IMPETUS:  This may at first be thought of as a ridiculous way of describing acc/deceleration rate or energy. Impetus is actually another way of describing kinetic energy but with special reference to time where the 'mass' is always considered to be unity or not applicable, whereby both 'mass' and velocity are not a concern unless kinetic energy is to be the calculated result. The idea of 'thrust' in rocketry is a concept of impetus.

But wait there's more: I am borrowing the word (because its original conceptual flavor has been usurped by the word 'momentum', as in the state of an object with momentum considered to be carrying kinetic energy) but I'm now giving it a new meaning as the rate of using energy -but not necessarily termed in seconds- as power. In fact it really carries a concept rather than a value. This concept is Ft .t=1 with the terms being variables and the implied 'mass' is 1kg. Note: ' t' is now a vector.

Impetus, as used herein (which will be expanded on in the discourse) may be described as the vector degree of force as a function of elapsed time. E.g. A large force acting for a short time has a specific impetus value. Conversely, the same force acting over a greater time has a higher impetus value but not to be confused with impulse which would be more relevant to the first case.

If we singularly change either the force or the time we will see a resultant change of impetus by the formula Ei=Ft t (net force by elapsed time)* and Ft=Ei/ t. Acceleration then can be stated as a=( Ei/ t)/m which is then able to be reduced to a=Ft/m and from there, back to the classical formula F=ma.

These impetus formulas have never before proved necessary, but they are crucial to the understanding of this theory, and as you have just seen they are solidly connected to the well known Newtonian acc/dec formula F=ma.

*This is a basic impulse formula in a linear relationship however impulse is a word usually reserved for large forces acting over short time durations, so its use in such a sense is invalid for the explanations of mechanics described herein and such subjective opining must be resisted. This formula will be expanded upon later.

 

Although very similar in the real world, impetus is different in analysis to inertial ac/deceleration as well as kinetic energy of momentum because we need NOT KNOW the 'mass' or starting and final velocities. In actual fact I would use the word inertia except that in this theory the two are quite different because it will soon be seen that there are actually differing forces acting on objects in motion and that's the reason for the requirement to contextually apply both terms in G-theory. (Refer to classical physics inertia definition).

Impetus in conjunction with another force yet to be introduced will be shown to operate under power and not linear law. (Here is another mental frustration for you).

The calculus might promise to be difficult because the velocity slope curve may be vastly different to a single squared power law curve and only come close to any similarity at the low linear end of the 'velocity v time' modified power law curve. This flat section fits in very well with ideas of the standard linear velocity-acceleration relationships as well as the idea of the constancy of momentum that we have entertained up until now but (as will be seen) mistakenly concluded to be the case at all velocities/speeds. However it should still remain clear that assumptions involving linearity and constancy of momentum as well as the idea of mechanical kinetic energy still remain useful on a day to day basis here on earth.

Impetus removes the need to convert acc/dec force to terminal (instantaneous) velocity to kinetic energy of momentum and back again and therefore 'mass' needs not come into the equation. This may seem to be a little ridiculous on the surface but I trust that if you didn't quite understand the immediately prior explanation that you will find the reason for the necessity of leaving 'mass' out of any equations concerning impetus further on in the treatise. Hint: The 'mass' component is carried in the formula Ei =Ft but just because F=ma the equation can't be rendered as being Ei =m.a.t. because it's an apples and oranges situation. Refer back. Refer also to the section… MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS CONCERNING 'ENERGY'

 So by way of simplification it can be stated that the main reason for using the term impetus within the context of the thesis is to avoid the long winded conversion of force to kinetic energy and back again.

'Impetus-energy' (impergy) (M) is to force as power is to energy. It is the mechanical equivalent of electrical power.

 

I.e. 1J.s x 1volt=1watt

1J.s x 1N or 1N.s x 1J=M conceptually being impetus 'i'.

 

However this relationship is just for explanatory purposes within the context and it serves no real world purpose that I can envisage.

'Energy' is related to impetus by the displacement of the force to energy over time such that M=Ft .t only becomes valid where a force is converted (over any given length of time) to potential energy and the impetus no longer exists. For the duration of the displacement the proportions of force and energy trade places. During the displacement, impergy is realized. After the displacement energy per kg is the result because we know that energy is related to mass.

Another way of explaining all of this is to first consider that kinetic energy is proportional to force and for some conceptuality of ideas (especially where invisible or opposing forces are a work) the utilization of impetus as a tool removes possible bulwarks to a true analysis of the energy involved. Impetus only applies to kinetic energy.

Don't fall for the magician's trick of evaluating energy by the motion and mass of an object. Consider the following simplistic mind experiment.

You are seated directly in front of a stage. You notice the curtains are partially open and a substantial metal box is sitting on rollers on the stage in front of you to enable it to move transversely without friction; however you are only able to see the box itself because the curtains hide the regions to the left and right of it.

You notice that the box is stationary so you consider that no force is being applied to it and no energy is being used. The curtains are finally drawn back and you see two men pushing on the object equally from both sides. You were wrong; energy is being use but no motion is ensuing.

