'ENERGY': (Classical) 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.

(Particle-astrophysical) 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 energy 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*. Note: Lower generational systems often require a lower specific particulate value for their existence.

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. Phenomena 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.

The stars, 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.

 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 invariant reference frame of motion or to accelerate it to a given velocity from rest. The acc dec rates are irrelevant.

Energy per se 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.

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.

Energy is a highly volatile subject which has been argued about for centuries. So in the interest of understanding; the meaning of energy will be according to classical physics unless otherwise explained and where necessary.

 

Quantum energy; is relatable to classical physics by Planks constant 'h'. This relates the energy of photons compared to the speed of light. It is a fudge to enable the energy of any frequency to be easily calculated by E=hf etc.

If we go to the derivation of energy being described by pushing an object with known force and mass over a defined distance; then it doesn't matter if the object is pushed a half a meter forward and back to the start and also whether it traces a circle of one meter.

We can all see the relationship to pi there d=pi and if we consider a vibrating quantum particle then its wavelength becomes the circle in the mind experiment. This isn't a physics lesson so I'll stop there.

Also because of that reason I can make the observation that energy in eV is a specious 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) 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 somehow relatable to E=mc2. The energy of an electron at ' c ' is far greater than an eV.

It's just not cricket (science) to conduct mathematical operations between a quantitative energy usage per time (rate) and an instantaneous potential energy q uality 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 have. 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! Is that the sound of your head bouncing off the floor?

OK you can stop laughing now. 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 only 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) should the motion of the electrons be declared to cause the eV; which of course it is.

So both emf and eV are therefore charges 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. It can however have more eJ because at high velocities say; more electrons will pass any given point in second.

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 caused by fundamental forces according to E=hf.

What ' s more, the conclusion here 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.

 

 

THE JOULE AND THE WATT

 

Some other things in physics can really make your head spin as well, and the following is one of them but I'll try to keep it clear. 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 try and give a simplified explanation: Imagine a conductor: An electron has a unit electrical negative charge (-e) and it therefore has a coulombic 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 to the speed of light in one second in space even though only notionally at 'c ' in a conductor*.

But its not because the electrons travel at a defined 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 ' and pass a point in one second while the resistance remains at one ohm and the emf at one volt. The current (motion of the coulomb per second) 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.

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 any action that follows the set distance and which therefore 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 of electrons being counted going past a point in one second -as being a Joule upon arrival of the whole coulomb number- is one amp in one second without any force being indicated for the voltage* nor time for the current. Although from that term it can be derived as having to always be relative to one volt at one ohm with the current flow at the one Ampere rate causing the joule to be realized. This would deem the value of a Joule in that situation to be one amp/volt/second ---being one watt second.

*Some will say that EMF isn't a force because the action of the motion of electrons is tied to PEP which is the real instigator. That's a true relationship -as I show in the thesis- but as I also point out--- G-theory doesn't recognize the validity of declaring any law or mathematics to be able to provide Any force at all.

 

Another problem with the conceptualization of a Joule is that because it has been found necessary to give it a defined time component, as actual motion of electrons per second (or particles in other situations) which is now incumbent upon it for any recognition of its existence to be arrived at. That should not be the case in theory. A Joule of energy can be stored somewhere, ready to be transferred somewhere as well as arrive somewhere! Only in a transition which occurs over one seconds duration is it traveling at the rate of one ampere. 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 might appear to be F=mc2.

That ' s not the case; and F=mc2 is excused 'from the table' because ' c ' has an instantaneous acceleration rate so it is only speciously thought to be able to replace ' a ' in F=ma and by the same reasoning we can even square or cube an instantaneous rate and then assume a velocity in its place if we like. Can we? Don ' t worry, if you seem to think that ' s not at all completely correct. In fact it ' s rubbish; but you will need to understand this line of reasoning to comprehend many paradigm-refuting contentions of G-theory where such false reasoning is utilized in the current tradition.

