G-THEORY thesis CH 22

CHAPTER 22 : 'ENERGY', MASS, SPECIFIC                            687







Note: One of the greatest enigmas of classical and quantum physics is the disproportionality that exists between the specific gravity of metallic elements and their specific heat.

The following analysis of the problem has been mind blowingly arduous to say the least. Therefore I present it with a huge caveat that other phenomenology such as 'alpha and beta neutron variance' may arguably be a better fit but I at the very least hope that the following dissertation might enable scientists to be able to creep closer towards the formula for everything.

Once again; this is not a science lesson, so comparative terms are a given and you won't be seeing such things as 'mole/kg-1/k-1' anywhere. It's also not a math lesson and you might take umbrage at my mathematical approach, but if you do please check the results and see if they concur with standardized expectations. They have not been reverse engineered.



Temperature and heat are often confused with each other within a narrative. Heat is the value related to the quantity of bosons within a quark lattice which is related to a new herein proposed term introduced in a previous chapter; 'Sp' (specific sub-fermion particle density). Temperature is subjective and any measurement of temperature requires the existence of a separate environment that's not at parity with the object which is the subject of the temperature qualification.

Temperature is just the measure of the rate at which heat (particles) are in any way emitted from nucleons in the effort to obey the 'zeroeth law' of thermodynamics in order to maintain parity with the external environment. Thermal conductance is the rate at which this is able to be achieved within any given measurable temperature differential relating to ambient temperature. Specific heat is the quantity of bosons (thermal capacity) that are able to be contained within any element or material at any given measurable or subjective-ized temperature with pressure being equal. It may also be related to density or volume in the classical sense.

All of those relationships exist in an extremely 'rubbery' condition with many contributing factors. What's more; I am going to make the subject even more complex by adding two more variables into the mix, which may however be able to solve for the deviations from predictability that are observed within the analysis of specific heat relative to object density.

I do at the same time keep hold of the concept of atomic DOF constrictions considered to be a factor in explaining the strong deviation of specific heat relationships to 'An' (atomic number) when comparing gases and metals. However I still chance my dissimilar neutron 'type' 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. Now you might understand the reason for one more dissertation that appears to be just another superfluous science lesson and an insult to intelligences. I may be able to make this less boring However; by way of a deviation from normalcy. In addressing the subject of specific heat I will be approaching it from physics at the atomic level and not via the usual tack of the chemistry of the large.

Any analysis concerning heat and temperature/pressure is relative to the local environmental constraints. The objective evaluation of both of those phenomena will be different in space than it will be on earth. Note: By G-theory; a vacuum on earth is NOT considered to be the same as the vacuum of deep space! It is certainly not 'the vacuum' relatable to the eos.

Up until now; for any contemporary evaluation of heat the constraints have usually been confined to mostly temperature and pressure, (mainly with gases) and of course Sg is also a factor. In dealing with Sg it must be understood that the term gravity in general use is quantitatively the value of earth's gravity GSe because generally speaking, it has been in that gravity that observations and measurements have been undertaken.

However whenever I speak of gravity under the auspices of G-theory it is often in the context of universal gravity. This I will usually qualify by use of the anagrams GD, GTD and I will also qualify GS when such gravity is related to individual objects/particles. This all may be further qualified by say, GSe which refers to earth's gravity (not Sg).

Universal squeezing gravity (GD) brings another compounding functor into the following relationship between terms.

Except for temperature, there is an assumed relationship (between all of those terms listed in the heading) which is circular. It is this closed variable system of mathematical functions which possibly gave some credence to the idea of mass 'energy' equivalence, eventually culminating in E=mc2.

However in that regard I have to first ask the question. If mass is relatable to 'energy'; how can aluminum (which has a lower density ('mass' /volume) than say copper) have a higher specific heat? Do I hear silence? In any case I will begin by first giving my own answer to that question and then I'll endeavor to relate mass and temperature in a novel and hopefully more plausible way.

First of all and initially at STP: If you attempt to calculate the volumetric atomic weight (Am) of an element by the circular relationship formula Am=2An.Sg.Cv  (Cv is just C adjusted to unit volumetric C relatable to changes in temperature) with related units, you end up with an apparent mass discrepancy which can be rectified (sort of) by determining that the electrons must have an inexplicably small mass. So the left over mass after that is decided to be binding 'energy', and by then adjusting the formula relativistically (or more realistically in G-theory by what I call the 'energy'/weight factor (Gfe) per nucleon by the formula Gfe=Am.Sg.Cv) you arrive at an almost correct relationship where…

Am (mole)=Gfe/Sg.Cv which is close to the actually realized mass of a molar volume of the element. (Only almost because Am is actually atomic weight of an average of isotopes, and not mass)! Note: To avoid confusion Sg is the symbol I have used for specific gravity instead of (p). Also note: We won't need to calculate Cv for these purposes. It just needs to be recognized that the volume of a mole conditionally changes with temperature and pressure. Also we are not relating this to Carbon for the purposes of this exposition which is not being expanded to relate to real world macro masses--- gram, kg etc.

 This is not to be confused with the standard C(mol) which is the 'weight'-specific heat relationship rather than unit volumetric, and in that case you would use the formula C(mol)=Am/Sg and then you arrive at the 'weight' specific heat relationship. The stretch to 'energy' mass equivalence from there is (I must admit) very short and tantalizing. Note: The so called law of Dulong and Petit which attempts to relate specific heat to molar mass is only accurate to around 10%.

Ignoring that for the moment; apart from the molar specific heat anomalies which have already been addressed, there is another problem; so I have added the weight (gravity) to volume specificity back into the molar derived metallic volumetric atomic weight by a different tack but the results turn out to be the same. Note: Because this isn't a science lesson; by reason of the case of similitude and to keep things as simple as possible I haven't seen the need to produce any 'method'.

We are also able to derive the molar volumetric specific heat (CpH) for metals by the formula Cm=Am/Sg--- E.g. for Cu it's 24.45 etc. As well as that we can also derive the term above that I called the universal energy/gravity factor from Gfu=Am.Sgu.Cv (where Sgu might be speciously considered to be the specific gravity in space at GD, with pressure being held constant), which could then be stated to be the energy/GD factor (Gf) per atom where Sgu is actually the specific gravity in deep space. If you divide this by twice the atomic number, this then would essentially become the nucleon Gfe or universal weight factor which should include a virtual and ridiculous universal 'weight' component for each electron in the atom. This might seem to be a rather frivolous delineation to be making. That's probably a valid assessment if you intend to remain earthbound but for calculating the actual mass of a space ship and cargo for interstellar space travel; not so true!

However standing were I suspect we are right now (and upon utilizing 'down to earth' methods for calculating; by necessarily dividing by 2An) when analyzing the data in Earth's gravity it is very noticeable that single nucleon 'energy' (heat/weight/volume) -being the gravity factor (Gf) in anybody's gravity- on earth it becomes Wf* and (Wf)=(Sg.C) for individual elements is seen to be profoundly anomalous. E.g---


------.Al- 2.38

------. Cu- 3.41

------. Sn- 1.67

------. Au- 2.49

------. H- 1.0013.


*You might think that WF and GF are the same. Not at all; the first is relative to the GTDg caused by GSe, the latter is relative to the intrinsic atomic GSs. Yes 'energy' on earth is relatable to weight because that is determined by the limited graviton traffic. Weight is relatable to mass by averaged graviton velocities 'y' at any point in space by W:m.y. This will become important when we are analyzing 'energy' with the cosmological maximum 'y'. Refer to the 'G-less gravitational formula' tab and the 'Newton-Kg enigma' tab. There is an energy relatable difference between mass and weight of about two percent. Refer to the previous chapter.


Any idea of equating 'energy' in atoms/AMOs (Ea) with temperature which is truly relatable to heat emission requires a nominal temperature scale (e.g. degrees Kelvin) and a universal 'energy' constant 'y' speed of gravitons which is proportional to the 'spin' component of a photon boson 'energy' converted to linear motion:

'm' is mass and 'T' is ambient temperature in degrees 'k'. This is absolute maximum 'energy' which would require those objects to be traveling at 'c'. Total 'energy' at rest would mean dividing by c2. ---actually (c-v)2* whereby when c-v=0 (at velocity 'c') and the result is infinity. It remains a contention of this theory that no object that exhibits mass is able to travel faster than 'c' because 'y' has an upper limit and thus that infinite 'energy' requirement cannot be met. However 'y' is a perfect value and nothing in the universe is perfect so we can contemplate energies at 'c' with the currently measurable 'y'





From the preceding equations and explanations we are able to derive an equation to compute the total potential thermal energy of a mole of any element at rest.


