A NEW THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
Internal Mass Anticorrelation Theory (IMAC)
& Energy/Mass Ratios (EM Ratios)
Theories Unifying Quantum Mechanics
And Special and General Relativity
By Luke Blahnik
When I was little kid, around five years old, on a summer morning while living on a dairy farm near the tiny town of Ridgeway, in Southeastern Minnesota, I glared at the sun for the first time in my life, (at least to my recollection). I knew a little about what the sun was at the time from my parents. From them I knew it was a large ball of hot gas roughly 93 million miles away, and that it provided the heat and light that made the Earth habitable. That being known, I didn’t expect to witness anything other than a yellow ball in the sky, as from my understanding at the time that’s all the sun really was.
What I remember seeing, however, after staring at it until my eyes began to squint, was far more awe inspiring. The sun had a bright halo surrounding it, and bright jets of light streaming out of it in all directions. I noticed a sort of symmetry in the rays of light it bestowed, which inspired a tremendous curiosity in the sun’s true nature, and seemed at the time to undermine the possibility that such a characteristic could occur randomly. Resembling a beautifully crafted design, a large ball of hot gas suddenly did not seem like the best way to describe it.
From that day on I was truly fascinated by astronomy, as I sensed a brilliance in the universe that could not be explained in a mundane way. Realizing that there was a mysterious universe all around us that scientists were only just beginning to understand, I became determined over time to make sense out of the unexplained details pertaining to our enormous surrounding cosmos.
Years later, liking people too much, and having come from a very religious family that rejected recent scientific breakthroughs, like Darwinism, I decided to take up law instead of science in college. While I admit I’ve had many periods of regret in that decision, a great deal of the legal work I’ve done throughout my adult life has allowed me an abundance of freedom to think.
My most recent thoughts have ultimately lead to this book. It’s based mostly on studies of widely known physics, scientific facts, and theories, mathematics, as well as a great deal of thought experiments, and common sense. It required some research, but not an excessive amount. Citations are accordingly provided where necessary. If I missed one where one was needed, or if I’ve proclaimed something as fact, when it’s actually opinion or theory, I do offer my advanced apologies. I’ve done my best to avoid these kinds of mistakes, but a completely mistake free book is unfortunately not something I can guarantee. I can only say I’ve done my best.
While I admit I may not have the dazzling credentials to offer credence to the conclusions referenced herein, I have a professional degree, much like science, law involves the pursuit of truth, and let’s not forget that Einstein worked in a patent office during the time he put his most revolutionary ideas onto paper. Not to compare myself to Einstein, but I do believe that the ideas in this book, while mostly theoretical, build upon Einstein’s conclusions, and take science to a new level.
What makes me so confident? I don’t presume to be better or smarter than the scientists who research the very topics discussed in this book every day for a living. I know they are probably more educated than me on many topics associated with astronomy and physics, but I also know that the education distinctions are completely irrelevant. The ideas in this book work in harmony with physics. I’ve tested them objectively and soundly with statistics and equations, and they’ve passed with flying colors every time. I’m also a wiz with numbers, (although I can honestly admit that’s irrelevant too). On top of this I truly believe I’m a better candidate for presenting a new scientific theory of the nature discussed herein, simply because I’m not connected to the scientific world.
How does that make me a better candidate? At times I may come across as a bit condescending towards modern science in this book, but that’s not because I consider scientists any less capable of coming up with their own reasonable theories regarding the mysteries of the universe. Rather, it’s because, much like journalism, medicine, law, and many other professional fields, I consider science an institution tainted by its for-profit nature. Someone like me, who isn’t worried about keeping grant money flowing in, can work objectively and with an open mind. This is simply what I do with my free time. It’s not what I do for a living. Einstein is proof that some of the best scientific ideas derive under such circumstances.
Granted, I’m sure a lot of this will be met with disagreement, confusion, and criticism. I’ve nonetheless done my best to back up my conclusions with more than just thought experiments, and in the court of science I believe I’ve succeeded. To put it bluntly, based on this book’s most fundamental revelation, I believe I’ve proven that gravity and electromagnetism can be perceived as being united. I even have a unifying equation. It was a difficult equation to derive at, but it works. It may be a little confusing to understand, but I assure you it makes perfect sense. I only hope people smarter, and with better resources than me can figure out a way to simplify it so that the entire world can someday understand the beauty of this unifying theory.
A brief note about me, I describe nothing and everything as being synonymous in this book, which I believe there’s enough supporting evidence to confirm. It’s a widely known fact that energy and mass are the same thing, as described in Chapter one, the proven phenomena of time dilations confirms that space contracts when exposed to gravity, or when surrounding an accelerating object of mass, and there’s an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe. (The later fact is only supported in the general scientific world as having been the case when the universe first began, but a theory that’s supported by facts and common sense presented in this book will indicate that it is in fact still the case). “Hafele-Keeting Experiment.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html; Matthews, Robert. “Why Didn’t the Big Bang Produce Equal Amounts of Matter and AntiMatter.” Science Focus, www.sciencefocus.com/space/why-didnt-the-big-bang-produce-equal-amounts-of-matter-and-antimatter/.
All this suggests a possible illusional sense of reality. While this may suggest a spiritual disconnection, I also describe a nature of space, which I could not objectively conceive as having come from a dead and unintelligent surrounding. In other words, while I wouldn’t describe myself as an excessively spiritual, or religious person, I’m not an atheist. I believe there’s an apparent nature in living organisms as well, the will to survive in particular, that simply could not objectively have come from nothing. The nature of matter, including living organisms, in fact seems to counter the nature of space. Is there ultimately a war between space and matter for dominance, and if so, how could such be the case without the existence of a higher power to program it that way? The answer to this question is, quite simply, I don’t know.
The point is I don’t believe everything could have come from nothing, but I do believe most everything could have. I say this only because I’ve found that to present an in depth scientific analysis regarding the origins of the cosmos requires the undermining of religious perspectives. There’s simply no way around it. The two topics clearly counter each other. I don’t want readers to get the wrong impression about me, however. While the universe I describe in this book is empty and vacant of a spiritual presence, I still believe in a higher power. Beware, however, that this work strictly involves science. Aside from a few minor references, religion will not be addressed in any further detail. If you decided to read this book, given the title, I trust you’re comfortable with this aspect, but I thought I’d best mention it nonetheless.
Just to briefly summarize what to expect going forward, the first chapter is a bit unique from the rest of the book. It’s essentially introduces a new concept of understanding time and time dilations, which simplifies the ideas behind Relativity, and serves as a theory unifying General and Special Relativity. I included it first in this book, as the concepts of time and time dilations, including a new time dilation equation, are utilized in future chapters. It’s not essential in understanding the unification of gravity and electromagnetism discussed in subsequent chapters, but helpful, and I believe somewhat of an independent breakthrough in science in and of itself.
Chapter 2 discusses briefly the history of the quest for the unification of the forces. Chapter 3 goes into the origins of the cosmos as one would hypothesis in accordance with my new theory unifying gravity and electromagnetism, which I’ve dubbed the Internal Mass Anticorrelation Theory, or IMAC theory for short. This chapter basically presents an idea of how almost everything could come from nothing without magic, and how the Higgs Field may have emerged, all in conformance with the IMAC theory. I must confess this chapter might come across as a little bit cryptic at times, but sense it supports the introduction of the IMAC theory, and since a theory of everything should include a theory of the origins of the cosmos as well, I decided to leave it in, and I think rightfully so.
It’s followed by chapters dedicated to the two relevant forces, beginning with electromagnetism, then then two chapters involving gravity, and a final conclusion. These chapters get deeper into the science I believe supports the IMAC theory. There are portions, particularly in Chapters 5 and 6 regarding gravity, that may be a bit difficult to understand, but I’ve polished it the best I can, and I promise it all makes sense. Chapter 5, which is a very long chapter, also includes a summary of a new theory involving the creation of the electron, how this theory sheds light on some of the mysteries of the universe, a new set of numbers representing, in theory, new charges for common particles, and a unification equation for gravity and electromagnetism, including a summary of how the equation was derived. This chapter, and chapter 6, could have been broken up into smaller chapters, but I thought they flowed better as two longer chapters. You may have to read parts of them twice to capture the gist of the information provided, but I assure you it all makes sense, and the referenced equation is sound.
This book focusses on the particles in the universe believed to be the most common in the construction of matter. In essence, it focuses on what’s thought to be the most common building blocks of the material universe in general, such as up quarks, down quarks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, as well as the most common particles of energy, or gauge bosons, such as photons and gluons. Wright E., Selwyn. Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity: A New Theory of Relativity, Trafford, 2014, (p. 200). Particles thought to be less common in the construction of matter, such as positrons and strange quarks, are not discussed in detail in this book, while some, such as gluons, are even debunked and given a new definition. While these particles, which are discussed infrequently, or completely absent from this book, are certainly relevant in the scientific world, to incorporate every single particle ever discovered into a single book would require far too much work, in my opinion, for any one author to endeavor. My belief is that by explaining the most common building blocks in the universe, the less common particles can also be explained by a trickle down analysis of the theories discussed herein. I’m in fact confident this is the case.
I should further note that while angular momentum and particle spin may be somewhat relevant to the topic of the unification of the two relevant forces as well, I did not find these topics relevant enough, given the new theories proposed, to warrant any serious discussion herein. While these are indeed interesting topics pertaining to quantum mechanics, my goal in writing this book was to stick to the discussion of information that is strictly on point with the primary thesis. These topics didn’t quite meet the threshold.
To summarize this book’s primary thesis, according to IMAC theory gravity and electromagnetism are the same united force. This united force results from the expression of trapped warped space within matter. The space can either be stretched, or compressed. Stretched space within matter leads to a negative charge, and compressed space leads to a positive charge. The force’s strength varies by a factor of C² between pure matter and relativistic matter, pure matter being new elementary particles created from energy, and relativistic matter being matter added to existing matter by way of energy. It further varies in relativistic matter by the division of mass/neutral, which is the amount of mass neutralized by bonding particles with opposing charges, compared to the total amount of mass present amongst such bonding particles. This is possible because charges are not immutable according to IMAC theory. Gravity and electromagnetism can further be calculated by one equation.
