why G-theory and not relativity?


G-theory©


 

diverse excerpts from the thesis

pros and cons for G-theory v relativity.

 

1/ In support of G-theory

Note: Please don't draw conclusions regarding the likely theory from these disjointed excerpts. they are simply to show some off the answers provided by G-theory.

 

  • True energy conservation takes time, and this is an important supportive argument when it comes to objections regarding the reduced vector field of gravity surrounding universal bodes. The objection is successfully parried because the whole system is continually dynamic.
  • But in any case, a strongly supportive reason for the postulation of the existence of the eos is that the whole universe appears to be 'earthed' or 'grounded'; (to put it in electrical jargon) along with the proposed dynamic 'energy' return path as well.
  • Now these effective mass differences will not affect binding 'energy' by very much; it's just the fact that they are even observably different which lends support to G-theory, (as does the complete binding energy v nucleon density curve, kink and all).
  • What this is declaring is that GTDv caused G mass acts in exactly the same way as classical 'mass' does at low speeds and therefore the same laws apply, but it also proves that momentum cannot be inferred to a body as a constant velocity at hyper (any actually) speeds, and this lends credible support to G-theory.
  • This would tend to support my initial contention (in refutation of Lorentz) for something resembling a Taylor series curve with a very flat and substantially zero lower portion of the velocity axis of the velocity versus (GTDv induced) inertial force curve*. Note: No observationally (experimentally) derived empirical laws are abused by G-theory.
  • Note: This heating from the inside has been offered as a historical objection to push gravity theories. I offer it in support of transitional graviton push gravity because the phenomenon of BBR was unknown at the time and it was reasoned that a body such as the earth would continue to heat up to a far greater temperature than we observe. Now with that explanation why don't you in turn? Please explain the conservation of 'energy' with your own gravitational model
  • Now geodesic frame dragging has a similar but lesser affect which would not be sufficient to maintain orbits in all changeable conditions and this is mainly because the geodesic model doesn't have a built in negative feedback phenomenology which will be soon introduced in support of G-theory.
  • *Geodesics only accounts for this portion of the phenomenon by its theorized 'frame dragging' which results in the Gravity Probe B measured affect not truly relating to predictions. This in itself lends strong support for G-theory.
  • By concurrence with Van Flandern's calculations (which I have corroborated by the simple calculus, with further clinching relationships to follow; as well as the fact fitting results in the experimental data set below) the averaged speed of gravitons which gives averaged gravitational force in the solar system (at earth surface) is therefore confidently proposed to be at least...
  • In support of Van Flandern (et al I'm sure), it is important to consider that computer modeling of gravity affected orbitals has also debunked ANY idea that gravity can travel no faster than 'c'; in fact such modeling demands it. It becomes inescapable logic that 'all of the above' completely debunks G-relativity. Such evidence then also poses grave implications for the theory of 'gravity induced frame dragging' by the geodesic 'Lense Thirring* effect' of a rotating body. Strangely and in opposition to G-rel, this effect requires gravity to be 'emitted' from a body at about 'c' and this problem will be addressed in due course. Note: The Kepler problem is also thought to be caused because gravity is not considered to be close to instantaneous. However we shall see!
  • Note also in support of G-theory: The strong equivalence principle has also been noted to be slightly violated in astronomical observations undertaken by others.
  • Such difference can be definitely noticed with comparisons between the very small and the very large and this will be analysed in a later chapter. In classical mechanics no heed is given to such minute differences but when being presented with G-theory it becomes critical that such observances be noted because of their probable overall support of the theory.
  • This all implies that our own sun is also denser than we accept because as previously asserted, its 'light' and consequential (disproportionately small) graviton manufacture, (like all stars) slightly affects its own gravity. This can also be supported by the fact that gravitational anomalies are currently being observed due to solar activity. This phenomenon can be highlighted by the observed gravitational information arriving on the earth (and very significantly for this theory) almost instantaneously (By my calculations in the order of 0.0005 of a second), compared with the eight minutes taken for the photonic data to arrive*. This not only lends support to this (geodesic distorting) backfill theory but also strongly supports the ultra high graviton velocities calculated herein.
  • After much consideration of the facts and data I have reached the conclusion that not one of the current theories of gravity is able to explain gravitational anisotropy*. Relativity cannot allow this for any reason. Verticality anisotropy does exist because of the apparent solar position but that has been taken into account by our clocks and it is stable and reflected on the dark side of the earth with only around 0.12% variation in the verticality of the diurnal gravitational force.
  • Note should also be taken of the proposal in G-theory that reflected light travels at different motional reference frame proportional speeds than the incident light. That alone can cause the observed fringe shift which is supportive of the postulation which simultaneously destroys S-rel.
  • Even though I might feel that the outward acceleration is not exactly proven; if I agreed it was, it would be seen as an all too eager acceptance because such proof is biased towards support of my own theory, I should be delighted at such a result should the proof be convincing to the consensus and that would assuage any reservations I might harbor regarding the method of proof utilized for such a discovery. Self serving acceptance would be very disingenuous albeit very tempting because such a scientifically hailed, measured observation of the outward acceleration of high velocity galaxies destroys relativity on two counts.