Ea=Gf.m.y.T ---energy of a mole.


  For a single CU atom traveling at the speed of light on earth---


 Eea= ma.Sg.C.y.T= ma.Wf.y.T  ('y' is in m/s estimated. It could be greater) ma is the mass of one atom. Note: I know that 'c' doesn't appear in the equation. It does actually as you will soon see.

Et atom=0.97J at 'c'--- 300ok

However the temperature of an atom traveling at 'c' would likely be closer to three million degrees in which case the energy would then be 9706J or in the vicinity of a 'gob smacking' 170J per nucleon. How does this compare with the 'oh my god' particle? Remember this is not just kinetic energy but kinetic plus gravitational plus thermal energy.

So the absolute total 'energy' possible in a copper atom traveling at 'c' is of course theoretically zero at ground state (if at all that could be possible) but this rises quickly to be around an incredible 0.97J at a still improbably low temperature of 300ok. Energy becomes much more at higher temperatures in direct 'orders of magnitude' proportionality so at 3,000,000ok it would be 9706J) falling to only 4.3e-7J or 2.6838TeV when traveling at 1/2c and still lower to 0.00027TeV at 300ok. Note: In reiteration; this is total energy which includes kinetic and gravitational energy as calculated in another section. See below also.

So we should all be aware that temperature actually has an affect on the 'energy' state of an object. Most of the 'energy' at rest state is fundamentally locked in the biracial bonds and the femtospace so the equation for rest 'energy' is a Hamiltonian.

Important; none of this truly represents M-E equivalence. There is only some proportionality relatable to the Wf that's all. The temperature component of thermal 'energy' is that which disallows true M-E equivalence which can only have proportionality at STP. Then and only then of course it is close enough to be allowable at sub quantum levels because the particles being evaluated are conditionally implied to out of the femtospace. Note the word 'conditionally': This means that allowances can never be empirically acceptable as proofs though. Note: This upper limit value of 'energy' is also indicated in a mathematical approach from another direction in the chapter on hyper velocity motion. The two results concur.

Rest state 'energy' is therefore by---


Ers= Eea/(c-0)2

     = Eea/c2


TOTAL (theoretical) Rest 'energy'=67.16eV for one copper atom at rest state at 300ok at standard pressure. Note: The average speed of gravitons 'y' is a constant within any given gravitational stress energy tensor regardless of the velocity (momentum) of the object. This satisfies the law of energy conservation.


These equations (as well as those that follow in this assertation) are theoretical only. This is because the laws of thermodynamics require that 'energy' losses are the reality and gravity is -in the universe sense- position dependent.

On a different note you should also understand that in the velocity consideration, when the velocity rises to 'c' the denominator becomes zero and the 'energy' would be infinite in the theoretical case. This just mathematically supports the contention that 'c' is the limit of universal motion for objects which exhibit mass regardless of gravity and objective matter content. Although this represents a mathematical prevention the math only follows the solution and -unlike relativity- it doesn't derive it so we should understand there is a real and present physical phenomenon which actually applies it. I'll reiterate: Mathematics is a describer of observations and not an action deriving dynamic.

We could attempt to modify the equation and apply a loss component to the quotient but that's invalid when infinity is the answer. To solve the problem we should simply reduce the value of the proposed velocity of a theoretical object traveling at 'c' by 1m/s and then the denominator will never be less than unity and the results of the equations will make intuitive sense.

This still leaves us with results which are open to question but these can be readjusted by taking more accurate universal observational measurements and reinserting back into the equation to find an actual upper velocity limit for AMOs which can easily be estimated to be less than 'c'.

As for the velocity of 'c' itself: we are bound by the factual measurements, and because photons have mass when traveling this means that the true theoretical upper limit of velocity for photons is slightly greater but held back to the observed 'c' by the same laws of TD. This limit can be calculated based on the photon energies which were derived earlier in the thesis but this is very difficult unless you first have a known mass and temperature and for all intents and purposes of this thesis I can't see any reasonable purpose for such an endeavor and 'c' is good enough for me.

Some of you might have your interest piqued however because such a proposed deviation of the actual value of 'c' from the theoretical might explain some 'head scratching' deviations in other calculations. Also in the empirical sense it is incumbent upon science to 'pin down' the facts.  









THEORETICAL MOLAR ATOMIC 'ENERGY' EQUATION (Em at STP rest state)--- 'y' is in m.s.




 Can you see where 'c' went to in the earlier equation if the velocity was 'c'? Yes it vanished into zero squared, being zero which we truly conclude to be zero; or for the mathematical purists (strangely only when they want to be) we will de-rate 'v' by 1m/s!

For multiple bound atoms; the fine structure constant (s), molar mass and Sp come into the equation but that's probably an irrelevant extension of the case to point right here. TBE


You can see from this equation that the idea that gravity affect is increased with proportionality to temperature is confirmed. Note: only noticeable in extreme temperature differences. This is likely due to a permanent and consistent temperature (Sp)--- quark femtospace imperfection.






I will resubmit the equation below as pertaining to the purposes;


Em= G. Am.Sg. C. y.T/( c-v)2


The italicized terms are considered to be relative constants.

So for calculating the 'energy' of a single nucleon in any specified atom at all we need to bring the fine-structure constant 'α' into the equation because of the anomalous dipole losses associated with all fermions. (Pressure is N.A.) We now have--- an equation for specific 'energy' (Se) at any given temperature at 'c'.


Se=G.Am.Sg.y.T/1 α (Note: The denominator is never less than 1 because of either the losses previously described and 'c' is not achievable. In fact if the denominator becomes zero then the answer is infinity.)


Sp is already included because Sp=Am.T for free atoms (as included in the above equation) and Sp=Am.T/C typically for bound metals and Sp=Am.T.p/C for gases.


Calculation of the rest state 'energy' of one nucleon of hydrogen 1H at x is essentially by---


E=G.ma.y.T/α where Sp is notionally included but discounted, being voided for reasons to be stated. (ma is the singe atom mass which for 1H is technically 1)


We should be able to calculate the BST At GD (at the event horizon of any black hole) when we accept that the specific 'energy' of a hydrogen ion traveling at 'c' at the BST would be an 'Se' of one joule because the joule is firmly related by QIP through ohms law to the quantum energies that we have analyzed and that every sub quantum of any quantum part of any nucleon under examination is a division of 'one'. From this of course we can calculate the gravity at the event horizon if we hold BST to 300 degrees k (it's all relative). I won't do that but you might like the exercise.


BST= G.4z. Se(1).y/α    (z=pi2)

BST=6.67384e-11 x 39.4784 x 4.494e18/7.297e-3



That's 1.6 with a T; truly mind blowing: As it approaches the event horizon our nucleon's femtospace is by then completely stuffed with bosons it picked up from BBR during it's (quantum law necessitated) journey towards the black hole and the object is traveling at 'c' and has now reached a parity state with a maximum number of other nucleons at the very edge of the event horizon, which of course is a prime condition which can only be imagined. If the speed of gravity was infinite then the temperature would be infinitely great. From this we can see why such a high temperature is plausible.

Straight note: (z) refer to the derivation of 'z' tab. 'y' remains the same because we are not recognizing GTD here; just GD. Like I just said you can calculate the GTD and if you relate back to the gravitational drag with velocity section you can also calculate the force and energy on the nucleon –because GTD is GTD no matter what the cause- and then you can multiply that out to suit your fancy. I think you'll find that you wouldn't want to be there!






Moving on: When you analyze the representative Wf data set you notice that Hydrogen is the only atom which seems to almost concur with mass 'energy' equivalence and be seen to have an overall Wf (mass per mole!) which is the approximate sum of nucleon mass plus electron mass plus binding 'energy' (if it had some) per nucleon but we must remember that hydrogen is a gas until it gets very close to zero k.

Gold strangely enough has a lower Wf than aluminum which is lower than copper as you might expect but then it becomes rather puzzling to find that tin is lower than them all; and significantly anomalous. It is obvious that specific heat or (even thermal conductivity) bears no true relationship to the density or atomic weight of the metals. There must be something else going on here; but what?

We might be able to come up with an answer if we consider that the overall atomic mass can be determined by nucleon mass plus electron mass but the individual nucleon mass plus one electron mass can't account for the total mass and without M-E equivalence we can't really account for the missing mass at all. So we have a significant problem indeed, and after considering the previous refutations we probably need to set aside those specious M-E equivalence ideas and dig deeper.