Having summarized the thesis I offer one final caveat. While some field theories, like the Higgs field, are referenced in this book, IMAC theory is not in essence a field theory, as Einstein so popularized in modern science. While I can’t deny the importance field theories have had in breakthroughs in modern science, nowhere is it written that a field theory is required to derive at a sound and believable unifying theory for quantum mechanics and general relativity. IMAC theory is a theory based mostly on physics and common sense. It’s based on a field that comprises the universe, and a harvest comprised of everything within the universe. No other more specific fields were required to support it. And with all due respect to field theories, given the lack of success in their ability to produce a sound unifying theory and equation, I think it’s fair to say, bold as it may sound, that deviating from field theory in quest of a sound theory for unification was seemingly a wise move on my end.
On a final note, I came up with the new ideas referenced in this book on my own, but well known physics and scientific facts were utilized in deriving at the most fundamental of the new theories specified herein, including the referenced unifying equation. None of the new ideas in this book could have been reached without the conclusions, and equations derived by the great minds of physics in the past. While I’m confident some of the new ideas specified herein can be revised, modified, and/or elaborated upon, I believe the known statistics and facts with which these new ideas so beautifully harmonize offer convincing support, in addition to my own personal belief, in the veracity of at least some of these ideas, including the unifying equation. Having come solely from my mind, (at least to the best of my knowledge), it seems inevitable that would be the case. But I can’t in good conscious continue without extending due credit to the great minds in physics of the past, including Einstein, whom I occasionally criticize, (but with the utmost respect). Without their input, the conclusions derived herein could not have been reached. That being said, I hope you enjoy.
EM RATIOS: A NEW WAY TO UNDERSTAND TIME
I was always intrigued by the notion that time could be an invisible fourth
dimension within the universe, as many modern descriptions of time depict it. The idea that one could move freely within time, as we do within the other three known dimensions, is enough to excite even the least adventuresome mind. Much like the Loch Ness Monster, however, this notion of time, while sounding really enticing, never really made much sense to me from a sheer scientific perspective. It goes without saying that in the court of science, an idea that could seemingly never be proven should never be accepted as truth.
Then there are those who assert that time is an illusion that doesn’t really exist, which seemingly makes even less sense. Although a deeper analysis in a later chapter would imply such a notion, from a practical sense I doubt there could be much dispute that the generally accepted definition of time is the rate at which events occur. While the means of measuring it can clearly differ, the existence of time itself is simply indisputable. Things move, change, and age. Time is merely how we measure these occurrences. Time may not really exist in the general scheme of things, but from our perspective it’s real, and that’s all that matters for purposes of this chapter.
But what about the things that seemingly don’t change, like empty space? If empty space exists, and doesn’t itself contract and expand, as many scientists claim, would it have time? Despite many modern day descriptions of space that assert it does, based on common sense alone it would seem quite unimaginable that it could possibly change, or age. As referenced above, this concept sounds a lot more like science fiction than science.
Yet science fiction and reality are not always two separate things. Space has in fact been demonstrated to contract and expand under changing circumstances. Time dilations have been proven using powerful atomic clocks, and a time dilation under the concept of special relativity can only be real if space can also contract, otherwise the shorter time it would take to travel a given distance than the time recorded by a stationary observer would be impossible. “Hafele-Keeting Experiment.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html. Space has to contract to compensate for the less time it took for the moving object to travel the same given distance as observed from someone standing still. That’s essentially how the term space-time emerged. It’s assumed space and time must be the same to explain how a space contraction, as observed from someone in motion would be observed as a time dilation instead by an observer at rest. Mann, Adam. “What is Space-Time.” Live Science, 19 Dec. 2019, www.livescience.com/space-time.html#:~:text=That.
But does time really exist in space, the rate of which is dependent upon
how contracted the space is as a result of the objects of matter within it, or does space expand as a result of the changing rate of time existent exclusively within those objects of matter? Contrary to widely accepted belief, I honestly have to side with the later. Why? For the simple reason that something has to change for time to exist, or there’s nothing to measure, and aside from expanding and contracting, space seemingly doesn’t change, while objects of matter clearly do.
With this seemingly bold, yet reasonable presumption about time revealed,
this chapter focuses on the time that exists within mass. As mortal light, presumably destined by the illumination of time, along with the four known forces within the universe, to someday return to the presumably immortal light from which it started, (where it may very well begin the process all over again), mass is the only thing we know of where we can truly prove time’s presence. In this chapter I will demonstrate that the rate at which time moves within mass in motion is entirely dependent on the amount of energy the mass has released, or gained, since its birth from light, (at which point its time began), rather than on the object’s velocity. An object’s velocity is merely the result of its energy. As such it has no role in the purpose for, or the rate of time, (although it’s necessary in calculating an object’s energy).
I will further demonstrate that time dilations, (the changes in the rate at which time moves forward), can be calculated from a starting point, (any point after the mass is created), by dividing how much kinetic and potential energy an object gains or releases due to force from that starting point, into its mass at that starting point, (or rest mass), plus or minus the mass it gains or loses as a result of its increasing or decreasing energy. The ultimate equation is as follows: ▲T=T°(1-KE+PE/MC²), T° meaning rest time, ▲T meaning change in time, KE meaning kinetic energy, PE meaning potential energy, and MC² meaning rest mass, (mass at any given starting point), times the speed of light, (approximately 300,000,000 meters per second), squared. The rest mass in this equation is represented as energy to correspond with its divisor. MC² is essentially the amount of joules of energy that would be released by the counter-force necessary to convert mass in motion entirely back into the light from which it was created. I’m titling this concept of time EM Ratios, E standing for energy, and M standing for mass. The fact that time and time dilations always depend on the above-referenced ratio would seem to render this title a fitting one.
I will additionally reveal that gravitational time dilations can be calculated by an object’s potential energy caused by a gravitational force divided by the object’s mass, (ultimately using the same equation, except T° would represent proper time, [time without gravity], rather than rest time). Time, therefore, is based on EM Ratios, in that this energy to rest mass ratio is needed for time to exist, as well as to calculate how time changes. This revelation should ultimately serve as a theory unifying general and special relativity.
Finally, I will show that the demonstrated constancy of the speed of light from a fast moving object, as witnessed from a slower moving observer, is merely the result of these time dilations, as light, presumed herein to be infinite in both speed and duration, doesn’t contain measurable time, and it’s release rate from mass harmonizes with the above-referenced energy to rest mass ratios. Light has speed only from the perspective of an object of mass, which does have time. Therefore, light doesn’t experience measurable time dilations, as mass does. Thus, the demonstrated constancy of the speed of light under such circumstances should not be considered the determining factor for time dilations. While time dilations can be calculated using the perceived constant speed of light, and two objects of mass with distinctive velocities, I will reveal in this chapter that time dilations are actually the sole result of an object’s kinetic and potential energy to rest mass ratio.
I will start by briefly expanding on the caveats displayed in my Introduction. While I successfully completed advanced physics in college, as you already know I am not a physicist, or even a scientist. While I’ve spent the last sixteen years as a legal professional, I never gave up my referenced interest in the mysteries of the universe, as well as in physics more specifically. I also truly believe a lot of eminent modern scientists are simply reluctant to undermine the master of physics, Albert Einstein. To be honest, if not for the fact that I can’t conceive of any way of ignoring this new concept of time, neither would I. I believe Einstein was a genius with a wild imagination…so wild it may have deviated a little too far off the deep end at times. Ultimately, we have some seemingly eccentric accepted theories about the universe and space today that virtually no one seems to be willing to refute.
It’s nevertheless important to note that I’m not disputing the validity of his equations. I believe his equations are almost entirely valid, if not entirely valid. Furthermore, he put his brilliant mind through a great deal of work to come up with them, (oftentimes assisted by other brilliant minds), and without them, I wouldn’t be able to write certain portions of this book. I’m only raising questions to some of the ideas he used to justify his equations, like the over prioritizing of field theories in studying forces, the constant speed of light, and four-dimensional space-time, (actually dubbed by Hermann Minkowski in 1908, but accepted and relied upon by Einstein in developing his general relativity theories, and still widely accepted amongst physicists today). “Herman Minkowski Pioneers the Concept of a Four-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum.” Encyclopedia.com, Feb. 2021, www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hermann-minkowski-pioneers-concept-four-dimensional-space-time-continuum. As you will see in this chapter, such seemingly radical ideas are not necessarily needed to understand why time behaves the way it does.
That being said, I came up with this idea quite recently by mere common sense, imagination, a few thought experiments, and a little bit of book smarts. As I kind of expected, I did discover while writing this chapter that I’m not the first person to have an idea similar to this one. However, since I came up with all of the new ideas within this chapter, including the new equation, without borrowing any information from other writings, I am displaying these ideas as if they were original, (and as far as I can tell, many of them are). I will, however, extend credit to Rickey W. Austin for a paper he published in January of 2017 presenting a similar concept for gravitational time dilations, and a similar equation for calculating them. Although his similar equation only dealt with gravitational time dilations, and he made no conclusions about its implications, other than he felt it suggested a connection between time dilations and potential energy. Austin, Rickey. “Gravitational Time Dilation Derived from Special Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Potential.” European Scientific Journal January 2017 Edition Volume 13, Jan. 2017.
Moving on to the relevant topics of this chapter, I’m sure most people have heard about time dilations and relativistic mass increases, (hereinafter referred to as relativistic mass): the notion that time and mass change in objects of matter as they change velocity, or when they’re subjected to gravity. What inspired me to derive at this conclusion was the fact that, according to the special relativity theory Einstein presented, the equation to measure time dilations in moving objects is virtually the same as the equation to measure relativistic mass. The time dilation equation is as follows:
▲T meaning change in time, and T° meaning rest time.
