G-THEORY thesis CH 14

CHAPTER 14

 

 

      FORCE, 'ENERGY' AND MATTER

      RELATIONSHIPS

  • LAWS OF THE HYPERVERSE-----------------------------------------------603

 

 

'Energy' in current quantum physics is thought to be an instantaneous evaluation of a state (or substance) contained within nucleons regarding the ability to both have 'mass' and do work within determined limits. I.e. hold it all together. Such an evaluation of 'energy' requires no time function for it to exist. However in G-theory 'energy' is not 'stuff' or 'mass' it is either matter in vibrational or linear/angular motion or both but never 'mass', and it is mathematically related to force and time.

Force is only measurable by the amount of notional 'energy' expended over time. Take a water tank as an example. If the tank is full it has maximum potential 'energy'. When empty it has no potential 'energy'.

The tank has force acting on its contents. The force is gravity. The moment you turn on the tap at the bottom, 'energy' begins to be used and the force of gravity which was theoretically invisible can now be observed but also that force is being counteracted by the force of friction at the tap.

The resultant of the two forces gives us the actual amount of resultant force that's applicable to the system and we are able to calculate a rate of 'energy' usage (by the rate of flow) so long as we theoretically consider that the force resultant (pressure) remains the same. The takeaway here is that 'energy' usage equates to matter (water) transfer.

The rate of 'energy' usage (work done) we call power. Force can only be measured by the amount of time it takes a force to cause a value of 'energy' to be used and a measurable amount of work to be done which always includes the attainment of a value of velocity*. So the evaluation of force is always related to time even though it is seemingly invisible and often ignored, even though it exists.

*This always tends to lead to the subjective idea of mass 'energy' equivalence because of the formula F=ma. This will/has been shown to be specious reasoning.

 

Force at the fundamental level is subjectively declared to be great or small but the problem pervading both classical and quantum physics is in the perplexing enigma caused by the very large seeming to have the very small force and the very small having the greatest force of all. These forces are gravity and strong nuclear force respectively. Not to mention biracial force

The other problem is that an atom also has other very weak forces which seem to be able to overcome extremely massive external forces.

The attempt to address these problems has resulted in all manner of theories. In particular, various string theories, one of which appears to have come tantalizingly close to G-theory. That theory is M string theory. Another one is QED mechanics.

The problem with all of those other theories is that they are all attempting to correlate themselves with relativity and they end up with the same old problems by the subsequent modifying (stratifying) and or inversion and even hybridization of time and bending of space in attempts to bring their proposed new dimensions back into the three plus one dimensional fold. I declare that oil and water don't appear to mix too well, so don't even bother trying. I will/have show that as theorists you aren't required to assume the transcendence of any supposedly ineffable theory at all. M-theory has accepted the idea of the hybridization of space but it still attempts to satisfy the concepts of relativity.

With such a non relativistic scalar theory as realized in this presentation, you could attempt to likewise incriminate G-man for mind gaming; for using dimensional reference frames and non-existent lines etc. (sort of strings), but my contention would be that G-theory still wouldn't be a string theory because it is non relativistic and the force lines and dimensions are only subjectively real so not observable. The multiplex hybridized dimensions are real and the summation of their interactive laws ends up with the laws of physics. Some of the dimensional laws of course only apply to sub quantum systems whereby it has now been rightfully concluded in a sense, "That particular world belongs to a different universe". That is literally the case to some extent.

This complete theory explains the cause of gravity and why it only appears to be a weak force, principally because it is not derived by the same extant fundamentals that cause the other forces. Remember that according to the example of the tank; when it comes to force, appearances can be deceptive, especially if there are counter-forces involved. Under such determinations, if that fact goes unrecognized then that predisposes any evaluation which might be subsequently undertaken to be suspected of being specious.

Strong and weak binding forces are as their namesakes suggest: They are caused by value disparate bi-racial force sub-particle density in the required regions. Atomic bonds by valence are caused by the vibrational harmonic arrangements of the force particles into modal form factor patterns as Hilbert space sets phononically interlocking with corresponding sets of other atoms by interaction with both nucleonic space filling matrices and valence shell filling phenomenology but not exclusively. TBE

Tentatively and comparatively exploring a notion: According to G-theory, force particles or gauge bosons are controlled by either the eos and/or the other dimensions so involved and they are deemed to have biracial attraction or repulsion between themselves as previously explained, but they can move across branes in seemingly outcome driven ways but there actually seems to be an auto resolution determined by –among other things- the gravity/light energy loop of the cosmo-universe.

This resolution along with the idea of antimatter event horizons existing on branes (as in other unrelated 'multiplex and parallel universe theories') is arguably presented in an existing theory of quantum physics as color and strangeness respectively.

The biracial force sub-particles are much smaller and theorized to exist at generational levels below mesons, quarks, bosons and kaons which are actually expected to be complex particles consisting of dimensionally shifted trions and other more complex particles (which contain combinations of three force particles as described elsewhere in this book)*. By G-theory these are thought to then form the quarks of various strangeness and color, which in combination can then cause 'color variation charges' and 'spin' (rather; eigenspace vibrational orientation curl).

*Fundamentally in multi-dimensional trion-trion combinations that produce neutrino, gluon and magneton force sub-particles which would all consist of combinations of brane crossed trion biracial pairs.

 

QIP has no relevance at the sub level of the trion yet the sub-particles will still exhibit sub-quanta stepped characteristics in that they have objective force definition which may be resolved as 'energy' definition by relatable actions of motion such as BBR and graviton sub quanta particle transfer as well as initial SBF caused nucleon binding. (TBE) So they still have actual existence value. This is what enables them to transfer these force 'quanta' to quarks*. This also includes gravitons or (where captive in a nucleon) a fundamental level nuclear graviton, or any given boson in the quark lattice including sea gluons.