Apart from the usual mass 'energy' equivalence guff, the answer to this apparent dilemma can actually be found if we relate the results tabled above to C and we then arrive at the correct answers and the atomic 'weight' results in the periodic table. You may by now be asking: If that doesn't point to mass 'energy' equivalence what then what does it represent?

I contend it only points to inverse mass/specific heat relationship and nothing else. If 'energy' rises with temperature then (according to mass 'energy' equivalence theory) we should see a proportional rise in the mass of the object. Of course we do not! Lorentzian transformation is unable to solve this problem without further removing any possibility of a cohomology because it then absurdly extends the quantum mass debacle to the universe at large. The idea is debunked and not necessary as we will soon understand. Note: We may see some small and insignificant rise for reasons which are explained elsewhere in this work.

We can truthfully state that specific heat C is inversely proportional to temperature, yet in such a way that there is no significant change in the mass.

But we now arrive at a new dilemma stated as: Ignoring slight weight variations caused by local gravity and our own speed through space; if gravitons are affecting the static atomic mass by transitions per unit volume and so causing G mass, then what has that to do with specific heat and temperature relationship in such a prescribed manner? Everything! Firstly there is a fatal flaw in the above formula for VOLUMETRIC (not molar) atomic mass in that it only works at STP and 'g' (which relates to 'Sg') so atomic weight should really be called 'specific atomic weight'.

This formula is fine for most everyday chemical procedures on earth, but for it to remain correct at all temperatures, pressures and (in particular) gravities, there needs to be a temperature and pressure related component in the formula, as well as a variable Sg proportional functor relatable to different gravities. This may prove to be difficult because even in deep space an AMO is under the omnilateral gravitational pressure of GD and we have no way of calculating the actual gravity component of pressure here on earth.

In that case we need a gravitational component which is relatable to given gravities regardless of any other pressure changes which can then be left to their standard mathematical treatment. We will soon discover that such a functor is actually available and now in plain sight. That is the gravity-flux-strength proportional 'gravitational velocity 'y' which is already mathematically related to 'c' and therefore compatible with all the other terms of the relevant equations. OMG!

By the following analysis we should be able to now recognize the existence of a universal (at sea level) GSe pressure as Gfe. This exists as a component of earth's gravity which only causes a slight distortion via GSe by the summative GTDe across individual atoms. This phenomenon also relates to the differences between gases and metallic solids, wherein density is also proportional to those density related changes in the overall GS of an AMO. Thus: The new term universal specific gravity (Sgu) is relatable to any GS or GD by the velocity functor 'y'.

Leaving that aside for the moment: If you divide each metallic element's melting point (in degrees Kelvin) by Gfe2 (squared because the Gf has a squared proportionality with energy with a doubling of gravity) then the differences become noticeably very much less, strictly in comparison with other elements that have their nucleons being filled in the same nucleon matrix filling shell: In other words, by having a similar range of GS-es. E.g. in asterisks.

(a) Al- 173*    Zn- 148*    Cu- 120*    Fe-180*    Sn- 195    Au- 216   

However a precept should be kept in mind with the following possible explanation.

With all else being stable; the specific heat of an object is temperature related as we have just noted. According to G-theory, the sustenance of temperature of objects above ground state (exempt from any other external source component) is caused by graviton transitions through the object per unit volume being equal to parity stabilizing emissions. If motion (vibrational or spatial) is caused by this, then the temperature will be affected by a quantity based on the proportionality to the (E=hf or spin kinetic 'energy') of the motion so caused as the case may be. This is because some 'energy' is spent as BBR from mechanical forces and some 'energy' is storable as momentum. I.e. A force caused the momentum and some energy particles were emitted from the object but most were retained by AIR phenomenology which allowed the motion.

So now, potential force (kinetic energy) is being carried along by the object which is now in momentum. Whether or not thermal parity was reached in momentum, when the object strikes another object or force which causes the motion to cease, energy will again be released or redirected as motion to another object and those components of energy will be equal to the original energy evaluation unless the object is too close to ground state temperature.

In purist analysis the energy consists either as particles emitted in motion or retained by AIR and carried within the object in motion. No matter what form it takes energy is particles of matter in motion -or storage in the nucleon femtospace- which is in motion. All of those particles are potential energy and under the right conditions they can be vibrated right out of the nucleons which can be brought down very close to zero degrees Kelvin. The thermal (read quantum) energies within the object have no relationship to mass which is simply a dual concept of emission and inertia (both forces) and mostly, under classical assessment the emission is ignored and under quantum assessment the inertia is ignored and such energy is supposedly relatable to mass by c2!

Specific gravity is related to the atomic density but in some as yet unknown manner and we will explore this further: The problem with the Dulong and Petit law is that it has remained unrecognized up until now that a portion of the Sg of an AMO actually comes from Sgu as well as proportionality to the matrix space filling GS variations in individual elements but that only turns out to be almost enough to account for the 10% inaccuracy.

Preliminarily I have calculated that the percentage of Sg that's relatable as Sgu is 13.99%*. However this only 'almost' accounts for the discrepancy and apart from the other one just mentioned, another reason for the balance of the inaccuracy will be forthcoming below.

Hydrogen has no matrix GS variation so its 'C' is totally dependant on the temperature and pressure. I.e. a single 1H atom has no specific heat. For evaluation at the nucleon level I have derived a formula for specific sub fermion particle density of a nucleon located within any given atomic nuclei. This is relatable to the heat or 'energy' content within any bound nucleon's quark lattice femtospace. I.e---




You should see that this is not relatable to specific heat with any direct proportionality because it strictly applies to individual nucleons including a 1H ion.

* …By the exactly zero sum game at 'Au' when calculating results from elements of the periodic table. Other elements show an almost gradual (actually linear stepped) shift from the lesser atomic masses below gold with a sudden anomalous shift at the next element in the progression which shows a sudden jump in the predicable value but which returns to near normal at the next element thallium.


I consider that the percentage of the discrepancy that shows up in the Dulong and Petit derivations due to GSs and GSe is around two percent of their ten percent component and the rest is due to dimensionally subjugated Sp changes within inelastic quark lattices including another two percent of the whole that we know about. Sorry: The computation algorithm is my little secret for now!

Accompanied by more than a suspicion of some likely profundity; this means that the GSe at sea level is an insignificant amount less than GSs at one earth orbit radius (which is the equivalent of GSs relative to our position within the universe). In deep space GD would account for a deal more of the specific heat of metals. Note: otherwise we would weigh much more at night or when the tide is high we would weigh much less. The 'psi' affect of external gravitational influences is very small unless you have a lot of 'square inches' like the ocean.

Now I would love to continue with these computations and relate static 'mass' to Sg, Sp, T and C because if the number of graviton transitions per/sec is reduced, GD declines and Er goes down (which means that GD may be the true thermometer which causes proportional change in universal average temperature). So I could then show that it is not 'real' temperature 'stuff' which has full proportionality to C; (which also includes a small proportion of GD related temperature--- which remains unchangeably reliant on universal GD)--- which means that unlike 'energy' which only has a partial proportionality--- with all else being equal, all temperature is in the end, related to gravity. Hence my 'energy'/weight factor was calculated in regard to earth's GS but the GD is still there it's just slightly unilateral now and we need to go back and adjust Sgu. If I only knew what the Gse difference compared to GD was I could calculate the 10 percent deviation we are referring to. Mmmm--- OMG GSe is about 10% less than GD. There's your explanation for the Dulong and Petit discrepancy. Note: If there was no gravity then almost all the 'energy' in the universe would have quickly vanished back to the cosmea. This argument regarding the cause of the continuance (re-energizing) of fermion/boson vibration and temperature is further expanded on in other sections. Profound note should perhaps be taken that stars are being reenergized and their loss of mass is being ameliorated by particle transfer from gravitons. No! That is still not M-Equivalence.

There is a need to bring C and Sg into the atomic weight calculations in a different manner than is currently used for these -even with respect to the normal science- when used in and around STP requirements. For a start the measurement of specific gravity has historically carried an inherent problem. The problem with Sg measurements is that whenever scientists compare density between say 'elemental' solids and a non elemental 'molecular' liquid (water) they are virtually comparing 'apples' with 'oranges'. This means that the relationship is inferred by educated guessing at best.

However it does stand that the two 1H nucleons would only give the water a Sg difference which would be similar to having the GS of two extra nucleons in its outer matrix filling shell so the anomaly would be almost negligible for just one mole.

There is a second but more significant problem, in that the water I am referring to is having its own density evaluated at about four degrees c which gives it a particular C at that temperature. Comparing this with other substances which are not at or near their freezing points, where they also change from solid to liquid is going to see them given a different value than their real comparative value of C at room temperature (or four degrees). The above listed results at (a) from Al to Au I have already related to the elemental melting points. Note: The peculiar behavior of water at around that temperature is of particular concern as well.