The relativistic mass equation is:
“Time Dilation/Length Contraction.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html. The symbols in this equation represent the same meanings as defined in the time dilation equation presented above.
As you can see, the only difference in the two equations is the fact that the square root in the time dilation equation is multiplied by the rest time, while the square root in the relativistic mass equation is divided into the rest mass. This means that the larger the mass gets, the slower the time goes, and the decrease in time is directly related to the increase in mass. Seeing this made me consider the possibility that time could be converting into mass. Or, thinking about velocity in reverse from an object’s creation place within light, mass could be converting into time.
Further thought on this topic, however, lead me to conclude that this wasn’t in fact what was happening…or at least not exactly. The mass increase that occurs due to relativistic mass is simply the result of increased kinetic energy resulting from the energy required to increase an objects velocity. I’m sure we’ve all heard that mass and energy are the same thing pursuant to Einstein’s famous equation E=MC². If you don’t know what this equation means, an objects’ energy measured in joules is equivalent to its mass measured in kilograms multiplied by the speed of light measured in meters per second, (approximately 300,000,000), squared.
The speed of light is included in this equation, because it’s obviously the speed at which light travels, (at least from our perspective), and Newtonian physics has informed us that energy can be determined by velocity: ½ MV² to be exact. The velocity is squared because energy is increased by force, and force depends on acceleration, which is measured in meters per second per second, or meters per second squared. The ½ constant in Newton’s equation is not present in Einstein’s equation, because light speed, as I’ve already briefly discussed, is perceived to remain near constant. As such, its acceleration does not involve an average half speed, as it would within any object of mass. Rather, from our perspective, it goes from 0 to approximately 300,000,000 meters per second instantaneously. Thus, E=MC² simply means all mass is comprised of the exact amount of energy needed to convert that mass back into light, (notwithstanding nuclear phenomena like fusion and fission).
Einstein’s famous equation also means an objects’ mass is equivalent to its energy divided by the speed of light squared. Thus, when an objects’ energy increases, its mass increases as well by an amount directly proportional to its energy increase. It followed in my thought process, therefore, that an object doesn’t necessarily convert mass into time, or vice versa, but given the relation between time dilations and relativistic mass, time dilations are merely the result of the amount of energy an object releases or gains due to force.
While this may very well be conceived as a conversion from energy to time it seems more likely that greater energy confined within matter simply leads to less time. As previously discussed, time is the rate at which events occur. Events occur obviously at the rate at which things can move. And things can move only at the rate at which their energy will allow them to move. When mass becomes charged with more energy, the motions that occur within such mass, all the way down to the sub-atomic level, (assuming all energy is evenly distributed), must be slowed. This slowing of motion is simply measured as a slowing of time. It slows the rate at which changes occur, as well as the rate at which the matter ages. This in theory is a time dilation.
This is a far different understanding of time dilations in moving objects than the understanding as presented in the special relativity theory. The special relativity equations derived in relevant part by an example of two observers of a light beam, one moving slower than the other. Hawking, Stephen, and Mlodinow. A Briefer History of Time, Bantam Dell, 2005, (p. 46-47). This example continues to describe the light beam bouncing off a mirror on the roof of a moving spaceship. Both observers would thereby witness it travel in an upside-down V shape from floor to ceiling to floor, the observer moving the slowest obviously witnessing the widest V shape caused by the light beam. Hence, due to the need to explain a constant perceived speed of light based on this example, the Pythagorean Theorem was needed to calculate a time dilation, given the triangular shape the light beam would travel in.
This gave rise to the square root in the equation. This also gave rise to the dependency on velocity, reciprocities, and the constant speed of light in explaining time dilations in moving objects. By understanding that time dilations are merely the result of kinetic and potential energy to rest mass ratios, these dependencies in explaining them should no longer be needed. (This will be better explained later). “10.2 Consequences of Special Relativity – Physics.” OpenStax, 26 Mar. 2020, openstax.org/books/physics/pages/10-2-consequences-of-special-relativity.
This need to explain the constant speed of light is also what lead to the length contraction theory in Special Relativity. In the above example the light beam is shot in a direction perpendicular to the spaceship’s motion. If the beam were shot with or against the spaceship’s motion, more explanation would be needed to account for the presumed perception of a constant light speed inside the spaceship. Therefore, the length contraction theory was born. While the length contraction theory in fact does keep the speed of light constant, I hereby assert that that’s not the reason length contractions presumably occur. Length contractions, I assert, occur because light in fact has a measurable speed from the perspective of objects of matter. Therefore, when such objects absorb energy, the energy needs to travel from the side of the object that absorbed it to the other side at light speed before the entire object can express the impact of said absorption by way of increased velocity. The object, therefore, has to contract to compensate for the time it takes for the energy to move from one side of it to the other.
The greater the amount of energy the object absorbs, the greater the time dilation, thus, the slower it takes for the energy to move from one end to the other. Therefore, the greater the energy absorbed, the greater the length contraction. One could argue, based on common beliefs in modern science, that this is because of the greater amount of velocity achieved as a result of the greater energy absorbed, but as explained in this chapter, it’s simply because of the greater amount of energy absorbed. Velocity, I submit, has nothing to do with it.
Should energy be released from the object instead of absorbed, there would be a length expansion instead. This is because the object’s decreased velocity expressed as a result of the released energy would have to travel from the side of the object in which the friction occurred giving way to the energy release to the other side at light speed. Therefore, the opposite end of the object would initially be traveling faster than the side in which the friction occurred, and the object’s overall length would ultimately have to be expanded. Just the same, the greater the energy released, the greater the time dilation, except time would dilate to a faster rate under such circumstances. Therefore the greater the length expansion. This is a common sense understanding of length contractions and expansions, and one I’m not certain exists anywhere, but in this book. The fact that light speed remains consistent is a natural consequence of this phenomena, but not the reason for it.
Getting back to the main topic of this chapter, time dilations, having explained how the EM Ratio time dilation works, let’s move on to how it stacks up to the time dilation equations presented in the special and general relativity equations. Let’s start with special relativity, which describes time dilations within moving objects. In this example, the relativistic mass equation is needed to calculate mass increases within matter as it increases in velocity. Aside from this, we only need Newton’s equation for calculating kinetic energy: ½ MV² to calculate increases in kinetic energy. We will also neglect minute amounts of potential energy due to the object’s gravity, as they would be too insignificant to consider.
Traveling at .1 the speed of light from a given starting point, one kilogram of mass, (rest mass), would increase to 1.005 kilograms of mass pursuant to the Lorentz Factor relativistic mass equation. A second of time it would’ve experienced at its starting point would slow to .995 seconds at this velocity pursuant to the Lorentz Factor time dilation equation. Using the EM ratio equation for calculating time dilations: ▲T=T°(1-PE + KE/MC²), the time dilation would also equal .995 seconds at this speed. Granted, there would be an enormously minute difference due to the small amount of accumulated mass which lead to the 1.005 kilogram result throughout the acceleration, but this difference is so insignificant it need not be calculated in demonstrating that both equations lead to the exact same result.
The below entries display the time dilation and relativistic mass results pursuant to the Lorentz Factors, which helped inspire the relevant special relativity, (SR) theories, compared to the time dilation results pursuant to the EM Ratio equation involving the ratio of potential and kinetic energy, (kinetic energy only in this example), to rest mass for a kilogram of mass at velocities greater than the above-referenced. I’m using the SR relativistic mass result to calculate the kinetic energy in each entry, (while the mass used in the MC² divisor is always the rest mass).
Velocity SR ▲Mass SR▲Time E/MC²▲Time Difference
.2 light speed 1.02 Kg .98 Seconds .98 Seconds 0 Difference
.3 light speed 1.048 Kg .954 Seconds .953 Seconds .001 Seconds
.4 light speed 1.091 Kg .9164 Seconds .913 Seconds .0035 Seconds
.5 light speed 1.155 Kg .866 Seconds .856 Seconds .01 Seconds
.6 light speed 1.25 Kg .8 Seconds .775 Seconds .025 Seconds
.7 light speed 1.4 Kg .714 Seconds .657 Seconds .057 Seconds
.8 light speed 1.666 Kg .6 Seconds .467 Seconds .133 Seconds
.9 light speed 2.294 Kg .436 Seconds .071 Seconds .365 Seconds
The results are nearly identical, notwithstanding the final result at .9 light speed. The reason for this is the large relativistic mass result at this velocity used in calculating the kinetic energy in the EM ratio’s equation’s dividend. If you were to subtract the difference in energy needed/accumulated to accelerate the matter from its 1 Kg rest mass to its 2.294 Kg mass at .9 light speed, the results would be exactly the same, (as they would in every other entry in which there was a minute difference in the result).
Moving on to general relativity, (GR), a theory that derived primarily from the study of accelerating mass, (thought to be synonymous with gravity). Therefore, like with SR, the equivalence of motion is what’s thought to give rise to time dilations pursuant to the GR theory. Possel, Markus. “The Elevator, the Rocket, and Gravity: the Equivalence Principle.” Einstein Online, 2005, www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/equivalence_principle/. Comparing the EM Ratio equation to the relevant equation pursuant to GR, the potential energy caused by the Earth’s gravitational pull for matter sitting on the Earth’s surface is determined by calculating mass times gravity times height. “Gravitational Potential Energy.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html. Gravity at the Earth’s surface is 9.8 meters per second per second, (9.8), and the height from the Earth’s center of gravity is 6,370,000 meters. Thus, the potential energy in a kilogram of mass on the Earth’s surface would be 62,430,000 joules. Applying the EM Ratio equation, this figure is divided by MC², subtracted from 1, and multiplied by proper time, (1 second). The time dilation pursuant to the EM Ratio equation would therefore be .9999999993 seconds.
