DEFINITIONS AND TECHNICAL A-D


AIR: Atomic matter Integrity Resolution: Fundamentally related to the conservation of 'energy' and the concept of mass derivation in nucleons as well as in greater atomic systems … basically a resistance to attempted deformation or deprecation caused by any force--- explained in the thesis.

 

ANISOTROPY: Any measured deviation from either the standard metric or any specified vector or value which is generally considered to be a constant or isotropic. Refer also to 'light speed anisotropy.

 

ANTIMATTER: Not to be mistaken for matter from another universe or realm. It is real matter but the particles within it have opposite 'biracial'* charge signs. I.e. an anti-electron or 'positron' has (according to its namesake) a positive 'electrostatic' charge. An 'up' quark has a +2/3 'biracial' charge while an 'anti up' recognized as a 'not' (bar over) quark has a -2/3 'biracial' charge.

Antimatter and matter don't simply collide and cancel each other out in a 'snuff' moment, because they are both made of real stuff and they are held apart dimensionally by a brane, and they are often protected by 'agency' particles. I.e. ---quark-pion. If they collided they would snuff out to some extent but the force required to enable that would be released as a change of virtual 'energy' being perturbed by force to other particles and the likewise virtual force would be generated because the remaining agency particles would undergo a forced condition change or collision and in that case the resulting sub particles would have to go somewhere which will all be explained. The salient feature is the conservation of energy in the process. This phenomenology is only hypothetical.

*Refer to definition.

 

Because the low order fundamental particles have opposite biracial signs they become affected by a force similar (only in action but not degree) to Coulombs law relationships and due to multi-particle exclusive relationships the biracial force is responsible for deriving the higher order electrostatic coulombic force. If and whenever greater generational biracial particles come into 'cross brane' contact with each other en masse they release 'energy' by either negative decay by disruptive particle emission, or positively decaying into the formation of other higher generational biracial particles,* which for some strange reason mostly seem to revert to the standard matter forms. The fact that the resultant AMOs of the universe appear to consist of matter rather than anti matter, has remained inexplicable up until now.

*However opposite SIGN sub-fundamental particles such as trion  pairs (gluon  and Higg's boson) may possibly cancel out in the proverbial snuff moment should that occur. This would still require the agency of a force and energy conservation. Some forces are by direct collision while others are perturbative in nature and appear to be fundamentally 'virtual forces' by simply being attractive or repulsive. Note: Strange how life can mimic science, whereby it is usually an attraction that leads to a hook up!

 

Logic then declares that a reverse universe made of antimatter should be able to exist. I can explain by this theory why the universe defaulted to matter even though the original cosmea probably had an antimatter bias. Antimatter is actually very real and paradoxically common in the universe of matter and it will be shown that even more paradoxically there is actually more antimatter in this universe of matter, and even though you can't see it, it has survived for a very long time in our universe (like from creation!) Note: Please bear this in mind; this is one happenstance which lends serious credence to G-theory. Also consider that because we are evaluating biracial particles that both races of matter may be considered to be real objects.

 

ANTI-PRAETOM: See praetom.

 

AMO: Atomic matter object (or ionic matter object), used in many references instead of 'objects of mass' or 'massive objects', in order to avoid confusion. It refers to all matter made of atoms or nuclides. It stands to reason that if an H1 ion is included then so is a nucleon (protons as well as neutrons) but the label only applies to hadrons and greater objects and bodies. A cosmic proton (particle) might possibly be included but that's not considered to be of any importance.

 

BBR: Black body radiation. An invisible radiation of 'energy' typically as thermal photons but in G-theory including particles called trions which you might recognize as neutrinos in a process called neutrino forward scattering. I use the term trion to avoid confusion with the standard theory.

BBR is operational under several laws. Conditionally subject to the laws of the eos and the laws of the conservation of universal 'energy' and the laws of thermodynamics especially the second law which is the overriding law of entropy. This is reflected in the Boltzmann constant of proportionality.

By the zeroeth law; at a certain temperature above a universal consideration of parity any body or AMO will emit BBR from its surface atoms. Any body or AMO existing below a certain temperature of parity will be receptive to BBR even in a vacuum. An atom at parity may or may not re-emit a received photon or trion depending on the atomic or elemental properties. Parity is not necessarily an instantaneous or truly energy balanced result.

