u probably need to know


G-theory   ©




Physics is bogged down in the mire of a classical and related post Newtonian understanding of the universe. We need to readdress first principles.


It would probably be fair to say that many physicists consider the identifying and analysis of significant fundamental sub particles as being the doorway to greater understanding. This is true to an extent but there is a substantial bulwark standing in the way of understanding. The problem is that the known classical laws of physics have to a large degree been historically based on macro observances. We need a new science which develops laws and understanding from a bottom up analysis rather than the top down and correlate where possible.

If you were to skip to the back of the book you might consider this writer to exhibit a facile understanding of the physics that ya'all hold to with an education and stifling consensual intransigence. However I trust that won't be the case for the few but I'll still give reasons why perhaps that might be a hasty conclusion

Understanding per se is based upon subjective analysis and deductions drawn from observations. In this way we arrive at notional solutions and hopefully reach a consensus over time. If a timely consensus is not reached then we have a problem. That's exactly what we have now in Physics going forward.

No matter how entrenched it is; rather than blindly accepting the problematic status quo let's question with an open mind and take a look at the traditional fundamental subjectivisms of classical and by conditional extension, quantum physics and mechanics and compare those with the following notional solutions drawn by G-theory specifically from observable/detectable fundamental particle derivatives as they relate to the greater universe and the post Newtonian metric.

I will list these newly proposed subjectivisms from the bottom up in a-priori order beginning at one.

1/ there are only two fundamental conditions within the universe; existence and non-existence being depicted as matter and the empty vacuum respectively.

2/ there are four  notions; time, energy, mass and force (including fundamental, virtual, perturbative, collision, inertial and other real forces). This also includes various kinds of energy and mass. Time is the only stalwart. It is a singular constant. Any other notion is just a mind game.

3/ there are also several   concepts; laws, temperature, instantaneous states, fundamental biracial and uniracial charges, positions and also observational concepts relating to spatial displacement (motions).

4/ then we have attributes: Attributes including coulombic charge and magnetism (a collusion of biracial fundamental dipoles causing the derivation of Coulombic and magnetic force) are simply combinations of and relationships between the preceding subjectivisms and there is no need to list them. Note: the fundamental biracial charges are notionally forces.

5/ following that we have characteristics which are either misnamed attributes or just higher order attributes.

Any idea that time can be warped or stopped or different in other locations is probably absurd! That idea derives support from the other ridiculous idea of a space-time continuum which in itself is just a human invention. To understand this, you need to consider that in order for such a concept to even be contained by anything in the universe it requires intelligence aligned with existensional thought, which only applies to animal life and especially human life. Although the concept is out of reach of the animals, the necessary requirement for intelligent beings is for memory and anticipation. Without those two abilities the continuum is factually non existent. Therefore it's just a mind game.

To every particle in the universe there is no concept of either space or time. The only position and time ever realized is here and now! Any given instant in time is the same as any other instant anywhere else because nothing has memory or anticipation (not including change being registered as data memory.)

Relative time deviation relies on the idea that occurrences and the actual physics may take place in another place in the universe at a different rate and that would mean that compared to ours their clocks would be different. Without any phenomenological basis that should be considered to be just a useless philosophical concoction. In any case--- what has that got do with us even if it were possible? In fact nobody yet has been able to give one shred of proof that such a thing is able to be the case, Not even G-theory which is just a theory. Without any reasonable argument for a jurisprudent physical reason such a time change actually requires a similar distortion and violation of the interrelating and connecting universal laws. This actually negates the possibility of any subjectively proposed time deviation such as that offered in STR. It ' s all in the mind and weak ones at that! Note: With the new G-theory understanding of physics such mind games are not required to explain anything. Please read on.

Such an idea is so stupid that if you take it to its logical ends you could have the situation where one place in the universe is just beginning whilst another has already ended. That ' s OK if you choose your places carefully but it can ' t be arbitrary. Who does the choosing YOU? G-theory gives a physics-legal reason which keeps the phenomena within reasonable bounds proportional to the general gravity states in the universe.