  • However the contention of an accelerating expansion of the universe is violently threatening to that model of gravity but (strangely enough) not to G-theory graviton transitional push gravity theory which actually predicts such acceleration and which is supportive of the hard data on many levels without the need for any cosmological constant or dark energy/matter.
  • This is another profoundly model challenging dilemma for the currently held beliefs however the observed intense gravity of a black hole is a phenomenon which is supportive of G-theory,
  • If such is the case then we must reasonably conclude that Maxwell's formulas are only relative to electrostatics and magnetism separately as virtual force fields but the don't apply to light, or for that matter an emr combo either. This is an importantly supportive contention for the following theories of light and emr mechanics.
  • Profoundly and with serious support for G-theory over relativity and M-E equivalence theories, they DO NOT cause a change in the 'mass' of the AMO they are emitted from or received into...
  • This supposition may well be challenged but it does have an ally in quantum harmonic oscillation theory, and by way of serious support I will be presenting a profound theoretical nuclear space filling geometry in a later chapter which is itself undergirded by the hard data wherein...
  • This contention of G-theory is supported by the fact that a neutron star can cause and specifically exhibit a stupendously immense magnetic field almost equal to that of a magnetar.
  • Unless one wishes to perhaps inhibit the micro developments of such things as say; media event horizon evanescent effects controlled perhaps by photons themselves. Such an idea as G-theory should even be more enticing than fiddling with such things as slower and limited refractive index sensitive semiconductors. What may even be more exiting perhaps is the possibility of photonic or plasmic control of gravity? However even if such a thing might be thought to be impossible; for the sake of the model support for G-theory we need to take a good look at the behavior of light.
  • Note: At the time of writing, the results of Gravity Probe B were not 'in'. Since then it has been learned that the frame dragging results were less than expected. That's a profound result in support of the contentions of G-theory and a severe blow for geodesics!  Refer to the relevant section.
  • The following is simply a novel explanation of the phenomena of electromagnetism by G-theoretical analysis, and this is required in order to provide substantial support for the quantum, atomic and cosmological theories which are being postulated herein and presented as a better fit model for understanding the interplay of universal mechanics.
  • By way of obtaining more support for these contentions, refer to the article on neutron orientation by Letmann, Tuoriniemi, Nummila, Vuorinen and Metz . 1007 Czechoslovac Journal of Physics.
  • I will be deriving other 'energy' equations further on and one in particular for nucleons (and atoms) which is supported by derivation from two completely different approaches.
  • If anisotropy is observed then relativity is not supported and if it's not then the support is strongly in the favor of G-theory and relativity can be buried.
  • By G-theory the clocks being used for the measurements being associated with electron flow etc. would have necessarily changed their timing relative to ALTITUDE induced GS (gravity) change and given the misinterpreted result. Also the slight GTD change would have resulted in a slight cooling of the atoms in the clock. So what they have unwittingly supported wasn't relativity at all but G-theory.
  • These forms also present themselves as being profoundly significant filling arrangements in support of the validity of this theory especially when considering the 'no brainer' of graphite and diamond respectively. Also, the fact that the matrix form for oxygen turns up two 104o proton attracting spaces no matter which way you look at it is also model supportive.
  • Note: Even under current theories gamma particles are known to be decay products of electrons and they are a recognized hazard while a synchrotron is in operation. This phenomenon is in support of G-theory.
  • If the added variables that are derived from G-theory are able to be concluded to account for the currently noted anomalies then that should be seen to be direct and substantive support for G-theory per se.
  • So we should recognize that weight, density and specific heat have a connection which is tightly based around a relatable nucleon space filling model and because of the support of the circumstantial evidence I have described, I think that the model presented herein is a good starting point.
  • It is the relationships between P mass and G mass that cause mass-weight disparities and for nucleon and electron sized subjects even at one 'g'. By computer modeling and mathematical analysis this complete relationship may become clear. If this were to be achieved then this theory could be empirically supported and therefore declarable as a fact.
  • The Lorentzian transformation theory is shown to be a mathematical abstraction which produces a space drag curve that isn't supported by the evidence. At the same time the G-theory curve derived from calculations herein DOES!
  • Also note that Casmir's experiment is strongly supportive of graviton activity which causes both GTD and gravity as presented in this thesis.  
  • The ionic/protonic emission phenomenology conclusion will also be under-girded by appellation to the 'zeroeth law' of thermodynamics and is supported by experimental observances.
  • Such seemingly weird phenomena as these have been scientifically and credibly observed and as such they lend support for field and signal physics which is a strong requirement for the operation of G-theory.
  • This theory finds no problems with the findings of the IBEX probe. In a different manner than realized, those findings can be seen to support G-theory.
  • In fact this legally necessary electron propagation behavior should likely be taken as theoretical proof of that PEP-QIP relationship assertion as fact.
  • I will counter by this proof that it does and must wherever such laws can be shown to be empirically applicable and that the reason for such an opinion being widely held is because of the lack of understanding of the likely phenomenology which is herein presented.