This activity is generally under the control of the eos (vacuum) operating under the overriding cosmean laws, which only operate within an unknown temperature window*, but even so; at extremes of temperature the rate of BBR becomes conditionally proportional to the temperature deviation from universal 'energy' parity under universal law.

This may cause problems with interpretation of data from experiments carried out at both extremely low and extremely high temperatures.

This G-theory BBR phenomenology disregards the standard explanation of BBR as only being by photons.

*This theorized phenomenon provides for a temporary 'goldilocks' equilibrium of universal temperature.

 

BI: Biracial imbalance. (refer to text.)

 

BST: Black hole significance temperature. I have coined this as being the upper temperature limit at any point within the universe. Some have concluded it to be case specifically up to around 1e50 degrees. This seems to be impossibly high but I calculated it to be: BST=29,220,840,853,933.824ok. (that's 29 trillion) THIS VALUE WOULD HAVE TO BE THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT and it is relatable to the energy entropy constant 's' via the proposed 'energy' formula derived herein.

 

BIRACIAL: In the context of this theory it refers to the two races of matter (true and anti). This word is used to avoid the longwinded stating of 'matter-antimaterially' etc. Depending on the definition of 'energy' it can be concluded that all bound biracial particles have what only appears to be self 'energy' even when they may be deemed by observation or other means to have no motion inertial, or gravitational inertial mass.

 

BRANE: (membrane) the inter-dimensional event horizon at the cosmo-universal and quantum level as the case may be. Objects exhibiting 'atomic mass' are not able to exist with any invisibility in individual dimensions. They exist in the whole observable universe multi-dimensionally and so then it can be concluded that only qualified 'sub particle' objects existing in different dimensions are able to occupy the same space time without any dilemma, and the brane is the separation point between either biracial particles or dimensions existing in real space time, usually by the agency of a pion, gluon, neutrino/anti-neutrino or other bosons for higher order constructs but this doesn't apply to sub fundamental biracial particles whose construct is purely dimensional.

A brane is a virtual point which can be the crossing point of dimensions. It must consist of conceptually being the stuff of one of the dimensions. A brane may be the stuff of a dimension existing between other dimensions. In that case the brane may be recognizable as a particle which is subject to annihilation when not required as such. The reasons for a time delay for annihilation will be given in the thesis. The annihilation produces other particles which reappear on or off site. 'Energy' can neither be created nor destroyed--- but certain sub particles may become invisible and appear from nowhere. Size is not the issue it is dimensional status. If you could completely enter the right dimension--- well---

 

Bremsstrahlung radiation: Braking radiation thought to be emitted by high 'energy' electrons when being slowed by proximity to a nucleus. By G-theory the braking 'energy' is caused by an extra force from nucleons (significantly protons) which causes either photonic and/or BBR emissions from PROTONS. Electrons may have some perturbative interaction but (for a variety of reasons some of which are set forth below) they are not considered to be the particles that emit photons or BBR at all! This just means that electrons perturb the proton which then emits the radiation because it received energy from the electron and the proton 'factors' caused the slowing. Refer to quantum definition.

In the case of free-free radiation the ions in the plasma may have no orbitals to speak of but they still maintain perturbative relationships with the electrons moving in the plasma. The assumption that electrons emit emr is an easy one to make but---

The ionic/protonic emission phenomenology conclusion will also be under-girded by appellation to the 'zeroeth law' of thermodynamics and is supported by experimental observances. The idea that it is electrons that emit photons is just a long held mis interpretive and assumptive belief. Refer to quantum definition.

The photo-electric affect and the lowering of the temperatures of AMOs to cryogenic levels by electron transitions are two supportive phenomena that come to mind. In both cases electron beams cause 'energy' to be emitted from the AMOs. These are important phenomena for the G-theory inerpretation.

Also; and if you are still not open to this theory then, please explain how ion plasma -that has no electrons- is capable of emitting Bremmstrahlung radiation. The answer is obvious. It does; and therefore it must be protons and not electrons that are responsible for the emission of light, full stop. Do I have a good point?

It has also been the singular observance that gamma particles are emitted during electron decay, yet during such decay light of no other wavelength is recorded as having been emitted. The idea that a gamma particle is a photon or even just a wave are also long held assumptive belief, and as is often the case, one false assumption leads to another and g-theory contends that both arguments are specious. I.e. the fact that electron decay results in gamma particles in no way suggests that electrons are commonly responsible for the emission of actual light photons. Has anyone ever observed light emissions from an electron beam in a vacuum? I have refuted the supposed proof from Synchrotron mechanics in the thesis.

