re-assertion I will mollify you somewhat by agreeing objectively with classical physics that mass is observed to be existential by the actions of particular phenomena, but there the comparison ends; because I subjectively deduce by G-theory fundamental particle mass considerations that apart from P mass; 'mass' in higher generational particles and or AMO's is caused by three phenomena. The three causes are concluded to be 1/ GS caused gravitational mass (weight) 2/ PIR caused P mass and 3/ GD or G=mass and velocity GTDv or applied force AIR amplified N mass. It can be stated that inertial force eliciting (N mass) with regard to any similar spatial motion is always the same regardless of the fundamental cause of the force.

Now if we remember back to chapter 3 we found that AIR elicited inertial N mass was caused because of the creation of time which subsequently allowed forces to result in actual motion, which necessarily required a rate for acc/dec rather than theoretical instantaneity.

AIR only has an affect on both ATTEMPTED and real changes in motion (acc/dec). This can be considered to be regardless of linearity and restricted in the lower orders of matter to AMO's and ions (individual nucleons and nuclides also, but these will be discussed later), so AIR is observed to be solely responsible for Newtonian inertial mass (N mass) regardless of the derivation of the motive force.

We can consider the absence of other forces to be a given. This is because in terms of spatial displacement motion, both atomic mass and the mass of AMO's in equilibrium DOES NOT EXIST  they can only be relatable to GTD and AIR as the respective case may be. This is why we have the E=mc2 problem when considering inertial (acc/dec) and GTD (gravitational or velocity) mass, compared to so called atomic mass. Note: The mole and both atomic mass and weight have been directly derived from a modified GTDg inertial force which is subject to the two different yet summative GTD and AIR phenomena mentioned above. This will result in slight atomic mass discrepancies because of GTD changes in objects of differing sizes and shapes. This can be mostly observed at the level of the very small with variations in G mass, but with larger objects of about the same size and shape it's unlikely that there would be any significant measurable difference.

Such difference can be definitely noticed with comparisons between the very small and the very large and this will be discussed in a later chapter. In classical mechanics no heed is given to such minute differences but when being presented with G-theory it becomes critical that such observances be noted because of their probable overall support of the theory.

The interesting observation that the gravitational and inertial masses on earth are similar cannot be caused by some 'squillion' to one odds chance occurrence. At first I imagined a theory that there must be a goldilocks zone for any gravitational mass fields which are slightly greater than the inertial mass constant, and these are brought into line with the constant by the eos. Of course you may immediately cry relativity. I have already cried multiplicity (MP). I.e. The chronos inter-working with the eos in Euclidian space. In any case I intend to show herein that such arguments would be futile, and the true relationship has nothing at all to do with such things: It exists simply because we (historical scientists) made it that way! In any case if you don't want to put numbers to it; the fact is that force by any other name will be the same.

The multi-dimensional mechanics of inertial force is proposed to be as follows: First considering the universal state at around STP. The cosmea 'sees' into the nucleon Q-Ls of atoms/nucleons and analyses the rate of attempted ac/deceleration by the force being applied to the gluon branes by the attempted change to the biracial force interaction of trions. Note: both rest state and momentum are considered to be stationary positions with respect to acc-dec 'rate'. As previously described the cosmea is inured to treating such concepts as having no different applicability.

Theoretically then; no object can be forced to change its spatial position without an equal counterforce being applied by AIR. As we have already noted, by releasing 'energy' this counterforce is deemed to be imperfect and in any case it is only active when objects actually move. Static opposing forces only produce potential N mass. Note: Internal PIR forces aside.

Unilateral force application demonstrates that an AMO is still able to ac/decelerate but with an AIR force applied against the force causing the ac/deceleration. THIS FORCE MUST BE RELATABLE TO THE NUCLEONIC DENSITY OF THE OBJECT/S UNDER CONSIDERATION, OVER ELASTICALLY RELATED TIME. This effectively CAUSES 'ENERGY' LOSS or if that wasn't the case, nothing would ever move in either a linear or any other fashion in accordance with F=ma. If there was no elasticity, acc/dec would be instantaneous and most objects that became subject to any motive force would simply explode* and lose all their 'energy', and because this doesn't occur as a general observation I don't see the necessity of taking the mechanics of that to its logical end.

*I.e. only if ALL matter was inelastic and the opposing objects attempted to enter the same space-time: This brings us to a fundamental law--- ALL CHANGES IN LINEAR MOTION REQUIRE SOME ELASTICITY IN THE AMOs higher generational nucleons and above in order for objective integrity to be maintained and prevent the total inelastic scattering of all of is sub particles. Note: Eos approbated laws don't apply at temperatures that are substantially different than 25oc while the cosmean laws apply to al matter. This is one of the reasons that the cosmea is declared o be the arbiter of 'mass'. The other is that the eos only has preeminence within the as yet unknown temperature range and outside of nucleons.