In temporarily changing the subject a little: If this relationship could be evaluated, or better still if the density experiment could be done when other materials were assessed at the same averaged C temperature relationship, then there would be little atomic mass deviation (not mass defect) when compared with the 1H atom in a similar situation which we already know to be in the order of 10%. Of course such comparison appears to be extraordinarily difficult to achieve experimentally. Note: The hydrogen atom is not affected by real mass discrepancy or defect, NOT BECAUSE IT HAS NO BINDING 'ENERGY' a per the typical explanation but by G-theory it is because it has no space filling or GS caused C variability with volume, only with temperature and pressure.

This also means that we could safely assume that other lone nucleons, atoms and molecules would conditionally exhibit insignificant to zero specific heat variance, because any graviton induced rise in temperature would be almost instantly sent to the eos via BBR etc and any assessment would be imperfect if at all possible. Unfortunately when it comes to metals we are forced to analyze big lumpy things containing lots of atoms!

If you take note of the results above; the asterisked elements are in the second shell which gives them a temperature corrected Ct which still show some variations which we have already noted would likely be attributable to the filling variations in that particular shell. When we study the same criteria with the elements above iron*, (that now have a third shell being filled) then there is a noticeable jump in the results compared to the elements that are filled up by the third level. However in all cases the corrected specific heat (Ct) now shows a more relatable value at just below the melting point of those metallic elements.

*The element iron is slightly anomalous because it probably exists as being completely filled at the change point to the next shell and we have no idea of the number of nucleon 'stand offs' it has extending up into the third shell. Note: if this proposition is true then non proportional differences between various isotopes of iron would be predictable. Is that the case? Yes!


This all leads to another conclusion that specific heat must somehow be relative to (not only density and pressure) but an AMOs volumetric size and 'shape' as well as the space filling of the outer matrix shell geometry and/or other higher order physical attributes, which all combine to have affects on the internal convective properties of individual elements.

Of course anyone who has heated the tip of a needle or exploded some flour, or perhaps added powdered aluminum to a mixture for 'you know what!' would have realized this size relationship phenomenon immediately, wouldn't they? If this is correct, it has grave implications for the validity of the current periodic table with regard to size related elemental atomic analysis full stop! Shape therefore must be considered to have its most noticeable affect on the tiniest particles of all that are able to contain inferred static 'mass'. I.e. nucleons. Note: This is not referring to the single atomic mass deviation caused by nuclear space filling differences. It is referring to deviation caused by faulty volumetric Sg measurements. I.e.  as weight per unit volume v atomic weight discrepancy.

Apart from the atomic DOF constraints noted in bound metals there are other notable and even more severe anomalies present in the periodic table when specific heat, specific gravity and melting points are either analyzed together and/or separately. What could possibly be the reason for these phenomena?

G-man considers it all to have to do with either/or nuclear icosahedral matrix space filling 'periodicity to aperiodicity' as well as multi-dimensional constraints on the DOF of nucleon quark lattices (being Sp).

I will attempt to show a probable reason:

Now according to the featured model, the matrix shell filing layers appear to be successively filled (barring standoffs) at or around the following atomic numbers. 2, 10, 50, 250… Periodicity is particularly notable with regard to some elemental properties for about the first twenty elements, after which it all becomes more nebulous.

Aperiodicity is also noticeable if you know where to look. One such area is the specific heat of elements just before 4He?  20Ne,  36Ar,  108Kr and most likely 216Hs. Other aperiodic anomalies occur at 50Mn, at the gold mercury transition around An160, and last but definitely not least 26Al.

Profoundly for G-theory, most of this periodic phenomenon has strong correlation with the known Pauling ionic radius blocks which are then reflected into the electron orbitals and out into higher order crystalline structures. These blocks peak at helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon which profoundly, all concur with my shell filling derivations. Lesser but significant peaks are also notable at copper, silver and gold. Both silver and tin (which is also anomalous) exist within the same noticeable periodic 'C' decline toward xenon.

When considering the metallic radii, a similar periodicity is observed. It should also be of some note that whenever 'C' is low then 'hardness' is high and this is also coincident with some estimation of the metallic ionic radii being low. Note: This is stated with the caveat that this science is not yet well understood.

Other anomalies including these lesser demarcations may be due to aperiodicity or multi-dimensional vacuum modification parameters. It is significantly notable that aluminum is the first post-transitional metal after neon and it exists in the same general properties block and it should also be of note that it only has six nucleons in its third shell which is at least ten short of being filled. This means that it exhibits a far lesser restriction on its heat capacity than its miniscule Sg would otherwise suggest. Note: Because of necessary holes and 'stand offs' into the next shell, the exact matrix shell filling requirements can't be predicted with any great certainty unless perhaps if it's atomic crystalline structure were to be analyzed.

Copper and gold both see high and low deviations above and below them; as do iron and nickel, the latter being singularly difficult to explain. However it could be by dimensional parameters because of some other property nickel exhibits (I guess). However apart from that curious anomaly, (I hate loose ends!) all of this can explain the remaining 8% range of errors previously noted which we might erroneously suspect are basically related to density. Note: to that point---the gold to mercury anomaly is the most striking and it could be that this particular transitional point is actually a theoretical center point of divergence for a larger periodic table. For now we are forced to make a lot of 'guesstimations'. Note also: It may not be a coincidence then that mercury has the lowest melting point of all metals. It is more than likely that this is because Gold and Mercury consist of DIFFERENT NEUTRONS and that this explains all the anomalous deviations.

'Mass', specific heat and thermal conductivity can be considered to be vastly different 'animals' then, at both the macro and more significantly the micro level. This means that the current periodic table atomic weight (atomic 'GSe specific mass') can only be correct for a particular yet differing state of material size, shape, temperature and pressure for each element (ignoring isotopic and other corruption). This flies fully in the face of any M-E equivalence theory.

However given the computing power that we have at our disposal; a three or four or more 'characteristic' periodic table could be designed which includes all variables via pressure/temperature, Sg/Sgu and density v volume chaotic relationship. The latter would probably need to be interpolated. In any case such a venture if culminating in success would likely be valuable for future space science and I would personally recommend the successful scientist/s for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. It could be that my 'neutron problem' might actually open the door to a solution.

The other single-atom mass problem (defect) has already been explained to be caused by space filling parameters of the nucleus and because 1H has no space filling problems its mass value in any case is able to be declared to be exactly one. I would only say 'almost' in the real world--- because the results are related to H2O which by having the angled placement of the hydrogen atoms on the oxygen atom, the molecule has a slightly lopsided space filling arrangement of its nucleons. However it is an atom on the small side so the discrepancy may only be in the order of many significant zeros on the right hand side of the decimal point. Note: GS and differential GTD have a real but insignificant affect on mass in our corner of the universe. We have previously seen however that static 'mass' can be significantly different at hyper velocities and in huge gravitational fields.

There is another (previously described) mass deviation caused by the variation in transitions of a finite number of gravitons per unit volume. It is possible that this may actually iron out some of the other discrepancies and the mass defect may even appear to become a credit in certain cases.

All in all, this cannot be an accurate science until we can get further inside the nucleus, and the current experimentally evaluated results are all that we have to work with, and so we simply have to ignore or explain the discrepancies away for the time being until the correct model is found. (You may notice that G-man boldly raises his hand at this point) and also present the Sp and Sgu as other variables which are able to help explain the C(mol) difference between gases and metals. Note: My hand is held high. The G-theory postulation that metals consist of a variable elemental related quantity of beta neutrons while gases only have alpha neutrons should perhaps be investigated further.

In this sense, the mole, atomic number and molar mass remain unchanged because they have been fairly accurately derived from observed experiments even if some inaccuracies still exist. What I have also just achieved in a small way is to explain another contributive parameter of the mass defect non-relativistically.

The previously noted C(mol) mass problem may still remain, but now for the different reasons that have been tabled herein. I.e. being the degrees of freedom (DOF) variability 'Sp'. 'Sgu' and the two mass defect/discrepancy problems just analyzed.

If the mass of 1H is restated to actually be 'one' and the above methods used to calculate the atomic masses of all the other elements then the traditional periodic table is 'kaput'. However I see no valid reason to bury it unless some new space science requires greater accuracy according to the subjective terms of this analysis. It remains a fact that the periodic table is eminently useful for chemistry in Earth's GS (including in earth orbit) but for accurate nucleon analysis, and for space travel purposes, a whole other table may be required.