In that regard: If you assume a gamma particle to be a true photon, then why are scientists unable to relativistically 'contract' synchrotron light up to gamma frequencies by utilizing millimeter wavelength undulators? According to G-theory that can never happen for phenomenological reasons!

 

CENTRIPETAL (and CENTRIFUGAL) FORCE: Note: Physics is sprinkled with intellectual arguments that seem to serve no useful purpose. Often trite arguments such as whether or not it is a vacuum sucking or the atmosphere pushing etc. One such argument has been solved by an a appreciation by many of the triviality, and that has to do with centripetal and centrifugal force and the final but incorrect consensus of those who -for some reason or another- don't see it as trivial at all, that centrifugal force should be declared a 'fictitious' force.

I will be proving that they are both real forces and that centrifugal is an apt and valid description of the inertial force which –among other things- keeps satellites in orbit. Note also: the subject article in Wikipedia refers to -and specifically downplays- centrifugal force as a fictitious force which they have no trouble referring to as a real force that makes you weigh more at the poles than at the equator. Maybe they'd like a ride in my 'spin' drier

 The perhaps unappreciated reason for the suddenly 'non trivial' drive to illegally relegate real forces to the fictitious file folder is the desperate attempt to find bedfellows for the floundering idea of the GTR fictitious gravitational force. Inertial force has also been declared to be a fictitious force along with a few others mentioned herein. The problem is that those 'fictitious' forces have real physical causes while the GTR gravitational force does not. It is purely a mathematical abstract.

Other such arguments revolve (excuse the pun) around orbital gravitational acceleration, orbit falling, and therefore orbit non inertial reference frames. How can we have momentum in a geodesic frame? This will not do! Don't you people have anything better to do?

Centrifugal force is often thought of as the outward 'pulling' force acting on an orbiting body. No it's really inertial force attempting to keep the orbiting body traveling in a straight line. Centripetal force in consideration of orbits is actually the notionally-false attractive gravitational force that theoretically acts towards the center of the bodies in the orbital system. Similar to the common use of velocity for speed, lax use is OK as long as the situation doesn't demand force vectors for mathematical consideration.

In that case we consider that with respect to the orbiting body, centripetal gravitation force is vectored towards the center of the orbited body and centrifugal (inertial) force is theoretically acting equally and exactly in the opposite direction. That notional outward acting force is often referred to as a fictitious force or just as confusing; g-force. Refer to the FORCE definition.

In G-theory push gravity; the concept of a string like gravitational pulling device isn't valid anymore and the idea of a centrifuge replaces it. In that case we are definitely able to consider centrifugal force as a real force (even if it is generated within nucleons and is therefore a fairly even force throughout a body) except at contact extremities, and nevertheless there will be stresses involved. E.g the two tides . Refer to supplement 2.

In the new push gravity case of course the centripetal force would now become the 'fictitious' force: Ridiculous.

 

COSMEA: The pre-universe dimension, now encapsulating and currently interwoven with the universe. The cosmea exists in infinite space where time has no relevance.

 

CMF: Cosmean motive force is a virtual force or even a subjectivism across the cosmean void which is the universe. The physical dimensions of the cosmea in the universe CMF is not necessarily Euclidean three dimensional. The cosmean space is only subjectively indicated and as such, notionally able to be considered as multi planar two dimensional with reference frame relevance. For non specific consideration it may be seen to be a spherical vector force system.

It acts across gravitines and tines in the gravitos and photos dimension respectively, and it is a force in this theory causing the high (uncelebrated) initial velocity of all gravitons and the lower velocity of photons and emr. The difficulty is that I cannot theorize exactly what causes it. Similarly, science can't theorize what causes strong or weak nuclear force yet! But wait.

I can't really explain it outside of the probable basic forces involved. What I really can't explain is that it also provides the brane and brane energy which actually causes the biracial forces in the first place. The exception is the obvious unlike charge coulombic attraction that we are already scientifically familiar with. If that's not the case then at least I have pushed the answer to this question outside of the universe and therefore it becomes no longer anything to be concerned about for the moment.

 

DOF: Degrees of freedom. This is the measure of the variable quantum level limit of the mechanical freedom that any given particle has in which to vibrate (spin) freely without a loss of energy via jostling.