The GR gravitational time dilation equation is T°=T√1-2GM/RC², where T° is Earth time, T is proper time, G is the gravitational constant of proportionality, (approximately 6.67 X 10-11), M is the Earth’s mass, (approximately 5.972 X 1024 Kg), and RC² are as described above. “The Physics of Time Dilation.” Relativity, users.sussex.ac.uk/~waa22/relativity/What_is_gravitational_time_dilation.html. Pursuant to the GR equation gravitational time dilations the result would also be .9999999993 seconds. I doubt anyone would argue that these results are a coincidence. Moreover, given the match’s accuracy, I doubt any further examples would be necessary in demonstrating the accurate outcome of the EM Ratio equation in calculating gravitational time dilations.
Gravitational forces are measured the same way in all circumstances: GM¹M²/r², where M¹ and M² represent two separate objects of mass in kilograms, r² represents the distance between the center of mass of both objects in meters squared, and G represents the gravitational constant of proportionality, (defined above). Thus, where one example works, all examples should work. Some examples may be more difficult to calculate, however, such as in fast rotating massive objects, like pulsars, giving rise to large amounts of kinetic energy caused by their rotation. If the gravitational potential energy can be distinguished in such examples, however, the EM Ratio equation will nonetheless work.
It’s important to further note that time dilations, gravitational and otherwise, can already be calculated with accuracy. Although there’s a little more math involved in the above-referenced Lorentz Factor and GR time dilation equations, they nonetheless work, (unless it’s determined that there is a very small, but measurable energy to mass ratio in light, in which case the Lorentz Factor equation would not work for determining the amount of time in light, due to its dependence on velocity). This is just a new way of understanding why time dilations occur, what time really is, and ultimately to determine time dilations without a dependence on velocity, or a perceived constant speed of light. Too much responsibility for time dilations has been directed at velocity and the constant speed of light, both of which are actually irrelevant to their purpose.
Time, and time dilations, is actually very simple to understand. We know that mass and energy are seemingly different forms of the same thing. In one form, mass, time apparently exists, and in the other form, energy or light, it apparently doesn’t. Mass cannot exist without energy. Therefore, the existence of time, and the measurement of how it changes, derives from, and is always dependent upon an energy to mass ratio. There’s really no need for any further explanation.
It therefore follows that the rate of time is merely the result of the amount of energy gained, or released from matter following its birth from light, (where most scientists agree all matter came from, as the universe was believed to be too hot in its earliest phases to support the existence of mass), and time dilations are determined by energy to rest mass ratios. We don’t need to explain them by adding invisible dimensions, or inertial and accelerated frames, or the bending of space, or solely as assistants in the constant speed of light, (which sounds a bit like a bizarre and seemingly unnecessary act of God). Furthermore, there’s no dependence on reciprocities. They’re merely determined by the amount of energy mass carries.
As for the constant speed of light, which I think warrants a little more discussion here, given the slowing of time when energy increases within matter, it would seem reasonable to conclude that time only exists within mass. Not only does this make sense, with regards to light in particular, it’s proven in the Lorentz Factor time dilation equation, (assuming light has no mass). Notice that if the velocity were the same as the speed of light in this equation, the time would equal 0. This seems logical, as if light had time that sped up and slowed down, like matter does, it would seize to be constant. Without time light would always be constant as it would not have any speed. Rather, it would move from one point to another instantaneously, (eliminating the need to explain how it travels through potentially blank space, as it really wouldn’t be traveling through it at all). The constant speed of light, therefore, is really just a perception due to time dilations.
However, adding the element of time to mass, thereby creating the perception of a speed at which light travels, shouldn’t necessarily mean that light will always be perceived to travel at the same speed. Or should it? When you consider that time is dependent on the ratio of kinetic and potential energy to rest mass, it actually does, as the rate at which light escapes from mass increases and decreases in exact harmony with this ratio. The more kinetic and/or potential energy in mass, the faster the rate at which light escapes from it. It’s only due to the slower rate of time such mass experiences, (also determined by the energy to mass ratio), compared to mass with a lower kinetic and potential energy to rest mass ratio, that the light is always perceived to travel at the same speed.
Consider the above example involving the beam of light witnessed by two observers, from which the Lorentz Factor time dilation equation derived. If the two observers were inside spaceships of the exact same mass, and the slowest of the two observers was at near rest, and the spaceship in which the light beam was shot was carrying the other observer, and it was traveling .99 light speed, the observer at near rest would witness a much longer beam of light than the observer at near light speed, created in the same amount of time. Assuming a constant speed at which light is perceived, this means that the spacecraft moving at near light speed, hauling far more kinetic energy than the spacecraft at near rest, confirmed
by its far greater velocity, would be releasing light at a far greater rate if one could perceive it in a zero time environment than any light the spacecraft at near rest could release. The perceived speed at which the light travels, however, would remain the same to both observers. Would it not seem reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the far greater rate at which light can escape from the spaceship at near light speed is merely due to its far greater kinetic energy, (remembering that both spaceships are the same mass)?
To say rather that time has to slow down in the spaceship traveling at near light speed to ensure the perception of light speed remains constant, as would be typical in a description of a time dilation pursuant to the SR theory, makes the speed of light sound like royalty. Time doesn’t “have to” slow down for anything. It naturally slows down due to increasing amounts of energy in a given amount of mass. The rate at which light escapes from such mass if one were able to perceive it in a zero time environment, in response, increases at a rate directly proportional to the increasing amount of energy within mass. This occurs in perfect harmony, and ultimately balances the increased kinetic and/or potential energy to rest mass ratio.
To better explain this concept, if you imagine the time moving forward in comparison to the ratio of water to land within the area in which a river encompasses, (assuming the volume of water, and the incline giving rise to its flow, remains consistent). More land within this area leads to a greater speed of the water, but the overall kinetic energy of the river remains the same regardless of its speed. It would seem wrong to conclude that the water’s constant kinetic energy is the reason it speeds up or slows down. Rather, this speeding up and slowing down process is really due to the ratio of land to water within the area in which the water flows. The constant kinetic energy in the water is merely the result of this land to water ratio.
Thus, saying time has to slow down to ensure the constant speed of light, as has been done in the explanations for time dilations in examples, such as the above-referenced, isn’t really an accurate conclusion. Time slows down because of increases in kinetic and/or potential energy at a rate consistent with the kinetic and potential energy to rest mass ratio. The constancy of light is merely the result, not the reason for the time dilation.
It follows, therefore, that light is perceived as constant in examples such as the above-referenced because it has no time, (or, if it does have time, it would also need to have mass, which would have to be a very, very small amount), and it’s release rate from mass harmonizes with the kinetic and potential energy to rest mass ratios, which also harmonizes with the time dilations. Time dilations are caused by the amount of energy mass releases and gains, and they’re calculated by kinetic and potential energy to rest mass ratios. The constancy of light is merely the result of these time dilations, and not the reason for them.
In conclusion to this chapter, I’d like to say that while I know it may have sounded a bit uncouth where I criticized some of the ideas of the same man who’s equations I’ve used to test the soundness of mine, I think it would be fair to assume that even the great Einstein couldn’t have been right about everything he proposed, (which constitutes a lot of ideas, only a few of which I’ve criticized in this chapter, [although there will be little more criticism in subsequent chapters]). If everything Einstein proposed was correct, I can’t imagine why there’d be as much confusion about the universe today, over a hundred years after both relativity theories went public, as there is.
We’ve sent humans to the moon, and sent giant telescopes into space since relativity was introduced. Yet, we still struggle to explain things in the universe using accepted notions of relativity, which has given rise to the need to incorporate radical ideas such as dark matter and dark energy. These ideas may not be necessary, and I believe the notion of time described herein can help us understand that. While it may only amount to a baby step in the right direction, it makes sense, it’s easy to understand, and it works. As such, I certainly don’t think it should be ignored.
INTRODUCING THE QUEST FOR UNIFICACTION
Now that we’ve discussed EM Ratios, and how they work, it’s time to switch topics to the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity. This stems from the general quest to unify all four of the known forces, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, the study of which is commonly referred to as quantum mechanics, and gravity, originally defined by Isaac Newton, but currently defined through Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Relevant efforts in this quest have troubled scientists for many decades. The forces attributable to quantum mechanics just seem too different from gravity to derive at a sound unifying theory. Not only is there a difference in strength between gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force, gravity always seemingly attracts, while electromagnetism attracts and propels, and electromagnetism and gravity have infinite ranges, while the strong and weak nuclear force’s distinguished ranges are microscopic.
Add this all up and a unifying theory defining all four forces seems almost too far-fetched to be real. Yet scientists keep searching for such a theory. The very notion of an idea unifying the forces seems like the search for the Holy Grail in the scientific world.
Progress in defining all but the weakest known force, gravity, throughout the past half century has been referred to as the Standard Model. “The Standard Model.” Cern, home.cern/science/physics/standard-model. Heavily reliant upon massless particles called force carriers in explaining the three forces it involves, despite progress in understanding how the forces relate to each other, The Standard Model has not yet painted a clear picture of how the three forces it involves are unified. Furthermore, it’s failed to incorporate arguably the most important force into its unifying efforts, gravity, seemingly the toughest force to incorporate with the rest, as, amongst other things, it’s the only force that involves large massive objects. Ultimately, despite efforts scientists still don’t seem to have a believable theory unifying all four forces.
Beyond the Standard Model, string theory seems to be the best they’ve come up with thus far, or at least the most publicized. String theory is the notion that all particles in space are made up of one-dimensional theoretical objects called strings. The properties of the particles these strings make up, including mass and charge, are determined by the string’s vibrational state. String theory goes further to explain even gravity by introducing the theoretical particle known as the graviton, created of course by a particular vibrating state within theoretical strings. In explaining the differences in force strengths string theory proposes the notion of invisible extra dimensions in space in which general force exists in different magnitudes, depending on the strings from which it’s expressed. Wood, Charlie. “What is String Theory.” Space.com, 11 Jul. 2019, www.space.com/17594-string-theory.html.