*The force quanta are the actual tri-combination of the sub-particles themselves wherein just one such particle is likely to be a fundamental quark when combined in a lattice. Note: Don't quote me on this. The real theoretical constructs of fundamental particles I am keeping under lock and key!

 

Particles such as gluons, neutrinos, photons, gravitons, quarks, mesons, kaons and hyperons as examples, exhibit this multi level symmetry and anti-symmetry which is directly translated from the original cosmean symmetry theorized elsewhere in this book.

It is possible to propose a multi-dimensional creation scenario: Supposing that every particle is available 'on site' in real time and at creation level temperatures and gravity: As matter becomes built like a Lego structure from these sub building blocks the eos causes them to create more and more complex structures and begins to cause the force sub-particles to utilize the branes and other dimensions to cause motion which by itself causes 'energy' release beyond changes to strangeness and color and this motion in turn creates combinations of other forces. These in turn create more specifically energetic and structural particles which in the end results in matter which we currently observe.

 Such creation of matter is impossible in the currently existing 'normal' universe because only the eos an cosmea are able to act instantaneously. We have already noted the improbability of nucleon-synthesis by such mechanics. Typically; in real time the dimensions responsible for interaction are restricted from performing such creation of matter by the injection of space time, but prior to that when all matter existed as the infinite space cosmean black hole, the whole cosmo-universal system was impotently restricted from any inter-dimensional eigenspace quark transformations.

However this new universal matter formation (likely primordially consisting mostly of a liquid state of quark gluon plasma) could only have occurred in the new universe before graviton motion and ensuing 'transitions' occurred. It was this graviton 'flux' assault which end resulted (very early in the creation event) in the periodic table of elements. In other words nucleosynthesis from pre-existing nucleonic (neutronic) matter was and still is a viable mechanics of element formation. This is over and above fusion related nucleosynthesis which remains a limited but operative function within stars etc.

Upon reflection on the fact that there is not a great deal of Q-G plasma or baryonic matter floating around the universe in the filaments, I must conclude that nucleon-synthesis must have been a phenomenon of the early universe. However it is unlikely to be able to currently occur.

Therefore with special reference to my previous analysis of this subject, it must then be concluded that another mechanism must be at work which prevents a nucleon from possessing more than one quark lattice.

Meanwhile back at the ranch: Although not phenomenologically exclusive, sufficient graviton particle transfer into a nucleon results in a slight quark color transformation. Graviton transitions through nucleons consistently result in slight sub quanta loss in the graviton, causing a slight shifting of the eigenvectors of the charge, and to a lesser or non-extent to magnetic dipoles which vectorally translates to a nodal variation in the electron orbitals. This causes a force to be applied via the nucleon to other atoms in an AMO at the same eigenvector. Note: The bulk or part of any transiting graviton which is not dimensionally shifted into the quark lattice for parity purposes does not affect the mass of the nucleon or AMO in any way shape or form TBE. 

This in turn results in an 'energy' swap to the next atom in the direction of graviton travel by vector force. This force either causes motion or heat convection where integer parity already exists. This means that the transition characterizes as a force against the next atom which exhibits direct eigenvector transformation because of the greater shift in the weak binding force eigenvector in relation to the minor shift in the strong force vector. This affects the form factor and that in turn causes a change in the Hilbert space modal set of the whole atom which consequently affects each nucleon. This is all multi-dimensionally related as explained herein.

This results in two things. 1/ Gravitational and motion relative force by a friction like effect through the nucleonic quark/gravitons, and also the possible creation of a magnetic disturbance via the nucleon g factor. Note: This is of importance when considering the phenomenology of large body magnetic field formation.

So it follows that in consideration of the enormous magnitude of graviton transitions in most cosmo-universal bodies a magnetic field is the result. This of course is entirely dependant on the dimensional status of the elementary makeup of the body according to the God code.

The reason for loss of speed in transiting gravitons is probably because bosons in the nucleon and in the graviton are connected by an attractive biracial force. The nucleon bosons gain vibrational velocity (amplitude), and the transiting graviton simultaneously loses linear velocity and it may actually experience mutually affected eigenvector change, but the parity and 'energy' conservation offset is still zero. Note: here we note pure 'energy' as a transfer of force without any particulate matter being involved, just perturbation. Where's the ME equivalence there?

Whether this is the reason or not, there is a negative inelastic collision involved and the loss of motion of the graviton is transferred to the eigenvector motion relative change in the nucleon dipoles as stated.

Transference of spatial graviton velocity to nucleon vibrational (spin) and/or spatial velocity (vector spatial displacement) by reason of the attempted injection by force, of sub quantum 'energy' into the unreceptive, inelastic quark lattice construct of a nucleon is necessarily the case. The salient feature of this is; the resulting 'spin' as well as possible linear displacement is induced by force particle perturbative interaction between both internal lattice inelasticity and external perturbative elasticity, and not otherwise by any notional result derived by inertial force through collisions of particles having mass! This intriguing phenomenon is also the actual cause of G mass being elicited! Note: This will be analyzed in greater detail in a later section.

It is actually the quantum integer states which cause the nucleons to be tricked into taking 'energy' from gravitons. This is because at any given instant of time, half the nucleonic states are in an 'energy' defect and so they are receptive to minor BBR particle transfer. You may then argue that the next nucleon will give the particles back. I'm sorry but the proximous nucleon may now be instantly in parity, and with regard to either one (of course) or two nucleons with relationship to the same graviton this may not occur.

In fact because of the elasticity present within any larger AMO*; such elasticity caused by the propagation of nucleon parity being at 'c' or less (convection) will fail to keep up with the inelasticity and speed of graviton transfers. If linear motion cannot be the result then temperature rise IS by way of boson particle incrementation by transfer of trions from the graviton** which in turn causes vibrational amplification in at least one boson in fifty percent of the nucleons by random statistical distribution of quantum states in the theoretical AMO being deemed to be isolated from other masking forces!