 

DIMENSION: A parameter of the cosmo/universe which is either directly measurable or its effects are theoretically measurable. A dimension may or may not affect or be affected by any other particular dimension but they are all variably and conditionally dependant on each other for their own existence within the universe*. A dimension in one sense can be likened to a stress tensor in GR.

A dimension is also definable as a measurement which can be evaluated within Euclidean space. A point has no dimensions yet for the sake of description we always incrementalize it with a realizable size in order to explain it. Similarly a line and a cartesian plane have no real existence as they have no other dimensional measurement and both of those as well are treated similarly for the benefit of explanation.

The meaning of the term must be determined by its usage within the context.

*A dimension in this theory is not another realm, religious or metaphysical idea or parallel universe.

 

DIVERGENCE: Stuff coming from, or going to, somewhere. A positive number is stuff going out, and a negative number is stuff going in. A result of zero means equilibrium, with just as much stuff going out as coming in. I.e. the divergence number changes in comparison to gain or loss of stuff. Gain is indicated by a number in the positive direction and loss is shown by a negative indication.

 

DRAG: Being described as an effect of certain graviton transitions (GTD) and not caused by S-rel, G-rel, dark matter or 'space molecules' historically referred to as corpuscles. It infers that the resultant velocity and momentum change is caused by loss of kinetic 'energy' through imperfect negative-elasticity graviton transitions resulting in imperfect impulse translation of 'energy'*. In other words; gravitons could be subjectively presumed to pass through each other with some elastic drag as an impulse which causes a resultant force like 'friction'. This might only occur under the dimensional law of the gravitos. It's a bit like two objects sliding past each other with friction, except gravitons likely bounce off each other with perfect rebound elasticity but they transition a particular dimensional sub part of nucleons. In simplification; this may occur case specifically by imperfect inelastic rebound or by cross brane perturbation.

I have finally settled on almost perfect rebound collision statistics which results in gravitational affects travelling with a wave motion but at unbelievable velocity. They still exist in athrough everything there is within there own dimension. Gravitons may never be onserved either because they are to small or their dimension resides in invisibility. Take your pick.

When any AMO is traveling at a significant velocity the graviton transitions (wave transitions) through it are recognized to create a differential with greater transitional velocity in the forward direction than from the rear. See GTD definition.

*This mechanics is to be explained.

 

'ENERGY': The ability to do work or work done -solely by the motion of particles, objects and bodies- being ' as classical energy ' used or stored, and work done.

At ground state or in the cosmea this is ground state or possibly rest mass potential energy respectively. Ground state energy is the potential energy existing in a motionless object at zero degrees Kelvin, which cannot occur in the universe by a pure application of the third law of thermodynamics. That can only be the status of the cosmea. Rest state potential energy is the energy of a vibrating object above ground state which is not exhibiting URF relative spatial motion. It contains a proportion of kinetic energy because of its internal vibration.

Every bound system contains a particulate number value pertinent to that system. Any changes to the system require a change in the particulate values of the system proportional to the symptomatic change occurring in any other systems. Such change requires the application of a force whether virtual, perturbative or physical*. Lower generational systems often require a lower particulate value for their existence so upon the event of such an occurrence the surplus particles are ejected as energy. The ' zeroeth ' law of TD requires particles to be moved by universal energy divergence for parity purposes. This is seen as a transfer of energy. A severe and currently recognized enigma exists on this point which is resolved in the thesis. See asterisked note that follows.

*The strive for parity must be by action of an unrecognized quantum level force. This force is provided in the thesis. Laws don ' t just act by themselves. That ' s entertaining magic.

 

The act of amalgamating systems together, also requires force to cause the motion, by/and/or the addition of particles, however in peculiar cases the specificity of the new larger system once formed paradoxically requires fewer particles than the sum of the particles of the lower level systems from which it is formed, and once again the surplus particles are ejected as energy. The reason is given in the thesis.

Science and the military have made good and not so good use of this phenomenon which I have only described at this juncture in a simplistic fashion.

 KINETIC ENERGY; is a subjectivism and it is notionally the energy which has been inserted by (usually) an external force into real world objects that are exhibiting velocity, which is the ability to do work as per classical physics and thus the ability to expend energy at a rate. energy is a parameter of fundamental particles which contain force sub-particles or bosons. energy always gets the accolades for the actions which occur in the universe. The silent and unsung hero whenever energy is released or bound is; force and motion or not. This little oversight can lead to a serious misunderstanding of the processes which formed and control our world.