In further analysis of specific heat, notice should perhaps be taken of the fact that a bottom quark has been found to possess many times more mass than the ion it originated from. This is a profound problem for conventional nuclear science, as are the just described specific heat anomalies.

This isn't a dilemma for G-theory which simply supposes that the bottom quark ends up with the lion's share of the 'n' of the gravitons in the quark lattice femtospace being attributed to it, which likely contributes to its proposed P-mass. This could be indicative of the possibility that different elements exhibit differing numerical matter values in the specific quark lattices at the same temperature and pressure. Thus they will exhibit a specific heat that IS MORE RELATABLE TO THE Q-L BOSON NUMBER AND DOF than density (Sg).

What now then? This means that a quark-lattice quark exhibits G mass variability if one could exist alone that is. The mass must be shared by the quarks in a variable mass apportioning relationship. However this does not preclude the idea that N mass can see an overall slight increase at high temperatures (or color charge states?).

No experiments have been carried out that I know of to check for dissimilar mass deviations between N mass and G mass with temperature. I would predict that G mass would never significantly change*. In other words at very high temperatures an AMOs weight would remain relatively stable even though its inertial mass could change.

*With high traffic volumes of emission-able particles within the nucleon proper a slight increase could be expected.









Science has been happily apt to promote uncertain advancement of futuristic technologies by welcoming laudable but specious theories up to date. This in spite of the fact that (even though they may contain unwieldy discrepancies) credence has been given to the many novel and implausible sounding reasons which have been historically argued in order to explain the problems away. Interestingly such an example is the current quantum model which could be seen to be a 'box on wheels' much like mine. The question is: Which model can be 'pimped' the best and which better answers to the enigmas and contradictions? I believe those dilemmas are being comprehensively addressed and many (in theory) have been dutifully solved with this presentation?

In regard to the E in Einstein's formula: It must by now be recognized that it has nothing at all in common with the classical definition of E. So the term should therefore be regarded as a misnomer. If (as I conclude) it can be shown that the mass defect is due to graviton transitions and the lost mass is proportional to graviton transitions then perhaps the universal 'energy' formula should be changed to apply as Eg=mc2 where Eg is graviton transitional 'energy' loss. However the previously derived formula for 'energy' serves the purpose much better.

Binding force is not E! Any 'energy' released by another force is the 'energy' contained as the kinetic 'energy' of the motion of the particles so released from their biracial force bonds and repelled. It is that subjective 'energy' that can be only somewhat determined by E=mc2.

So we can finally conclude that E is not directly transposable with 'm' in a nucleon. 'Mass' itself is related to density by the agency of AIR, as well as being partially carried by the pertinent particles which are still being perturbativly transited by gravitons. Also consider the misappropriation of terms whereby 'energy' can also mean force as well as 'mass'. Is that science I see flying out the window?

If you are a high 'energy' or other physicist, why not stand back a bit from the intricacies of the projects you are working on and consider the implications of the possibility; that your experimental results may actually be proving the invalidity of 'mass-energy'/force equivalence. If M-E equivalence were to be true, then your high 'energy' and conversely hyper low temperature experiments should seriously affect the outcomes of current mass/'energy' resolutions. Do they?

If not; then such a mass/energy connection must be intelligently deduced to be an illegal relationship with an 'energy' which is totally divorced from classical 'energy'. However that is also refutable (regardless of the traditionally specious connection of the eV to the coulomb) by the noted ability of electrical 'energy' to do work we all somehow 'know' that they are connected in some manner! I hope I have shown earlier that it is real 'energy' and not 'virtual energy' eV which is not equivalent to mass, because mass cannot be affected by either internal or external energy simply because of the Q-L's additional 'B-E like' G-statistics. 'Energy' being termed in eV is specious.

Any other relativistic or miraculous reason for clinging to the proposed idea of time shifts occurring within nucleons could, (in the light of my conclusions) be seen as absurd. I would suggest that to continue to call quantum state E by the standard term E is confusing to say the least. Perhaps 'Eq in eJ' would be a more fitting term and unit. Also; we have already seen that particle mass, gravitational mass and Newtonian mass are caused by different phenomena and they are all then mistakenly labeled when monikered with the blanket term; 'mass'.





In conclusion I must answer a question which may be hovering around in your head. You might be thinking: "That's all very interesting and perhaps arguable but I thought your theory was about transitional particle gravity and mass, so what do phenomena such as nucleon filling matrices and specific heat, have to do with that?"

OK; I can see that you haven't really read the last couple of chapters or you weren't paying any attention but I guess I started chewing on what turned out to be a humungous steak only to find that it was so tough and connected by sinews that I had to take it all in as one mouthful.

Yes all these things are connected to the other elements of the theory in the same way. Specific heat has been concluded to have a high dependence on Sg and Sgu being caused by GSe and GD respectively as well as nucleon and atomic/molecular space filling patterns and numeric particle densities so involved all being transited by non vacuum modifying perturbative gravitons.

Nucleon filling arrangements affect nucleonic DOF, while atomic and molecular space filling geometry affects a higher atomic order of DOF as well as both of them affecting convection, BBR and other forms of radiation, and neutron variability affects everything! Until these nucleon matrices are known and the proportions of gravitational pressure being applied to nuclei are calculated, a robust understanding of the science cannot be had. Note: I was intending to continue work on that but I'm done!

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.

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. Note: ignoring the Petit and Dulong deviation for the moment: This connection can only be true if gravity and a significant component of mass in nucleons are caused by a graviton transitional phenomenon, whereby the gravitational G mass causes the weight and the T mass even though it consist of a vastly greater proportion of G mass that p mass, is because of GTD balance and that inertia and the laws of motion in nucleons and above is mainly caused by N mass elicited by AIR at rest and low real world velocities.

N.B. At higher velocities (which should be noted with profundity) includes the 'f' of nucleons, the G mass of a particle causes a counterforce (which has already been explained in the linear sense as space drag) and this is the phenomenon which allows a higher degree of 'freedom of motion' for electrons that have insignificant G mass, while at the same time constricting the motion of protons and neutrons by GTDv elicited counterforce.

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.

In concluding another subject: Specific gravity is relatable to density per volume. However a portion of that density is related to the nuclear-GS, GSe and GD which is also specifically different in those various gravities. Keeping things to evaluation in Earth's gravity; this means that a mole of the powdered metal will have less N mass than a mole of a bonded form and it will also weigh less. Conversely the specific heat of the powder is less than that of the bonded form. I.e. it will more rapidly achieve a higher temperature with evenly applied heat.

The nuclear DOF that contemporary science speaks of has more to do with the mechanics at work within a quark lattice than the actual compressional dysfunction of the individual nucleons in atoms.


Gravity has now been unified with mass, 'energy', quantum physics and chemistry without a hint of relativity in sight!








You may wish to leave me now long suffering reader, because here is where I will probably get to be burnt at the stake! Never mind: In that case you might as well put some marshmallows on a stick and we'll get on with the show.

A vibrating force with a linear component of motion can transfer that linear component to another object within its field of influence and it can also exhibit trans-dimensional effectiveness by perturbation. Note: This is why GD anomalies can cause scintillation affects noticed in light from stars.

By classical physics, all objects with atomic mass should, exhibit a perfectly elastic rebound collision process because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and whether it is an actual collision or a collision of forces the result must be the same. This means that at quantum levels unless miracles are occurring at an astonishing rate then the particles within nucleons must be declared to have no actual mass. 'Mass' would therefore be declared to be 'energy' again.

So there must be an actual miracle occurring because inelastic collisions occur all the time everywhere in the quantum world as well, otherwise vibrations (or as is declared spin) could not occur with any actual 'frequency'! The miracle is probably being performed by gluons and their sphere of influence which is the strong binding force and to a lesser extent the other forces at work in an elastic yet somehow inelastic process by chucking force mass and 'energy', elasticity and inelasticity in the ' quantum food processor' and switching it on.

In my nucleon world, the only particles that have inelastic scattering are non-vibrational but they are instantly transferable as matter/force content. Putting these elastic and inelastic processes to work we can see how a transiting graviton can trade both a partial speed component and also a matter component which translates to heat etc. by re-emission. (You know zeroeth law blah blah)

 In the first instance a non-confined graviton trades linear spatial speed for vibrational amplitude (speed) during transitions. (OK spin if you really must) This results also in a forced and instantaneous linear speed change in both of the gravitons which are transiting each other. If one is transiting through the femtospace inside a nucleon's Q-L then the nucleon/AMO will instantly exhibit a linear speed change in some proportion to the closing speed and the strong binding force confinement within the atom which is caused by the biracial bonding forces which are holding it together, and the motion relative changes can be considered to be caused by electro-weak and g-factored force interactions and not by any perceived physical contact This would be impossible in the real world of classical physics but because of the forces being fundamentally caused by a cosmean multi-dimensional affect of matter anti-matter biracial attraction force it can and it does.