  • What we have here is an indolent mathematical proof of G-theory itself. I.e. The 'second' (which physics has tied to everything) is related to gravity in orbital dynamics, and now we find by the above quantum analysis of ohms law, that the 'second' is also being related to the QIP/PEP relationship and from there to the photon quantum that is in turn related to the speed of light which causes the time delayed gravity in the first place (which by reason of universal equilibrium) once again causes the orbital dynamics from which we initially derived the 'second', and herein we can reasonably evaluate such circular interconnection as proof!
  • PROOF: Whether 'g' is considered to be an acceleration rate or gravitational force, E=m.g.h is totally debunked.
  • A PRINCIPLE TO BE DERIVED:
  • THE INSTANTANEOUS VECTOR MOMENT VALUE OF KINETIC ENERGY FOR ALL MOTION OF OTHERWISE UNAFFECTED AMOs IS SINGULARLY CALCULABLE BY THE FORMULA Ek =mv EXCEPT FOR SIMILAR BUT VERTICAL MOTION IN EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD WHERE THE LIFTING COMPONENT OF ENERGY BECAME STORED AT A GIVEN HEIGHT SO THE EQUATION IS AS STATED;
  • THEOREM: TO PROVE THAT; IF THE KINETIC ENERGY OF MOMENTUM IS BY THE FORMULA Ek =mv, THEN THAT FORMULA ONLY APPLIES TO THE KINETIC ENERGY COMPONENT OF INSTANTANEOUSLY PERCEIVED VELOCITY WHICH IS SOLELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF AN OBJECT FREE FALLING IN A VACUUM IN THE EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. FURTHERMORE ANOTHER ADDITIVE EQUATION IS REQUIRED TO CALCULATE THE OTHER NOTABLE POTENTIAL ENERGY COMPONENT RELATING TO IMPACT FORCE AND THAT THE TWO ENERGIES ARE NOT THE SAME:
  • SUPPORTING PROOF: The formula E=mv2 was circularly derived (being fraudulently supported by other subsequently reverse engineered formulas) from the equation for gravitational potential 'energy' at any given height above the surface of the earth. The original equation which supported the squared functor was the now debunked (E=m. g. h or E=m.g.h) which I will continue to demonstrate is shockingly erroneous when 'g'  is considered to be either 'a' or 'F'.
  • The previous analysis was only undertaken in order to convincingly show that E=mc2 is a flawed formula for the linear kinetic energy content in quantum systems at momentum or for spatially moving particles (with spin) such as photons in momentum. This 'proof' of course will be attacked by typical relativistic arguments* so we'll now have to take another tack and analyze the problem at the atomic and quantum level.
  • The fact that De Sitter actually got a result at all is therefore (while not being proof per se) very significant and not insignificant as he supposed. This is quite important BECAUSE THE NOTED and SLIGHT DOPPLER SHIFT IS ALL THAT'S PREDICTABLE BY G-THEORY either by the possible reason earlier proposed or BECAUSE OF 'FORCE FRAME DRAGGING' OF THE 'GS' OF EACH STAR in the system.
  • Specific heat is able to be used as a method of proving or disproving G-man's nucleon space filling theory which in turn underpins most of the particle theory, specifically by utilizing elemental solids as nucleon study subjects. This would be primarily because the study of higher generational order atomic and molecular space filling is already well advanced and it therefore stands to reason that a nucleon space filling matrix should be expected and not come as a surprise. Also it is of significant note that the metallic solids are a great deal less affected by external pressure.
  • This would all contribute to characteristic and periodic variability in the periodic table. That alone would see the prediction of patterned variant elemental characteristics exclusively from the G-theory model. This should be seen to be strongly supportive of the model.
  • The EWF superstruct representation shows the connection from an up quark to uniracial +ve. The opposite will be the case for a down quark. This means that each proton has three binding possibilities for neutrons. This is very conclusive and clinching evidence for the G-theory model.
  • Of course it is possible to consider that if I have a bottle of nebulous entropic energy 'stuff' and it is denser at one end than the other, that when the 'stuff' moves towards parity that it might be able to be considered to somehow carry a particle or object (located in the middle) with it...  However things become more difficult when you consider that the entropy in the universe is omnilateral and conditionally variable because the universal energy state is not even and then we should see spatial variations in the rate of entropy which would necessarily result in spatially directional and proportional variations in gravity...  This we don't observe. That's an objection from logic but compounding that to infinity is the total lack of any substantiating substantive phenomenology and this extends to the G-rel 'energy stress tensor'. G-theory is a standout in that regard and is to be noted by its comprehensive substantive array of described mechanics of process and construct.
  • From this non relativistic 'variance' solution we are able to see other electron state quantum resolutions being enabled such as azimuth, spin (by dynamic orbitals) and spectrographic parity which is a statistical resolution produced by different elemental and isotopic nuclear-electron interactions at parity. We have just seen how this is all impossible under the Lorentz Poincare relativistic invariance solution. Note: Refer to nucleon matrix space filling for the dimensional variability of elemental and isotopic behavioral statistics.
  • Ref: figure (a) below. These combinations produce four possible charge eigenstates as two possibilities having two opposite Z axis preferences, and after the fourth; the magnetic dipole shifts in the p-baryon lengthwise direction for the derivation of the same four but now with four different charge eigenstates relative to the four magnetic moment positions creating eight possible combinations of 4 -ms and 4 +ms in all. Restating from the other point of reference: In this way the overall magnetic dipole eigenstate is then slightly changed in the other direction dependent upon its 'ms' (Z axis directional preference) value. Along with the quantum numbers these eight combinations of dipole and spin alone are able to account for the fine structure of hydrogen without dubious relativistic explanations.
  • The nucleon has an imbalanced emf factor which allows the diversity of characteristics in elements. In any given atom the shape of the orbitals could be non concentric and even non unilateral (1H hydrogen is a no brainer). The whole atom might not be anywhere near spherical. If you analyze the electron diagram as well you will see that this is the reason for the Pauli asymmetry.