Kinetic energy is reference frame relative and there is no need for confusion if we consider that the kinetic energy of an object is that energy which is used to bring the object to rest in the singular reference frame of motion or to accelerate it to a given velocity from rest. The acc dec rates are irrelevant.

E=mc2 is really an attempt to solve for total energy of a mass relativistically by the relative velocity of an object compared to a notionally stationary photon. This gives the relativistic notion of  the object travelling at 'c' and the required energy used to accelerate it to that velocity from relative rest. However that is still not the total energy of a mass.

In the interest of understanding; the meaning of energy will be according to classical physics unless otherwise explained and where necessary.

Energy in eV is considered to be the substance and term derived from a false assumption, and in fact eV is actually a term relatable to a charge force and not energy. Herein lays a circular mind gamer argument that I intend to circumvent by G-theory and I will then no longer have to engage in such spurious arguments about whether any particular phenomenon is a force or energy per se.

Many times you will notice attempted conversions of joules to mass by E=mc2, undertaken by people who forget all about the coulomb/volt/second conversion relationship from Joules to eV. Even from there the eV relationship is very murky indeed. In fact I don ' t see any reliable science behind the eV to be able to give it any valid relationship with the energy of classical physics; only perhaps electrical and I intend to show that even that produces problems. There is however a definite connection and the problem actually lies in the misconceptions regarding quantum energy, force, work, power and mass as well as at the sub fundamental level. I will be addressing these problems at length. Great length!

For now I have to make something very clear. Question: Where did the ' second ' disappear to when moving one electron through a potential of one volt in order to rationally evaluate the eV as calculable energy? Is that real science or relativistic perhaps! That ' s the only possible way you can compute apples and oranges and end up with a bogus quantity of ' appenges or orples ' .

ELECTRICAL energy : A Joule is the amount of energy used in an electrical circuit which is NOT rate specific. No matter what the Emf or the current is, a joule of energy will be used when a joule of either thermal or electromechanical work is done no matter how long that may take. When the instantaneous product of the volts and amps is unity then one watt of power is the instantaneous quality. When one second has transpired in that state, a watt-second of power will have been measured and a joule of energy will have been used to perform one joule of work. So in electrical measurements the Joule becomes tied to the second. If there is any unit of motion such as 'v' or 'f' in a formula then the Joule is tied to the second. That ' s all folks.

 

A Joule is actually a measure of the energy used by an Emf of one volt to move a coulomb quantity of electrons (I) moving through a conductor in one second. (By ohms law the resistance (work area) will be one ohm.) Whilst by contrast an eV under some typical considerations is a quality of supposedly instantaneous potential energy supposedly relatable to E=mc2. The energy of an electron at ' c ' is far greater than an eV.

It is just not cricket (science) to conduct mathematical operations between a quantitative energy usage per time (rate) and an instantaneous potential energy quality as though they were one and the same thing. (OK instantaneous quantity if you like); but the question still stands. Where is the second? OK it ' s not there: So because it doesn ' t exist; an eV must for that reason then be an instantaneous voltage which would have to be one (-e) which is one volt divided by the number of electrons in one coulomb.

OK if that ' s the case then an eV would simply be evaluated as a coulomb number of (-e) charges which is 6.24---e-18 but now termed in electron volts. Hang on a minute! That can ' t be correct because we were just informed that the eV is the amount of kinetic energy an electron gains while accelerating thorough a charge of one volt. However by some stroke of magic or sleight of hand; we are also told that one JOULE is somehow 6.24---e-18eV and so being a charge as well. THAT ' S PATENTLY UNTRUE. Someone is definitely ' gaming ' the folks! They are even encouraged to convert from one to the other at a whim. Duh!

A charge is a static voltage, whereas a coulomb is a flow of electrons which is a current. So now we have the quaint idea that an eV is not only the charge it is also the current as well as the energy per second in watts. Why not keep going and call it mass as well. Oh! You already do. Is there anything else we could apply an eV as?

What a lovely formula we weave. P in (eV) = E in (eV) x I in (eV) duh!