If however 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" you cry! "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! "

Regardless of such protestations; 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 particles are given their mass value in 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 on top of that to calculate it's kinetic energy at that velocity. What the? ---1 Conversely to that; there are many other hyper velocity particle motions in physics where relativity is arbitrarily dropped from the thinking and forgotten about. What the? ---2

A likely objection to all this is: But quantum physics doesn ' t obey the laws of classical physics! If that ' s the case then 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 thesis 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 really 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 their 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. For instance consider the arithmetic botch up in the sums of the decay components in B -ve decay. 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 simply goes away. I have the departure only at the lowest elemental levels.

 

 

ENERGY DEFINITION by G-THEORY

 

Finally we must address the idea that in G-theory multiplicity energy is both matter and motion or both (but not mass) and matter-energy is notionally convertible to motion relative energy as in the case of the photon-photon collision event resulting in the emission of gravitons at stupendous velocities. This does not violate any laws of energy because of the overriding law which states ' ---energy is able to be changed from one form to another ' and because energy is defined by motion I would add ' including changes in motion ' .

The takeaway here is that in reality all observed energy is contained as the motion of particles (specifically summed energy of trions and their lowest fundamental universal construct the gluon). The energy transformation in this case is really photo ' spin ' amplitude energy to graviton linear motion relative energy. Any suspected losses would be due to the lack of instantaneity in the graviton ' s velocity and this would have resulted either because of the loss of trions to the eos or a slight but real reduction in the theoretical wave amplitude or an eigenvector shift from the theoretical. Such vector changes regardless of the statistics would become average in the mean but they would result in an overall velocity loss. I am in favor of the latter which fits with my rewrite of the above law. Refer to 'temperature' definition.

 

 

ENTANGLEMENT: Refer to interlocution.

 

EVENT HORIZON: The junction of different media or the spatial position of the immediacy of change, explained by the context. Both black holes and adjacent matter density media have event horizons. I often use the term (or just horizon) instead of media barriers, junctures and boundaries to hopefully lessen confusion because in many case those latter terms contain preconceived or pre-learned content.

 

FEMTOSPACE: This is the theorized 'cosmean-gravitos connection' within atoms. It is considered to be an incredibly small 'femto black hole' type of repository for an 'n' quantity of gravitons as well as excess bosons as trions, and which resides within a quark lattice. This can be visualized as an elastic femtospace being enclosed by a virtually inelastic quark lattice.

The mechanics of the affects of the bosonic 'n' quantity pressure (Sp) and its relationship with the notion of temperature is examined in one of the later chapters. The emission mechanics by cosmean law results in the notion of instantaneous velocity within the femtospace and none of the bosons within that space are able to exhibit any 'mass' whatsoever.

Gravitational inertial mass fundamentally begins by the singular and unchangeable mutual perturbation between the femtospace (regardless of its excess boson quantity (temperature) and by distance related power law proportionality) with gravitons. Refer to 'mass' definition.

A femtospace is a kind of micro black hole which is not singularly cosmean in nature like a true black hole. Because it is considered to be derived from an alignment of two dimensions, a black hole like that if it were large enough, say tennis ball size could be held in your hands, unfortunately that's a seemingly moot point because you wouldn't be able to feel it or see it. Having said that you can probably understand why any of the trillions of femtospaces residing in your body are unable to be detected but they are agents of responsibiliy for your existence.  

 

FERMION: In this work a fermion is a proton, neutron or an electron, negatron, quark, pseudo-quark and any other anti or pseudo particles of that kind including a false quark lattice. Other non nucleonic fermions such as baryons may not be labeled as such and are termed according to their actual name. This is because in G-theory the quantum physics differs from the standard model. Fermions consist of an electromagnetically bound combination of quarks of any description, and therefore mesons and baryons etc become a sub class of fermions.