While I don’t deny the possibility that string theory could be at least partially real in some aspects, it certainly seems to involve a great deal of faith in much of the complexities that go into it, especially considering no strings have ever been detected. That’s probably why it’s been lingering for a number of decades now: much like some of the ideas proposed by religions, the fundamental ideas associated with string theory are nearly impossible to prove or disprove.
Nothing against religion, or string theory, for that matter, but I think it would be a fair statement to say that in science, while some theories may be difficult to prove, all theories should at least be provable before taken seriously. With regards to string theory, it’s difficult to conceive how extra dimensions could ever be proven to exist without some sort of unimaginable technology. While I could be wrong, needless to say, string theory remains highly theoretical, and a theory few people can thoroughly understand.
One of the founding fathers of string theory, Leonard Susskind, later came up with a spinoff to this theory. Loosely related to the popular theory referenced above, for which he largely contributed, his new idea, which he developed alongside Juan Maldacena, involved a so-called equation, (which is actually just initials for names of past relevant physicists), ER=EPR. Susskind and Maldacena claimed this equation may be a basis for unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics as a starting ground for a theory of everything. It basically means that elementary particles connected by way of quantum entanglement have an Einstein Rosen Bridge, or wormhole, also connecting them. Cole, K.C. “ER=EPR – (The EPR paradox named for its authors – Einstein Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen).” ScienceSprings, 24 April 2015, https://sciencesprings.wordpress.com/tag/er-epr-the-epr-paradox-named-for-its-authors-einstein-boris-podolsky-and-nathan-rosen/.
Unless Einstein Rosen Bridges and length contractions can somehow be thought of as one and the same thing I personally disagree with this analysis. For reasons laid out in the beginning of chapter six of this book, a section involving pure matter, I believe quantum entanglement, for which various experiments have indicated is a genuine phenomena, is explained by the notion, (described in chapter six), that length, from a matter of perspective, doesn’t actually exist between entangled elementary particles, as it does between atoms and molecules. It has nothing to do with wormholes, which are far more theoretical than quantum entanglement, and which if real I doubt could ever be used as roadways anyways. I say this because two connected black holes, as Einstein Rosen Bridges have been claimed to be comprised of, would present quite an inescapable roadblock about halfway to the finish line.
A little off point, but to go a bit further on this topic, if they do exist, and somehow could be used as roadways, I don’t believe they could ever be used to travel back in time, as many scientists have claimed. This is because time dilations, as explained in chapter two, are determined by the amount of energy an object of matter absorbs. They are not determined by the distance an object of matter travels. The distance an object of matter travels is merely a consequence of the energy it absorbs. While it can be used in calculating time dilations, it is not the reason they occur.
That being said, black holes are heavy with the E in EM ratios, as potential energy would be enormous on their surfaces. As you will read about in chapter six this makes them more like elementary particles, (which I’ll explain in chapter six theoretically constitute pure energy). Thus, it may be possible that length contractions and wormholes, (at least the kind of wormholes believed to be responsible for quantum entanglement), if they exist, might actually be thought of as one and the same thing after all. While I can't imagine a length contraction resembling a worm hole in a literal sense, you can title a natural phenomena anything you want. Ultimately, I won’t be so critical towards the equation, ER=EPR, other than to say that's it's merely a thought provoker, and not an answer to any important questions, (something its founders apparently don't deny).
Getting back to the quest for unification, other noteworthy progress in the history of this noble endeavor includes a breakthrough during the 1970’s, and 1980’s, when a series of experiments indicated that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force unifies as one force at a temperature of 1015 K. “The Unification of Electromagnetism with the Weak Force.” Physics Today, 1 Dec. 1989, physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.881185. This ridiculously high temperature, of course, is only believed to have been present within the universe shortly after the big bang, when all matter and energy that exists in the universe was believed to be compacted together in a thick goo. It’s easy to conceive that anything was possible within such an extreme. There’s still no good reason explaining why the two forces are different now, nor any unifying theory incorporating the other two forces.
A few decades after this breakthrough Author and physicist, Selwyn E. Wright, provided an idea for unifying electromagnetism and gravity that I think is a little more on track to solving the mystery of whether all forces can be unified, but definitely not the smoking gun. He proposed that gravity and electromagnetism both come from an electrical propagation medium, or ether, within space, the existence for which he provided ample support. He further proposed that “gravity is explained through a weak difference electric field from finite distributions of dipoles (dissimilar charges from protons and electrons) within atoms and molecules throughout the universe.” Wright. Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity: A New Theory of Relativity. (p. 17).
While an interesting theory that I very much enjoyed reading about, it seemed the majority of his book was spent furnishing support for his theory that ether in space exists, a notion that Einstein apparently rejected throughout a great deal of his career. While demonstrating that ether in space likely exists certainly constitutes a worthy endeavor in the scientific world, I believe more evidence is needed to support the additional theory that gravity and electromagnetism are unified. Although the existence of ether in space can make this possible, as Wright demonstrated, by way of strong and weak electric fields within such ether, merely demonstrating the existence of ether in space is not convincing enough evidence for the idea that gravity and electromagnetism constitute one and the same force. I believe a great deal more information is needed to support such a theory.
While I think Wright was on the correct track in concluding that gravity emerged from dipoles within atoms and molecules, he mentioned very little about this idea within his book, devoting the bulk of his writing to the notion that the propagation medium in space exists. For these reasons, while intriguing, I don’t believe Wright’s theories are adequate to stamp a final amendment to the standard model, and announce an end to the quest for unification. I further don’t believe the existence of ether in space, (or, as stated in the Introduction, a general field theory), is needed to prove electromagnetism and gravity can be unified. The possibility of ether in space is only one of many things to consider in the grand scheme of things. In my view it’s not answer, nor is it relevant to any idea presented in this book.
Considering the theories referenced herein, including Wright’s theory, the above-referenced breakthrough in the 70’s and 80’s, and string theory, one can’t help but wonder why a simpler, and more mundane theory, with adequate supporting information to take seriously, has not been introduced yet. Could this be due to lacking knowledge? Honestly I think it has more to do with the opposite. Sometimes I think people are victims of too much knowledge. Too much knowledge on a certain topic can cause people to become side-swept by minute details, when the big picture is really what needs the most attention. Too much attention to waves, and a person starts to forget about charges. Too much attention to gravity, and a person starts to neglect electromagnetism. Too much dependence on machines, computers, and other technology and scientists stop using their own imaginations.
For example, it seems amazing that scientists can figure out how to send people to the moon, but they haven’t been able to agree on an explanation as to why there are positive and negative charges yet. A little good old fashioned imagining, like Einstein was so fond of, could change this, but they keep looking for their answers in technology, which I doubt can ever bring an answer to such a question to the surface.
A charge is merely a value given to small particles, like protons and electrons, to describe the potential force they have on other particles. Electrons for example have a given negative charge of approximately -1.6 X 10-19 Coulombs, while protons have a given positive charge of approximately 1.6 X 10-19 Coulombs. In either case, if you multiply the charge of either particle by 6.25 X 1018 you end up with a joule of energy. “Electricity and Magnetism.” Electrostatics, Electric Fields, Current and Resistance Review, www.commackschools.org/Downloads/Review-_Electrostatics_and_Electric_Fields.PDF, p. 104. Sounds practical if you’re a mathematician, but what really are charges? Can charges change? Why do electrons and protons have them? Are they correlated to mass, a value of a historically mysterious force, like with gravity, or something else?
With regards to gravity, Einstein has defined it as merely a result of the stretching of space. This was the primary idea behind General Relativity, that when space stretches as a result of the presence of matter within it, other matter falls into it. “Understanding Gravity-Warps and Ripples in Space and Time.” Australian Academy of Science, 3 Feb. 2016, www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity.
How could this concept be the same with regards to charges, however, when some charges are positive, and some negative? I came up with Internal Mass Anticorrelation theory, (IMAC theory), by considering this very notion. Without understanding the difference between positive and negative charges, I doubted scientists could ever come up with a practical unifying theory. But why are some charges positive and some negative? I believe it’s similar to the question why evidence indicates the strong force that holds together the three quarks that make up a proton gets stronger as you stretch a quark apart, rather than weaker, as it would when you pull mass away from a gravitational pull.
Einstein defined gravity as the stretching of space, but what he apparently forgot to consider, at least according to the general manner in which his teachings are depicted today, was that when you stretch apart a substance, somewhere else on the same substance you end up with a wrinkle, (so long as it’s not stretched from an end, which given the believed nature of space likely cannot happen with space). This is just common sense knowledge. If you can’t see where I’m going with this yet, I’ll spell it out for you: according to IMAC theory positive and negative charges are merely the result of stretches and wrinkles in the volume of space trapped within matter. Furthermore, gravity and electromagnetism are the result of such stretches and wrinkles as well. Thus, these two forces originate from neither energy, nor from matter, but from space. While energy takes a part in these forces as well, it’s only the carrier of the true force instigator, which is space. Sound crazy? I don’t hear too many people calling Einstein crazy, and the idea of a stretchable space came from his brain. If space can stretch, it can also wrinkle. In fact, it would be expected that such would be the case.
This would not be the favored appearance of space, however. Such being
the case, the most fundamental principle behind IMAC theory is the nature of space is to balance out its blemishes, or in other words, balance out its stretches and wrinkles. As we know, water and air behave this way. If you throw a rock on water, the resulting waves move outwards until the water is perfectly level once again. The same thing happens when you yell, the sound waves move outward until air is balanced again. Space acts the same way, balancing out its blemishes caused by the presence of mass within it by discarding mass in waves we call light.