*Such elasticity results in AIR being elicited and actual N mass is the result whether the GTD causes a change in motion or not. In such a case a rise in temperature will exhibit the notion of the particle transfer being in existence.

**This will result in a graviton becoming depleted.

 

This all suggests that real world external matter/force restrictions may prevent some nucleon eigenstate changes from occurring and the force is then vector shared with other atoms in the object being transitioned, but because of the eigenvector shift of the quarks in the nucleon being transited, the resulting directional force effect is therefore by summation in the vector relatable direction of the transiting graviton's force vector.

The virtual 'energy' transfer as a perturbative force does not in itself result in particle loss. The 'energy' transfer in this case is by kinetic perturbative 'energy' of velocity* being vector relative to the proportionality of the perturbative relationship. I.e. The graviton may be more affected than the nucleon. His would seem to be a strange relationship in the universe but it needs to be noted that there is no violation of 'energy' conservation here. The end velocity change is directly proportional to the perturbative biracial charge force 'energy' used.

*…because there is no graviton particle mass (per se) involved but G mass becomes elicited from the perturbation. The nucleon PIR mass involvement is via the QL to SBF weak force connectivity.

 

Of course the effect on an individual nucleon or atom could be immeasurably small and is herein postulated to be able to be far less than sub-quantum value or even atomically speaking; infinitesimal. However one should ask the question. Would a nucleon in a vacuum still fall by gravity? I predict it will; whereas an electron, graviton or a sub particle boson will not.

This theory of graviton induced gravity predicts that (contrary to the feather-lead experimental triteness taught to our children as fact) if a perfect experiment can be performed in a perfect vacuum here on earth, whereby you take two objects of widely dissimilar density (specific gravity) but of SIMILAR volumetric proportions; that the object with greater density will actually fall at a greater rate of acceleration than the other in a vacuum. This difference would be expected to be very small but it may possibly be measurable and also relative to specific heat in a possible inverse manner. (There he goes again arrogantly refuting Newton ! Not even the 'weak equivalence principle' is safe! OK; I thought that questioning anything and everything has scientific relevance: So in that case why don't you just prove me wrong! Note: I might question everything but I feel a great deal of limitation in my ability to find answers.

The trick is to ensure an absolute vacuum and perfectly simultaneous release which is in an engineering sense extremely difficult to achieve because of dissimilar weights. Simultaneous laser cutting of engineered dissimilar strings is still problematical. (Homework anyone?)

 

The dimensions involved interact via the branes and are subject to directions from the eos in the external space around nucleons which of course acts according to cosmean law and receives external data from analysis of sub atomic formations. The cosmea is fully and permanently active without restrictions according to the sum of cosmo-universal law. The dimensions then direct the particles, acting from the bottom up to engage in the behavior which is programmed into them by cosmean law. This probably obtuse gobbledygook type explanation just means that we simply end up with universal law. Note: The original structures which existed are cosmean structures and they cannot be replicated in the universe by any attempts at their creation.

The universal nucleon structures must be recognized as having been already existing. Nucleosynthesis doesn't imply the possibility or not of the legal ability for the creation of nucleons in the present universe. It is thought that Q-G plasma in the flares of black holes might be convertible to nucleons. I can only subjectively agree with that because I can't eliminate the possibility that micro black holes are not a component of those flares. If they are then nucleon formation s assured.

That being said; The eos can only rebuild particle structure dependant on certain criteria, being 1/ temperature and 2/ The availability of necessary sub quantum particles. Without these two criteria being met this theory suggests that decaying particles such as kaons may actually decay to an observed nothing only because they have nothing to attach to and they will be absorbed by the eos. I'm not sure but it remains possible that kaons are actually micro black holes (holes in the vacuum).

Don't worry; they have not actually decayed and 'energy' conservation has not been dealt a blow. This is likely to be because they have been in whole or in part instantaneously scavenged by the eos and (as previously explained) their 'energy' will be either re-scavenged by gravitons and photons or reconverted back in the form of more force sub-particles. However this force-'energy' matter cycle will continue only while the overall temperature of the universe remains within the operational window of the eos.

If that window should permanently close in the expected 'cold' direction in the distant future the universe would cool very rapidly to near absolute zero because the speed of light and field waves would soon become zero and no 'energy' would be transferable by photons and most of the gravitons in the universe would soon be captured by matter and remain as rest mass potential 'energy' until the GD was so low that the universe would devolve into a mist of very cold atoms (ions) which would finally be unable to emit or convect any 'energy' whatsoever!

Yes the universe is doomed to become a freezer at just above zero degrees Kelvin. However over the ageless eons the cosmea will eventually re-assimilate cosmo-universal matter by encroachment and the process is then able to begin all over again ad infinitum.

Remember E=mc2 is only actually correct when 0=0x02

Symmetry and anti-symmetry are not self deleting they are conditions of matter which could, if left to their own devises have resulted in an anti-universe. The fact that they have not done so is due to the eos defaulting in one direction which can't ever be reversed because of the required 'energy' having been lost by a toggling which occurred over a very short time period.

This is not a scientific 'paper' and because I imagine it would take a team of eminent physicists decades to comprehensively evaluate this theory, I can only present a simplistic overview of the construction of a nucleon and the dimensional shape shifting enabled by brane crossing to various dimensions, all of which may be interwoven within the nucleon dependant on its elemental nature.

To engage you in some reiteration; please remember that a graviton consists of a number of multiples of at least three individual force sub-particles, namely bosons: These are, Z-bosons, neutrinos and gluons. Quarks and leptons in turn consist of W-bosons, Z-bosons and gluons etc as previously described and because of a type of Yukawa interaction and they are by consequence elastically able to exhibit quanta stepped variable force value* and also (perhaps) some can be colored and given strangeness by a matter variation by determination of the eos in conjunction with other dimensions as stated, and this also being very dependant on temperature and mostly it is decay which is the observed result. Other particles such as hadrons, mesons, kaons and hyperons at higher matter levels consist of quark, gravitons, neutrinos and other force (gauge) bosons.