     

 


con relativity


diverse excerpts from the thesis


Note: Please don't draw conclusions regarding the likely theory from these disjointed excerpts.


 


2/ In refutation of Relativity and other contemporary metaphysical thought:

 

  • However, and very significantly; if the string of nucleons reached to a mile high as against a mile across (radially) the inverse square (g) law of decreasing gravity caused by GS backfill is not exactly counter reactive and this would actually result in the larger object stretching elastically and falling more slowly because of that 'energy' loss, and it would also have measurable inertia if it was an accelerometer.  Note: if you came in late: This actually refutes Einstein's equivalence principle in its support of GR. This principle will be savaged further in a following argument.   
  • This should be able to be modeled mathematically of course, and relativists will likely appeal to 'rotational frame dragging' as the phenomenology however their geodesic frame dragging is lacking in the required negative feedback support defined in this assertation and general relativity is then disallowed as a planetary orbital support mechanism.
  • *G-rel calculates the precession of the earth to be 3.85 when in actual fact it is 5+- 1.2. In that case the fact that Einstein somehow 'landed' on the correct value for Mercury should not be taken as any proof for general relativity whatsoever.
  • *Any frame dragging that ever becomes measurable WOULD NOT PROVE geodesic general relativity. Proof is never concluded by assumptive interpretation, and such interpretations don't ever lend any support to theories that are already full of holes and tending towards disproof. Perhaps geodesicists should put their remarkable brains to the study of empirical logic first and then get back to physics. Note: At the time of writing, the results of Gravity Probe B were not 'in'. Since then it has been learned that the frame dragging results were less than expected. That's a profound result in support of the contentions of G-theory and a severe blow for geodesics!  Refer to the relevant section.
  • If this is not the case then electrons must by default simply be virtual entities and describable as simply being interference crossing points of the vibrating charge and magnetic fields. This is disproved as a plausible postulation by the hard data. Such a disproof is able to be confidently declared because electron beams can be forced by applied 'energy' to leave the atom and atomic matter and be attracted to travel in an electromagnetically 'bendable' beam* of particles within a vacuum towards a high positive charge. I.e. The 'retro' vacuum tube TV set.
  • For scientists to state that they can explain any force at all with current models could, if there is any intentional error, be tantamount to a hoax. They also glibly state without a shred of proof that electromagnetism is a single force. That's patently untrue because even a grade school student is taught about the two forces that combine to cause 'emr'. Which also isn't true but that's another matter.
  • In fact and ironically, all Lorentz has achieved is; he has proven through the math of his own theory that the assumption that mass becomes infinite at 'c' is not true. Even E=mc2  disproves the assertion!
  • Note: This is in keeping with the 'zeroeth law' of thermodynamics, while the contemporary presumption of electron emission of photons to anywhere else but the now out of parity proton; is not.
  • 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.
  • With similar regard to both the Lorentzian and the G-theory case, the other theory often put forward, to wit; that light is able to be emitted from moving emission sources without seeing a change in its observed frequency is absolutely debunked! The synchrotron disproves it by empirical observation as hard data. The fact is, that doppler shifts are able to be observed from moving emission objects whether they are deemed to be relativistically up-shifted or not.
  • *Relativity is about supposed observational disparity while the Einsteinian 'energy' formula is not. What many fail to realize is that the formula is actually a constant velocity rate formula rather than a steady state 'energy' formula that somehow proves relativity at the quantum level. The reason that it only somehow appears to work and   doesn't   'prove' relativity will be addressed herein.
  • In conclusion: Care should be taken with mathematics, because math is not always transferable to the real world.
  • This also has implications for refuting Einstein's equivalence principle to being not supportive of G-rel causality:
  • *There goes another dilemma which exists in current theories which in direct contrast require electron emission as a prerequisite for emr wave formation. Model support for those theories is nil because such electron emission does not match up with the hard data.
  • The time contraction applies to both the velocity and the frequency. How can you logically divorce the two from the common relativistic effects without any arbitrary sleight of hand?
  • Another critically important (and I believe willful) case of term confusion is the sleight of hand involved in confusing 'energy' with force as is done in such an example as the explanation of mass defect in quantum physics to suppose that the missing 'mass' is not just 'energy' but some how equates to the strong nuclear binding force as ‘binding energy'. Another convenient confusion is the often stated 'mass' instead of matter. The term 'release of energy' often includes a significant difference in meaning to the one presented in the paragraph below.
  • Either on the one hand; if as suggested by G-theory, a traveling photon does indeed have mass, or if on the other it is supposedly bent by space time there is a real problem for geodesics in that; light would by that reason have to show an appreciable acceleration and deceleration as it either approached or was emitted from a body respectively. This would also have serious implications under the auspices of geodesic mathematics for communication delays to orbiting satellites which would be in the region of minutes (if time is actually contracted at the rate required by the supposed gravitational manifold) and of course without any 'sleight of hand' S-relativistic change in 'c' being the proposed velocity of emr (radio signals). So this can then only be seen to be a very significant problem for the geodesic form. This is because the actually realized delay is only typical of the expected delay being caused by propagation velocity 'c' within a Newtonian inertial frame of reference where gravity is not related to time and HAS NO AFFECT on photons whatsoever. This is an absolute and empirical model fitting contention of G-theory which in itself TOTALLY DESTROYS RELATIVITY*.