In AMOs the effect of a high volume of multilateral graviton transitions is transferred through the object the same way that any motion affecting force is. That is via the binding forces. Again there is never any actual physical contact of 'hard' matter within any AMO or object in the universe. It is all held together and moved by FORCE!

Transference of 'energy' only occurs by the swapping of fundamental force particles which are able to be emitted by BBR or photonic radiation or by 'handshake' swapping between atoms. If the gravitons only caused motion relative change (because they are massless particles) all that would be seen would be a straight trade of motion without any 'energy' being transferred and used.

Any idea that mass converts to 'energy' and the value can be determined by resultant velocities may be fine mathematically if assumptions are made regarding the terms of the formula. Notwithstanding this it is without feasibility, because there is no known mechanism in vector math which can account for a vibration amplitude (spin) change which has no linear component to cause a linear transfer of motion relative force with resultant momentum as a linear kinetic 'energy' component.

This would also mean that at rest the object would have to have full potential 'energy' and no mass and at 'c' the reverse would be the case. This must then result in the ridiculous assumption that we exhibit the mass that we do because we are moving through space at about 250km/sec and everything (including photons at the time of emission) has less 'energy', and the interesting fact that because the photon already has a speed of 250km/sec. this would confer it with realizable mass as well, and therefore instantaneous photon acceleration would be impossible. Note: This is where Newton's virtual frame of reference was required and which I have hopefully supplied by enlisting the services of the herein theorized gravitons.

The multiplicity related mechanics resulting in the setting of the speed of light at c-v in order to achieve conditional 'c' constancy: It's all quite simple really once you have a consistent and fully workable model. Let's get that light speed anisotropy experiment underway!

A nucleon (within an AMO) is traveling at velocity 'v'. The inelastic quark lattice receives the 'data' from the spatial-displacement-rate caused differential nature of graviton transitions as GTDv. This just means that the Q-L which is able to move around (like a yolk in an egg) becomes shifted by GTDv force in the reverse comparative direction from the 'geocenter' of the nucleus. This in turn affects the Higg's biracial force compression on the cosmean branes. These are the branes responsible for the emission of photon quanta via the bottom quark photos brane and it now becomes compressed in an equatorially proportional manner to the force acting against the Q-L.* this means that light will be emitted at different velocities which are fully proportional to the vector relationships of the proposed affect on the branes and that will result in a proportional emission speed change fully dependant on the instantaneously evaluated linear spatial displacement of the nucleon.

Light emission speed wouldn't be affected by other external forces because these enter from the SBF bond junctions and there is a mechanism which ignores vibrations and force from that direction. This is likely because (if you think about it) external forces including magnetic and coulombic are not unilateral but omnilateral with a compression on one side of the nucleon WF structure and an extension on the other, all in vector relationship. If an external force causes spatial displacement then the original mechanics takes effect.

Because this phenomenology is being considered with nucleons which have a non balanced pyramid shaped tri-arm EWF structure, it is to be understood that a statistical balance will be achieved in higher order AMOs. This means that a light emitting hydrogen atom would not achieve the same statistical emission speed results. Such an anomaly need not be taken into consideration when analyzing light speeds from stellar observances because gravity irons it out. This means that if emission speeds are imperfect there is not a problem, and in the world we live in imperfection rules and we just don't see that in light emission so this is further support for a propagation medium—called gravity.

*This affects the g and form factors which send a force to the electron orbitals and if PEP and Fermi are OK with it an electron will jump a shell. That sends a reverse message back to the Q-L and because in that case the quantum bucket had signaled it was full, and it will consequently be emptied. If the electron doesn't jump within the required time or is forced by external forces to jump too early and the parity conditions are right, a full quantum, lesser or impotent photon will be conditionally emitted as BBR.

If the nucleon is traveling at hyper speeds the emissions to rearward might cease. All of these decisions are due to the inherent programming of the force interrelationships and structures which cause the actions by way of dimension switching. E.g. A group of photo bosons are readied in the force field which reads the increased energy of the graviton transitions.

These are passed into the eos where they are bundled together via a timed 'squirt' proportional to the changed Q-L Sp conditions. The eos contains them for the time taken for the cosmean brane to rebound and if the g and form factors are just so because an electron has jumped an energy level then the bottom quark brane (where the photon packet is now located) switches from the eos to the photos, and at that instant the CMF operating in the photos ejects the packet at 'c'-v (vectored).

If the electron position change energy level data didn't arrive and the cosmean brane had fully rebounded then the emission would have been from the eos as BBR. The end result would be the same but the emission would be conditionally greater or lesser than a quantum. In this case greater.

 The eos has it's finger on the energy parity state surrounding the nucleon simply by the affects of the rate of comings or goings of emissions. A certain value of such disparity can also result in the eos causing the Hilbert factors to ask the question of the electron regardless, and photon or BBR will then be the result but still velocity elated. An external physical/virtual force is able to compress the Higgs Zo boson cosmean brane and also external emf forces are able to force an electron to jump and cause a similar emission. The femtospace is continually being refilled by graviton-trion attrition.

The timing is caused by the interrelationship between PEP and the EWF Higg's brane vibrational period. The reception of light is also dependent on internal dimensional states.

You could imagine that the original cosmea was made of nothing but that the nothing contained a potential structural order. ---amazing stuff---weird! Who gave us the right to restrict our concept of 'nothing' to not anything according to our own preconditions? For people who don't even know what 'something' is that's a bit of a stretch. Is it harder to consider that nothing can contain patterns or particles moving at hyper velocities? Remember that such conjectures are not magical explanations because they don't defy known laws of physics with regard to the fundamental subjectivisms listed at the beginning of the book. Relativity does. It requires a magical force.


Now this is very problematic for the supposed behavior of light in some popular theories. By way of objection to the idea that a photon has a vibrational amplitude velocity of 'c' when at rest, and no vibration when traveling at 'c' we should note the many different frequencies which are typical of various photons and ask for an explanation of how they can all be vibrating at 'c' or indeed have no vibration when traveling. The infrared photon which has the lowest 'energy' content would have to exhibit the greatest amplitude while an x-ray photon would have the lowest, and consequently the lowest 'energy' state according to E=hv. Unfortunately for such a postulation, the reverse is seen to be true and the idea has no legs. Not even relativistically.

We might consider that mass is the resistance that all particles and AMOs exhibit to any attempted change to their velocities. This bold assumption confers mass on quantum particles. I will soften this thought by entertaining the idea that only particles above the level of a photon are subject to classical Newtonian mass laws. The lesser particles are subject to the laws of their dimensions per. se. But it should be noted that all particles require the action of a force for any change in velocity which therefore confers them with P mass.

We can now see that relativistically speaking E=mc2 is only  somewhat correct for moving photons near ground state and proportionally erroneous with regard to the size of other particles and AMOs in some manner. This is because of the relationships in F=ma which relates the now extremely low (Q-L state zero) mass of a photon with the extremely great quanta stepped force which causes photon emission. This of course seems to suggest that photons have an acceleration rate. This may actually be the case, but it would be so fast as to be indiscernible and immeasurable. The latter mainly being because any measuring instruments utilize quantum particles in their functionality which abrogates their ability to be able to detect such an 'almost' instantaneous acceleration rate. It should be noted that 'c' is the quantum velocity of light emission in any given 'gravity' and this has grave implications for the standard explanation of black holes as well as relativity.

We have previously seen that mass to a great extent is NOT related to the 'energy' content or temperature/motion of the object. 'Energy' does not exist outside of matter but this has nothing to do with mass outside of certain particle activity. E.g. the formula for neutrino 'energy' at ground state would then be E=mn2 where 'n' is the speed of the neutrino and 'energy' relates specifically to its speed because m is not simply zero it is not even in the formula which should really be E=n2 and F=ma is also redundant under these non Newtonian P mass conditions*. The force required to cause any change in the motion of the neutrino becomes dimensional and F=ma only becomes active within the multi-dimensional framework where so called massless particles are combined in greater constructs of hadrons and above.

*In this way the formula for the 'energy' of a photon would have to be impossibly high by E=c2 and if a neutrino is faster than a photon then it must be concluded to have more 'energy' and supposed matter content than a photon as well.