Apart from time; the only pre-eminently and continuing existence is that of matter and force but surprisingly not energy and mass. These two notions are just elicited by the action of force on matter. Force has notionally instantaneous rise and fall time from wherever it emanates. Like matter it is always in existence (it just changes conditionally by motions of charged matter) and it is the prerequisite notion for energy and mass to be exhibited or realized. Note: Refer to the 'Lorentz-Maxwell...' tab for an expanded proof of the veracity of this contention.

The only substantive, tangible, observable, detectable and conceivable notion of actually 'real stuff' which exists in the universe is matter . Energy is just the conditional measure of appreciable motions of matter by the agency of force/s and it travels with matter through all its decays, annihilations and recombinations as a similarly conditional quantitative measure of matter but not mass; though disproportionate and variable. Energy is conserved!

Traditionally and speciously this measure has all been based on a single value of a fundamental particle, and it applies to the concept of fundamental coulombic charge. So the eV is then mistakenly thought to be a unit of 'energy'. However not all energy is able to be measured and M-E equivalence is even unable to take on the appearance of kinetic energy equivalence to mass to be a fact. MEE is even able to be disproved at the quantum level and that has been achieved in the G-theory thesis. For that reason m=eV/c2 -although useful is invalid science in G-theory.

Mass and energy have a strong symbiosis of sorts but there are energetic particles which have no mass yet energy is unable to be derived without the notion of mass so such a relationship isn't reversible. Energy is able to exist without mass and mass isn't able to exist without the action of force and force is able to be a substituted for energy in an out of parity situation. So by extension the notional appearance of mass by the action of a force is able to be a substitute for energy that's all. So M-E equivalence is OK in principle but as law---no!

Any conceptual ambiguity between matter and energy (as well as mass etc.) must be strongly resisted because we are not ghosts we live in a universe of concrete substance*. However it should be understood that we can't see, feel, observe or detect all existing matter. Note: If you have a problem with any of this at this juncture; please take time out to read the footnote

*Reverse logic is not at all a useful tool; it is one of the reasons they used to lock people away in asylums!


Reiteration for hopeful clarification: 'Energy' is neither directly nor proportionally relatable to 'mass' with any exactitude. In addition to the reasons given in the footnote; This is logically because some matter appears to have no mass, which is only because of such matter's lack of exhibiting the notion of force (e.g. thermal particles, neutrinos etc). This leads us to follow now with the subject of mass: 'Mass' is the measure of the force evidenced or threatened by an object, being evaluated by its relative motional condition (velocity) or higher 'energy' state. I.e. the object might even 'appear' to be stationary or at notional rest or even at ground state.

All objects at the very least contain potential for force because subjective motionlessness doesn't factually exist by reason that other objects are always moving with relative motion to the supposed motionless object, so physical and virtual force collisions are always threatening. We misrepresent this stored potential force within all objects, and call it potential energy in objects being withheld and kinetic energy carried by objects in motion. Unfortunately for that classical assessment; all objects are in relative motion, so except for a surprisingly phenomenal number of disobedient particles they all have potential force, and any notion of kinetic energy is motional reference frame relative so it can't exist. Only the fundamental forces stored in an object are available for use regardless of any relative motion of objects.

In light of the preceding we are able to forensically deduce that all higher generational objects must exhibit a disproportionate mass compared to their actual matter content*. So because energy is the measure of the motion of all perceivable matter rather than 'mass' there can be no M-E equivalence and eV cannot be a unit of 'mass' by m=E/c2, and as we have just seen, observable matter content is unable to be the measure declared to indicate total 'energy' in the classical sense. Note: These two ideas M-E-E and the related eV along with E=mc2 are both resoundingly disproved in the featured thesis.

*refer to 'The Newton- KgF enigma' tab.


Classical 'energy' and hence observable matter can only be measured as one Joule being derived by one kg moved (with a continuous force) over a distance of one meter, and conditionally per second*. However as we will see in the thesis; that idea (even though useful, is also sneakily specious because all of our traditionally accepted units such as the joule are also based on the higher order classical physics which is in particular based on a dualistic system of measurement of objects either being pushed sideways or vertically as falling or being lifted in Earth's gravitational field, as though that is somehow decided to be the standard state for universal comparison, which opinion is somewhat akin to the ancient idea of terra-centricity. We must conclude that this classical 'energy' doesn't account for a great deal of the actual energy content when it is derived from E=mv variants. That even includes E=mc2 where E is just a concept and not even a notion. (Refer to the above and the footnote).