The curtain is closed back to the same position and some time goes by with no motion ensuing but this time you are not so ready to jump to conclusions so you reserve your judgment until the curtain is drawn back. This time you notice that two clay ball guns are simultaneously firing at the box. The guns fall empty but the box hasn't moved. What happened? Yes the energy of the balls was converted directly into 'mass'. The box is now plastered with clay. Wow that must demonstrate mass-energy equivalence.

Not so fast! The curtain is closed once more and you go through the same deal. This time as it opens you notice that the box is beginning to glow red. Sure enough two powerful space heaters are positioned on each side of it. The box is full of energy but now it gets weighed only for you to discover it still has the same 'mass'. What on earth happened here?

Your 'mass'-energy' equivalence idea just went out the window. What we really observe is matter-energy equivalence. Matter and 'mass' are not the same thing.

Of course the relationships in reality are much more complex but we can simplistically consider that the application of forces was summative to impetus in all three cases including the last one.  In that case because the photons have 'mass' and apply a force which unlike the clay doesn't stick it becomes absorbed. Where did it go? Why didn't it get converted to 'mass'? That's one of the secrets uncovered in the thesis along with the discovery of what actually causes gravity. The two are related.

One main conclusion to be drawn here is that any form of conceptualizing static mass-energy equivalence is just as specious as 'mass'-velocity energy equivalence. They both only apply to their relevant portions of the energies under consideration and it must be stated that the classically recognized relationships between 'mass' and thermal and/or kinetic energy is not directly transferable from one to another with the stroke of a pen.

 

IMPULSE: Splat! An inelastic collision with high impact force. I.e. maximum force over minimal time duration.

 

INERTIA: As per classical physics. Inertia shouldn't be confused with impetus which is mainly applicable to G-theory.

 

INSTANTANEOUS: This term usually refers with the flavor of 'almost' being subjective instantaneity. It only refers to actual instantaneity for some actions of the eos which are defined in the usage as well as in affects such as in recognizing the instantaneity of rise and fall times under conditions of the application and cessation of applied force. Instantaneity is not possible within the universe except dimensionally in the eos and the cosmea. However the cosmea only exists within black holes. The velocity of some gravitons is the closest thing to instantaneous motion observable in the universe.

The eos is able (not always) to transmit the smallest sub particles instantaneously. This smacks of transportation and while that is exactly what it is* such transportation is only able to be applied to some greater (i.e. photon) particles if they are somehow temporarily subjugated to the eos dimension.

Such a phenomenon is able to account for the errant behavior of some sub quantum particles. Such particles have their motion further subjugated to the laws of the eos. Refer to the thesis for more on this subject.

*Make of that what you will.

 

INTERLOCUTION: Refer to the previous also. A strange effect ostensibly enabled by the eos dimension which allows atoms and particles on a near-field collision course and or also those in a condition of entanglement (a quantum mechanics form of QED) to communicate limited data to each other. The method of communication remains unclear but is thought to be 'extreme near-field force' related. I chose to use this 'interlocution' label for the simple reason that entanglement doesn't lend itself well to verb-ification as well as the fact that the word interlocution specifically promotes the sense of data communication.

Such seemingly weird phenomena as these have been scientifically and credibly observed and as such they lend support for field and signal physics which is a strong requirement for the operation of G-theory. Another related phenomenon in G-theory would be 'extreme near-field conditional, cross brane perturbation'.

If such particles are being emitted into the eos they may appear to be apart when they are actually adjacent within that dimension. In that situation they can also appear to be 'communicating' with each other over a 'perceived' distance and they may also be observed to be traveling faster than 'c'. Note: The observational support for this already exists.

 

LAWS OF DISASSOCIATION: (a) Any particle, agency or law which is responsible for the derivation of a higher generational law or principle of physics is not itself countersubject to such law or principle so derived.

(b) Any particle that doesn't contain the mechanical structure that would otherwise legally constrain it to obey the relevant law becomes exempt from the predicates of that law.

This provides the legal framework for quantum physics to be able to conditionally violate some laws of classical physics, but certainly not all and especially not the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy.

 

LEPTON: In the standard model a lepton is a half spin particle that doesn't interact with the strong force but one which is subject to PEP, gravity, EM and EWF. It is supposedly indivisible and that is why an electron is included.

A lepton is supposedly a typical building block of matter which is as important as a quark. A W-boson is supposedly able to decay and form a lepton--- neutrino pair* and both of those are said to have an antiparticle, and ditto for an electron and a muon, but then we have the tau and the tau neutrion the muon and the muon neutriono and the electron and the electron neutriono and these all have anti particles as well.

*Note the standard model confusion. A neutrino is already supposed to be a lepton so that statement is ludicrous.

 

That's all starting to look ridiculous and because these decays can't actually be seen with enough clarity to even get consistency of results then the G-theory model is beginning to look hopeful.

In G theory the electron isn't a lepton just because it meets the same requirements for identification as the others. That isn't at all true for any of these particle because of their woefully different masses which bear no relationship at all with their supposed particulate makeup which is indivisibility.

