'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=mc^{2} 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=mc^{2},
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=mc^{2}. 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 s^{2}. 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=mc^{2}, 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=mc^{2}.

That
'
s not the
case; and F=mc^{2} 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=mc^{2}
---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/c^{2} from E=mc^{2 }---however when a particle is being
assessed as being 'relativistic' or travelling near the speed of light then
E=mc^{2} 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=mc^{2}
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'c^{2} 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=fy^{2} we then have

h=y^{2} which actually equates to G:my^{2} -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=mc^{2} 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=mc^{2}.

However E=mc^{2} 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

E_{p}=hfc^{2}

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

So E(photon)=(fy^{2})c^{2} when the quantity of bosons
(gravitons) contained within a photon have G energy by summative P-mass.

So then from the formula E=mc^{2} we can derive that

m(pot.)=fy^{2} 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)}c^{2}
and then graviton energy is by E=yc^{2} so N-m_{(pot)}= E/y^{2}

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=mc^{2} seems to
apply only in the case of a moving photon if relativity is a given and for a
graviton E=my^{2} 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=mc^{2} 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/a^{2} 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.