  • Note: By not confessing that the bend in the light beam in the lift experiment would actually be immeasurable the relativists may well have been guilty of committing one more scientific fraud. Otherwise I could just as easily declare that your body actually stretches vertically during the freefall. Both are subjectively the case but they cancel each other out as I have just attested to in another way.
  • G-theory can demonstrate why those geodesic metric modifying field equations are actually necessary and what causes the stress tensors to not actually be geodesic after all (which of course they should be if 'G-rel geodesics' were to be true science).
  • A black hole is not actually black. It is a potentially invisible cosmean 'matter sink'. By examination of the behavior of the Solar system and other observances in our own galaxy it could very well be the case that a black hole is nearing our own proximity in close to real time.
  • "It should be recognized that relativity is only a mathematical tool for calculation because like a 'line' it doesn't actually exist and it is not actually time or distance that’s varying. Such a postulation has become a subjectively required belief in order to elicit some reasoning behind some otherwise magical proposal as an explanation for observed but otherwise inexplicable and as yet non-substantive phenomenology.  "
  • Equations don't prove a theory, no matter how prodigiously expansive they may be. It is well known that in many instances the same results can be arrived at by both relativistically elegant and unimaginatively puny classical formulas.
  • I may appear to not be fair at times and even rather droll at others. The idea of, spin not actually being rotational spin in no way affects any of the mind numbing arrays of calculations and formulas which successfully utilize that assumed phenomena. However to draw the conclusion that this is proof of the idea is similar to assuming that gravity pulls rather than pushes without realizing the other possibility at all! In the case of the electron and other particles; many propose that the spin is rotational which causes the spinning point of charge to magically create a magnetic dipole which then becomes a spinning electric charge to another reference frame. Would you want to be a passenger on that frame?!
  • According to such drivel, no possible sense can be maintained with regard to any observances in the universe. This would also be problematic with regard to any contemplation of relative time consideration when it comes to the civilization span of any race of aliens you might fantasize about.
  • This is all subjective irrational gobbledygook. Duh! The ability of the human mind to dredge up sewage and contemplate it as roast duck without giving heed to nostrils or even eyes for any reasonable evaluation of its palatability is legendary. Serious empirical examination is the only key to avoiding a bad case of scientific Montezuma's revenge.
  • Note: The very idea of electron light emission therefore requires the wave theory of propagation, wherein the 'energy' to the electron is able to be re-supplied by emr from the nucleus in disregard for the reverse (or equal) requirement stated elsewhere. This will all be shown to be 'cart before the horse' specious reasoning. Gamma particle emission through electron decay will be shown to be via a different phenomenology than that proposed by current quantum physics. These new proposed theories will be shown to be supported by the hard data while the current ones are definitely not.
  • This is strange indeed because by modern contemporary physics objects are thought to contain other types of mass as well. I.e. gravitational mass and binding energy 'mass'; which isn't considered to be real 'mass' at all. If such contemporary theory all sounds ridiculous; that’s because to some extent it is! This will be shown to be the case by replacing the specious method of the theorizing of different forms of 'mass' being conditionally transposable as 'energy'.
  • Such metaphisicism is a complete and debunkable falsehood. M-E equivalence can be disproved by the law of the conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system; it may only be converted from one form to another,  including mass  ?!! Goodbye M=E/c2  !
  • Scientists only have a mind for relativistic presumptions and not the accompanying logical conundrums. Very puzzling however, this doesn't prevent relativists from declaring this  scientifically observed  anisotropy in emr to be relativistic and therefore  not real!  Here they go proving relativity by itself this time like a snake eating its tail to (not real) non existence.  Note: G-theory predicts anisotropy by reason of the speed of the earth through space and it presents a theory supporting plausible reason for it.
  • *In G-theory (and normal land) no time warping is required or permitted.
  • To conclude that relativity causes the light to stop vibrating while it is traveling because it is time dilated to non motion, is another weird logical conundrum which seems to disprove wave theory by relativity itself, but I won't take that tack because of my belief in rational reasoning.
  • *The Lorentzian contraction of light waves being emitted from moving emission sources was only subjectively applied to high velocity light emitting particles in the first instance because Lorentz knew nothing about undulators! So in that case it must be reasonable to suggest that the Lorentzian contraction theory has been disproved by synchrotron phenomenology, so it is now unable to be reasonably considered to be the real cause of the observed frequency up-shift.
  • Now by this statement you could immediately jump to the specious conclusion that by reason of 'SBE' this concludes that E does =mc2  and that a form of 'mass-energy' equivalence is being stated. However this cannot be true in any case for any object other than an ion so it is therefore refuted. The mechanical integrity forces (supposedly 'energy') are not limited to strong binding force and the disassociation of mass from energy is especially so in all other cases.