Yes the Leptons are supposed to be indivisible. In G-theory the electron is divisible.

In G-theory there are neutrinos and anti neutrinos which form gluons and other bosons including muons etc. The reasons why there is confusion in the standard model is because of VM, pure and simple. The flavors which they speak of are nothing more than dimensional statistics. As for being effected by gravity or not--- show me an experiment which proves that one way or another. There are strong doubts as to whether electrons are affected by gravity at all!

A muon is also a complex particle in G-theory. It may not have been observed to decay but G-man considers a muon to be a VM shifted anti-proton for solid reasons given in the thesis. It will change back to a positron in a couple of microseconds.

A muon and negatron can replace an electron temporarily in a false bonding dance with protons. This occurs in Mu-mesic or muon catalysed fusion.

Yes I said the electron was divisible. The muon is also listed as a lepton in the standard model yet it too is -strangely enough- already known to be divisible and it decays into a muon neutrino and an electron anti-neutrino pair!

 

 

LIGHT SPEED ANISOTROPY: An observed or expected change in the speed of light due to the motion of the body (Earth) through space or by any other possible phenomena.

In standard theory there should be no observable anisotropy regardless of the direction of observance on earth.

In special relativity the speed of light becomes a constant and time is warped relative to the universal reference frame which theorizes light in the forward direction to appear and be measurable as 'c' regardless of the velocity of the earth through space, so anisotropy would not be expected.

Anisotropy from light being affected by a light propagation media is not a valid conclusion because the existence of such a media has been disproven.

Anisotropy would be expected by G-theory for reasons given in the thesis.

 

M-E EQUIVALENCE: A non valid concept and a mathematical ambiguity. E=Ec2 is invalid as is m=Ec2 so kg to eV is an error of simple arithmetic and is debunked. The equivalence is replaced by the true proportionality which can only be derived by the arithmetical transposition form m=E/c2 and never m=E. The problem for physics and E=mc2 comes about when you transpose to m=E/c2 because when transposing for the 'mass' of very small quantum 'energies' YOU WILL ALWAYS GET A RESULT OF ZERO MASS, and according to both G-theory and sensible intuition, that just can't be so!

 

MF LINES: Magnetic lines of force that stretch right across the universe in the magnos dimension. These are straight when unaffected by matter, but can be bent, twisted and even contorted to the point of being folded back on themselves. This theory finds no problems with the findings of the IBEX probe. In a different manner than realized, those findings can be seen to support G-theory.

 

MAGIC: Any phenomenon which appears to operate without a discernable empirical or legally plausible solution. Magic cannot be rationally considered to be able to explain magic. The case to point is the widespread usage of the 'magic' of general relativity to explain the 'magic' of gravity.

 

MAGNETON: A theorized single magnetic sub-particle which is unable to exist outside of other matter or the propos and which has steady state singular monopolic existence in the magnos dimension. These are likely to be one half of a fundamental dipole. Even though there is one north magneton and one south magneton monopole, they are only able to bond to each other (non magnetically) outside of the magnos or propos dimensions as (gamma--gluon--anti-gamma) magnetic dipole, In emr mechanics they combine with radions (dimensionally shifted complete magnetic dipoles) to form emr ramatons. Gravitons and all other matter exhibit no mutual attraction or repulsion to magnetons. Magnetons within nucleons and electrons cause magnetic dipoles. How this occurs is thought to be by biracial multi-dimensional agency. The mechanics currently remains unclear. But be patient and study the thesis!

 

'MASS': Classical theory 'mass' is thought to be an intrinsic property with observably realizable and calculable value existing in all (or most) matter objects which by quantum physics can somehow be converted directly to energy at sub atomic levels only.

In some theories mass is considered to be relatable to velocity so E=m2 and then you only have a very small step (but giant leap) to find a 'c' and throw it in there. That's all sleight of hand rubbish.

N 'mass': Newtonian or AMO inertial 'mass': This is 'mass' which is subject to F=ma in consideration of linear motion*. This 'mass' is only measurable or noticeable when a change in linear motion is elicited and is expressed in this book as classical mass or 'mass' and it DOES NOT APPLY TO PARTICLES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE DIMENSION OF THE EOS OR COSMEA UNLESS 'PIR' IS THREATENED. It generally only applies to nucleons and greater AMOs where it becomes apparent under forces which cause acceleration or deceleration.

*In this sense as mentioned elsewhere; non-vectored as not being related to orbital dynamics wherein the rotation then appears linear when angularly corrected or tangential as the case may be.

 

According to the precepts of G-theory, in such higher generational AMOs it becomes specious to suggest that all mass phenomena could be combined to contribute case specifically to the actual 'mass' of any particles or bodies. I.e. such as mT=mN+mG+mP. Such objects in G-theory may have alterations to their 'mass' which could become measurable at hyper velocities and/or in strong gravitational fields. The latter becomes obvious when comparing weight with 'mass'. ONLY N-mass (mN) is Newtonian in all spatial motion relative observances and in some cases within the context N-mass may refer to total 'mass' when referring to AMO's and other cosmological bodies in hyper states of existence.