*This is because it might be concluded that the gluon trion-antitrion biracial force is directly proportional to PEP and QIP, and the Z-boson is responsible for elasticity and/or spin. I must admit that being a theorist is a bit like being a forensic scientist, in that conclusions are draw from clues. The clues in this case look reasonable for the conclusion I have drawn but I find it impossible to come up with any mechanics of such interconnection between biracial force, PEP and quantum integer steps; except of course under consideration of the clue left by my investigation of the connection between QIP/PEP and ohms law.

 

 All fermions consist of greater constructs of these sub-particles also. Although most of them do, bosons may or may not have anti-particles dependent on their dimensional relationship with the eos which as I have stated was capable of creating either a universe or 'antiverse', but once it toggled in one direction by some sort of dynamic symmetry breaking, the condition became irreversible and we have what we have; which is a true matter biased biracial universe, and this even in spite of the condition wherein the basic praetom and the current universal matter neutron are paradoxically antimatter biased by just one 'heavy' anti-neutrino*. The eos is however able to create and absorb antimatter states as transitional states to facilitate matter crossing of branes.

*The fact that that an anti-neutrino has more mass than a neutrino is a CPT violation, which has produced an objective and grave implication for mathematical Poincare symmetry grouping. Such vector groupings have been mathematically derived to try to overcome the obvious 'zero sum game' end product of omnidirectional-ism when applied to the Minkowski space related Lorentzian transformation symmetry manifold. S-rel didn't do it for Einstein and Poincare doesn't do it for Lorentz.

The astrophysics boys are still waiting? Look guys and gals! Forget about relativity. G-theory allows CPT violations. I mean you can't just make the violations go away by wishful thinking. While you hold on to relativity the problems will always exist.

 

In G-theory, two or three major deviations from standard particle theory are as follows: A photon quantum is considered to not be a fundamental boson even if it is the same 'size' as a boson. Only the force sub-particles and gravitons (by being the fundamental carriers of these) are bosons. A photon is a carrier of gravitons and it is not a force carrier in the same sense as fundamental bosons.

This says nothing about mass. P mass is consistent with the quantity AND connectivity of the trions within a particle. This is why an anti-particle is able to exhibit more 'mass' than its particle. In the same way a quark is able to have more P mass than a greater atom's N mass. This is because the N mass of an ion is not a summation of the P mass of its particles as you might think. Note: Refer to the chapter on the fundamental cause of mass.

Some other theoretical deviations or additions are the postulation that a magneton is a force boson interacting with strong nuclear force gluons, and a ramaton is a boson similar to a photon. These P and R particles are actually dimensionally shifted boson streams and yet (by multiplicity) they may actually be THE SAME SIZE AS THE PARTICLES THEY CONSIST OF.

Sub-particle trions are not limited to gravitons and gluons. They are utilized in every other manner which this theory postulates. Leptons do not consist of just trions which is the proposed case for gravitons; they consist of standard gravitons as well as individual and other combinations of bosons. A fundamental quark/quasi-graviton is also a boson by this theory. Higher level quark's linear differences exist because they are proposed to be in an intermediate color charge state between sub-quantum and quantum levels. Within protons, additional bosons may exist in other dimensions other than the femtospace, and this is fundamentally contributive to the natural characteristics of any given elementary atom.

The decay life of particles, bosons and sub-bosons is temperature related whereby in extremes of temperature consistent with levels in stars etc. and the very cold regions of space, such decay times can be very different than those which are observed locally, not only at STP but at the pitifully limited temperature range that we humans are able to actually observe and measure in. This includes the proposition that particle accelerators can't ever approximate phenomenologies that occur at real world temperatures. 

No problem exists (by euclidean space dimensional measurement) regarding the size of an object with relationship to the disproportionality to the value of any vibrational forces exhibited.

Temporarily disregarding graviton transitions and G mass, it can be concluded that within AMOs of different sizes but of the same element, the biracial forces involved will be directly proportional to the atomic density. This is because similar objects at rest at mutually similar but variant temperatures are able to exhibit differing intrinsic summative P mass within the quark lattice as (color charge) but still have a proportionally similar potential N mass which would be deemed to imply that a far more massive elemental AMO existing motionless in a stable GD would only be seen to require less binding force to hold it together once we allow G mass back into the picture.

This considers the atom to be in deep space and this suggestion would be because it would have a much larger GTD acting upon the atoms in an omni directional 'crushing' manner in proportion to the 'depth' within the body, and this would allow the existence of atoms of greater nucleon size, and allow a greater accumulations of neutrons in isotopes before the 'drip' point was reached.

Whether this could actually imply that extra periodic table heavier elements exist 'out there' or whether the opposite is the case in a massive GS such as near a black hole I really don't find necessary to address, because the G-man reasoning that objects have no actual 'mass' unless during a change of motion of some description (including temperature rise in otherwise unaffected AMOs) are already clear. Note: A photon falling into a black hole may be considered to have zero 'mass' at the event horizon unless the GS is greater than we can imagine. Then what we thought to be mass would be perturbative attraction. Speculation I will consider: If zero data is available; imagination comes under the heading of mind games. Whoops!

Any other discussion of force comes under the subject of the mechanics of force which is well explained by classical physics and to a different degree in other parts of this thesis.

 

 

 

A LITTLE PHILOSOPHY and LEGALESE:

 

 

The forces are not intelligent. They have done what they have done, and do what they do, and that's why existence is as it is and that's all!

The interactions of the universal forces are by cause and affect which because they have arisen out of symmetry; they cause limited patterns and symmetry within chaos. This is simply because the laws that the dimensions are controlled by, are interactively based an original cosmo-legal symmetry. How the original cosmea actually came from nothing is left to your imagination.