'Quantum notional energy' has nothing to do with 'mass' outside of these subjective summative quantum activities. 'Energy' in the higher generational AIR case is simply the perceived action of work being done or the potential to do work, and all by the agency of force but now we can see a circular relationship between 'energy' and force when we consider that all force is a summative construct of the fundamental forces such that E=F in relative terms.

So what actually is mass then? That's the sixty four million dollar question in physics. To have any hope of finding the answer we should look for our miracle by going to the lowest particle of matter which I have called a trion. A biracial trion's halves* are dimensionally estranged and are considered by this theory to be the fundamental building blocks of all matter.

*They are actually neutrinos when separated.


A single biracial trion pair is a gluon and you will notice when you check my diagrams of the basic structure of particles that the only particles that are subject to Newtonian laws (disregarding the constraints of graviton functions) are particles that contain gluons in their structure. By that understanding we should be able to evaluate some relationship between the number of gluons and the mass of particles. Anyone up to the task? I'll bet this whole theory that there is a definite relationship! According to G-theory a proton has one less SBF gluon than a neutron. The electron has taken one of these SBF gluons as well as one from the quark matrix. (which doesn't count) So in effect the electron has only taken one gluon mass with it. From this and our fair knowledge of Am we should be able to calculate with some certainty the number of SBF gluons that typical protons and neutrons posses. The defect as already been analyzed.

Now a trion or anti trion existing as BBR have no 'mass' or momentum and unlike other particles; whether biracial or not it only, but not exclusively requires an eos dimensional force to cause one to instantaneously move. This action could never of course be observed. However all biracial matter combinations are thought by G-theory to have P mass and therefore be able to exhibit N mass no matter how infinitesimal or how masked that mass may be by dimensional and/or virtual forces.

Now the lowest tier fundamental biracial particle of matter is hereby recognized to be the brane separated gluon*. It can only be suspected at this stage of the treatise that the force required to change the velocity of an unaffected gluon is the retroactive force of resistance to change of a gluons space time state by the dimension of the cosmea either that or the resistance to any attempted cross brane distortions of the biracial trion pair spatial relationship, and this which is actually the lowest fundamental operation of the PIR phenomenology will now be suspected of being the fundamental cause of P mass in all biracial particles. Any motion requiring the distortion must occur over time even if the force were instantaneously applied. I.e. NO TIME; NO MASS! So 'mass' is fully related to time which is the prime constant in all motion which declares 'energy' while force F is not. This seems to support E=mc2. It does! ---but within the limitations that I have presented. Note 1: All single race particles still have some P mass by biracial perturbative attraction. You might consider a situation where a lone trion or anti trion exists in space and therefore has no 'mass'. That would be true but of little consequence, and if it wasn't absorbed into the eos as BBR it would just remain cold and lonely for a while. Note 2: This is an iteration of previous subject matter.

*I have not shown a gluon in the Higg's model (except in the extended EWF structure) because I can't find a definitive phenomenology between the Higg's boson and the gluon but there has to be one. Perhaps the Higg's role is to transfer the mass derived by gluons!? The theory however is fully adapted enough for release and others might be able to expand on this matter.

Now we come to the crux of the matter when we further analyze the idea of 'mass-energy' equivalence. I indicated earlier that it was really matter 'energy' equivalence and now I will give my reasons.

The problem with the current idea of 'mass-energy' equivalence is that it only takes into account strong binding force as the sole agency of inertial mass by nucleon summation. This is specious because of the lack of a thorough understanding of the mechanics of the subject in question.

By G-theory, notional matter 'energy' equivalence is provided in AMOs by AIR. This is a combination of four forces which are 1/ strong nuclear binding force, 2/ weak nucleon binding force, 3/atomic electron bond force and 4/ the resultant force of instantaneous mechanical integrity. These are all summative to arrive at the overall matter 'energy' equivalence; not mass.

Now these forces all act in concert against other motive forces which include mechanical, GTD and so called virtual forces.

As we move down the generational scale of matter some of the equivalence forces drop away, such that unbound nuclides are no longer subject to electron bonding force, but they are still subject to GTD, virtual and mechanical (kinetic) forces.

As we move further down the scale to below the level of fermions, GTD drops away and now the particles inertial mass is only related to kinetic forces and virtual forces, and finally as we move down to the level of bosons then only the virtual forces are responsible for inertial mass. Note: Virtual forces include biracial and electrostatic charge coulombic forces as well as magnetic force. GTD is not considered to be virtual force because it is caused by graviton particles.

Now of course we notice that once we drop down below the level of individual nucleons the particles are no longer subject to AIR and we now call the phenomenon particle integrity resolution (PIR).

The affect that the GS of grouped objects down to the level of nucleons has on the GTDv force has be treated in a previous chapter.

So stating this all in terms of 'energy' we can say that inertial mass is the sum of the total number of all RELEVANT energies acting within a rest state object which are all working to hold it together by the agency of forces, BUT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PARTICLES RESIDING WITHIN THE QUARK LATTICE apart from the SBF gluons, so even the notion of E-matter equivalence becomes less applicable with size above that of bosons. So in that case we must even drop that idea.

This brings me to the reason that unstable nuclei eventually decrepitate. Reason: At some stage a change in GTD force by GS variations causes a motive force sufficient to overcome sufficiently weakened SBFs in such nuclei. In other words the particle gets vibrated to destruction by chance if left alone.

Now we have seen, and should be able to conclude that because the SBF gluons are intrinsic to the quark lattice, that the phenomenology of N mass is by the resistance to the attempted change of Quark lattice position in time (relative to the cosmea and not space). The fundamental phenomenon of the causative gluon PIR resistance is with regard to space.

Now we will look at G mass which is a component of atomic mass, and which allows weight and space drag; this latter phenomenon being the inertial reference frame that was missing in Newton's theory and which Einstein appeared to have solved by applied relativity and some arbitrary assumptions.

G mass is the vibrational motion relative component of gluons that exist (mostly as the agency of SBF) outside the quark lattice. Thus GRAVITY and SBF and 'MASS' are tied together and along with the other known force relationships we now have a unified theory which unites all the fundamental forces.

These forces then find their commonality in gluons that are either the building blocks of quarks providing nuclear binding or pion mesons positioned in readiness for and control of such binding.

The static G mass is caused by the GRAVITON TRANSITIONAL VIBRATIONAL component by perturbation, which imparts such motion which is then translatable in a spatial motion sense into N mass. So in the end G mass is actually a type of N mass but it exhibits a starkly different phenomenology as noted above.

Now in some iteration I will restate that N mass is never an actually observable quality or quantity until a change in motion occurs in any object, such that apart from G mass any 'momentary' or stationary particle which contains an SBF gluon only has the observable quantity of its fully potential P mass being exhibited as N mass.

In a theoretical consideration; apart from GTD or gravitational force the gluon-ic vibration would be progressively changed to linear P mass with increase in the speed of an object until at 'c' one could declare that the object only consisted of P mass. So in simplifying this I will suggest that all 'mass' is fundamentally caused by the cross brane biracial attraction of trions, which is firstly realizable as N 'mass' of vibration by the agency of external forces such as BBR, electrostatic and magnetic virtual forces, and it is this N 'mass' which is the observable fundamental 'mass' of sub nucleon particles. G 'mass' is elicited in nucleons and AMOs and to slight extent electrons by graviton transitions and other bosonic activity. T mass associated with force carrier particles outside of the quark lattice then becomes the N mass which only becomes exhibited by spatial motion. We notice this in particle collisions.

It should be understood at this juncture that gravitons do NOT apply 'mass' by collision. They only apply force by particle transfer as 'energy' to the nuclear resident gravitons and effective virtual force perturbative to SBF gluons.

Gluons within a non acc-decelerative quark matrix, whether residing in bosons or not are subject to the inelasticity principle whereby even though they are biracial pairs of trions they are deemed to be inert and without vibration (spin) because within the matrix femtospace I would dare to suggest TIME doesn't exist and instantaneous motion (inelastic) is the only mechanically applicable phenomenology. This leads to the theory that the quark matrix within every nucleon occupies the same space time in line with the multiplicity laws of the cosmea via the cosmean brane and the lattice itself is a part of the original cosmea which in itself predicates a disposition to resist any time disjunctive acc-decelerations.

This is fundamentally because THE COSMEAN BRANE and FEMTOSPACE MUST BE connected to the INFINITE IN ORDER FOR THE CONCEPTS OF MOMENTUM AND STATIONARY TO BE ONE AND THE SAME THING. Within the constraint of the quark lattice gluons cosmean brane which holds the biracial gluon pairs separate, both spatial separation and time are invalid as either observable or mechanical parameters.