*When we consider -in the electrodynamics case- the energy available from the motion of electrons/ions; the kg becomes replaced by coulombs and one joule is now a quantity consisting of one coulomb of electrons  'usually per second' in a conductor or beam. E=mv for the classical case but E doesn't equal E=mv2 in either the gravitational or the electrodynamics case. So why E=mc2? The surprising proportionality relationship between the two is pi. Refer to the Newton's hack tab.

Notwithstanding this; the results of what we are able to perceive, measure, produce or use of energy in the classical physics are fine for general use on an earth bound daily basis, just don't try and apply that to an atomic bomb. The Joule unit is OK but the perception of total 'energy' content being described by a classical physics derived Joule within all (especially higher generational) objects is flawed.

Quantum physics understands this part but I declare that quantum physics must be far more particular and critically definitive than that. We do well to recognize that not all the laws of the quantum world are compatible with the laws of classical physics. However we can't be arbitrary about this just to make excuses for our theories. There must be true phenomenology to explain it. G-theory provides the whys as well as the solutions to the enigmas.

Force is the measure of the notion of 'mass' or the conditional potential for the exhibition of mass by any given object of matter by way of (threatened or actually affecting)- (real or virtual forces) in relative motion. If no motion occurs then the realization of the existence of an affecting force is not possible. This affecting can be individually considered with regard to mechanical, virtual and perturbative forces. There is however another phenomenon noted in consideration of the latter which conditionally dis-relates 'mass' from perturbative force at the fundamental sub quantum level as well, and that noteworthy feature is the realization that perturbative forces don't necessarily predicate an exhibition of mass in a particle even though it always affects the particle's quantum state and that same particle might exhibit mass in a case of a gravitational force but not a perturbative or inertial force. Note: Refer to tab 10 to understand how this actually contributes to the slower gravitational acceleration rate in gravitational free-fall.

So there goes F=ma, E=mv and even the eV and the much beloved E=mc2; the latter being only an 'almost' adjustment for quantum applications. The corrected unifying energy equation which applies to all objects and bodies has been derived in the thesis in terms of eJ only -which of course will need related terms in micro, pico etc- In fact in that regard it is actually a matter-content equation. 'E' is just the term used for old time's sake. Note: of course these equations are fairly useful in typical usage.

This all means that the mass of an object is excruciatingly-problematically less than its matter content would predict, especially for mechanical considerations. This is by reason of the far greater quantity of particles (which contribute to energy but don't always contribute to 'mass')* within protons than ever thought possible. Hence we can note the sub quantum physics observation of severe and illogical 'mass' relationships and also the necessity for the arbitrary fudging formula E=mc2. Note: E could equal mass times the number of heartbeats the average human has over a lifespan squared and still be usable to a similarly erroneous extent!

*Refer to tab 10


Under the authority of precedence, this continuing assertation also predicates a rewrite of another law of physics in particular which is only applicable to sub quantum particles. I.e. with just a term change... here we go:

"the matter of sub quantum particles can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another". With one foul swoop 'energy' becomes a secondary but related notion which is also but now only conditionally true for particles -no matter what their other attributes- because the classically supposed subjectivism of that law empirically applying to 'energy' is not fundamentally correct because all particles don't posses mass .

"Stop right there" I hear you all saying... "If neither mass nor matter are made out of energy then how was any of it able to arise from nothing?"

Answer, without being philosophical: "Because it is nothing! Matter is simply the product of the undetectable* uniracial sub fundamental charge of the smallest concept; the 'trion'. If all the biracial (particles anti-particles) in the universe were to come together with their true cousins and annihilate each other then the universe would simply vanish!"

"OK smarty pants; what's preventing that status?"

Answer: "I don't know, they're God's particles; ask him."

"We can't do that! But what you are saying means that such a biracial trion pair sub-sub-boson must be the fundamental particle at the lowest non-vanishing point of particles and it must also be the building block of all 'conceivable' matter."