It has been previously stated that nothing occurs without a force being applied. This then leads to a subsequent chain of events. These event progressions are often treated as linear and open ended. This approach leads to the 'unreasonable' conclusion that the beginning and end of the occurrences can be thought to extend both forward and backward in time ad infinitum.

The following proposed event chain in no way supports relativity or linear eventuality, rather circular eventuality.

This may appear to be very subjective and even philosophical. To avoid the label of 'drivel' this then requires us to take a logical approach and reason that the events must occur in a closed and circular fashion, such that for example event 'a' causes event 'b' which causes event 'c' which in turn either causes 'a' to reoccur or a cessation of the event chain, however this then obviates the untenable idea that the event chain began from nothing and is therefore linear. This simplistic approach then becomes problematic by not addressing any expected value changes in terms.

The forces and events such actions cause, may be many and convoluted to the point of seeming chaos. The law derived from this is: The number of possible events cannot be infinite or the chain becomes linear and not possible.

For the requirement of non infinitum to be met, then the steps in the event chains MUST be incremental with time and value. This 'law' then becomes a cause of the theorized quantasized steps in all processes involving force above the level of the force particles themselves, whether currently measurable or not. This means that boson motion must be instantaneous and that can only occur inside the greater particle containment typified by a quantum boson or internally within a quark lattice femtospace; by the agency of the cosmea or other dimensions specifically qualified.

Within atoms, the quanta are divided by integer and particle specific sub steps which even extends conditionally downward to some fundamental levels of biracial force. Paradoxically, on the large scale they may appear to exhibit gradual change. This is because the small finite steps are lost in the size disparity and are mostly interpolated in observation and the idea of relativity then becomes subjectively plausible to the mind that only envisions the apparition of analogue phenomenology. This is even though the objective valuation sees a universe that's actually 'digital'.

This is why I envision the formation of Hilbert space containment cells for various packages of force particles based (quite) loosely on quantum harmonic oscillation theory. The smallest sub quantum value cell that we can imagine, is proposed to be a base level graviton or photon boson, however sub level quantum behavior could extend down to gluons and even biracial trions themselves. This even suggests that fundamental virtual forces themselves may be required to be quantized.

An any case when fundamental gluons combine and reach a certain integer number they may jump to the next and larger integer 'cell' at 'y' to help form a greater photon or ramaton. These can then form larger cells which make up stream packets being proportional to nucleon quantum number value sets. Non integer values are infinitely possible within all the particles, but they are unable to be processed or emitted except by BBR via the eos, yet they are able to be internally utilized through sub steps by the greater particles they exist in.

To underscore this: Many sub-particles remain to make up nucleons but they cannot be emitted to other nucleons unless they are in complete 'cells'.

There is one cause/affect paradigm which appears to be open ended, but which by the law above must turn out to be circulatory. It may seem to be of no consequence to not know the 'cause and end of everything'! But the law declares that the hyperverse has been made of stuff which must change (or attempt to change) from one set of forms to others in a continuing cycle even if never actually realized because of time or other constraints.

 

 

 

LAWS OF THE HYPERVERSE:

 

The postulated laws of the hyperverse (cosmo-universe in our case):

1/ (In a closed system): Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It may be transported with varying speed and particle density and at any relevant time it may conditionally be converted from one form to another.

2/ Cause and affect must be circular with a return over time which may be indeterminate, and it must occur with less than an infinite number of theoretically measurable steps. (This is impossible with relativity)

3/ Uncertainty exists with regard to the rest state or not of any object including a force particle.

4/ (notwithstanding law three): A force particle at rest contains potential force. Conversely a force particle in motion (within an AMO) contains kinetic force. A force particle may exhibit force even at rest. Force plus motion then results in 'energy' transfer and only conditionally exhibits 'mass'.

The smallest form of matter is a force sub-particle or sub-boson trion. These trions can be transformed by trion accumulation into other sub-bosons depending on the dimensional and temperature status of an atom or space. Trions bosons are virtually particles of pure (non vibrational) force. They are the fundamental matter building blocks of sub-bosons and responsible for 'mass' (TBE).

4/ Bosons with magnetic pole or charge sign do NOT attract or repel each other inside either a nucleon femtospace, or other greater bosons or gravitons. This is because notional charge sign and magnetic dipole sign does not actually exist within a femtospace. It is simply what we observe when bosons form up to align to their predetermined matrix or lattice force lines as the case may be in greater fundamental particles.

'Energy' is a fictitious concept in that there is not actually any 'energy' 'mass' equivalence; neither is there any real 'energy' 'matter' equivalence except for the action of force which consists of the interaction of/with objects and particles of matter. Notional 'energy' is simply the observability and measure of force to motion or temperature rise. So there only remains a notional force mass equivalence by spatial motion.

The term 'quantum 'energy' states' must be treated with a modicum of suspicion then, because nothing is likely to be able to provide such defined 'packages' of value except particles with defined size and force value. It must therefore be concluded that virtual value 'energy' particles don't exist, so 'actual' particles of matter that are able to exhibit a force must be the reasonably evaluated substance.

We should remember that a particle of matter at ground state has no 'mass' but it is proven to be an actual object of matter because combinations of such particles develop matter of observable size and characteristics. Significantly no 'energy' particle has ever been postulated to be able to do so with any plausible mechanics. Any supposed 'energy' matter transmutation in such a scenario must by reason occur through some unspoken mechanical magic!

The usual contrary position here is that everything actually somehow does consist of 'energy' 'stuff' and then we end up with a very short and circular argument which supposedly has scientific underpinnings! I have shown such a belief to be based on a questionable conclusion. In fact you will notice that because of this I have made a simple substantive change to one of the laws of thermodynamics. This is stated in law 'one' above in which the word 'energy' has not been blatantly substituted for 'matter' as is the case in the contemporary post Newtonian physics.