This theory becomes very valid when mass defect and discrepancy are evaluated. To complicate matters further. It will be shown that G- 'mass' itself is derived from two components.

'Mass' at the fundamental level which is accorded to the phenomenology of unattached trions is caused by the perturbative biracial attraction force to which they are subjected whenever a biracial pair of trions comes into dimensionally estranged proximity.

This is always considered to be the case and is the conditionally subjugated cause of the creation of a gluon.

P-mass: 'Mass' observed specifically by the rest state vibrational (spin) moment of sub-particles below the level of bosons including trions. It is so insignificant that in individual evaluation it must be considered to not cause a significant N-mass which can almost be ignored. HOWEVER COMBINED T mass IN FREE BOSONS CAN SHOW SOME INERTIAL AFFECTS BECAUSE OF PIR, so the T mass of these sub particles may be referred to as P-mass. P-mass of particles that are bound WITHIN NUCLEONS IS LOCKED UP IN THE QUARK LATTICE COSMEAN FEMTOSPACE AND IN THAT STATE THEY DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL VALUE OF ANY AMO's 'N' MASS, including G-mass as T mass.

The P-mass of objects that consist of quarks as single baryons or mesons may be conditionally perturbed by gravitons and therefore be declared to exhibit some small and disproportionate G-mass.

G-mass: GTD mass; gravitational inertial mass, not gravitational mass or weight per se. (to be explained in the presentation): The effect of graviton (GTD) and/or AIR or PIR* force which applies conditionally to some fermions and all greater AMOs. It is referred to in the narrative as either G-mass or simply mass without parenthesis. The G-mass of two protons is only multi-dimensionally and perturbativly related to the electric field force between them, and this may help provide the answer to Dirac's problem wherein the dimensionless (non multiplex) ratio of gravitational and electrical forces between two protons was mathematically calculable as being excessively large at 1.24e36. the other probable answers are that mathematics is not always capable of reflecting reality** because all is not as it seems in the universe and the contention by G-theory that gravity is actually a much stronger force than any GS will exhibit because of the fact that GS is only a resultant of GD shadowing. Note: Nucleonic force relationships will be addressed in a later chapter.

G-mass is caused by transiting graviton to nucleon mutual perturbation. The G-mass proposed to exist between nucleons is by femtospace GS affects. TBE

*AMO and particle integrity resolution forces respectively. These will be described at the relevant juncture. G-mass is typified in the equation E=mc2 and is the mass referred to in atomic mass considerations.

**For instance there is never the possibility of any negative quantity in reality (except subjectively as debt) but there is in mathematics. Because of this any mathematical construct such as geodesics (G-rel) should be very suspect if it should be presented as a contender for actual reality.

 

From all of this we can understand that quantum mass is able to be legally dis-related to Newtonian mass and that is consistent with the observed facts.

 

MASS 'ENERGY' EQUIVALENCE: M-E EQUIVALENCE: A specious and misleading concept. Refer to 'MASS', IMPETUS as well as the thesis.

 

MATHEMATICS: The representation in numerical or algebraic forms of both subjective as well as observable interrelational patterns and functions in the universe.

Mathematics can trick itself up and lose its way, especially when unity and decimals including zero are concerned. Also consider the fact that it is possible to theorize an infinite number of theoretical patterns by changing any quantity or quality of original terms, or by simply redefining constants. I suggest that sets and matrices be left to computer and economic scientists because the real world is far too random and chaotic for their realistic utilization for analysis of universal chaos.

Further on I will show what that kind of math can actually be applied to in this theory. Math' is not necessarily transferable to observable reality because of the complexities of chaos, and the necessity to interpolate and even more problematically; extrapolate scalars (dot product vectors) and/or eigenspace vectors. Mathematics is also able to be applied to subjective 'realities' and care must be taken to not actually confuse those with reality per se.

Mathematicians often take the long way round even when a simpler shortcut is available. The possible formulas for energy activity in a closed system for instance can require an infinite and complex array of mathematical starting terms or conversely just a few. Regardless of the massive and almost incomprehensible formulas which may be presented to allocate energy at any particular time or dispersion, as well as with spatial and elastic rebound considerations the end result (if the original energy component at rest was 'one' then the end answer for any mathematical calculation of any description is also 'one').

Unfortunately however I'm in the club that must admit to a twinge of envy in the way that brilliant mathematical minds are flying around over our heads in flying saucers while we are compelled (by possessing a different kind of grey matter that condemns us) to slug it out in the trenches.

 

MATTER: All substantive material whether directly observable or not that exists in the cosmea and universe. Matter is conceptually relatable to energy at the fundamental level of the lowest non vanishing order of articles. Matter does not relate to 'mass' either directly or with transferable quantity-value proportionality.