 

FORCE: the precursor of all energy expenditure. At the fundamental level it remains unclear what it is; (only that its subjective existence emanates from motion and the appearance of energy usage). Current understanding recognizes force to be transmitted by various virtual and not singularly mechanical means. All real forces including inertial retroactive force is real even though derived from within nucleons. Fictitious forces are supposed forces derived by mathematics or subjectivism. Those forces do not exist and cannot affect or produce motion or energy transfer

 Another thing to recognize regarding the subject is that force is permanently related to degrees of time! I.e. Instantaneous force is a logical absurdity which cannot result in any actual acceleration.  In the real world (on earth) force is seen to operate according to the laws of classical physics. So force x time =motion.

In multiplex theory, virtual force is under control of the dimensions within the limits imposed by specific combinations. The virtual forces pertaining to this theory are; strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, magnetic, electrostatic, binding force, and eos repulsive force. This latter force is one that elicits Bremsstrahlung phenomena; and it is that proton generated force which keeps atoms apart regardless of force/energy related Fermi level shifts whether parabolic or spherical in nature until valence bonding becomes arbitrated. It has a strong relationship with electronegativity/positivity which in an alliance with form and  g-factor forces are electron perturbable forces other than coulombic.

A particle of force (force carrier boson) may be defined as 'energy-matter' because the particle is translatable under controlled circumstances back to stationary ground state 'mass' energy matter. I.e. At ground state the particle can exhibit no force and therefore is unable to cause energy change. However this can only occur in the motionless cosmea where time has no relevance. That however includes the femtospace.

Force can be converted to energy by causing changes of motion in other particles but only in subjection to the dimension of the chronos. Without a defined time period, a force particle cannot move and convert that motion into energy by causing other matter to exhibit an occurrence of any other event, whether actual linear motion relative, thermal, scattering or other within a specified period of time. By conclusion we can insist that force can only be observed by causing a change of motion or temperature! It is the motion and transfer of force particles within other greater particles and packets of containment which cause their vibration value (frequency) and other force effects which are then observed in the real world.

Forces can exhibit real world, near-field, and far-field effects. Some extra 'extreme' near-field forces are postulated herein.

 

GLUON: The theorized particle responsible for binding quarks mesons and gauge bosons which consists of a biracial pair of trions in the bound state. Gluons never exist (for long) outside of hadrons or bosons except as quark gluon (Q-G) plasma in which state the quarks and gluons have become separated. Gluons may then form long vacuum modified strings. Gluons are a fundamental constituent part of all matter. A single gluon consists of a brane separated pair of biracial trions.

 

GROUND STATE: The state of absolute motionlessness at zero degrees k. Some contemporary quantum physics assumes that any nuclide at ground state has its 'mass' converted fully to energy as quote 'ground state potential energy'. This is not so strange even though G-theory recognizes that should such a situation occur it would require a decrease of 'mass' to zero, then even E=mc2 wouldn't support this so it must be concluded to be ridiculous. However it is not so strange in this one thing. Such a state is a feature of the cosmea. This is because in the universe if 'mass' is zero, then E= '0'c2 which equals zero energy.

 

GRAVITINES: Imaginary, singularly isolatable cosmean motive force (cmf) brane lines of the gravitos. These are straight lines of the gravitos which exist across the universe. These notionally carry gravitons initially in a single direction at a velocity subject to cmf being further subject to vector force resultants of interactive transitions through other gravitons and nucleons. This causes gravitons (possibly by perturbation) to lose velocity, and sub-particles and also to switch gravitines, (most probably changing direction in the same vector plane (eigenvector). However this is arguable for reasons to be examined).

 

GRAVITON: (Not a 'spheriton' (speriton?) as per Al McDowell.) A boson theorized herein as the ubiquitous gravitational energy transferring particle in the universe.  A graviton is theorized to not be the Higgs boson or even a gauge boson yet it would be considered to contain a large number of biracial trions (undetectable multiplex shifted neutrinos and combos).