ORIGINS OF THE COSMOS
So to put this into perspective, based on scientific facts, and well supported scientific theories, the world we live in is an illusion. With the exception of certain instincts that drive living organisms, particularly the will to survive, nothing exists, nothing always has existed, and nothing always will exist. While I won’t say this is proven to a degree of certainty, I personally believe this for several reasons. Firstly, it’s a widely known fact that mass and energy constitute the same thing, although energy has been shown to contain no time, dimensions, or mass; second, as previously referenced, antimatter and matter have existed, (and I will later demonstrate that they continue to exist), in equal proportions; and finally, as also previously referenced, the proven existence of time dilations indicate space would contract into nothing if it were possible to accelerate an object of matter within it to the speed of light. Brown, Lachian. “Reality is an Illusion: Everything is Energy and Reality isn’t Real.” HackSpirit, 19 Jan. 2018, hackspirit.com/illusion-reality-scientific-proof-everything-energy-reality-isnt-real/. Nothing containing an illusional sense of reality by conscious entities may not be so bad, and may even contain the possibility of supporting an illusional existence in some form for eternity, but it will always still be, from a strictly technical and scientific sense, nothing.
Nothing can be defined as either nothing, or infinite versions of any amount of something countered by infinite versions of any amount of negative identical somethings. These infinite versions of two equal and opposing realities cancelling each other out to equal nothing are eternally occurring. To envision this, imagine stretching a bungie cord. It seems you get something, (a longer cord), but you really get nothing, (extra length, or positive something, countered by decreased width, or negative something, combined to equal nothing). This analogy, of course, requires something, the bungie cord, as a starting point. In the case of nothing, something countered by negative something would have to be space stretched from nothing countered by space stretched from nothing compressed back into nothing, together equaling nothing, as the only “something” it would seem you can get from nothing is space. Such being the case, while both opposing counterparts together in fact equal nothing, both counterparts individually can be thought of as something, one being stretched nothing, or space, and the other being compressed stretched nothing, or compressed space.
The amount of volume the space stretched from nothing amounts to is irrelevant, as its compressed inseparable counterpart reduces it to nothing. If it’s ten cubic meters stretched from nothing, or 0m3/10m3, its counterpart must be 10 meters cubed compressed into nothing, or 10m3/0m3. The two counterparts are not united by their sum, therefore, but rather their multiple, lest their combined total would equal infinite rather than zero. In other words, the multiple by which the volume of space is changed, either by way of expansion or compression, determines its level of equality to its counterpart.
It follows, therefore, that in one of the above-referenced infinite versions of two opposing counterparts cancelling each other out, stretched nothing, or space, and compressed space exist in equal volumes, the combined multiple of which equals nothing. As nothing, it exists without volume, or within infinite smallness. Thus, no space measured by volume yet exists, and without space, according to general relativity, (GR), no gravity exists either, as would be expected, as gravity according to GR requires matter to warp the space around it. It, therefore, according to GR cannot exist from nothing. The general force responsible for gravity, (as you will read about later), however, does exist, as it is necessary to balance the differences between the two counterparts in order to equal nothing.
Without force there would be two disconnected counterparts that could never unite to equal nothing. Rather, they would both eternally exist as something. Force is how the two counterparts can combine to equal nothing, as it’s determined by the multiple of the volume of space compressed into nothing, and the volume of space stretched from nothing, rather than by the decompressed and unexpanded volume of space itself. The force is tremendous, but with zero range, and the result of two countering charges cancelling each other out, it ultimately equals zero as well. Force will be described better in the upcoming paragraphs.
Time exists also to represent the possibility of an illusional reality. It is not so much a fourth dimension, as you will sometimes hear scientists desperate to lure sci-fi fanatics to purchase their books describe it, however, but more of a property, much like energy and charge. It exists in both negative and positive versions. Negative time exists in stretched nothing, and positive time exists in compressed space. Negative and positive time exist in equal volumes. Thus, they too cancel each other out to equal zero time. Time, therefore, is not moving forward, or backward, but completely dormant.
In addition to time and force, energy exists as well. Like time, it exists within the space, as part of the space, to the degree at which the space is stretched or compressed. Unlike force, its abundance depends on the added sum of the decompressed and unexpanded volume of space itself. Thus, the same amount of energy exists in 10 cubic meters of space compressed into one cubic meter, as in 10 cubic meters of space expanded into one 100 cubic meters, which would obviously equal 1/10 of a cubic meter per cubic meter. In compressed space the energy attracts its stretched counterpart, and is ultimately positive energy, and in the stretched nothing the energy attracts its compressed counterpart, and is ultimately negative energy. It exists for the sole purpose of driving the necessary force binding the two counterparts. In essence, it is the force. Negative and positive energy exist in equal portions, thus, together they equal nothing as well.
While matter doesn’t yet exist, mass, and its opposing counterpart, negative mass, does exist. It’s the energy within the space that makes up both of the two counterparts. It’s also what stretched nothing attracts in its counterpart, and what compressed space attracts in its counterpart. The energy within the two counterparts equals the mass, the mass equals the energy, the negative mass equals the negative energy, and the negative energy equals the negative mass. There is no distinction between mass and energy, or their counterparts, as we define them as being distinguishable by a factor of C2. This is possible because motion doesn’t exist, while matter and energy both are typically defined as requiring motion, (9 X 1016 m/s for energy, and anything less than 9 X 1016 m/s, but greater than 0 m/s for matter). Without motion there can be no value for C, (light speed), as speed doesn’t exist, and time is dormant. Thus, E=M and M=E.
The space, time, and energy/mass, and their opposing counterparts, can really be summarized as finite volume reduced to mere nothing, with a mutable property charge leading to force. While this may sound a bit mind boggling, remember we can only sense and perceive the presence of space because we have time. In a universe with zero time space never really exists, and neither does the universe as we know it, (as nothing really happens without time). From the perspective of time, given the fabric of space, once inflated, segments of inflated nothing, (AKA space), can either be stretched or compressed.
Such being the case, the nature of space indicates that these are its two counterparts, stretched and compressed. The force that holds them together fuels the release of equal portions of positive and negative energy, balancing nothing with equal amounts of positive and negative volume, as space carries the energy, all of which is part of it, which in part carries force. This occurs because the two opposing counterparts exchange energy by way of their bonding force. Positive energy absorbing negative energy in compressed space cancels out an equal portion of the positive energy leading to nothing, (it would lead to a beam of light in a universe with space and positive time, but in a universe with zero space and time, a release, or cancellation, of energy leads to nothing). The same occurs when negative energy absorbs positive energy.
Rather than decrease both opposing counterparts’ charge, however, this energy release also causes the compressed space to increase in charge, (potential force determined by compression), and the stretched nothing to deplete in charge, (potential force determined by stretch). This is because the release of energy always amounts to the depletion of overall contents, or size. When antimatter releases negative energy, or gluons, its contents ultimately deplete, and when matter releases positive energy, or photons, its contents ultimately deplete.
Note that gluons being regarded as negative energy, and photons as positive energy is a new concept, as far as I’m aware. While such a conclusion, along with conclusions referenced herein regarding negative and positive time, and the nature of charges, may undoubtedly face criticism, since gluons are attracting massless particles, and photons repelling massless particles, it seems a fitting conclusion. Furthermore, given this book’s thesis, I can very confidently assert my belief that all new conclusions drawn herein are not only meant to support this book’s thesis, but constitute neglected facts in the world of science.
Getting back to the topic of origins, while matter doesn’t yet exist, the same concept occurs when positive and negative energy is released from stretched nothing and compressed space. The stretched nothing ultimately becomes less stretched, (as a stretched rubber band would behave if both ends were brought closer together), and the compressed space becomes more compressed, (as would happen if you had a handful of relaxed rubber bands, and squeezed them together). While it obviously can’t get smaller than infinite smallness, it can and does convert the negative energy it absorbs from stretched nothing into positive energy as a result of greater compression, leading to more charge, while releasing an equal portion of its initial positive energy, which is being replaced by negative energy. This leaves it with an immutable, balanced potential force due to its release of energy equaling that of the new energy it acquires. The same thing happens to stretched nothing as it absorbs positive energy, but, as explained above, this causes its charge to decrease rather than increase.
This charge imbalance occurred roughly 13.7 billion years ago. The disproportionality of positive and negative time marked the end of zero time, and 13.7 billion years represents the surplus of positive time, which resulted in distinctions in the relativistic mass which made up the matter in which the time was eventually dispersed, (as will be explained later in the description of the creation of the electron). Since compressed nothing contained more compression, or charge, than stretched nothing, positive time outweighed negative time, while time still existed independently from matter. Time ultimately began moving forward at a rate no one could really say for sure. It seems reasonable to suppose, however, that it moved slowly at first, but more rapidly as more energy was released, which lead to a greater disproportionality of charge between compressed space and stretched nothing.
Meanwhile the force binding the two counterparts ultimately decreased. The rate at which it decreased is not, however, determined by the overall change in energy, but rather, ▲F=▲E2. This is because half the energy within stretched nothing left it with half the charge, (or stretch), as well, thus, one-fourth its initial energy, and half the energy in compressed space left it with twice the charge, (or compression), or the same amount of its initial energy. Thus, when the two counterparts released half their initial energy, stretched nothing decreased in charge from 0/10m3, (using this volume as a hypothetical), to 0/5m3, which, multiplied by half the energy, or mass, equaled one-fourth its initial overall charge. Compressed space, on the other hand, increased in charge from 10/0m3 to 20/0m3. When multiplied by half its energy, or mass, its charge remained unchanged. The binding force, being the multiple rather than the sum of the two counterparts, therefore decreased by one-fourth the initial force with half the initial energy depleted. (As will be explained better in chapter six, a force would do the opposite if the two counterparts were gaining, rather than releasing energy). The combined multiple of the two counterparts, of course, still equaled nothing, but the binding force was set to decrease rapidly.