 

METAPHISICISM: An arm of metaphysics held apart from religion (non theistic) which proposes non empirical (pseudo theistic) cosmological theories to be causative of accepted physical phenomena. This includes an interjection into the mechanics of continuously experiential phenomena whereby it is declared that specified non physical agencies derive pseudo or fictitious forces which replace commonly accepted but non specifiable physical forces that even if still mysterious have been historically and intuitively deemed to be the likely cause of physical actions and observances.

Religion sometimes declares that God performs instant miracles. Metaphisicism takes that to extremes by considering that such a non physical miracle is continuously acting. Example: General relativity declares that the accelerating space-time frame of reference traveling through an object causes the appearance of a continuous but 'fictitious' force which is supposedly able to cause a physical action namely gravity. In this example mathematics becomes virtually deified.

Weird sounding theories should only be given any possibility of credence if they past the first test being: A theory shall not defy any known laws of classical physics unless other fundamental laws can be shown as plausibly causative. In so doing neither shall it propose phenomenological actions that are not supported or supportable by the clear and reasonable understanding of classical physics. Falsely purporting that other inertially derived forces typified by the 'coriolis force' provide precedent support for a supposedly similar fictitious gravity is either scientifically inept or fraudulent.  

 

MIND GAMES: Related to metaphisicism: Presenting abstract mathematical constructs as objective reality often characterized by the adjustment of constants and or unscientific distortion of effects, data and observations and the convenient disregard afforded to the resulting and often illogical assumptions/conclusions, term confusion and refuting evidence, in the attempt to enable a fit of such current subjective ideas to traditional science or vice versa. Such gaming has been eminently engaged in by Mach, Lorentz, Einstein and Poincare et al.

Mind gaming can often be noticed in other ways by the subjective manipulation of the meanings of terms whereby term confusion is utilized for agenda or outcome driven advantage. Such confusion can be noticed with the word 'dimension' which is quite often confused with realm or universe as we have already seen. What is not often noticed is that it may also be confused with the terms cartesian plane or surface rather than the more precise geometric parameters it actually refers to.

I have heard of three dimensional objects such as a tube being referred to as two dimensional because it is declared to have just one external surface which only has length and breath. This sort of abuse of logic would then lead to the determination that a sphere is only one dimensional, and that a cube would be six dimensional. Spare me the Mobius strip or the multidimensional evaluations of a Hopf fibration: This sort of reasoning is absurd but such similar and devious kind of 'mind game' reasoning has led to relativity and the E=mc2 and E=hf confusion*.

Another critically important (and I believe willful) case of term confusion is the sleight of hand involved in confusing energy with force as is done in such an example as the explanation of mass defect in quantum physics to suppose that the missing 'mass' is not just energy but some how equates to the strong nuclear binding force as binding energy. Another convenient confusion is the often stated 'mass' instead of matter. The term 'release of energy' often includes a significant difference in meaning to the one presented in the paragraph below.

Force is not energy! Force can cause energy to be USED at a rate by causing work to be done at a similar rate. 'Energy' is either the potential to do work by force or the energy used as a result of work by force. Both force and energy must originate from somewhere and the latter as definable 'stuff' that interrelates unidirectionally. I.e. 'Energy' if it is supposed to be physically substantive CANNOT cause a force without motion. It would then be a 'virtual stuff' caused by force, and it is found only in and as matter that's in motion of some description and it is also only notionally and proportionally relatable to magnetic and QED FORCES that form the bonds in matter. It is either identified as one form of energy as the particles in motion within the matter as well as in combination with another from of energy as any linear or angular motion that contains the energy. Other forms of energy are mechanical energy stored by a historical action and energy stored in chemical bonds.

A force can cause spatial energy transference by causing matter to move in space-time however this is only a observationally relativistic opinion which is subjectively tied to the reference frame of the observer. In any case force is therefore an effect, while energy is substantive, in that it can be carried by particles which are able to apply force which can then be realized as energy used to do work over time. Force, energy, temperature, matter and 'mass'/gravity are interrelated in complex ways which I trust will be adequately explained in the thesis. 'Mass' cannot magically have a 'release of energy' without a preemptive force, and potential energy is really potential force. Refer to the CRUCIAL EXPOSE' on page 5.

For scientists to state that they can explain any force at all with current models could, if there is any intentional error, be tantamount to a hoax. They also glibly state without a shred of proof that electromagnetism is a single force. That's patently untrue because even a grade school student is taught about the two forces that combine to cause 'emr'. Which also isn't true but that's another matter. I contend that there are six (or more) forces. I.e. biracial, electrostatic charge, magnetism, strong, weak, bond and gravity. Mostly however when I refer to the four fundamental forces; it is in relation to standard relativistic quantum physics.

*Relativity is about supposed observational disparity while the Einsteinian energy formula is not. What many fail to realize is that the formula is actually a constant velocity rate formula rather than a steady state energy formula that somehow proves relativity at the quantum level. The reason that it only somehow appears to work and doesn't 'prove' relativity will be addressed herein.

In conclusion: Care should be taken with mathematics, because math is not always transferable to the real world.