I apologize; I don't suspect He'll be calling you with the answer any time soon. That was just a rhetorical question from sarcastic origins: Things sometimes need to be pointed out in literary parenthesis like that. In this case, under the current paradigm such things are truly ludicrous so now we are forced to conclude that like 'energy', 'mass' also has no place in that energy (or the matter version) conservation law whatsoever and all things need to be brought back into the fold of reason and even if particles are made form pre universal 'non physical stuff'--- that doesn't mean that particles in our universe are not matter because they are and always will be while they reside therein even if they temporarily vanish into the vacuum*.

If the new science seems to be a bit weird, isn't that better than assumptive, ludicrous, absurd, irrational and whacky? Look; we humans like to wonder and muse but don't do it for too long or such behaviour might become considered to be in the same league as disconcertingly long navel contemplation!

*When I consider it undetectable, it's because the matter is the detection mechanism itself. Gravity is the same; it is only detectable by weight, orbits and quantum states. The fact that particles have been observed simply appearing from nowhere and disappearing as well doesn't void that particular law as re-stated in the new -matter- form. Where they go to and return from will be explained in the thesis. Photons are speciously considered to be particles of 'energy' which supposedly have no mass, which notion is inadvertently but directly disallowing any possibility for M-E equivalence at all and by extension E=mc2 . Otherwise- now we have it that 'energy' is just velocity is it?

So as proposed in quantum mechanics; detection (measurement) is actually an interference in the state. Just observing is detection and data has been sent and received as quantum data and not just mental data. The quantum data probably is the mental data. So there is a quantum connection between our eyes brain and the eos. It must be so but I can't go any further with that because there is just not enough information yet. It's just an out there speculation.


As far as the other laws of classical physics go, most of them are upheld in standard particle physics but they should also be inspected with an eye for other pre-eminent fundamental laws as derived in the G-theory thesis. Quantum laws are able to be unified with classical laws by the derivation of such other prevenient laws being combined with laws of logic along with the known laws of physics, with the hopeful end being; unified laws having full relevance to both the classical and quantum physics. If that sounds circular; it is: however such total interconnection represents a definable unification. No other unification is possible without such a precursor legalistic cohomology as found in G-theory.

'Mass' at the quantum level has little to do with the observed masses of atomic matter objects (AMOs) and apparently little to do with arithmetic. For instance take the following example whereby a Z boson decays into a muon pair... Z boson mass is 91.19MeV/c2 ---each muon mass is 105.7MeV/c2! That's problematical enough but the muon mass is hundreds of times greater than an electron mass yet the W-boson is derived from an electron-positron antiparticle decay. What the--?

Consider also other quantum arithmetic: I choose to disagree with Feynman. "Nature is not absurd; applied quantum mathematics is!"

I can see why he must have thought nature to be so, because during B-ve decay, in the process of transformation of a udd weighted neutron to a uud weighted proton; how you can get a -1/3 charge down quark to decay into a +2/3 up quark and end up with a -1 charge d-u (the -u is actually not u) -ve electron and a neutral anti-neutrino is beyond me and (I strongly suggest) classical arithmetic! I know the sums add up in totality but not in the analysis of the decay products! There is obviously something very wrong with the particle structures of the currently proposed standard model and therefore it should be open to reasoned questioning.

Modern quantum physics is definitely in a pickle: The sums simply don't add up. And even more embarrassingly; some substantively massive particles turn out to have excruciatingly small actual mass when compared to some supposedly smaller sub particles. The whole mathematically enshrouded 'discipline' is flailing around in a quagmire of inconsistency. Discrepancies abound; mass seems to not actually be mass, and energy is not really energy. Virtual and disappearing particles are a feature, and some as large as protons just seem to appear out of the 'vacuum'. Others are declared to be 'created' in any given inexplicable sub quantum process! As well as that; specific gravity, specific heat and atomic mass relationships demonstrate wide anomalies which I have also brought back into the fold of reason.