This is, in the end because of G-man's proposal wherein 'force being exerted against matter resulting in mass by motion' is the cause of 'energy' being the perceived result of the motion of the particles. I insist that in observable universal bosonic emissions this can only be as BBR or photonic thermal 'energy' or greater as a result of losses and not 'mass-energy' in either potential or kinetic form.

Ask yourself: what constitutes virtual forces such as charge and magnetism? At the moment this will have to remain rhetorical and the 'set' doesn't include 'virtual energy' which G-theory concludes is fictitious.

Physicists including Einstein have had, and still do to this day, no difficulty in conceptualizing the possibility of the existence of virtual energy stuff. They have voided the label of empiricism by subservience to this notion. Recently their modern counterparts have been driven by the peer driven mental pressure to finally relent. This is why modern physics is searching for sub fundamental particles (of 'energy') with great vigor. I would like to respectfully suggest that they back up a little and bark up a quite similar looking but fundamentally different species of tree.

Potential 'energy' then is actually virtual 'energy' and contrary to existing as such, it is simply the potential within force particles to be able to be moved or undergo motion relative change by the interaction of other virtual forces or with other force particles including their larger physical constructs such as an arm pulling back the rubbers on a slingshot, or you lifting or simply holding something. All potential 'energy' is pre loaded by the action of a historical force!

When two opposing and equal force particles act unidirectionally against each other, in theory twice the force is being exerted but no 'energy' is observed simply because there is no motion. When motion actually occurs in an object by elastic compression the 'energy' recognized is the real (not relativistic) value of the motion of the particle times its matter value and which is mistakenly called 'mass'.

In fact such a unidirectional action of fundamental particles is always accompanied by biracial force interaction. If you squeeze two such similar particles together you are preloading them with potential 'energy' which is the negative sum of the equal and repulsive biracial forces. Therefore they can be considered to have mass because it takes force to cause their motion but only with respect to a system of particles that are within range of the biracial force field. This means that the lowest order of fundamental particles also singularly possess no intrinsic mass or 'energy'. I.e. they do not exhibit M-E equivalence whatsoever.

For particles deemed to have no 'mass' then we can arrive at the simplified formula E=v (speed) which for sub bosonic particles we can equate (as has been already explained) to be close to E=mc2. What this is really saying is that if a sub particle is determined to have a speed of c2 then its mass is 'm'. So 'm' is actually potential speed which is related by resultant motion induced by a force to particle kinetic 'energy' (Ekp) which is the integer value of the force particle in motion and nothing else! Hereby we can truly prove that 'm' has nothing at all to do with intrinsic 'mass', weight or gravity and fundamental particle 'energy' is either potential or kinetic 'energy' as per classical physics.

Any declaration that 'energy' is able to be converted directly to matter, or even to mass is erroneous. I assert an affirmative No! Static 'energy' is the observation of the force (sub-boson) caused, time delineated step/s taken by bosons and larger objects to be formed into other particles consisting of those same bosons in differing arrangements such as photons etc. and it is only the 'energy' calculable by E=hf and almost correctly calculable by E=mc2 at quantum particle levels until spatial motion occurs.

Our problem as humans is an age old one; that of the common propensity of drawing false deductions from observations. This is similar to the flaccid conclusion whereby objects are thought to contain 'mass' and 'energy' because we can 'feel and see' what we think is mass and 'energy', so that then (by simplistic deduction) is what we call it. E.g. Weight, light, temperature and heat are other obvious candidates for this. Another common propensity is for humans to haply allow themselves to become slaves to peer commonality.

As previously stated; kinetic 'energy' is also a misnomer; it is actually the measure of the kinetic potential force of particles in motion. This also infers that 'force particle transfer' requires velocity shifts caused by perturbation with other bosons. The vibration of higher level particles and quanta is caused by the time delayed elastic process involved with force particles acting against each other in keeping their distance and relative position with regard to other bosons and/or their interaction with gravitons and other bosons moving with linear speed whilst not at the same time affecting quark lattice inelasticity.

The internally interactive sub-fundamental sub-particle cosmean virtual force is a derivative of the cosmea called cmf which is attempting to cause all bosons to move away from the universal state and back into the cosmean state. This subject and the constraints on such a possibility have already been addressed.

Having explained all of this at some length; I must now state that for most intents and purposes, the standard descriptions of 'energy' and the formulas so used, remain acceptable in our backyard. I am simply (I hope) describing a different mechanics which is attempting to tie the operation of the three concepts of force, 'energy' and matter together, and without the usual difficulties of unreasonable logic when conferring 'mass' on objects, and this is a theoretical paradigm shifted approach.

A real world example of the processes involved may be described by say a baseball hitter striking a ball which flies off somewhere into the bleachers or whatever. To enable the ball to be accelerated in such a manner there is a necessary 'release of 'energy'' in old school terminology.

This is actually caused by the motion of force particles acting against each other within and via their various constructs (being by extension) in the hitter's body, the bat and the ball, and even extending to the ground beneath his feet and the surrounding air and space. This results in the subsequent motion, actions and reactions.

Because this all occurs in real time there are consequent and varying time restraints (elasticity) placed on the motion of the force particles within all of the physical actions in the example. It takes little time for the force particle transference of velocity at the point if impact. This results in the rapid change of motion of a multitude of force particles from the bat to the baseball and it creates a hot spot on the bat and ball as well as heat convection and emission from the batter, and also into the ground etc, and it takes further time (because of extreme overall elasticity in the action and other reasons to be forthcoming) for the heat 'energy' to stabilize in the environment. Note: I have avoided words such as acceleration etc. in the interest if simplicity. 

It has been consensually and matter of factly assumed, that the hitter has used up 'energy' in the action. In actual fact he has really lost MATTER which must be replaced by matter. I.e. food! This matter loss is the amount of matter lost to the environment during and after the actions by force particle 'matter emission', convection and BBR transfer. It must be realized that he has not lost MASS except by loss of such matter, of course including sweat etc.