 

By this reason of the possible elastic maintenance of objective integrity an object with greater impetus can collide or provide a continuous force for a time on the object in question and the more forceful object can be then notionally declared to have a greater Ek than the object being acc/ decelerated with a resulting retention of the bulk of the notionally greater 'energy' and continuance of relative motion of the more forceful. These more 'highly energetic' objects also apply a force greater than the retro AIR force in the lesser. (I know how to pick these acronyms!) This greater Ek is able to cause motion relative rate of change in inverse proportionality to the 'mass-nucleon density proportionality relationship' of the objects* even though the AIR force is still being applied in the reverse direction; it being the lesser because of 'energy' losses in this case.

*This relationship must be conditionally linear by F=ma.

 

Apart from losses to the environment including possible decrepitation, Newton's law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is still seen to be the relative law.

The point to be noted here is that AIR is not an overwhelming force and it must abide by the (rubbery) laws of physics in totality. However there are NO hard and fast laws which apply to universal gravitation transitions which have yet been (and perhaps incapable of being) substantiated by empirical observance. All we have are the ones we can derive by universal observations from our limited vantage point.

Each of the three forces have limitations. AIR is only applicable to objects (above and including nucleons) under acc/deceleration. GTDv is only really applicable to hyper velocities but not acceleration. However it can of course affect the rate of AIR forced acc/dec.

GD/GTD/GS are applicable to all objects above the size of nucleons inclusively but they have a greater affect in inverse proportion to nucleonic density by volume and shape, which therefore acts according to a modified inverse square law related to size/shape, such that it has a far greater affect on potential mass and shape relationship in smaller objects. This should become abundantly clear when we address the subject of atomic mass in a later chapter.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

So in conclusion we are able to state that outside of a GS field, nucleons and all AMOs at rest or momentum have their whole insignificant rest 'mass' as G mass attributable to GD or GS, which is additive to P mass as T mass*. Elevated G mass which is caused by the addition of GTDv related G mass, only actually becomes noticeable as N mass in its own additive right when the momentum is above a critical velocity and AIR related inertial affects subsequently become obvious and measurable. This means that below the critical momentum velocity, such objects at rest may be considered to have no noticeable N mass because in that case the affects of GTDv is effectively zero and therefore there is now no directionally oriented force acting on them which can invoke AIR except (case specifically) for 'g'. Note: This may seem to be a moot point, but it becomes crucial when analyzing the ideas of rest mass 'energy' and mass 'energy' equivalence on earth. Also note that P mass is always in existence due to perturbative GD caused internal quantum activity at all temperatures above zero k even though it is almost unappreciable.

Similar to an earlier proposal of mine, P mass may possible be temperature sensitive** but it is such a small component of mass when compared to N mass that such might not even be measurable. However at the BST P mass might rule, but for now if the N mass of an AMO was dependant on the sum of its particle masses we would end up with some very weird T mass results indeed!

**If this can be proven then cosmological mass v density evaluations might need some adjustments.

*The affects of GS, AIR and frenetic nuclear activity as GTDg caused G mass is another subject previously analyzed.

 

The objects can however be concluded to have potential N mass; and a GS caused differential (gravity) in a motionless frame of reference will cause that to become observable as weight. Massive bodies at rest or with momentum near earth are acting under the combination of GS and insignificantly miniscule GTDv caused G mass even if they are orbiting.

Therefore because I have shown G-theory to exhibit a robust and reasonable scalar solution to some problems which have historically initiated other prior and fanciful solutions, I can now conclusively state that the populist solution called flat earth (oops sorry); relativity is no longer necessary to explain any of these relationships.

Continuing along the thread; specifically with the relationship between inertial and gravitational mass I will further state that any object with spatially displaced angular momentum (orbiting) as well as any small AMO free falling in a gravitational field (in a vacuum) are considered to be at rest in their own moving frames of reference. That is unless the GS is extreme enough to cause a GTDg and elicit N mass by AIR in such an otherwise relative rest state, which by the existence of a massive GS would result in a proportionally massive GTDg across an object by the mechanics previously proposed herein. Note: We know that if AIR is overcome then an object will either deform or decrepitate depending on its elasticity. A case in point would be the massive gravity (GS) of Jupiter causing the breakup of an approaching comet.