The graviton will be convincingly shown to be the cause of gravity, G 'mass' and particle vibrational (spin) motion as well as being the prime arbitrator of fusion in stars. A graviton existing solely in the gravitos dimension has no electrostatic charge or magnetic dipole or monopole. (It is not a neutrino which has up until now been thought of as an oddity, most often manufactured in the depths of stars but which will be seen to be prodigiously common and actually play a major part in explaining G-theory. Refer to neutrino). Note: Though at first appearing weird this VM theory of multiplicity may go a long way to making standard quantum physics really not appear to be so weird in comparison! However if weirdness is the test of truth then God help us all.

 A graviton is so small that it may also be considered to be a virtual particle of pure 'force matter' (sub boson particle) which is too small to be observed in any way. Although also able to conditionally reside within nucleons -unlike some other bosons- it is not a constructive sub-particle of nucleons yet it contains sub-sub-particles (trions). By having a fifty percent chance of having an odd number of trions, a graviton passing by a sub particle which consists of gluons will have a fifty percent chance of perturbing the particle by biracial charge forces and this will result in support for the vibration of the particle. This strongly suggests that in any given GD or GS, particles of the same type will have the same spin moment unless they are perturbed or shadowed by other forces and the resulting energy states will differ accordingly.

In this manner gravitons as well as photons and neutrinos via different yet often combined mechanics fundamentally combine to give the universe it motion, energy and temperature. Even in the depths of cold space. It is possible that neutrinos do something practical after all. The aid in the energy transfer loop. Not all particle energy is thermal. E.g neutrino forward scattering statistics. Actions occur Bosons move and electrons are displaced but no thermal energy is produced.

As a sub boson particle* a graviton exhibits behavior that's never seen in any other kinds of particles. I.e. A graviton exhibits characteristics of pure force and matter at the same time. It can appear to lose kinetic energy as a loss of velocity, and bosonic matter but not any vibration frequency, amplitude (possibly not; see thesis) or its base minimum individual particle n=2 of energy (above zero degrees k, at which temperature it will cease all motion). It will have become a frozen boson. Remember that at this fundamental level size is as irrelevant as space and time. Motion is simply obeying laws and parity is not necessarily any immediate concern because photons, gravitons and neutrinos are parity carriers. Photons--- thermal, gravitons--- gravity and neutrinos--- biracial charge (not measurable). Gravitons have no charge because they are a charge carrying particle and not a charge exhibiting particle. When they collide with a proton there is a weak interaction and work has been done. It is likely that they can perturb photons but not gravitons although the latter is unclear. If they did, they would show an affect on gravity.

*It should not be seen as a particle made of pure energy. Neither is it a virtual particle. 'Energy' is deemed to be the ability of an object to do work as motion or occurrence caused by a force. All objects (including bosons) that are energetic exhibit motion. Which in a stationary particle is vibration, pulsation (or spin), at a particular de Broglie wavelength. This in turn is dependent on force, density (conditional particle count), size and velocity. Note: Spin (rotary) is the first default solution for the maximum conservation of mechanical energy in quantum particles and even universal systems. This however does not prevent the ability for particles to exhibit vibration instead. That is the preferred supposition because spin requires a high degree of freedom and constrained particles may only be able to exhibit vibration. Such a constraint to vibration may also be dimensionally subjugated or paradoxically exempted. It will be shown that such vibration (or spin) is being continually energized. However spin in fundamental particles is allowable because of their G-statistics. They don't necessarily have any restrictions on freedom.

Thermal energy conservation (particle retention) is by way of vector resolutions in real space time.

 

A graviton (or its eigenstate effects) exhibits a perturbativly dragged speed loss, by cross brane passage through nucleons. The true particle can even be stopped and eventually and only then become totally depleted of sub particles when completely absorbed by other quantum particle containment objects, being specifically nucleons and photons etc. In that case (If it was captured at maximum velocity, I.e. G-energy) it would be contained within the other particle and release exactly one 'graviton sub-quantum' of energy. This means that a graviton 'begins life' as an emitted specifiable value sub-quantum of sub-particles, without any variation of de Broglie wave-function of vibration as it loses those sub-particles, and it is far more likely to lose linear velocity -as eigenvalue- in the process which is the contention of this theory for reasons which will be forthcoming.