The argument is often made that because a Joule is a coulomb number of electrons passing a certain point per sec and a watt is a Joule per second or a Joules number of electrons as one amp passing through a certain point in a second then it is erroneously thought somehow, that a Watt is therefore a Joule per s2. I contest that idea, and can ' t even figure out how they can even arrive at that conclusion, because whether you have the individual number (Coulomb) or package (Joule, which is only conditionally an ampere) you are only observing the same thing -I.e. a coulomb number of electrons- by a conditionally different name, and we all know that--- ' A rose by any other name is just the same ' , but squared? What the? Straight note: One Joule is only conditionally one watt-second. I.e. when E is one volt and I is one ampere. Either that or we must tie it to the resistance of the conductor. If I is one ampere then you will have a Joule after one second but if I remains at one ampere and E isn ' t one volt then you won ' t have a watt second because P=E.I. becomes different than E= I (or Cn) x 1 second so you just can ' t up and call a Kwhr a KJ. Note: Refer to ' fundamental conclusions ' below.

I must also address the specious argument that a Joule and a Watt are synonymous and one is the measure of energy while the other is the measure of work! Work and energy are the truly synonymous, but a Watt is an instantaneous fictional value of potential energy which only becomes equatable with a Joule in a sense if the watt remains in place for one second. The current is just the instantaneously evaluated rate of the flow of electrons if a Joule of energy will be used in one second. Note: Refer to fundamental conclusions below.

In any case, if an eV is a measure of energy then please tell us how many eVs there are in a watt second? That ' s impossible because the eV isn ' t relatable to the second!

If the coulomb of electrons is given an attractive charge with the application of an emf of one volt then an eV may speciously be considered to be the measure of the instantaneous charge in just one of those electrons with the one volt also being applied. However I always thought that in comparing one energy with another such as the joule, the case would likewise have to be by a measure of the count of a coulomb of electrons moving past a given point which would have to be relative to a value of time and distance (velocity) if the motion of the electrons was declared to cause the eV; which it is.

So both emf and eV are therefore a charge of different flavours, with the eV supposedly being an unknown share of the overall charge which can ' t be possible because an electron ONLY EVER HAS ONE (-e) CHARGE, being a quantum -1 charge. It can NEVER change. It is the signature charge of an electron. There goes your eV.

Having stated that; it would now seem that I have a problem: This is because the eV energy might be deemed to be made up of both a motion and charge component because a motion relative component is only current and a single charge component is only voltage, so one would be forced to declare that the electron must carry both components. However if you argue this then you must be forgetting the conventional positive to negative flow. Both flows are active with -ve current in one direction and +ve charge in the other and the individual electron charges don ' t move at the same speed as the +ve charge, and because motion involves the second; then the eV isn ' t relatable to that and there is no further argument. I will be analyzing this further and providing a satisfactory answer to this whole problem in the thesis.

We will also discover through this analysis that in quantum physics the eV can never be legally taken to relate to binding energy, it could only ever be rationally related to binding force, and in any case the binding energy can only be termed in Joules but not by linear motion statistics per electron but by vibrational statistics according to E=hf.

What ' s more, the conclusion is: THEIR CAN BE NO CONVERTIBILITY BETWEEN THE eV AND THE eJ!

You may consider this to be a moot point but I assure you that for the purpose of analyzing G-theory this is a necessary divorce.

Some other things in physics can really make your head spin as well, and the following is one of them. I.e. the expanded relationship between a Joule and a Watt.

Most of the explanations on this subject leave you with the idea that a Joule is actually a watt wherein those terms are considered to be energy used and power exhibited over one second respectively.

We have just noted that to not be the case and because all of the previous might have been a TAD CONFUSING! I can give a more reasonable explanation: An electron has a unit electrical negative charge (-e) and it therefore has a force of attraction towards a positive charge source. If the source remains with a sufficient potential difference relative to the electron then the electron will appear to move at ' c ' along the conductor.

Now a Joule is the energy used to send a Coulomb of electrons notionally past any point anywhere in space over any time period (assuming no other impedance than the Z of space). So an eV is then able to be defined as the charge required to send one electron 300,000 kms and this will take one second. A volt is the (intimate and not field) charge required to notionally send a coulomb of electrons that distance in a conductor and that takes one second for all the electrons to arrive. From this we can recognize that now the eV is relatable to one volt (only) if the exact electron velocity is ' c ' and the eV becomes calculable by 1/Cn. Note: I intend to conclusively show, by my own reasoning that it definitely does take a Joule of energy to send a coulomb of electrons at the speed of light for one second in space even though only notionally at   c ' in a conductor*.