The quantum mechanics idea of energy propagation as waves of 'stuff' as wave particles duality or wave function for Q states or whatever is not possible otherwise the energy transfer would also necessarily transfer a proportional amount of mass and that is not the case so the transfer of energy must only be by the transfer of particles by force, some of which are exempted from exhibiting mass by multiplex relationships explained in the thesis. Note: The revolutionary and fact fitting G-theory thesis is available free and with full confidentiality via the contact tab, or from this website if you prefer to copy and paste.

It seems that many consider that when it comes to their pet theories that if they know a really, really lot about stuff then the few remaining bits they don't understand (even if they are in obvious refutation of their theory) are able to be confidently ignored as being of no consequence. In other words- Don't let annoying things such as facts stand in the way of a good theory! Such people will tend to reject everything in here outright because they are fully and dogmatically embarked on an endless journey of proving other such refutable theories regardless of any empirical headwinds they may be encountering.

Enough of waxing philosophical: Under G-theory; bosons and other sub quantum particles such as leptons and some basic fermions are fully able to exhibit varying masses with proportionality to their multiplex state (tensor status). Basically this is dependent on their biracial charge relationships. This of course means that bosons and some mesons, baryons, leptons and fermions like quarks may actually all be of the same construction but  differences are then relatable to multiplex positioning and roles are decided by brane locations which are variously introduced on a case specific basis by an unknown mechanics possibly by way of a complex interrelated and built in program based on cause and affect inputs and outputs via biracial charge data. Note: Much more to come by way of explanation.

Such a program is likely to be relatable to the clinical order and complexity of the cosmea (pre-universe) and based on the first law of the cosmea: "Repair me now! Now I said!" The long lived universe is the result of that ongoing and seemingly impotent attempt. (...tongue twister huh?). The atomic and reflected crystalline structures, or the remnants of that pre-existence is where we can go to for clues as to why nature seems to have chosen constants, forces, states, interactions and boundaries which keep otherwise unstable particles together as not only a functioning quantum world but miraculously the whole universe itself.

Many of the resulting particles from such interactions are observed to have masses and decay/annihilation behaviours whereby they are able to be identified and named. Even though in one specific case the usual production mechanics is electron positron annihilation; a bottom quark in another dimensional state might become a W boson say, yet in turn the W boson is unable to decay into a top quark even, but only into neutrinos quarks and various fermions. Yes. The search is on to find out if the W boson can actually decay into a bottom quark. G-theory suggests it can.

Apart from such strange interactions, the standard quantum model is fairly compelling as a structural basis by any reasonable assessment of its individual parts. Science appears to be spellbound and happy to study those parts to death; all the while hoping that someone will come up with the seemingly impossible unification of the parts into a congruous whole. In consideration of the massive number of non intuitive proposals inherent in the quantum models and with those being thrown into further disarray by quantum mechanics, the mind cringes at the very thought. However in the G-theory thesis I have attempted to do just that.

I would dare to say -after arriving at a fair modicum of success- that G-theory (non relativistic) multiplex tenets are imperative for any hope of finding such unification in a model that even approaches making any sense at all. The G-theory proposal of allowing particles to have many levels of conditionally relatable space time co-inhabiting existence by the phenomenology of vacuum modification takes a huge load off any mind attempting to comprehend everything in a single physical dimension structure. Even playing with the dimension of time is not able to provide answers. The main reason for that is; time is not a dimension. Things are starting to become intuitive again.


Epilogue followed by a short thesis extract

I dare say that no real sense can be made of the current models which propose 'fictitious' forces and also don't care much for simple arithmetic and empiricism. Although my steed is saddled with empiricism and turned by reigns made of laws, I have taken heart at the evident disarray and have charged -albeit somewhat tentatively- into the fray: Wildly waving my rusty sword like a madman (likely more blunt than rusty) to bamboozle the hordes in my path, I have valiantly slashed and burned my way to the heart of the problems and for the most part resolved the answers to the four fundamental questions; and thus provided a homology (homogony?) for the various arms of physics. And this all at the same time as attempting to deliver the beginnings of a unification framework for the standard quantum theory.

Within the proffered thesis I have mostly kept the analyses and assertations under the auspices of the traditional understanding of terms but as the thesis progresses I begin to weave in these G-theory terms and definitions. At all times the new regime of understanding must be kept in mind to enable any sense to be made at all. This also necessitated a somewhat awkward approach to the presentation of subjects which may otherwise appear unrelatable.