The astounding conclusion of this is that a photon of (G) gravitons could theoretically transfer the energy equaling Planck's constant as perturbative 'friction', with the expected result of such, and the mechanics of this 'friction' will be explored in depth. (It would not however be expected to be subject to Compton wavelength functions). This is not necessarily the case and remains unknown but the rationale is that wavelength changes which must necessarily occur by velocity changes with reference to a stable frequency would only be observational, which in itself is seen to be unimportant because E=hf (still) and the kinetic energy in a graviton would only decrease by linear velocity or eigenstate changes .

A large yet unknown number 'n' of gravitons with (G) energy and maximum velocity 'y' is therefore (though subjectively) term interchangeable with a quantum and a photon by the formula

hf=fy2 we then have

h=y2 which actually equates to G:my2 -by a little G-theory energy formula math--- funny that!- so at maximum velocity 'y' such a graviton 'n' has the same 'mass' and energy as a photon when mc=my so in that case an individual graviton mass being the mass of a photon divided by the 'n' of gravitons must be some equally unknown value less than a (supposedly relativistic) photon-boson mass.

A base graviton's energy therefore reduces from an initial value equivalent to E=mc2 being applied to a photon boson, by---            

G=(m-n) ((y-v)2) as a graviton loses velocity, where m-n is : v. This means that graviton 'force' is a squared relationship with velocity hence we note that its propagation velocity is not a constant and neither is its 'mass'. So it is the constants that would differ between photon and graviton energy formulas. Note: If you think a photon has no 'mass'; please refer to the 'mass' evaluation on page 291.

Similarly and with relationship significance; a theoretical single quantum level photon at rest will only have one quantum integer number of energy by E=hf. And not by E=mc2.

However E=mc2 becomes the relevant formula when a photon is imbued with far more virtually instantaneous energy upon emission by kinetic energy provided via the eos/gravitos dimensional collaboration* to give it the (relativistic potential energy) of the emission velocity 'c' by

Ep=hfc2

This is because by G-theory potential 'mass' is proportional to hf and therefore proportional to E.

So E(photon)=(fy2)c2 when the quantity of bosons (gravitons) contained within a photon have G energy by summative P-mass.

So then from the formula E=mc2 we can derive that

m(pot.)=fy2 which relates back to and equals E=hf (which is the 'mass' trans-mutational potential energy lost from a quantum level single photon boson to a graviton boson at G/n energy with 'y' velocity), and so the energy transmuted to a single graviton at graviton emission from the photon packet can be also related to potential N 'mass' and calculated to E(ph)=m(pot)c2 and then graviton energy is by E=yc2 so N-m(pot)= E/y2

This all indicates that the kinetic energy component of one graviton moving at velocity 'y' is the same as a photon boson kinetic energy at 'c' which means that like a photon an emitted graviton must also be imbued with extra energy by a dimensional force also**. The combined 'g' energy of 'n' gravitons however is equivalent to the potential energy of one quantum integer number in the case of a full photon packet. N.B. Refer to note below. Note: 'n' number is calculated in the thesis. also base level photons as well as other single bosons follow B-E statistics, while the emitted 'graviton full' quantum photon which is actually a package of bosons does not, so E=mc2 seems to apply only in the case of a moving photon if relativity is a given and for a graviton E=my2 but in this case 'y' is not a constant. This indicates that individual gravitons moving in space FOLLOW B-E STATISTICS, so in such a case the conservation of energy** during graviton emission MUST be by an increase in velocity by a dimensionally applied force and such kinetic energy cannot be derived from the photon which only loses 'mass' and 'spin': and hence luminosity.