 

 Unscientific mind games and reverse logic which appears to be another elitist tool, (I'm sorry if you just eyed me in the elbow!) are science fiction/fantasy and without substance when compared to empirical science and rational theories. Other forms of mind gaming involve such things as circular reasoning and transporting proofs between non unifyable theories.

I understand that the removal of relativity from the scientific consensus would remove a fertile playing field for the algebraic and mathematically proficient scientists. Don't worry too much about that; this multiplex theory and my later proposed, nucleon matrix theory promises to be even more challenging in a very objective mathematical sense.

When it comes down to it, a line can be drawn in the sand. On one side you have objective logical theorizing that errs towards empiricism. On the other side of the line the erring is towards mathematical and pseudoscientific conceptualism that leans towards absurdity and either irrationality or at the very least, science 'faction'.

 

MOMENTUM: There are two standard kinds of momentum and care should be taken not to confuse them. The first one is the one we all learned at school which is the continuance of motion of a body with velocity either as linear motion or angular momentum of spin, and this then supposedly provides the body with kinetic energy.

The other form of momentum is conferred on atomic and smaller particles, and it exists as vibrational momentum (spin moment). This also supposedly confers only a kind of kinetic energy on the particles. This vibration is related to rest state energy according to de Broglie relationships. The effect by my theory is thought to be caused by the vibration (not actually spin momentum) being constantly preserved by graviton transitions and other particles (which can lead to summative quantities of force 'quanta' as emissions or fusions) otherwise we have perpetual motion and from that we see a violation of a pertinent law of thermodynamics. Spin (vibrational momentum) is unable to be auto-translated into linear velocity momentum in any particle whether or not it is declared to be with or without 'mass'.

This of course presupposes that any given object has differing energies in changed gravitational fields. This is true but it would be impossible if mass-energy equivalence was factual or we would notice a energy proportional change in 'mass' which wasn't related to the change in gravity.

Even though it has the full appearance of being so at real world speeds; Newtonian momentum by G-theory is not constant and acts according to a power law when threatened with acc-deceleration through any vector. Firstly we must address fundamental biracial SBF which must remain constant or otherwise exert a (differing by F=ma) counterforce against any other force that attempts to upset the momentum by upsetting such equilibrium. Secondly; the power law is caused by graviton transitional velocity differential caused force (GTDv) which i obvious at hyper velocities. At real world velocities an object with momentum is expected to remain at a constant velocity value if it remains unaffected by the introduction of any other external force. To be explained. (TBE)

 

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL--- MULTIPLICITY--- MULTIPLEX: Refer to the thesis. Refer also to VACUUM MODIFICATION (VM) definition. Note: 'Multi-dimension' is short for 'multiplex dimension' (n) whereby both carry the meaning of the multiplicity of diverse yet interactive dimensions achieving the appearance of the whole', philosophically stated as multi-dimensionalism (n) or as featured; the term 'multiplicity' (n) or 'multiplex' (n) (adj).

 

NEUTRINO: (Refer also to LEPTON) Ve and not…Ve (bar over) as b+ve and b-ve uni-racial sub bosons. A fundamental sub-particle (gauge boson) of matter which (although carrying no intrinsic electrostatic charge) in its matter-antimatter arrangements is multi-dimensionally and paradoxically responsible for the formation of a magnetic dipole BY BEING AN unchangeable UNI-RACIAL fundamental biracial CHARGE PARTICLE. A neutrino is also a major connecting boson which connects the weak interaction W bosons and it is a fundamental 'electrostatically and magnetically neutral' biracial boson which doesn't form a cross brane paring except within in nucleons where they are constituent parts of other particles (refer to vacuum polarization definition) because externally both particles are thought to inhabit the eos and internally they are the major connection point between a Q-L and a W boson. Neutrino flavor statistics as well as oscillations are thought in G-theory to be a vacuum modification effect similar but conditionally different to QCD.

Because the particle and anti-particle exist in the same dimension they will annihilate on contact but the particulate matter content (trions) will be instantaneously transferred by the eos to other dimensions for re-energizing as BBR and by such mechanics subsequently cause conditional sympathetic photon emission in the atoms which are the receivers of the BBR and the law of the conservation of energy is not violated.* Atoms of matter would likely be in proximity to the annihilation event. Such a collision with a neutrino in an atom could cause damage and force ß-ve decay or proton decay to a positron. A tiny flash or streak of light would be the expected result in a transparent media. Reasons will be forthcoming in the body of the text as to why a neutrino is 'counter intuitively' more likely to undergo such collisions with atoms in inverse proportionality to the density of a media. This will be shown to be by the predicates of a proposed law.

*This is very similar to supposed electron-positron creation from a gamma particle and annihilation back to that state again. The momentum doesn't need to be conserved at all because there has been no energy produced.

Antimatter annihilations should not be confused with matter annihilations which are required to conserve momentum. Note: In G-theory this would be negatron-positron creation , or in other words just a VM shift of a neutrino- anti neutriono combo or a gluon. A negatron is actually  a VM shifted gamma and a positron is ditto anti gamma. A neutral gamma which is a co-joined + an – pair also exists.