  • Reiterating a previous submission in order to utterly refute the G-rel geodesic function by reason of the lack of a model fit: Yes! A parabolic function is able to provide an absolute zero force at zero velocity as well, but it gives unacceptable and model destroying space drag values which in no way relate to our observations at real world velocities. In fact at velocities that we are familiar with the error becomes several orders of magnitude. The Lorentzian model is unable to be fallen back upon for the same reasons and because S-rel has been strongly debunked. This means that they are both shown to be incorrect formulas for the actual mathematical geodesics!
  • The specious argument that 'mass' can be measured in a stationary beam balance (because the object being measured is not having its 'mass' evaluated by a 'singular' subjection to gravitational inertia because it is being compared with another object also being subject to the same gravitational inertial force) can be refuted by the following argument.  Note; this is referring to an almost indiscernible WEP violation which has actually been measured and which is a very important substantiation of G-theory.
  • Another elucidated supposition that transparent states of solids are thought to be intermediate states between solids and liquids is a theory which at first may appear absurd, because otherwise it might be concluded that the complete fluid to solid matter state is actually fully transitional. But because of the reasonable assumption that another fluidic state of matter is not necessarily impossible then (even though not logically applicable to AMO's for the stated reason), perhaps the idea should be a matter for further study in relation to quark orientation, and perhaps even by studying neutron orientation by typical methods to hopefully enable the atomic definition of such a state. If this cannot be achieved then the postulation probably  is  absurd and should be canned.  Note: I intend to show a different mechanics which remove the necessity for such an idea by undertaking the necessary analysis which is to be forthcoming.   
  • Now by the theory being refuted, you are being asked to consider that a photon is emitted instantaneously from the nucleon (electron in the disputed case) and achieves 'c' speed without acceleration because it is observed to have no measurable acceleration. Only G-theory is able to successfully explain that: It is because the photon has no mass within the quark lattice from which it was phononically and multi-dimensionally formed and emitted, so in G-theory both a photon and/or a photon quanta are legally able to exhibit true instantaneous momentum TBE.
  • One argument for geodesic relativity gravity mechanics is that gravity is caused by the geodesic bending of the space time continuum such that we are able to feel gravity (weight) because the space time continuum is accelerating through us at approximately 10m/s/s and we don’t feel inertia when falling because we are then traveling along with it in the actual state of momentum. I have refuted the possibility for this phenomenon throughout the body of this work. I.e. the warp is mathematically proven to be unable to cause anywhere near  ‘g’  to be the actual gravitational acceleration rate even after the illegal allowance that the warp can produce any actual force at all.   
  • Unfortunately for all such time dilational theories which single mindedly ignore everything else except for unilateral conceptualism (including G-rel) which then allows the proponents an intellectually illegal reason to concentrate thoughtlessly on such philosophical (excuse me; metaphysical) time warp subjectivisms which is refutable in the omnilateral sense. This might seem stimulatingly arguable over a couple of ‘buds’ in the dorm but it all becomes very murky indeed if someone sober brings gravity according to G-rel into the picture. Because then we must have it that space itself is required to undergo a change in its relationship with time but somehow very strangely and extremely problematical for those S-rel theories (conjectures!); NOT LIGHT whereby the subjective time warps are totally dis-related from the G-rel time distortions. Oh I'm sorry; it's the metaphysical emr stress tensor warping now is it? What will it be next week? When you can demonstrate that energy (not by your definition) can cause a force as well travel ethereally through space, I'll be all ears... That's just gross assumption and straw grasping. In fact many scientist so often change their positions and 'current understanding'; how on earth can they ever rationally assume to have arrived at any knowledge at all? Remember Occam's razor: If your beard of failed suppositions gets too long... Of course you do realize that with that newly evolved entropic 'stress energy tensor' theory the chances of unification between G-rel and quantum physics is now zero. This is because quantum physics thinks it absolutely requires time reference frame warps and disjuncts without violations. I implore with regard to both of them... You don't need either! With G-theory the problem is bilaterally solved.
  • For someone like me to take on Einstein might seem to be rather impertinent. But perhaps I can ameliorate this impertinence by pointing out that there are many other eminent dissenters out there in sanity land, and Einstein has himself already refuted his own assertion regarding 'c' being an 'own reference frame' constant within his other space time continuum machinations in G-rel. It may be of interest to note that he has also been recently proven wrong with his theory of Brownian motion.  Note: In my assertion that 'c' is not a constant, I must point out that in a vacuum it would be considered to maintain its original emission velocity but it is a universal constant with relative motion reference frame variability.
  • Quantum particles can't disobey the laws of the conservation of 'energy' as the current paradigm proposes. For example; if a particle tunnels through a barrier and in so doing loses amplitude, it is the barrier which must suffer loss by transference of 'energy' sub particles to the greater particle under consideration for it (particle) to be declared to still have the same 'energy' as before. 'Energy' is able to be transferred from one form to another. Any idea that a barrier is exempt from the laws of physics is also refuted.  Wave function to matter and visa versa is a valid 'energy' transformation phenomenon.
  • Under the current paradigm then, the photon-receiving atoms must be deemed to be capable of performing a 'miracle' wherein a large amount of notional wave function 'energy' is able to be transferred in or out of an AMO without a corresponding change in the AMO's mass which is any way significant let alone proportional to the observed temperature change. Here is just one more enigma of physics (in direct defiance of its known laws as well as the notional M-E equivalence). There is no known quantum state relativistic explanation that allows any unification with classical physics, G or S relativity**. Once more, G-theory is singularly able to offer the solution.