As described elsewhere: it is by the agency of gluons that the eos reads the state of motion of any AMO by the instantaneous GTD change at the nucleon level by any unilateral change of force being applied to the' quark lattice to weak force' relationship. So; inertial force is always relative to the changing frames of reference across the AMO which includes even an individual nucleon being able to be depicted under that consideration. Note: The difference in potential mass between nucleons is the mass defect which is primarily caused by G mass (which has no affect on the N mass at low velocities) as well as just the biracial force of a few semi attached gluons which remain with the proton from the decayed neutron, and which are now potential binding points on the new proton.

The potential G mass of any nucleon doesn't change during ß-ve decay because the proton retains its quark lattice. The baryon lost to the electron becomes a pseudo-baryon with a loss of any triangular connectivity which is able promote lattice connectivity, and subsequently loses any 'quark typical mechanical strength', and therefore it not only loses its G mass but also its AIR caused N mass eliciting capability and it only retains the P mass of its particles which is typically nominal because it left behind a lot of bound gluons: TBE. Refer to page 292.

When an AMO begins to fall in a gravitational field a change in GTD is realized and by Newton's third law of motion, when the object was in suspension, an equal and opposite force to its weight, must have been continuously applied against GS caused GTDg, which upon release is responsible for the acceleration because of the instantaneous and continuing value of GTDg against AIR. Note: this equal and opposite force was always there while it was being countered by the withholding force (which by reason must have been there to prevent the fall until release), in which case an accelerometer at that instant of release would actually read weight* because of AIR.

*The accelerometer would read the weight as a momentary change in velocity. I.e. acceleration!

 

The equal and opposite reaction was only occurring until release and the object found realizable (but surprisingly) not actually instantaneous) momentum because it still must accelerate to cause that realizable momentum. However this occurs so fast it may not be measurable…??

This means that apart from an insignificant extra drag caused by this case specific changing GTDd, the gravitational acceleration is wholly caused by the GS caused GTDg against any continuance of AIR force. All objects being subject to AIR by force have an equal and opposite force acting against them. Thus the force required to hold an object in GS gravity is the same as the nucleon summative GTDg force less losses.

This we notice as weight which is a unilateral force and not nucleon summative, unless of course we were supporting the object in a magnetic field etc. If that could be applied to your good self, you wouldn't 'feel' any weight. Similarly (without the normal initial accelerative elastic relaxation) you don't feel any inertia when you fall. In both cases you would feel weightless. No accelerating reference frame required.

Now it may possibly be considered that because the eos has some force control over inertial acceleration rates by setting the velocity of gravitons it may then be able to cause some extra force which enables it to bring gravitational acceleration into line with inertial acceleration in some sort of goldilocks zone of planetary Sg in specific relation to earth.

This is not likely to be the case at all, because if you really think about it the similarity is there simply because 'we' made it that way by MEASURING EVERYTHING ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and constructing a mechanics of related mass-weight and distance relationship, otherwise the fact that inertial mass and gravitational mass on earth are exactly the same by some cosmological dictum is one stretch too far*!  What I'm really proposing is that (in stark contrast to contemporary thought) inertial and gravitational mass are NOT caused by the same phenomenon even if they cause the same acc/dec.

*I intend to show that the are not; exactly!

 

Cosmologically speaking gravitational acceleration in turn means that the inertial acceleration force is effective in modifying the gravity of all bodies by some proportionality by inverse square law with mass proportional regard to Sg. Therefore this would have a modified (because of shape etc.) power or П law inverse proportional affect on smaller bodies, and also a negated affect on fusing stars, whole galaxies and other bodies radiating heat. This is because of the graviton halo causing some backfill of intimate GS-s. The point here is that there is probably a varying GD throughout space. This could cause a situationally relative affect on the emission value of 'c' even if E=mc2.

This doesn't mean that objects in any similar GS in any other part of the universe with varying densities are expected to fall at observably differing rates of acceleration! If any other given GS affects any other 'mass' value objects then they will all be similarly and proportionally affected full stop. Note: G would be required to be a theoretical constant. Consideration could also be given to the contention of G-theory that the eos becomes proportionally less effective as temperature and density increase.

So by this I am also going to contend that 'mass' as well as being caused is not a constant. Inertial (AIR), gravitational (GD and GS), as well as GTDv forces combine to create the effective T mass at any point in space-time. What the?!

Even though it has been historically shown to change slightly, we will of course consider that 'mass' is fairly constant in our own backyard. Without significant GTDv derived by our real world velocities and because AIR is proportional to acc/dec motive forces, when 'mass' is realized it remains the same regardless of the acc/dec rate. It's just the motive force that must be considered to have changed.