 

It would appear to be almost impossible for a disenfranchised neutrino to ever recombine in any other manner back with matter in the current universe outside of stellar like energy conditions, and because it exists in the eos it is able to travel at whatever speed the eos sets for it. Such a speed is seemingly able to exceed 'c'. Neutrinos appear to have conditionally various sub quantum subsets of sub particle 'n' which relate to known neutrino variants.

When neutrinos of either race do form up with W-bosons they combine into a gamma or anti gamma magnetic monopole as the case may be. When these become joined by a gluon they become a magnetic dipole or 'magneton'. A gluon has a biracial b-charge. I.e. Opposite races are (ground floor) unity b +ve and b -ve respectively.

The b +ve neutrinos can combine across brane with b -ve W bosons and the b -ve neutrinos combine with b +ve W-bosons.

Such a neutrino could be easily confused with a gluon which is a two trion biracial cross brane paring with no antiparticle which exists across the inviolable (in the universe) brane separating the eos from the cosmea. (Refer to gluon definition)

If the neutrino had not already been named, I would have called it a 'magnon' in fact others have already referred to it. I will endeavor to show why I believe it to not be the Higgs boson or the God particle which I will reveal herein.

 

OBJECT: The stuff of known matter is arranged as objects described variously as particles, elements, materials, media and bodies etc. I.e. Every part or combinations of matter that can be conceived of and therefore named: Some matter may not yet have been conceived of or observed and as such is not a definable object. Conversely some subjective objects may not be matter. Not all objects then have 'mass'. Some sub atomic particles such as nucleons have 'mass' others have a form of apparent mass while some appear to have no mass at all. Note: Please refer to 'mass' definition.

A non subjective object is a single entity of matter or a group of bound entities by any means) which constitute a singularly observable entity. Any object being considered within a larger entity is a subject of the greater object or at the very least a subjective object. It only becomes its own object when subjectively evaluated separately from the mother object. Note: (OMG) this may seem to be a superlative description but it will become necessary to understand the differentiation of objects and subjects in order to analyze the relationships between 'mass', inertia and gravity.

 

OBSERVER: The observer unless stated is not human, has no size and is not affected by any dimensional constraints except for the dimension of time in the sense of the chronos which is deemed to be an absolute constant. Time is constant and all else may change with relevance to time and not visa versa. If not, the nightmarish prospect of 'Einsteinian mind gaming' may constrain the application of cosmo-universal physics to the limits of the inherent blindfold applied by continuing indulgence in such mental novelty. This kind of mind gaming has already led to conjectures that could almost be called flawless mental gymnastics. But as intellectually amazing as they are, they are still faulted by not being predicated upon empirically objective based science.

 

PARTICLES: Objects that are so small that they are singularly sub visual and not always singularly detectable, and which are considered to be quantum or sub-atomic objects.

A list of particles in G-theory in generational order, incrementalized upwards from the lowest non vanishing order.

1/ Trion

2/ Gluon

3/ neutrino, graviton, sub quantum photon (photon boson).

4/ W-boson

5/ Z-boson

6/ quark

7/ meson

8/ baryon

9/ quark lattice

10/ electron, proton

11/ neutron

Note: If you may harbor further reservations at this point. Don't worry; all will be logically explained. This is more than can be said for the current quantum physics.

 

PARTICLE STREAMS: Packetized and vibrating streams of gravitons, photons or ramatons in multiples of quantum or sub quantum (gauge boson) sets consisting of neutrinos (anti neutrinos), gluons and magnetons, or dimensionally strange quantasized 'streams' of radion/magneton packets, (ramatons) none of these particles present a magnetic or electric field. Photons, ramatons or gravitons by themselves cannot be significantly affected by force fields except in the extreme near field.

 

PEP: Pauli Exclusion Principle…as per quantum physics. Refer to Quantum definition and the thesis. Along with QIP, G-theory proves it to be an electrical function law related to ohms law which is related to Newton's law and the related equation E=mv. PEP is the preeminent instigator of a quantum emission.

 

PION: A pion is a meson or 'meson combination' which might be a particle that has no true relevance outside of a nucleon. It appears that it must have connectivity with the weak force bosons but paradoxically it is thought to be a very important subjugator of SBF only. Thus, pion phenomenology prevents nucleons from becoming assimilated into one another. According to the G-theory EWF construct the muon is a connector boson which may be considered to be a travelling buddy of a pion when one becomes released from the nucleus. The G-theory EWF Higg's superstruct proposal is likely to be provable because a company called 'Star Scientific'- ctrl click here--- http://www.starscientific.com.au/muon-catalysed-fusion/

 ---is presently extracting muons as decay products of pions.

 

Excerpt from elsewhere in the thesis: "In one contemporary paradigm a pion is thought to be the missing 'mass' of a neutron that somehow decays into an electron and anti-neutrino, and that's how we end up with a proton-electron combo. The problem with that common theory and its proposed pion phenomenology is that it derives from the idea that a pion decays into an electron etc which is likely to be specious simply because of misinterpretation of the data. I.e. it could be that not every 1-ve particle is necessarily a pion or an electron* as is proposed! Unfortunately for the counter argument; is the realization that it's much easier to recognize that not every 1+ve particle is a proton.