So then it can be seen that it's the motion of bosons or force particles (which are matter) which are the cause of 'mass' and not 'energy', which is simply the measure of the value over any time of the numerically evaluated quantum packets of 'force matter' doing work (moving).

Physicists continue to pander to the concept of 'energy' transfer. This is mainly because light appears to transfer 'energy' without any mechanical force being involved.  I intend to show that this is true in one sense, but only when the emission mechanics is disregarded and because the light is absorbed into the nucleus and potential force/'energy' is stored as a temperature rise and not as 'mass'*. This temperature is able to be converted to heat or electrical power which is able to provide the resultant mechanical force that had previously been stored. Ask any electric motor!

*We have already seen why this is not M-E equivalence by quark lattice phenomenology.

 

 More about this later, but now to a different subject: Strong nuclear force.

 

STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE:

 

I'm intending to initially address the subject of strong nuclear force by way of an appeal to reason:

If you are in any way a forensic physicist and not a university clone; Then why not subjectively compare the inverse cube law of flat faced magnetic attraction with the inverse square law of spherical coulombic charge repulsion and get an idea of how once a nucleus is formed that other nuclei can no longer get close enough because of coulombic repulsion in order for the (metaphorical flat faced magnetic force) SBF to be able to overcome it. Note: Remember, this is all being addressed at STP and in the case of a nucleon; magnetic force is directly replaced by biracial force or SBF.

The shattering of nucleons to create fission is only possible in the larger atomic (mass, weight, matter, or whatever) atoms because the strong nuclear force is weakened in an overall sense by reduction of  (flat faced) magnetic inverse cube law in relation to charge repulsion, which is further dis-enhanced by the multiple electron orbitals of such atoms which renders them as somewhat neutral objects to other atoms, This featured weakened strong nuclear force then causes them to become unstable.

I can envisage a problem proceeding from the fact that some physicists blithely combine electro-magnetism as one 'unit force' electromagnetic tensor and singularly refer to it as one of the four fundamental forces of interaction.

When dealing with an atom the electric charge force is often acting with repulsion at the same time that magnetic force is attracting, so how and why should they then be declared to be one force? I know relativity of course! I contend therefore that there are five recognizable fundamental forces.

I could also present the case that strong nuclear binding force is not some sort of residual force left over from the strong interactive force that binds the parts together inside a nucleon. According to G-theory the derivation of the biracially interactive strong force is the basic function of gluons as fundamental trion biracial pairs.

However it is a fact that flat magnetic attraction can exhibit itself by cubic (and possibly even fourth) power law over distance, and that the spherical coulombic repulsion law only operates according to inverse square law. This leads to something which may have been hidden in plain sight. NB: the inverse square law over increasing distance for a magnetic field is not the same as the similar appearing law involving a radial point source. The magnetic field is often distorted by the shape of the magnetized object by field lines emanating from poles whereas with an electrostatic field the force is summed to the virtual center of mass. This is what I am referring to as the 'flat faced' magnetic attraction which is the massively greater force noted to occur between two flat magnetic pole surfaces over two charge dissimilar cubes say.

Disregarding differences relating to size, there are three forces acting either within gravitons and/or singularly on nucleons in a nucleus. Firstly we have the strong bi-racial nuclear force. Secondly the magnetic force which is quite strong in attraction/repulsion to adjacent nucleons (causing dipole population positioning) but which weakens very rapidly over distance*. Thirdly the nuclear coulombic repulsive force (caused by protonic electrostatic charge similarity) which is too weak to overcome the strong magnetic force but at a particular distance from the nucleus it becomes the dominant force. These are SBF, g-factor and form factor respectively.

*For this magnetic force to have a case for weak binding force contention, it could be that the graviton has flat sides in some geometric arrangement or another, I cannot positively conclude any particular shape but I can imagine a square as being a strong contender. (caveat: Other possibilities exist).

 

There is a third force acting, which helps in a small way to keep the nucleus together I.e. GTD. It must be also taken into consideration that neutrons also have a magnetic dipole but they rely on their proton for coulombic charge repulsion. This then provides magnification of the third force being GTDg force which is responsible for G mass. Note: Magnetic fermion multi-pole and multi quark lattice entities are not out of the question for as long as they are able to exist.

If we consider ionized atoms without electrons (which we consider to have some minor binding affect as well) we can analyze their probable nuclear behavior with the following example.

Imagine two magnets stuck together by mutual attraction with two opposing rubber bands representing coulombic repulsion of all those positively charged protons. The magnets win the tug-of-war 'hands down'. If however we lever or force the magnet apart*, a point will be reached (which if you think about it we could call a toggle point because it works both ways) where the rubber bands have a strong enough force to overcome the 'flat sided inverse cubic' decaying magnetic force, and in an instant the magnets fly apart and are unable to be brought back together except by a greater external force that can overcome the coulombic repulsive force (rubber bands), and at this point in space time, normal GTD is too weak to do the job.

* As opposed to point source amperian loop magnetism.

 

This toggling affect works even if the inverse square law applies to both electrostatic and magnetic forces. However if that were to be the case then we would have a very different universe; if any. It's OK in theory to imagine a point emission source magnetic flux. Unlike electrostatic and gravitational flux, point source magnetic flux doesn't exist and the second one above is only an illusion. Even in fermions it is a magnetic dipole which is to be evaluated as still having polar separation so the amperian loop model doesn't apply.