But its not because the electrons travel at a rate that will have all of them pass a point in space at the one second mark. This means that they all don ' t travel at ' c ' or we would specify that they all arrive at once after one second. This is because our conductors have resistance. So if we send the coulomb of electrons along a conductor which has a resistance of one ohm; this will restrict the passage of that coulomb of electrons so that when the one volt is applied to the conductor only one coulomb of electrons can possibly move along the conductor (notionally) at ' c ' for one second while the resistance remains at one ohm and the emf at one volt. The current (motion of the coulomb) is then called one ampere (amp).

Because the notional (combined) velocity is held at ' c ' any increase in the voltage will cause more electrons to flow past a point rather than having a notionally stupid situation whereby the existing coulomb is considered to go faster without the first point being recognized.

This explanation just provided a second way for understanding the same thing, which is furthermore succinctly stated as follows.

 

FUNDAMENTAL DETERMINATIONS

 

P=EI  (J=V x J per sec)    I=P/E    E=P/I

(I) is the appreciation of the rate per second of doing the work and using the energy required as moving one coulomb of electrical charge particles past a point with an applied potential difference (E) of one volt.

The Joule is defined as being related to one coulomb of electrons moved past a point over any length of time. Once the Coulomb number of electrons has passed then one joule of work has been done and one Joule of energy has been used or stored.

In order to tie the Joule to time we need to bring it to terms of Joules per second which is Amps (I) and in order to tie it to power we also bring it to terms of one volt and only then can we end up with One Joule = one watt second; because power equals volts times amps (orC/s).

 

CONCLUSION 1:

So the work energy unit of a Joule over any time duration is equivalent to one watt of power being delivered over one second. So the Joule and the watt second are only tentatively similar.

 

CONCLUSION 2:

The Joule and the watt second are not synonymous with each other because the former is dimensionally timeless while the latter must be related to the volt and the amp by--- the duration of the application of that charge difference (E) times the rate of a coulombs-(J) over one second (I).

 

CONCLUSION 3: The ampere is dimensionless in the work, energy or power sense because it is just a rate and for any energy/power connection to be achieved it needs to be tied to the force producing the rate. Got it!!!? LOL

 

CONCLUSION 4:

The Ampere and the Joule are not the same. The former is a rate and the latter is a value.

 The mechanical equation for the Joule E=m x d2/t2 is necessary in order to relate the Joule to gravitational work similar to its necessary attachment to the second for the relationship with power in the electrical sense.

 

CONCLUSION 5:

In actual fact the definition in the mechanical sense also requires no defined time duration for the action that derives the idea of a Joule of work having been done or energy used or stored. It is a quantity value like water in a tank.

 

PRIME CONCLUSION:

The Joule can only loosely be equated to the watt second but we ' re not being ' loose ' in this thesis.

 

 

 

IF YOU NEED MORE HEAD SPIN!

 

 The measure of a watt second of work is the multiplication of the force times the energy such that power P = electromotive force times the current; in short P=EI. So we can be assured that the time related value of a (timeless coulomb being counted past a point in one second) as being a Joule is one amp in one second without any force being indicated for the voltage or time for the current although from that term it can be derived as having to always be one volt at one ohm with the current flow rate causing the joule to occur. This would deem the value of a Joule in that situation to be one amp/volt/second ---being one watt second.

Another problem with the conceptualization of a Joule is that because it has been arbitrarily given a defined time component, actual motion of electrons (or particles in other situations) is now incumbent upon it for any recognition of its existence to be arrived at. That should not be the case. A Joule of energy can be stored somewhere or ready to be transferred somewhere! There appears to be some ampere and watt second confusion.

*This is another place where contemporary quantum physics has come unglued, because it has been incorrectly assumed that the energy used is fleetingly instantaneous accelerative energy. I will be showing that this is not the case at all even in space, but for now if we take pause to reconsider the conductor: The moment we remove the emf the Joule component will cease to be increased (even though the partial component is still evaluable) and electrons will stop flowing. This means that they require a constant motive force to keep them moving and for work to be done and energy etc; ostensibly in quantum theory by E=mc2, and that motion is a component of the energy. Is that component actually Ek=mv perhaps? We shall see.

