GTHEORY thesis CH 22
CHAPTER 22
: 'ENERGY', MASS, SPECIFIC
687
GRAVITY
AND SPECIFIC HEAT RELATIONSHIPS

THE DERIVATION OF
THE TRUE ATOMIC
699
'ENERGY' EQUATION

OTHER RELATED
MATTERS
704

SALT FOR AN OPEN
WOUND
712
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
subfermion 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 subjectiveized 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 Gtheory are able to be concluded to account
for the currently noted anomalies then that should be seen to be direct and
substantive support for Gtheory 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 Gtheory; 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 GS_{e}
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 Gtheory 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, GS_{e}
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=mc^{2}.
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 Gtheory by what I call the 'energy'/weight factor
(Gf_{e}) per nucleon by the formula Gf_{e}=Am.Sg.Cv) you arrive
at an almost correct relationship where…
Am (mole)=Gf_{e}/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 (C_{p}H) for metals
by the formula C_{m}=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 Gf_{u}=Am.Sg_{u}.C_{v} (where Sg_{u}
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 Sg_{u} is actually the specific gravity in deep space.
If you divide this by twice the atomic number, this then would essentially
become the nucleon Gf_{e} 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 GS_{e}, 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 'Gless gravitational formula' tab and the 'NewtonKg 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 (E_{a}) 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 c^{2}. actually (cv)^{2}* whereby
when cv=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.
E_{a}=Gf.m.y.T
energy of a mole.
For a single CU atom traveling at the speed
of light on earth
E_{ea}= m_{a}.Sg.C.y.T= m_{a}.Wf.y.T ('y' is in m/s estimated. It could be
greater) m_{a} 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.
E_{t atom}=0.97J
at 'c' 300^{o}k
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 300^{o}k. Energy becomes
much more at higher temperatures in direct 'orders of magnitude'
proportionality so at 3,000,000^{o}k it would be 9706J) falling to only
4.3e7J or 2.6838TeV when traveling at 1/2c and still lower to 0.00027TeV at
300^{o}k.
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 ME equivalence. There is only some proportionality
relatable to the Wf that's all. The temperature component of thermal 'energy'
is that which disallows true ME 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
E_{rs}=
E_{ea}/(c0)^{2}
= E_{ea}/c^{2}
TOTAL
(theoretical) Rest 'energy'=67.16eV for one copper atom at rest state at 300^{o}k
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.
THE
DERIVATION OF THE TRUE ATOMIC 'ENERGY' EQUATION: and the
THEORETICAL
MOLAR ATOMIC 'ENERGY' EQUATION (E_{m }at STP rest state) 'y' is in
m.s.
E_{m}=Am.Sg.C.y.T/(cv)^{2 }
^{ }
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 derate '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.
CALCULATING
THE THEORETICAL MAXIMUM LIMITS OF COSMOUNIVERSAL TEMPERATURES:
I will
resubmit the equation below as pertaining to the purposes;
E_{m}=
G.
Am.Sg.
C.
y.T/(
cv)^{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 finestructure 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.m_{a}.y.T/α
where Sp is notionally included but discounted, being voided for reasons to be
stated. (m_{a} 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=pi^{2})
BST=6.67384e11
x 39.4784 x 4.494e18/7.297e3
BST=1.622e12^{o}
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!
A GTHEORY
EXPLANATION FOR THE DULONG AND PETIT DEVIATIONS:
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 ME
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 ME 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 gravityfluxstrength
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) GS_{e} pressure as Gf_{e}. This exists
as a component of earth's gravity which only causes a slight distortion via GS_{e}
by the summative GTD_{e} 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 (Sg_{u}) 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 Gf_{e}^{2} (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 GSes. E.g. in
asterisks.
(a) Al
173* Zn 148* Cu 120*
Fe180* 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 Gtheory, 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 c^{2}!
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 Sg_{u} 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 Sg_{u}
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
Sp=Am.T.p/C
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 GS_{e}
at sea level is an insignificant amount less than GS_{s} at one earth
orbit radius (which is the equivalent of GS_{s} 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 E_{r} 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 Sg_{u}.
If I only knew what the Gs_{e} 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 (reenergizing) 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 MEquivalence.
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 Gtheory 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 C_{t }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
(C_{t}) 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?
Gman
considers it all to have to do with either/or nuclear icosahedral matrix space
filling 'periodicity to aperiodicity' as well as multidimensional 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 Gtheory, 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 multidimensional
vacuum modification parameters. It is significantly notable that aluminum is
the first posttransitional 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 pointthe 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 'GS_{e} 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 ME 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/Sg_{u} 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
singleatom 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
H_{2}O 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 Gman boldly
raises his hand at this point) and also present the Sp and Sg_{u} as
other variables which are able to help explain the C(mol) difference between
gases and metals.
Note: My hand is held
high. The Gtheory 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 nonrelativistically.
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'. 'Sg_{u}' 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 Gtheory 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 Pmass. 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 QL BOSON NUMBER AND DOF than density (Sg).
What now then?
This means that a quarklattice 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 emissionable particles within the nucleon proper a
slight increase could be expected.
SUMMARY RATIONALE:
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 E_{g}=mc^{2} where E_{g}
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=mc^{2}.
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 'massenergy'/force equivalence. If ME 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 QL's additional 'BE like'
Gstatistics. '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'.
CONCLUSIONS
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 Sg_{u}
being caused by GS_{e} 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 Gman'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 massweight 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 nuclearGS, GS_{e} 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!
OTHER RELATED
MATTERS and NOTES ON THE SUBJECT
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
transdimensional 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 nonvibrational
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 reemission. (You know zeroeth law blah blah)
In the first instance a nonconfined 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 QL
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
electroweak and gfactored 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 multidimensional
affect of matter antimatter 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 cv 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 spatialdisplacementrate caused differential
nature of graviton transitions as GTDv. This just means that the QL 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 QL.* 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 triarm 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 QL 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 QL 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
gravitontrion 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 stuffweird! 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 xray 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=mc^{2} 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 (QL 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=mn^{2} 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=n^{2} 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 multidimensional 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=c^{2} 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 Gtheory 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
Gtheory 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=mc^{2}.
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 'massenergy'
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 'massenergy' 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 Gtheory,
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 Ematter 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 gluonic
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 accdecelerative 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
accdecelerations.
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
pentacharges are only possible in cosmean matter because of the quasicrystalline
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=mc^{2} 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 oxytorch. The quark lattice acts like a 'mass' sink where E=mc^{2}
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=mc^{2} 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=mc^{2} 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 Srel 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
cb+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
bandaids. 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 darkage 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.
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 darkage 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 gfactor
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 PaschenBack 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 Gtheory 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.