*The instantaneously acting eos adds and removes force particles as BBR or photons according to discretional agency and quantum physics laws but in particular within the limits of the conservation of energy law which dictates that THE EMITTING NUCLEON LOSES THE SAME AMOUNT OF 'ENERGY' that the BBR or photon contains. The eos is the arbitrator of the energy balance of the universe so there is no violation of any energy conservation law**. TBE Note: Instantaneous in this case should be recognized to only be with regard to event 'rise and fall time', but not to duration. An 'n' quantity of gravitons is almost synonymous with a single base level boson called a photon. Higher energy photons can contain an almost incalculable number of quantum integer packets and in that case the Planck's constant 'h' needs to be quantified by h.n where n is the integer number of quanta in the photon 'packet'. Of course it is actually quantified by default because it becomes frequency dependant and the formula E=hf takes that into account.

Profoundly it should be noted that this can also be calculated by atomic mass relationships BUT ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE G-THEORY QUANTUM PHYSICS which is dealt with in the thesis.

With conventional quantum physics the relationship between the two energy formulas is one of incompatibility because of Schroeder's misunderstanding of the two different energies which are 'rest or momentum state' energy and 'rest mass' energy which are NOT THE SAME entities in classical or relativistic physics.

I have already begun to show a different mechanics which can actually substantiate that Schroeder turns out to be correct but now by genuine reasons which emanate from G-theory and not from absurdity!

To simplify this all: This quantum physics E is not the E=mc2 E which is kinetic energy related to momentum. In quantum physics the only true energy formula is E=hf E only. Oh boy! Talk about term confusion but at quantum levels they can be seen as being the same and photons are actually only given an insignificant value of Ek of momentum. However of course and without any logical reason or proof the argument will be immediately trotted out that relativity somehow makes the energies compatible and a humungous equation will be forthcoming. Math equations don't prove anything they are just a story telling of your perceived connections of events  and processes.

**The conservation of energy law isn't violated. Refer to the thesis.

 

It is highly unlikely that a graviton will ever be singularly isolated and observed. It would be in some ways similar to isolating a drop of water deep within the ocean.

 

G-STATISTICS: Similar to B-E statistics but not relativistic. G-statistics is in the reference frame 'eye' of the particle and not the observer and it has no reliance on S-rel or 'c'. It has reliance on a Compton 'one universe' wavelength.

Relativistically: If a particle becomes decelerated it is able to increase amplitude in order to conserve the wave function energy because of the resultant notional 'Compton-relativistic' change in the particle's similarly notional frequency decrease.

Straight: If speed decreases then energy decreases and if I increase the amplitude I can restore the energy because the amplitude increase increases the meters per second value of the notional travel of the wave.

However because the wave is locked to the one-universe wavelength then the velocity decrease is assured even though the particle doesn't know it from its own reference frame. Clear as mud? In G-statistics the universe is the one size fits all.

So when a graviton loses sufficient velocity the massive amplitude increase allowable within the Q-L -which now brings it under B-E statistics- forces across brane admission into the Q-L of the nucleon being transitioned and the graviton becomes recycled. The remaining energy is transferred to the Q-L where G to B-E statistics is performed. The resultant 'spin' adjustment is transferred phononically and therefore variable and conditionally to other particles for their own spin revitalization, none of which is temperature or scattering related, rather perturbatively GD (gravity) related. Temperature is only quantum step related by the subsequent energy emission of a photon. BBR (excluding forward scattering) is not fully proportional to temperature except at ground state and BST. Note: A graviton is so small that such an amplitude increase remains a subjective analytical occurrence.

The common graviton density within the universe puts the lie to the term space as it is proposed to be so great that the energy of millions of gravitons per second could be being absorbed into any given nucleon. Billions of nucleon transitions per second would not be out of the question in gravity dense situations. Any proposed congestion problem because of this traffic volume is ameliorated by the graviton collision mechanics as well as their extreme velocity and extremely infinitesimal size. Comprehension of graviton mechanics is reliant on seemingly esoteric principles of quantum mechanics and it all occurs under the law of disassociation. Refer to definition.

 

GD: Graviton velocity flux density: GD is a scalar, which is an instantaneous average of an infinite number of grab samples of gravitons moving in the dimension of the gravitos. (I.e. within the universe). This GD is likely to be a reasonable contender for being the dark matter of common astronomical curiosity (WIMP particles in current theories). As far as I am concerned such particle detections are just anomalies that fall into the 'nothings perfect' category.