  • We must conclude that Maxwell's electrostatic and magnetic fields are a fact (Or do we? How did he measure the speed of the emr fields?) but they have an inverse square law decay and by G theory are not responsible for emr propagation. Such 'energy' fields are unable to be transferred across space as some sort of emr stress tensor which remains constant until it is affected by 'mass'. That doesn't happen in the emr case at all.
  • Therefore when relating Maxwell to the stress emr tensor we must conclude that the tensor has to be local and another electromagnetic tensor with a medium is required from somewhere for emr propagation.
  • Why the Gravity Probe B, synchrotron mechanics and other pretentious experiments don't PROVE relativity. They will be shown to actually disallow its plausibility.  Note: G-rel is mathematically viable at a basic level.
  • Note: The Rayleigh-Jeans law of standing wave action is problematical for any supposed harmonic oscillation theory because it assumes periodic cavity mode sets which would disallow the exclusion principle (and therefore quantum physics) which requires a modificant-specific single node propagation of the factors. Normal but still alternating periodic mode phononic quantum behavior would then seem to be limited to the higher order mechanics occurring within most AMOs consisting of periodic crystalline molecular structure.
  • In the case of any relativistic geodesic model we are able to subjectively envision a velocity related set, where object velocity/kg is the quantization which is applicable to gravity changes in the geodesic deviation system within the same distance dimension within that metric. It all looks good on paper, but G-theory will show it is just a somewhat flawed mathematical model of a real physics, whereby the space time continuum may well be represented geodetically, but having the warp in motion is  not  a plausible consideration... In mathematical virtual reality you are perfectly able to collapse the geodesic form (grid, net, whatever) to a flat cartesian plane which can be represented in the Euclidean metric in the most simplistic case by simply using inverse square law for gravitational calculations*. In such a transformation, all that changes is the metric, and the Poincare group becomes the symmetry group, and the tensors become scalars or scalar-form vectors or if you like, just vectors. In fact the relatable gravitational math between two bodies is the same for all geodesic models, so all those models therefore have problems associated with that phenomenon, which will be addressed further.
  • FORCE FRAME PUSHING and this force would likely be proportional to the value of the measured frame drag component being subtracted from Schiff's predicted value for earth if the frame dragging should be considered to be proportional to mass and therefore the planet's orbit as well as its spin. Schiff's predictions are flawed if they are based on Einstein's field equations, which show only conditional levels of universal invariance.
  • *Geodesics only accounts for this portion of the phenomenon by its theorized ‘frame dragging’ which results in the Gravity Probe B measured affect not truly relating to predictions. This in itself lends strong support for G-theory.
  • Einstein's field equations are flawed because they are based on a false lagrangian. Einstein could not have envisaged a non relativistic gravitational energy stress tensor which extends from the solar surface. The herein theorized bending of gravity through the sun (and to a greater bending extent but far lesser energy) from its coronal halo rejects the strong equivalence principle which is violated by such a stress energy mechanics modifying the vacuum field and not the geodesic space metric. Don’t get me wrong. The radially dependent solar gravitational potential is modified by the solar coronal halo and this only effectively modifies the equivalence principle dynamically and not mathematically under the current understanding of the physics. That is all about to change.
  • Poincare's attempts to solve this problem are still not truly omni directional and they showed flawed mathematical persuasion by allowing reversible time coordinates.
  • The idea that an electric field and a magnetic field combining in space will form an 'emr' wave is probably absurd! The Lienard-Wiechart potentials are considered then to be flawed science because they are not fully relatable to the complete paradigm. Perhaps this is because they are based on the relativity model!The first conclusion is; that even if space is determined to have low impedance to emr, there is no known medium which has yet been described which allows such an action to occur, and considering the fact that the existence of an 'aether' has been disproved by the Michelson Morley experiment, such wave propagation therefore can not be concluded to be able to occur without the agency of some miracle or magic! G-theory to the rescue.
  • The only conclusions able to be drawn are firstly; a recognition of the historical perpetration of some seriously flawed Newtonian physics being accepted as fact by a multitude of slavish servants down through the annals of time, and secondly; that E=mv2 is not the correct equation for calculating gravitational 'energy' of any description in Earth's (or any) gravitational field.
  • Such a flawed conclusion by this eminent S-rel 'c' constantist (self refuting) comes about by the fact that his perspective was in a way typical of the trap that we can all fall into, which is that we continue to forget about time SKEW distortion of events by thoughtlessly assuming that we are actually observing distant astronomical events as though they are occurring at the time of observation.
  • Note: Fluid dynamics wave theory is not applicable to light or emr propagation because there is no propagation medium. Many have historically tried to make it do so and many wonderful wave theory models have been speciously presented by way of explanation. As intellectually brilliant as some of them are, they still remain logically flawed. The jaded dictum is true and very human. Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees.
  • While I'm at it; a top quark has the mass of a whole silver atom. That’s ridiculous; and I intend to conclusively show that E=mc2  is a flawed equation, as is its lovechild the electron volt. Surely such quark masses are model threatening when compared to the current understanding of quantum physics.