The relativistic math is fine but it has to be fitted to the nucleonic reality with a 'crowbar'! Purist mathematicians get the hell out of physics! Your assumptive mathematical subjectivity is not wanted*. The idea of the relativistic duality of the electrostatic and magnetic forces now becomes even more recognizable as a true absurdity. It's not that I've got any real problem with the awkward math; it's just that relativists (subliminally if not outwardly) present the math as somehow being the 'virtua-empirica' of emf propagation. One again we have a virtual reality presented in place of substantive causality and now in transparent promotion of the case for G-theory it becomes reasonable to suggest that relativistic mathematics should be driven out of physics with the 'big stick' of true empiricism which demands physical causality.

*This is a pointed 'dummy spit'. Mathematicians have done a stellar job with much of the analysis of quantum functions and the compilation of experimental data in that endeavor is truly mind blowing. All we need now is a unification of parts.

 

This is how nuclei are 'split' during fission; notwithstanding that gluons (read trion pair bi-racial force particles) would be reckoned to have a superior role in mediation of the strong force interaction. This is also the principle reason that protons cannot bind together because they are unable to approach close enough to the higher power law attractive nucleon binding force because of the coulombic repulsive force which is by inverse squared power law and so there is no force available in our world capable of achieving the creation of (real) protonium.

While I have no problem with quantum electrodynamics (because the activity occurs inside of quantum particles); I do have a problem with the idea that a magnetic field and an electrostatic charge can combine in space to form an electromagnetic field. This can only occur within a conductor.

The idea that electron behavior in a magnetic field proves the existence of the Lorentz force derives from a complete misrepresentation of an electron as being a spinning charge particle. There is no definable mechanics for an electron to either produce or be affected by a magnetic field by having intrinsic spin. Once again I stress that there is no mechanics of physics which is able to show how a point source charge is able to produce a magnetic field by auto spinning. You have to take that on faith. If you want to have faith then I suggest that church is the place for that and not the science lab! This is not similar to the sometimes necessary and legitimate acceptance of an unknown mechanics; it is a blatant deference to impossibility.

The idea that an electron spiraling around a field line somehow produces synchrotron radiation is dealt with in the subject listed under that heading.

This brings me to the problematical 'action at a distance force' which is noted as a time delayed feature (at 'c') of both electrostatic and magnetic fields. This phenomenon they have in common with gravitational, electron-photon, proton-photon and nucleus-electron mechanics among others.

The gravitational force has been dealt with in this thesis. If that force is able to be reduced to the action of invisible particles acting under the precepts of the cosmea, eos and gravitos dimensions, then it stands to reason that these other 'force at a distance' phenomena could also be explained by such particle dynamics as suggested elsewhere in the thesis. This predicates that singular charge and magnetic fields do not propagate in the same manner as an electromagnetic transmission. This makes them two different phenomenologies. Refer to the relevant section.

By way of returning to the thread; I admit that the previous explanation was hypothetical and rather simplistic but I will propose a different and more realistic mechanism shortly.

Consider the probability that at the first instants of creation gravity (GD) became a very extreme force for long enough to thrust nucleons together which then became bonded by gluons, and they then remained in the SBF bound state even after GD decayed. If this should be true; how can we then explain large AMO masses of elementally similar atoms?

It could be that at the creation event: Hilbert space sets were being caused by electromagnetic force interference, (Yes the two forces of charge and magnetism can and do interact in a positive manner). creating nucleon positioning matrix patterns which would have had to have been acting in aperiodic symmetry* in order for nucleons to be forced together in similar sized groups.

Everything else followed as previously described. To put it simply: At the moment of creation, the universe experienced incredible temperatures of varying magnitude causing random diffusion of cosmean matter, and as previously explained, nucleons developed from their cosmean counterparts.

*Because of the theorized pre-existing cosmean crystalline geometry. Nucleon crystal matrix arrangements will be addressed further on. I have also hypothesized a novel matter condensation mechanism in a later chapter.

 

To simplify and readdress this: The forces holding nucleons themselves together is considered to be by the arrangement and quantity values of biracial weak force bosons intrinsic to the nuclear quark lattice!

In analyzing the fundamental forces, the subjective evaluation of comparative strengths is not valid because of the previously stated variations in the extent of the different force fields and the fact that as well as that, variations in causality and dimensional status result in variations in power law effect as described above. However we are able to draw some conclusions from phenomenology but when considering the G-theorized cause of gravity we find it is actually a very strong force in tension which (when thus analyzed) comfortably sits within the comparative range of the other fundamental forces.

I have beaten my brains enough to get to this point. What I would like to see is some real physicists running with this, and hopefully in the end enabling currently unheard of technologies to be developed.

This kind of paradigm shift may seem pompous or frivolous or even be considered to be superfluous and a waste of time. My answer to that is: If any highly advanced technologies (for instance 'transportation of matter or antigravity hyper speed drives)' are ever able to be even contemplated, the science for such incredulous undertakings may need to be exactly understood in the first place. Notwithstanding this I realize that many technological discoveries have come about by fluke and experimentation, but advancement in scientific knowledge may be undervalued at our own peril.

Science is not really interested in why things are, rather how! The reason for knowing how is to perhaps enable positive interference into processes even further than we have historically been able to. The reason for the quest for a formula for everything is to enable exact calculations or predictability of probable outcomes of definable human interference in such processes.

The only way to arrive at the 'formula for everything' is to correctly analyze the behavior of each dimension with its interaction with other dimensions. This may be even more problematic than trying to derive a formula which will result in a computer program that can enable totally predictable weather forecasts and weather system tracking accuracy.

Regardless of how daunting the task may have appeared, such inherently obvious problems have been no impediment for intrepid meteorologists. Those leading scientists have persisted in the face of palpable frustration, but regardless of the ridicule and failure of many of the various models, they have in true scientific fashion amalgamated substantive algorithms, and even though not having yet arrived at the 'holy grail' they nevertheless have models that for the most part are becoming more reliable as time passes, leaving red faced critics in their wake. Unlike a few decades ago; we no longer 'toss a coin' at the weather forecast.

So I ask you to--- "Take a look at my girlfriend. She's the only one I' got!" ---Supertramp.