It will be shown that GD is an inconsistent variable throughout the universe and causality is to be presented. It is to be also shown that average graviton speeds are stupendously greater than the speed of light. This has also been the opinion of an eminent NASA physicist Tom van Flandern who calculated the speed of gravity to be at least ten orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. It has also been concluded as plausible by astronomical study of past galaxy collision events. I.e. the 'bullet cluster' galaxy collision. Note: even though I theorize gravitons to be the carriers of gravity and the principle content of dark matter, I have at an earlier stage entertained the possibility that the mechanics of gravity may actually have been occurring at the lower particle generational level of trions (Higg's bosons). This was mainly because I could see the tantalizingly possible tie-up of gravity to 'mass'. However at that level the idea of any gravitational energy transfer by other particles becomes severely problematical, so gravitons it is! 'Mass' we will deal with separately and we will discover the tie between gravity and 'mass'.

Also note that Casmir's experiment is strongly supportive of graviton activity which causes both GTD and gravity as presented in this thesis.

 

GMF: A theorized force causing near and far-field graviton transfer via the eos dimension. A Euclidean tensor at right angles to each of the infinite number of possible manifolds, all being cartesian planes. I.e. dead straight lines unaffected by real or imagined geometrical or stress tensors including time.

 

GS: Graviton velocity-flux-density defect shadow (An instantaneously defined scalar GD defect shadow). These exist by 1/a2 law around ALL nucleons and AMOs including universal bodies. This is because of the featured theory which concludes that gravitons transiting through nucleons lose velocity and (conditionally) sub particles, and by consequence energy. They mostly exit an AMO with less energy and velocity (flux) than when they entered. In the case of universal black holes they don't exit at all.

 

GTD: Graviton velocity (GS) transition differential. This is a vector. See explanation in CH. 3

 

GOLDILOCKS: Goldilocks zones or phenomena provide the necessary conditions which are required for the reasonably comfortable support of not only the rise of life as we know it but the flourishing of biological life as well.

If you thought that our orbital distance from the sun was the only goldilocks zone, then it might be of profound significance to note that this thesis has defined more than a dozen such goldilocks coincidences. The most important one of course is the temperature at which water freezes. This particular happenstance allows us to keep our cocktails at a nice drinkable temperature.

Schrodinger's equation applied to an infinite universe seems to allow the possibility for a combination of such phenomena to occur somewhere else. However when you add the numerous goldilocks requirements that I have identified herein into the equation then the odds of such a reoccurrence or even an auto-occurrence in the first place are next to zero. The odds of having it occur anywhere within the limits of our observance makes the possibility of the existence of other biological life similar to our own a complete non starter.

I fear that the lunatics were running the asylum when the SETI program was even contemplated*. All it is now; is a provider of well paying 'jobs' for a few misguided scientists, as well as a hobby for hundreds or thousands of members of the public.

I only formed this opinion in consideration of the other compounding fact; that after more than a century of searching for aliens and with billions of dollars having been spent for the best equipment technology could provide: The results are in. I.e. ZIP!

This evidence I provide against the main supposition of the Fermi Paradox: I.e. ---considering the size and age of the universe there should be other detectable life out there.

So either my evidence is worth evaluation in forming an opinion of likelihood, or the stupid aliens have either discontinued; don't use or haven't yet discovered radio transmission yet (In skew time of course). In such a case what is the rationality behind the expectation of the likelihood that reception of such a transmission is even remotely expected to be just around the corner. By the same logic; it could be the case that you missed their last and final transmission by one second when you first turned the damn thing on!

*No Individual or scientific organization is being disparaged. At the time of conception of the project there existed a patriotic and curiosity charged fervor which tainted the social, military and scientific atmosphere. Driven mainly by the space race the public appetite for UFO phenomena as well as a generally positive regard to all things pertaining to space, its exploration and so the not surprising urge to discover its possible denizens was high. Maybe now perhaps it's become time to question.