As the bonding force decreased, the two counterparts’ charges continued to grow more and more unbalanced as more energy was released. Compressed space ultimately grew stronger, and stretched nothing grew weaker. They continued to release equal amounts of energy, however, all of which cancelled out all space volume, causing the positive and negative energy to build up within infinite smallness. With time now in existence, energy was no longer nothing, but an equal amount of photons and gluons, (positive and negative energy). With nowhere to go, however, they became what cosmologists frequently refer to as the singularity. Only they were the outer core of the singularity. The inner core, of course, was compressed nothing, which contained an increasing amount of only positive energy.
This continued until stretched nothing was no longer stretched, and had returned to nothing, at which point all of its space had been released, half of which was cancelled by positive energy, and half of which was absorbed by compressed space. In its final nanosecond before annihilation it likely resembled a Higgs Boson. Without stretch it had no charge, and ultimately no energy, and without energy, much like the Higgs Boson, it ceased to exist, or merged with compressed space with a positive charge. (Higgs Bosons are likely just up quarks energized to such a degree they no longer contain compressed space.
Ultimately, at the very instant of neutrality, they have no energy, and without energy they constitute nothing. Any amount of energy beyond the instant of neutrality, however, would convert the formerly internal compressed space into stretched space, and likely convert the never-changing energy level of the up quark into a negatively charged particle, as is what supposedly happens in labs. Some people call them the God Particle. I personally call them the Frankenstein Particle, as they’ve been only known to exist, (for a tiny fraction of a second), within a lab. “New Results Indicate New Particle is a Higgs Boson.” Cern, Accelerating Science, 14 Mar. 2014, home.cern/news/news/physics/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson.
With stretched nothing converted partially into nothing, and partially into compressed space, all of its energy transferred, which too had released all of its space and was composed entirely of compressed energy, compressed energy had nothing to counter its existence. It therefore became something, (vastly compressed energy, and the inner core of the so-called singularity). Vastly compressed at this point it contained half the energy it initially possessed and half the energy stretched nothing initially possessed, (the other half having canceled out in the energy exchange), with a far greater charge. With nothing to balance its tremendous positive charge, and with an enormous amount of positive energy seeking release, it exploded. This marked the birth of our universe.
The explosion unlocked the first space, giving rise to volume. The volume would have nearly instantaneously returned to close to the initial volume of stretched space, as the amount of energy released, which converted to space, was exactly half the amount of energy that initially existed within both stretched space and compressed nothing. This volume would apparently have been close to the size the universe is, as we observe it from Earth today, (in accordance with the inflationary model). Sutter, Paul. “How did Inflation Happen – and why do we Care?” Space.com, 26 Oct. 2018, www.space.com/42261-how-did-inflation-happen-anyway.html.
The volume didn’t, however, return entirely to the exact same volume as in the initial stretched space, because the Higgs Field converted some of the energy to matter. While this process will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming paragraph, as space expanded during that brief fraction of a second, the nothing surrounding it would have become ultimately compressed again, giving rise to surrounding energy that the expanding energy would have collided with as it expanded. While I don’t want to sound too optimistic, this surrounding energy could possibly explain the Higgs Field. It would constitute a good candidate for creating mass, as it would have presented an obstacle that expanding energy would inevitably have collided with. Creighton, Jolene. “What is the Higgs Field and Higgs Boson?” Futurism, 19 Nov. 2013, futurism.com/what-is-the-higgs-field-and-higgs-boson.
This would have been achieved by the simple notion that when two light waves collide they seize to be timeless, giving rise to matter. The idea that this was in fact the nature of colliding light waves was first introduced by Breit and Wheeler in 1934, and it’s on the verge of being proven today in laboratories. Breit and Wheeler’s idea was simple, theorizing that two photons, (which move in waves), colliding would produce matter. Wilson, Gail. “Scientists Discover how to Turn Light into Matter 80-Year Quest.” Imperial College London, 19 May 2014, www.imperial.ac.uk/news/149087/scientists-discover-turn-light-into-matter/. I believe this to be the case.
This creation of matter would also have allowed energy to be conserved, instead of instantaneously banished, and released at a gradual pace, preventing the space from being compressed back down into nothing again. Apparently there was, and is, a mystery energy source as well that not only assists in preventing the universe from collapsing back to nothing, but enables further expansion, at a much slower pace than in the first fraction of a second. I won’t attempt to speculate where this comes from, other than to merely suggest it may emerge from nothing in a similar manner as the universe, as described in theory in this chapter. Regardless of its origins, it apparently exists. Scientists have dubbed this mystery energy source, dark energy. Tyson, Neil. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 2017, (p. 92-93).
The first matter would have been much like Higgs Bosons, in that it would not have contained much, if any, stretched or compressed space within it. Therefore, it would have contained very little, if any, charge. As exemplified in the idea referenced above of stretched space and compressed nothing coming to together to create almost everything out of nothing, according to IMAC theory, charge, or potential force, is entirely made up of the stretched or compressed space, which presumably exists within matter. Without a significant charge, much like Higgs Bosons, these first particles of matter would have annihilated very quickly.
However, they served an important purpose in the origins of the universe. They created the first gravitational waves. These would not have been gravitational waves created by gravity itself, however, as these particles would have been absent of gravity. Their physical presence would have served to displace space with matter, however, creating displacement waves throughout the newly released space. The expanding energy, which given the vastness of space it created had to have comprised of three, rather than just two dimensions, as it expanded outwards through the space it left behind, would have collided with these displacement waves, as well as with photons from the first matters’ speedy annihilation. For reasons stated above I believe its collision with the photons would have created the second generation of particles of matter.
As stated, since matter has time and energy does not, light waves only exist from the perspective of matter. Light otherwise presumably moves instantaneously from one point to another, (although it still actually moves through the space, it still must be instantaneous, as though the space wasn’t even there). Where does it move to? Since it carries, (and actually constitutes), unlocked space, it would seem likely that it moves instantaneously to the boundaries of space, adding more space in the case of unlocked compressed space, and subtracting space in the case of unlocked stretched space, (while unlocked stretched space would seemingly also add space, it actually subtracts it, as it was unlocked from the volume larger than itself). Light can also be obstructed by a collision with matter, but as stated I believe the second generation of particles of matter came into being by light colliding with more light created by the annihilation of the first particles of matter.
Since the light also would have collided with the displacement waves, also created by the first particles of matter, this instantaneous conversion of light to matter would’ve locked space into the newly created particles. Some particles would’ve been created in the troughs of the displacement waves, and some would’ve been created in the crests of the displacement waves. In the troughs space was stretched, and in the crests space was compressed.
This capture and conversion of light and space may have resembled a near shore fleet of boats captured in a tsunami, with displacement waves on the water first sucking them outward, then spewing them inward. Much the same, intensely energy packed gamma ray photons of light bombarded by displacement waves in space were sucked inward, and then spewed back outward. These dense photons would’ve bunched together by way of this bombardment, and came to rest by experiencing time, creating dense particles of matter. When they were sucked inward, the particles would’ve locked compressed space within them, and when spewed outward, they would’ve locked stretched space within them. This gave rise to an external, and an internal volume for every particle of matter. According to IMAC theory, the external volume became known as their mass, and the internal volume became known as their charge.
This, according to IMAC theory, was how the first particles of matter, as
we know them today, came to exist. With a restricted size by nature there wasn’t a diverse range of different masses amongst them. There was one significant distinction amongst them, according to IMAC theory, however. Roughly half of them contained compressed space, (presumably created in the displacement waves’ crests), or positive charges, and the other half contained stretched space, (presumably created in the displacement waves’ troughs), or negative charges. These internal distinctions amongst these particles constituted their charges, which gave rise the force that bound them together.
The fact that matter, which displaces space, actually contains the space it displaces indicates that matter as we know it probably isn’t the way nature intended it to be. Rather, matter as we now know it exists by the apparent result of an accident in nature. It seems nature didn’t intend for matter to last very long at all, (and from a relativistic time perspective, it may actually not last very long), and the matter it did briefly make room for was not tiny particles separated by huge gaps, like the matter we’re familiar with, but rather a thick dense gapless substance. Furthermore, it did not contain warped space, (although energy/mass/space that existed in the beginning apparently did, which, as stated, indicates that the universe may be part of a potentially infinite cycle). The majority of the matter we’re familiar with is more like space matter, as properties of space exist within it.
ELECTROMAGNETISM AND IMAC THEORY
Getting back to how it was first created, hypothetically speaking, if each particle with compressed space contained fifty cubic units of space compressed into one, and each particle with stretched space contained one cubic unit of space stretched into fifty, there was a vast difference in mass between these two different types of particles, as a far greater volume of light converted into matter to create the particles that contained space compressed. And mass is not only the multiple of the volume and density, but the multiple of volume, density and charge. Mass = PQM3.
Meanwhile, the energy that became matter either compressed or decompressed the volume of space, depending on whether it locked stretched or compressed space within it. Particles with stretched space compressed the overall space volume around it, and particles with compressed space decompressed the overall space volume around it. Resulting displacement waves were released. Particles with stretched space signaled for space to break into them, and particles with compressed space signaled for space to break out of them. This created an attraction between opposing particles, and a repulsion between like particles. The force of the attraction or repulsion depended on the volume of locked space, either compressed or stretched, (otherwise known as charge), and the distance between particles, as the displacement waves they emitted expanded as they moved outwards.
So in other words particles attracted when detecting other particles needed for locked space to break free, and they did so with the same force as free energy in space. The attracting force was the same as the propelling force a particle would experience by the portion of energy it would absorb if a nearby particle annihilated into pure energy. Particles that were unhelpful in releasing trapped space, however, were rejected, and ultimately repelled. Thus, the waves treated these particles as if they were actually the trapped light released in full, propelling them further from the waves’ source. This, according to IMAC theory, is the nature of the forces we know of today. All force is caused by either positive or negative energy. Positive energy comes from compressed space, and negative energy comes from stretched space.