G-theory will also provide a multiplex phenomenology for the well known quantum parity violations. This should remove those otherwise contradictory violences to the precepts of the standard quantum theory from successfully threatening that model in the end; which model in fact I uphold as being substantially correct but in need of 'slight' adjustments.

Other noted particle-physics problems regarding 'mass' have already been appreciably solved in just these few paragraphs and there is no further need for super-symmetry theory or any other fanciful theories which can show no mobile-mass-inertial-dragging capability. I find plausibility in the standard theory which becomes revamped and 'empiricized' in G-theory.




The QUANTASIZATION of orbitals is caused because the phononic Hilbert set's harmonics cause the nodes to be 'digitized'.

I mentioned the operative term 'shift registered' before, which might have been a clue (especially when you add in 'the god code') that unlike the current quantum theories which are analogue, G-theory is 'digital'. It is also based on almost rigid structure rather than nebulous analogue  wave particle duality and wave functions per se. It is a system where fundamental positives and negatives become ones and zeros. A nucleon is in effect a processor and an analogue to digital converter. The electron is a local 'atomic mother board' relative E-bit, while neutrinos, photons and ramatons form data streams which are converted to analogue data for real world apps. Other digital virtual force data becomes analogue in the macro world by way of standard digital phenomenological round offs, and statistical blurring as well. As we have already seen in another chapter, it is the gradual digitizing of analogue data as we move from 'that' world back to the quantum world which causes limitations to Vdd minimums in 'that' real world's digital circuits.

Ask yourself: How can digital functions arise from an analogue system? Analogue functions are able to be naturally derived from a digital system by elastic averaging in higher order processes but not visa versa unless forced. How does your standard quantum model AD converter work? This is a profound and serious model threat to the traditional understanding of quantum physics. Digitization or QIP without rhyme or reason is a serious threat to the -auto-play- idea of the running of the universe.

I guess the wave function Hamiltonian would have to be either by duty-cycle or a count process. Of course this new idea is just as complex as wave function physics but its actually multiplex rather than magical. That AD process seems to be the most difficult to imagine but then if particles are able to be 'shift registered' and space-time overlapped by dimensional agency we might just have a brave new world to explore and quantum computing might be resolved around that existing quantum data rather than forcing data at our own arbitrarily determined rates through qibit gates etc. The quantum bit is already there; go work with it!

If you wish to continue with quantum mechanics wave function physics; even though it has been already shown (and you likely know) that mass and energy are not fully related then please be my guest and- Good luck with that magical mass derivation from the energy wave-function! Show me the anchor. There must be a drag anchor for mass to function in any inertial manner. That's an obvious fact to any thinking person. I have derived an anchor that is mathematically sound, and every particle that exhibits mass is tied to it whether moving or not. Note: This is fully explained in the thesis.

There is obviously no hope for the unification of parts you seek in the direction that physics has taken you. You have discovered the Higg's boson. Now what? There is no answer to the symmetry violations. In fact quantum physics has accumulated an astounding file of knowledge. What to do with it? You can't answer the fundamental questions with it. In fact by being a false paradigm it raises new questions regarding gravity, and necessitates inventions such as dark matter/energy and super partners etc that don't actually exist and are not needed for explaining anything at all because if you see it all the right way there is no problem.

Yes there are future problems down the road but how about we get down the road first?! The bugger's bogged. Let's push together, get the thing out of the ditch, start 'er up and take the road less travelled... Oh, what's that? You're fine with the ditch because you can't see any further than that!?

OK. I think I get your point. Electronics has indeed given us awesome technologies.

So Yes I agree with that and can understand why you might want to push further into that ditch but consider other technologies that are coming to the fore utilizing the new quantum fields, MRI. PET, and even x-rays in the field of medicine. I know of other technologies that used to require labor intensive advanced electronic devices that even though seemingly awesome in their own right, turn out to have very limited capabilities compared to the new-age quantum field devices that might for instance utilize the Schumann resonant 'noise' along with the body's own internal 'bio rhythm' (quantum field) to easily outperform the comparative processor controlled electronic device to a seemingly miraculous degree.