A couple of examples of 1-ve particles are; ūūđ or -2/3 + -2/3 +1/3=-1 and the commonly accepted dū or -2/3+-1/3.  A proton is notionally uud and it is supposed that a +ve pion is đu. However that arrangement in other submissions is a positron and we can see by that where the easy leap to call any dū 1-ve pion an electron outside of the nucleus comes from. The fact is; that the electron is required to be the ūūđ form or else we have a symmetry violation.

Even disregarding that logic; this then means that an electron must still at the very least remain as a quark arrangement (less the P-mass of an anti-neutrino) which then places a big debunk in the lap of any idea of an electron being a single virtual charge point source. Also it would be nice to have it explained what on earth a (virtual reality) 'neutral' pion is, as the (proposed arbitrator of such a process in another related theory goes). We are also left with the uncanny but inescapable notion that an electron is actually a quark. Dare they actually call one that? This is actually supportive of G-theory. TBE

*Refer to 'negatron' in the thesis.

 

The necessary mechanics for the original concept would require a delay time and the decay would have to be; from pion as ūūđ to electron as ūūđ plus biracial gamma and –Ve particles) and this would still have to be 'dimensionally' subjugated by the –Ve particle which departs the scene by an unknown ejection mechanics (probably by the eos)*. This delay would be necessary to allow time for the particle to exit the nucleus. If it were to become an electron inside the nucleus, it could never escape. I.e no 1-ve particle is able to escape a 1+ve nucleus (which the neutral neutron would even become in the single nucleon ß-ve decay process. So in any case it would require the necessary facilitation of other particles to create the required conditions for the escaping electron to have a neutral charge**.

The G-theory mechanics is the eminent proposal because it is already multi-dimensional and not so unwieldy and it derives strong support by the relevant proofs in the thesis. Also; perhaps there is a clue in the G-theory mechanics of ß-ve decay which suggests that neutrinos do have 'mass', and that the P-mass component of the mass defect is actually the mass of the lost –Ve. …Just a thought.

So it is necessary to conclude that the G-theory submission of the definition of a pion (stated above) is well founded."

*Otherwise how does the electron even physically escape the nucleus?

**This is the reason for the clumsy proposal for the existence of some sort of neutral pion. The particle emission statistics and the legality of symmetry require another mechanics of resolution however.

 

PIR: Particle integrity resolution: Fundamentally related to the conservation of sub nucleon energy and conditional symmetry in particle systems in order to maintain objective identity (not necessarily shape) I.e. a nucleus is not necessarily round. To be explained in the thesis.

 

PRAETOM:* A theorized cosmean pre-existing nucleonic construct consisting of trions, possibly with uud quark and ūūđ anti-quark baryonic arrangements involving north and south magnetons and gluons providing force connections with other praetoms and antipraetoms*. An antipraetom is thought to be similar to a praetom except it has a udd quark arrangement. Both are theorized to be baryonic with only three quarks each that exhibit color symmetry balance at rest state. (Mesons are also thought to be pre-universal). These are ostensibly the precursor to neutrons and eventually protons in the first instance, and they occupied the same space time continuum as the current cosmo-universe. This subject will be analyzed in depth. Leftover baryonic 'trash' derived form praetoms is likely the substantive constituents of the filaments that stretch across the universe.

Other quarks and particles were formed from praetoms under the changed conditions in the new universe, and many are still being formed in stars etc. as well as in black hole flares.

  *Praetoms and their anti-particle are proposed to be the precursor matter for protons and neutrons.

 

PUSH GRAVITY: A non fictitious gravitational phenomena which relies on unseen perturbative non vacuum modifying particles (bosons) which up until G-theory (which doesn't offer any support) have historically been proposed to be applying the gravitational force by bouncing off the bodies with imperfect elastic rebound whereby one object can then be seen to shadow another object and provide a subjective attractive affect. The other alternative is for gravity particles to somehow transit the body and then morph and return again which is a 'magical' and ludicrous idea even though an attempt has been made to ratify such a possibility. Once again G-theory cannot support any idea of 'magic' in the universe as causality.

Such historical ideas have been easily countered by obvious arguments from logic and the laws of physics including the one stemming from ignorance which suggests that ---"unless the gravity 'corpuscles' or particles were somehow being continuously created they would all soon run out of velocity and energy". This is quite true but it shows a lack of willingness to explore the subject any further.

This avid refuting all seems quite strange when you consider the tenacity with which relativity etc. is clung to in the face of a greater barrage of logical and legal dilemmas*. In any case this G-theory of the  universal light generated transitional-graviton-particle wave propagation (almost similar to how sound travels through air) solves those historical arguments and provides a case for a particle theory of every thing except virtual forces, and in so doing it also answers to the mountain of dilemmas facing contemporary physics.

*…does not compute!