This G-theory exposition can now be seen to contain an explosive and radical proposal which makes mincemeat of Riemannian geometry and continues to chip away at relativity. Interestingly enough it holds further promise to explain observed gravitational anomalies and this subject will be convincingly engaged. Nothing else that I know of is able to!

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In consideration of nucleons and AMOs, AIR is proposed to always be the agency of inertia WITH A NECESSARY ENERGY LOSS, whether the motive force is caused by a mechanical (external) force or by an internally acting nucleon summative force such as GTD (gravity) or magnetism etc. We ourselves can notice that the inertia we sometimes feel is the result of some inner something attempting to hold our bodies together. Unfortunately for many road accident victims AIR has been overcome by the impact motive force of the dashboard and in such cases their poor bodies don't always hold together. (Sorry about that tasteless example but NOW I'm sure you get my drift).

'Mass' of AMO's can only ever be observed and correctly measured when the AMO's in question are being subject to inertia, which (relatively speaking), all motive forces are. The specious argument that 'mass' can be measured in a stationary beam balance (because the object being measured is not having is 'mass' evaluated by a 'singular' subjection to gravitational inertia because it is being compared with another object also being subject to the same gravitational inertial force) can be refuted by the following argument.

In such a case it must be recognized that balancing both the 'mass' of the known counter weight and the 'mass' of the object being measured, is simply a comparison of the sum of GTDg INERTIAL nucleon summative forces being applied equally to both of them, which by reason is proportional to the nucleonic density relationship*. This inertial force is relative to the similar GS (gravity) field in which they exist. They are stationary but not at rest because they are under the action of compressive force.

By way of an example close to home: You might spend some time sitting in a chair but sooner or later you notice the compressive force and feel the need to get up and relieve that pressure on your butt!

HOWEVER in light of his consideration we notice that any variation in the GS field with altitude applies equally to both AMOs so the supposed 'mass' measurement will remain the same. Therefore we can thoughtlessly conclude that the altitude at which the 'mass' of an AMO is being measured will not present a problem; and this allows a specious conclusion to be reached. I.e. the beam balance is accurate in any gravity.

A beam balance still measures Fg (weight) and will not give any result without a GTD of either description being present. I.e. you couldn't use a beam balance to measure mass in a gravity null node or in GD unless the objects are under acceleration or moving at a sufficient velocity to cause a realizable and similar velocity related GTDv inertia in which situations the 'mass' measurement would still be thought to remain unchanged. The following footnote should be noted with alacrity.

*Measurement of mass by comparison of objects of similar WEIGHT due to inertial force whether by gravity or acc-dec or GTDv is not the same when the mass of DIFFERENT substances is being measured, down to the mass of individual nucleons as well as sub particle P mass. This means that in the example above, the nucleon count and space filling arrangements in each object (AMO) will actually be different unless the objects are both EXACTLY similar in all respects. If not, this will lead to an actual (even if insignificant) mass measurement discrepancy which will proportionally vary with different altitudes and GTDv…es. This phenomenon is one I have previously mentioned but which will be further analyzed in a later chapter regarding the atomic mass defect/discrepancy. I also intend to show a valid reason to entertain the notion that 'mass' on the surface of the earth can be different than 'mass' in space by the expected measurability of differing inertial affects, even if unable to be measured by a beam balance. Note: Density variance in a weak GS such as GSe is not significant and so the 'weak equivalence principle' (WEP) applies. This would not be the case near the surface of Jupiter for instance, or at hyper velocities. This is because a significant GTD is required to cause a 'square law proportional' markedly significant departure from the WEP. Pease try to resist the suspicion that this statement is representative of the 'unknowledgeable' rewriting physics. It's just that we are only able to observe our own earth and solar gravity and end up with the known problematic results concerning big G and centripetal gravitational force for instance. Perhaps physics NEEDS a rewrite! However in regard to the context, significance might be recognized in that we were able to observe the Shoemaker-Levi comet break up as it approached that high GS planet. This was proposed to be because of the intense altitude proportional GS differential which resulted in a large GTDg. A further note: Simply declaring that a huge gravity has some unknown pseudo force that's capable of tearing a comet apart is intolerable science.

However those 'notes' are off topic and answers to some previous assertation sorry. I'll leave it here. The takeaway is that even if two exactly similar sized objects of differing densities were dropped into Jupiter from a low altitude the objects would become distorted by AIR with some variance and the subsequent GTD change would cause one to fall noticeably faster than the other. (…assuming a vacuum) TBE