Such technological advances as these are the technologies we have missed out on early but which are now beginning to come to the fore. Yes we need to get the physics buggy out of the ditch and on down the road to chase the technologists down, and stop sitting around chewing on mud soaked laurels we found lying around down there.

It turns out that many seemingly esoteric observations have a very scientific cause. This includes such historically maligned devices as prayer and receiving answers. I can personally attest to that. The transmission and reception is true and valid. Just because you haven't personally discovered a technology yet doesn't mean anything to those who have.

Sceptics beware! The electronic engineers who maligned the device just mentioned (because their -learned- knowledge disallowed such a thing) are now choking on a large meal of humble pie! The future goes to those who dare and care.




The permanent difference between ENERGY and MASS.


Energy is the measure of motion with respect to the universal reference frame (URF). It is an absolute which can be measured by E=mv (variants) and E=Hf (variants) with reference to the URF.

Mass is the measure of the conditional release of any portion of said energy as a transfer of motion between particles by force (and against force) with respect to the local reference frame as perceived by an observer. So the amount of energy transfer is only relative to the locally restricted (by RF velocity constraints), transferable content of energy by m=F/a.


From the above we can see that mv=hf (sort of) so m=hf/v when a particle becomes fully absorbed by a larger object; or by m=E/v + F/a for a larger more complex object which becomes totally absorbed. I.e which has it's full energy absorbed in a larger object with respect to the local reference frame (being that of the larger body/object).


Energy is an absolute quantification while mass is relative. If we do relate mass to energy as a (relationship only) at the local level then the value of mass will NOT reflect the total energy contained in the particle or object because of their velocity of motion in the URF. This presents a problem for our earthbound science because the two are not co-interrelatable. But wait: What about a convenient relativistic fix?


Well I guess if you're that addicted! But that isn't necessary and the reading of the relevant law should remain- Energy can neither be created or destroyed, it may only be transformed from one form (of energy) to another-. AND NOT TO MASS per se. even at the quantum level. Energy is NOT a wavelet or wave particle. That idea is specious and has been easily debunked in other sections.

The idea of different forms of energy then, is the subjective recognition of motional energy being transformed to other motional energy even at the quantum level.


If you have the correct understanding of these fundamental definitions there is no need for the specious idea of M-E equivalence.

This idea has had to be concocted because of relativity which muddles up the URF and the LRF relationships.


Don't be so concerned with the inability to reckon absolute energy values. Not everything is knowable. When you're slamming particles together in an accelerator then please consider that the measurements you get are close enough to relate to local RF mass for all intents and purposes (however un-relatable they may be with respect to our everyday low 'energy' temperatures and reference frames).




Relativity needs to be consensually debunked and done away with. The mass measured in our galaxy may be the only thing that's not necessarily the same in another galaxy. If that seems to be a problem going forward then it's just not science to concoct a solution out of thin air just to make the problem go away. You'll look pretty funny hopping out to push your star ship when you arrive at some destination because it's too 'heavy' for its engines.

At this juncture I'm not getting further into bagging out the relativity doctrine but if you think that there is a problem that requires a relativistic fix; that's probably because you're suffering from reference frame confusion. If you look at my argument above then you should see that the problem won't even exist because as the available energy transfer-ability becomes reduced because of RF velocity, then the mass does proportionally because they both have the same simple relationship in any given galaxy's local reference frame, which is E:m conditionally (almost equal more or less). Anyone got a symbol for that?


Looking to quantify total energy anywhere is about as whimsical as chasing phantoms or windmills, and as impossible as grabbing a handful of sunlight.


The laxity with which some post Newtonian scientists have treated such things as standard definitions and mind experiments as well as their confusion over reference frames is going to be tagged to their legacy; especially when future scientists look back and laugh at how they stupidly decided that a constant called time could be declared to be flat- oops I mean variable.


Time doesn't change -realizable energy does and because E:m (not equivalent to ) then the speed of light must be a local reference frame variable. If you think that's really the stupid idea, then note that there is a solution to your perceived problem which is centered around light re-emission velocity differential or- light anisotropy. Note: This is all explained in another tab.