So there you have it by reiteration: An expansive explanation regarding the answer to the question of how momentum is able to be considered to be similar to stationary during the realization of the existence of 'mass' of any description.

For everyone normal: you can twang a rubber band at any speed. It doesn't care! Neither does the mass generating 'rubber band'.

Tri or indeed penta-charges are only possible in cosmean matter because of the quasi-crystalline asymmetry thought to be the geometric form of the cosmean matter construct. Once again I can state that atoms and black holes are cousins. This is because; as we have previously noted: Protons and (to a greater extent) neutrons are derived constructs from cosmean praetoms.

So we now have a case wherein (as I have previously shown) E=mc2 only really applies in the cosmea: to wit--- in a quark lattice. So; in an example where we fill an object with particles of 'mass', such as when we heat up a piece of iron with an oxy-torch. The quark lattice acts like a 'mass' sink where E=mc2 still almost applies but without any noticeable change in the 'mass' of the overall object and we only see a temperature rise. This is the actual case in the real world where we can show that E=mc2 can't apply to large objects but the missing mass has notionally disappeared into the lattice where it can becomes QCD color charge under changing bosonic pressure (Sp) conditions' which regardless of that, results in a temperature rise of the nucleons and subsequently the whole AMO.

So then (as I have previously shown) if particles with 'mass' within a quark lattice do not contribute to the overall 'mass' of the large AMO then we can recognize implications for the anomalous specific heat problems which were addressed in an earlier chapter which could therefore actually be caused by specific elemental variations in the form factor relationships between the various quark lattice and electron configuration sets with specific attention being given to DOF. This may then also have some implications for boiling and melting points. Refer to the relevant sections.

Now that I've stated that E=mc2 only applies within a quark lattice, this brings me to the point where I must address the subject of quantum relativistic affects. I didn't lie; I am addressing it: There is no relativistic effect just elastic relative affects, otherwise we would have electrons exhibiting genuine orbits. In fact because the forces and particles travel at almost the same speeds we end up with a big slushy elastic relationship which results in electron orbitals which exhibit elastic patterns relatable to the phononic forces interacting via the nuclear g and form factors. This relationship allows a multitude of possible elastic relationships in real time which enables multiplexive changes to be seen in real time as well.

This of course means that Lorentz/Poincare invariance or S-rel at the quantum level is not required and would actually be a severe impediment resulting in intractable featureless atoms incapable of any flexible action and the instantaneously actionable forces would tear them apart. Think about it these particles have next to no mass; under relativity they would end up in exact positions relative to exact force requirements in real time. There would be no uncertainty principle, QIP or PEP etc. No mass; no anything. The dynamic bunch of 'rubber bands' we call the energy engine of the atom would be impossible.

Now the Lorentz invariance disallows any unification with quantum mechanics which relies on Schrodinger's equation and no matter how many Wigner $3j$-s you throw at it there is no possibility of the required result. In fact some equations attempting to derive solutions actually nail down a constricting rule instead. Take the following example: What does a equal when---

a=c/b   b+c=d   c-b+d=0---? (AOD) There are two conceptual arguments in there. Rules--- 1/ c is not 0.    2/ all terms on the right are positive integers.

This is exactly the sort of conceptual nightmare that happens with the Lorentz/Poincare invariance.  While elegantly keeping Maxwell's field functions straight in the reference frame of the moving observer the Lorentz equation presents a rule that prevents real time wave function interrelationships between electrons and nuclei. An electron's wave function can only be observed from the reference frame of the electron moving at about 'c'. This means that the proton which is in another motion relative reference frame with a motion differential approaching 'c' can't detect the wave function because another reverse overlapping time reference frame is required, so nothing will occur unless time can be any old concept and none at the same --- 'time'?

This is all the case unless you bring in other violations to counter that violation of a violation and so forth and we are then faced with a host of symmetry breaking allowances. It's all rubbish which just gets quirkier and more full of holes as time goes on. Of course physicists are being paid big bucks to keep coming up with the band-aids. Where will it all end? Not at the truth I can guarantee you that!

Considering the conceptualization of the theorized age of astronauts traveling at close to 'c' and the relative vast age difference between them with respect to the earth's reference frame; also predicts an electron nucleus age difference which matters little but there will be a real time differential between electrons and nuclei which might be in femtoseconds when an electron is approaching a nucleus and measured as a greater time, possibly seconds when it is moving away*. Does the emr factor only interact with electron approaches and the factors catch up later when the electron changes direction? Answer: Yes because the invariance is only own reference frame invariance. We would definitely have vacuum polarization of the time disjunct sort and not the multiplex kind.

*This could force the electrons to eave the orbitals if the whole atom is also in spatial motion and this could explain why atoms become stripped of electrons at hyper velocities. Apart from temperature there is no other reason. Real world velocities even up to several hundred Km/sec wouldn't have much affect on elemental characteristics but at hyper velocity even the fields might swap because bosonic wave function is also being similarly affected but to a lesser degree, and that has nothing to do with relativity. Relativity came from an era that knew little about quantum wave function. ---it's dark-age stuff! Get over it.


Maxwell's fields might look perfect to the electron and the nucleus individually and everything might subjectively appear to be traveling at 'c' between reference frames but that's just appearance and not actual fact and it wouldn't get the job done at all. If you had trouble with the little math concept above then don't bother to conceptualize this argument trap.

Let's not stay in this place--- and end up throwing equations at each other. I suggest that a slightly lagging interaction is better than no interaction at all! There is some invariance and this concurs with more recent observations.* The electron will truly be leaving behind its own wave function but the proton will still receive it in a contracted or expanded directional related form and visa versa. In this way variant orbitals will orbitally modulate the interrelated WF in different ways resulting in more elemental characteristics. This can also even explain the shape of orbitals in the first place. Refer to Chapter 23.

*Refer  to     http://physics.princeton.edu/romalis/articles/Pospelov%20and%20Romalis%20-%20Lorentz%20Invariance%20on%20Trial.pdf 

Considering the conceptualization of the age of astronauts traveling at close to 'c' and the relative vast age difference between them with respect to the earth's reference frame; also predicts an electron nucleus age difference which matters little but there will be a real time differential between electrons and nuclei which might be in femtoseconds when an electron is approaching a nucleus and measured as a greater time, possibly seconds when it is moving away*. Does the emr factor only interact with electron approaches and the factors catch up later when the electron changes direction? Answer: Yes because the invariance is only own reference frame invariance.

*This could force the electrons to eave the orbitals if the whole atom is also in spatial motion and this could explain why atoms become stripped of electrons at hyper velocities. Apart from temperature there is no other reason. Real world velocities even up to several hundred Km/sec wouldn't have much affect on elemental characteristics but at hyper velocity even the fields might swap because bosonic wave function is also being similarly affected but t a lesser degree, and that has nothing to do with relativity. Relativity came from an era that knew little about quantum wave function. ---it's dark-age stuff! Get over it.

Maxwell's fields might look perfect to the electron and the nucleus individually and everything might subjectively appear to be traveling at 'c' between reference frames but that's just appearance and not actual fact and it wouldn't get the job done at all. If you had trouble with the little math concept above then don't bother to conceptualize this argument trap.

Let's not stay there and end up throwing equations at each other. I suggest that a slightly lagging interaction is better than no interaction at all! The electron will truly be leaving behind its own wave function but the proton will still receive it in a contracted or expanded directional related form and visa versa. In this way variant orbitals will orbitally modulate the interrelated WF in different ways resulting in more elemental characteristics. This can also even explain the shape of orbitals in the first place.

In another way; the nodes would be the result of observational time delayed modulation by electrons leaving behind and then catching up and belatedly responding to their own wave function when they are finally forced to change direction in accordance with their delayed (dragged) response to the nucleus's WF. We could call this frame drag modulation and this could also offer a contribution to the derivation of the phenomenology behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Just declaring that fermions must have asymmetric interrelated wave function is not enough.

The g-factor will be necessarily different in various elements and this can cause the characteristic transparence of some materials. This can also be affected by external magnetic fields leading to he observed Stark, Zeeman and Paschen-Back effects.

Because of the principle derived herein: "The requirement for Poincare invariance necessarily involves an infinite number of omnidirectional reference frames with a net result of zero time warping." The proposition of the requirement for several time dimensions in some 'string theories' becomes very unattractive especially when considered in the light of the necessity for time disjunctive dimensions at the quantum level.

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 we don't have to incessantly argue conceptualisms, 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.

By the way: a=(indefinable). There will be arguments. Please don't reply.