  • In a pragmatic sense it matters not what the cause of semi-diurnal tides is but the flawed scientific evaluative technique and the obvious lack of consensual agreement is quite telling. The main thrust of this argument is against Einstein's equivalence principle. The prevenient question is; why has the scientific community not concentrated a great deal of resources into any serious study of gravity?
  • But of course the problem for relativists is that they can show no (pushing) counterforce able to explain the lower than expected values that were measured and they must simply ignore the other three (or more) forces which are causing friction on both the earth's spin and orbit, especially when considering that geodesic frame dragging wasn't even enough to explain anything useful really.
  • The conclusion is simple and profound. I.e. All relativistic frames of reference in the universe of which there must be an infinite number have a summed value of zero! In fact there are an infinite number of reference frames of both G & S rel. descriptions on the point of a pin.
  • The idea of relativity in either form (even though shallow minded and not well thought out) was advanced in no small way because of the Michelson Morley experiment which proved the absence of an aether with which to enable the propagation of light. In an attempt to solve this problem Einstein, per Lorentz et al came up with his theories.That last bit is ratified by G-theory. Just get rid of the geodesic and add stress tensors and your done. Not quite, but you might get my drift.
  • When it comes down to it I have invisible dimensions (tensors) and the relativists also have invisible stress tensors and so it appears to be a stalemate. Wrong! G-theory is unifying while relativity cannot possibly achieve that; not in the least because some of the quantum forces only have reaches measurable in femtometers and many show no connection with any or all of the tress tensors which (among other problems not addressed here) then requires relativity to have dimensions as well, and that hopefully promises unification... Enter superstring theory and its variant M-theory. Some of my theoretical analysis is somewhat similar to those theories. However the differences are mainly in the non mathematical-virtual particle theory as well as the intuitive time and 'c' constancy so because of that I predict that the unification so eagerly sought will turn on G-theory acceptance as a basic framework upon which to build... The string theories have been out there for a long time and they have not been a waste of time. In fact they as well as 'evolved' general relativity have been a necessary stepping-stone to the development of G-theory but the geodesic rubbish has been holding up the works. G-theory offers a workable substantive phenomenology for gravity and an energy return loop for the universe which is not reliant on BBR which can easily be proved to be unable to account for the time delayed conservation of energy that we notice. With G-theory there is no need for the postulation of dark energy or matter.
  • From this non relativistic 'variance' solution we are able to see other electron state quantum resolutions being enabled such as azimuth, spin (by dynamic orbitals) and spectrographic parity which is a statistical resolution produced by different elemental and isotopic nuclear-electron interactions at parity. We have just seen how this is all impossible under the Lorentz Poincare relativistic invariance solution because the atom imust be extremely dynamic and elastic and The Lorentz invariance  disallows   any elasticity.   Note: Refer to the G-theory nucleon matrix space filling model for the dimensional variability of elemental and isotopic behavioral statistics.
  • This is all very predictable when all four spinors in the Dirac field-motion reference frame are made (subjectively forced to be) relative to the four Poincare (Minkowski) vectors of the Lorentz group exclusively  involving particle related linear motion reference frames. Once again the math is not representative of reality but this time with respect to a particle space-time and energy field time coordinated system....   This can be declared as the true case even if the gamma matrices do transform. The obvious nullification is demonstrated in the negative possibilities shown in the transform but the mathematicians solve that little problem by relating it to antiparticle assumptions. On top of that the normalization of the negative results is also achieved mathematically by applying it to motionless particles which is a shocking sleight of hand (very commonly stooped to prove the impossible) because we are only truly dealing with particles having a relative hyper velocity relationship which I just punctuated above as exclusively related to relative  motion  ....   Have you ever heard of an antiparticle  field  ?! Has anyone ever even measured an anti-field where positive becomes negative etc. That would nullify antiparticle theory because they would then be true particles and we are back where we started! That  kind of reasoning is what we are dealing with here, and can only devolve to the depths of insane subjectivism; that is if we're not there already. Don't let math fool you. In the end it's all in the interpretation and assumptive reasoning from your chosen point of view. If you can't see that then  stay  in the dark!..   Look I'm not disputing that Dirac's 'blah de blah' can work in the particle motion reference frame and visa versa but the two relativistic arguments  can't  work together. This of course means that one or both are incorrect. Which ever way you look at that the relativistic model is destroyed.     You can bend space-time and fields around all day because all of those concepts are of course connected in a universe of motion and mathematically distorted functors are a dime a dozen. Stop being dazzled by pages of mathematical gobbledygook and find some realism.
  • Let's face it; when Lorentz developed his ideas he had no idea of emr factors, electron nodes or 'level jumps'. The next proposition of Bohr's was that electrons exhibited planetary spin. It is only to such basic and incorrect theories to which Lorentz/Poincare invariance can relate.  Einstein's removal of the universal reference frame doesn't solve the problems indicated either. Don't let mathematics between selected reference frames fool you. Under the auspices of G-theory and up to the minute knowledge, none of this relativistic 'dark age' nonsense is necessary and a long hard look with Occam's razor is probably the pivot around which the wheel of progress will spin.

 


neuvophysics.com