 

According to Coulombs law of ' charge attraction and repulsion ' then an eV by the contemporary definition of the energy of an electron moving through a potential of one volt is only actually the measure of a charge force and not energy TBE. So the true formula therefore must be F=mc2. That ' s not the case; and E=mc2 is excused because ' c ' is an instantaneous acceleration rate which is thought to be able to replace ' a ' in F=ma and we can even square or cube an instantaneous rate and then assume a velocity in its place if we like. Don ' t worry, that ' s not at all completely correct either. In fact it ' s rubbish; but you will need to understand this line of reasoning to comprehend many paradigm refuting contentions of G-theory.

If it were to be stated that: An electron volt is the energy used to move one electron at ' c ' under the potential of one volt in a conductor with a resistance of 6.24---e-18 of an ohm, for one second; that would be correct. It should then however be correctly labeled in terms of energy as an electron Joule (eJ).

' But that ' s not fair! Then we couldn ' t have any specious proof of static M-E equivalence, or confuse nuclear binding force with binding energy out of the same side of our mouth could we? How can we possibly explain the mass defect if we aren ' t allowed to do this tinsy winsy bit of physics fudging? Oh no please don ' t refute E=mc2 ---we ' d have to remove it from the university lawn. This will not do! '

As it currently stands then; an electron volt is not a measure of energy and under mathematical considerations it cannot legally be converted to Joules in the manner currently undertaken. Where are you all?

In quantum physics are given their mass value by the form MeV/c2 from E=mc2---however when a particle is being assessed as being 'relativistic' or travelling near the speed of light then E=mc2 is once again applied to calculate it's kinetic energy at that velocity. What the---?

A likely objection to all this is: But quantum physics doesn ' t obey the laws of classical physics! If that ' s the case; what on earth is anyone doing converting eV to Joules at all then? I will counter that excuse with: ' If classical physics applies to the six trillion trillion odd electrons in a coulomb, then it must by reason also apply to just ONE ' !

Another objection would be* that a joule is kinetic energy while the eV is potential energy. As we have already seen, that ' s not correct. I will explain it another way: A Joule is seemingly a measure of kinetic energy used as power or work done over any time period (multiplied by the specified quantity of electrons being moved), being related to the force the eV applies to a single electron with an overall applied motive force of one volt which will cause it to accelerate by a=F/m. It does not just remain motionless or accelerating at an unknown rate with the volt somehow ' magically ' filling it with potential energy. That just won ' t happen or Coulomb ' s a liar!

*You will discover that the prior objection can be shown to be specious science by another reason: If all the electrons arrived back at the emf source WITH THE SAME CHARGE AND THE SAME VELOCITY then how can they be considered to have done any work or used any energy. ' I guess their spin moments could have slowed ' . Nice try: That still dooms any idea of the eV as energy. I promise to present the true phenomenology.

 

If you still object by declaring that eV is just instantaneous potential energy, then I suggest that you refer back to the preceding argument. So I guess by now many of you might be opining: “If you ' re going to blow holes in our pet theories like that then you ' d better have a really really good one to replace them with”. I guarantee not to disappoint when I address this further in a later chapter. Note: Kinetic energy is actually kinetic potential energy or kinetic force. All energy is actually potential. It is force that motivates, not energy. Except for the need to apply energy to chemistry in particular I could wish that the term kinetic energy would be stricken from physics because it ' s all potential force being ' stored force ready to do some work ' which will be rate measurable as power by the timed motion caused by the force. Unfortunately the chemists like the idea of energy storage and release. If we truly understand the concepts we can live with that.

Sorry for being so facetious at times, but the sums haven ' t added up for a long time and either a lot of quantum scientists are in cahoots and perpetrating a massive fraud, or they just haven ' t seen the need to look too closely. I ' m hoping the latter is the case but I ' m just trying to wake some of you up. Note: I ' m not undermining the work of Faraday, Avogadro or Coulomb et al at all.

Ask yourself this. Is the amp/hr capacity of a  battery a measure of energy or power? Answer. Power, because it is time related to a rate and not time related to a quantity and that is the crux of the matter.

This subject has been debated by the best ad nauseam, and it usually ends up in circular arguments which prove themselves by themselves. Although many are of the opinion that quantum physics departs from classical physics at the eV. I hope to end that by presenting a plausible substantive mechanics that answers to the problems that required so much fudging in the first place and then the problem goes away.