Particles, (which all matter as we know it is made up of), with compressed space exchanged positive energy with each other converting mass into positive kinetic energy and giving rise to positive acceleration, (which will be explained better in the following paragraphs). Particles with stretched space exchanged negative energy with each other, which also converts mass into positive kinetic energy giving rise to positive acceleration, (or repulsion). Opposing particles exchanged positive and negative energy with each other converting mass into negative kinetic energy, giving rise to negative acceleration, (or attraction).
The difference between positive and negative kinetic energy can be summarized as merely the difference in direction the conveyor belt of exchanged energy between particles guides matter. If the two forms of kinetic energy could be observed as distinguishable from the matter in which they exist, it’s conceivable that there would be no perceptual distinctions between the two. When converted into light, positive and negative kinetic energy would appear to always propel any matter it interacts with.
However, this perception is misleading. Positive kinetic energy, and the light it converts into, accelerates matter closer to the speed of light as perceived from the perspective of matter, and negative kinetic energy, and the light it converts into, accelerates matter closer to the absolute resting physical state of matter, or the speed of light from the perspective of energy. In either case, if it were possible for matter to achieve the speed of light, (or the speed of matter, which is the same as the speed of light from the perspective of energy), it would annihilate.
While explaining why forces sometimes attract and sometimes repel can be left as the explanation above, there is a more mathematical way of describing it. All properties of matter can be positive and negative. Even matter can be antimatter, and while most scientists are reluctant to admit it, half the matter we’re familiar with is antimatter, (exactly half if unifying charge with mass). I’ll get into this point about antimatter later, but with regards the behavior of forces, when we multiply a negative charge by a positive charge, we end up with a negative number for the ultimate force. While we typically call it a positive force, we shouldn’t.
A positive times a positive is a positive, and a negative times a negative is a positive, but a positive times a negative is always a negative. Thus, only the particles that attract produce a negative force. This is why they attract, and why particles of the same charge repel. Acceleration too can be described as both negative and positive. Positive acceleration increases the length between two objects, and negative acceleration decreases the length between two objects. Thus, whenever there’s a negative force between two objects, the two objects attract, and become closer, decreasing the distance between them.
Since acceleration equals force divided by mass for any given massive object in accelerating motion, a negative force will always produce a negative acceleration. When there’s a force between two massive objects, and the force is caused by those two objects, the force is determined by the multiple of the mass or charge of those two objects divided by the distance between them squared, or radius squared. When one has a positive charge, and the other has a negative charge, the force between them will always be negative. And since F=MA, and A=F/M, A between two objects attracting each other can also be determined by M2/R2, (where M2 equals the counterpart to the accelerating object). With R a decreasing distance, A will always be a negative number. “Newton’s Second Law.” The Physics Classroom, www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law.
This is why some particles repel, and some attract. Still the best way to explain it is the simple way: space naturally seeks the quickest route to balancing its fabric, and this is best achieved by uniting particles of opposite charges, (where one contains compressed space, and the other contains stretched space), as these are two pieces in the puzzle that fit. Particles with stretched space signal for space to break in, while the opposite is true for particles with compressed space. It’s only natural, therefore, for like particles to move away from each other, and opposite particles to move towards each other when stimulated by the energy they exchange with each other. As such they give rise to possible annihilation and inevitable decay, immediately or eventually releasing the locked space within them.
Since particles with compressed space, or negative particles, had far more charge than particles with stretched space, or positive particles, as charge is determined by internal mass, they had to have attracted particles that occupied an overall volume in external space that was greater by a multitude equaling the difference in charge between them. This would have ensured their bonds with opposing particles would have served to perfectly balance external space. Thus, a particle with a charge of ten, (ten volumes of space per one), could attract a particle with a charge of 1/10, (one volume of space per ten), that occupied 100 times more volume of external space. Such seemingly lopsided bonding amongst particles would have ensured that there was enough internal space locked within them to perfectly balance external space upon the decay or annihilation of both particles.
No particle could attract any other particle with a force greater than half its mass, (including charge), without annihilating, as a force upon another object creates energy, kinetic in this case, distributed by the opportunity for balanced space, and with kinetic energy determined by Newton’s equation, KE = 1/2 MV2, energy equaling over half a particle’s mass would create a velocity greater than C, (light speed), which is either outright forbidden by nature, or results in certain annihilation. This is because where V2 of a body of mass equals C2, a velocity at which neither energy, nor mass can exceed, KE would only account for ½ of object’s mass.
This is not to be confused with relativistic mass changes, which occur as well, but only when matter absorbs light, or fails to maintain equilibrium when exchanging energy with other matter. Relativistic mass changes actually change mass, but in a relativistic unnoticeable way. Kinetic energy comes from matter, and it never increases the overall mass amongst interacting bodies of matter, but it can increase or decrease the mass of individual bodies of matter, in which case it is basically synonymous with relativistic mass changes. Nevertheless, it always converts already existing mass into an energy source that stimulates acceleration and/or force. As stated, it can never equal or exceed half of an object’s mass. (Note, special relativity is typically described with spacecraft moving through space, running on energy created by fuel rather than on natural force. The act of releasing fuel decreases the actual fuel source’s relativistic mass, but only increases the space craft’s kinetic energy, which has the same relativistic impacts as increased relativistic mass, as it increases the EM ratio just the same).
All pairs of bonding particles were subjected to this nature. Ultimately, the portion of their mass with which they could attract other particles was limited to one half of one half, or one fourth their mass, (including charge), in any given direction without annihilating. This is because the force that binds two particles is the multiple of their two charges, rather than the sum of them.
Force and charge are not the same thing. A charge only describes the potential force a particle has on another particle. It is not a force in and of itself. Because of this particles could attract other particles with one fourth their mass per charge, or one fourth their charge per mass, and thereafter bind without annihilating. They could attract more mass in the same manner in different directions as well, (provided particles they had already bound with were not potentially forceful enough to repel such particles away), enough to equal their total mass and/or charge, but never at once in the same direction without annihilating before violating one of the most fundamental laws of nature. Thus emerged the most common particles in the universe, and the building blocks of almost everything made of matter: up quarks and down quarks.
The first two particles to be created, up and down quarks, have charges distinctive to each other by a factor of two, up quarks having twice the charge of down quarks. Two down quarks were needed, therefore, to neutralize one up quark. While the masses of quarks cannot yet be determined with precision, data indicates down quarks generally have twice the mass, (excluding charge), as the up quarks. “Quarks.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html. While this presumption may be disputed, I believe it to be generally true. It supports IMAC theory, and data indicates that’s roughly what it actually is. Although not confirmed, the assumption that down and up quarks are distinguished in mass by an exact factor of two will be displayed in this book as fact from hereon.
That being said, down quarks, therefore, had four times the mass per charge, and up quarks had four times the charge per mass. Containing negative charges, down quarks possessed stretched space, while up quarks, containing positive charges, possessed compressed space. As described above, up quarks, therefore, had to have occupied less volume than down quarks by a factor sufficient to justify their differences in charge. Evidence regarding approximate established volumes for up and down quarks does in fact suggest some down quarks possess 87.38 times more volume than up quarks, (.0654 cubic fermi for up quarks, compared to 5.7146 cubic fermi for down quarks). “Estimates of the Mass Densities of Up and Down Quarks and Estimates of the Outer Radii of the Small, Medium, and Large Up and Down Quarks.” www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/quarkmasses.htm. Their masses, including charge, therefore equaled the same. When this happened the first neutral particles, neutrons, appeared.
Neutrons contained a three quark trio with one up quark with an arbitrarily given +2/3 charge, and two down quarks each with an arbitrarily given -1/3 charge leaving no surplus or deficit of electromagnetic charge to interact with outside particles, (their charges will be redefined later). As a perfect match, these three quarks were held together by a force generally referred to in science as the strong nuclear force at close range and with distinctive relativistic conditions as their outer space. With a half-life of only a little over ten minutes when moving freely through space, and a mass of approximately 1.675 X 10-27 kg they were just slightly more massive than the particles they converted into when their relatively brief independent lives ended. (They were more massive by approximately the mass of five electrons, which were created around the same time as protons). “Neutron.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/neutron.
After experiencing beta decay, the unstable free neutrons converted into protons. The modern description of a proton gives it three quarks, two with a +2/3
positive charge, and one with a -1/3 negative charge, (the charges to which they have been arbitrarily assigned). This sounds difficult to accept, however, not only according to IMAC theory, but by any theory explaining the universe, as two larger positively charged particles couldn’t have attracted one smaller negatively charged particle, (unless perhaps if they all united simultaneously, at the exact same microsecond, which as you will soon read is not too far from what I believe actually happened). One up quark could’ve attracted the one down quark without annihilating, but it would seem this could not have happened with two up quarks. It would have been impossible if their force was always consistent.
The current most widely accepted theory for explaining this is known as Quantum Chromodynamics, or QCD for short. It indicates, in relevant summary, that when two repelling particles, like up quarks, get close enough together, tiny massless particles called gluons start pouring out of them, essentially gluing them together. Basically, according to this theory, gluons only decide to get up and answer the door when two repelling particles are so close to each other they’re virtually touching. QCD is also the current most widely accepted theory for how protons and neutrons stick together by way of nuclear fusion. Like String Theory, it remains theoretical. “Quantum Chromodynamics.” Encyclopedia.com, Feb. 2021, www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/quantum-chromodynamics.
According to IMAC theory, (also theoretical, but theory that to me sounds more mundane), QCD is mostly based upon a misinterpretation of observation. While scientists claim to have observed gluons in particle detectors I think it’s fair to say, considering they already believed them to exist, these observations may have been somewhat biased. This is not to suggest they’re wrong with respect to what actually happens when particles fuse together, but rather merely in the manner by which they describe it.
I believe gluons do indeed constitute released energy, but more likely photons of unique energy levels and wave lengths, dubbed as gluons, which would obviously not be responsible for the force. Furthermore, I don’t think it should be quite this simple to explain how two particles that repel each other can fuse together. While QCD is part of the Standard Model, and an elaborate theory, which involves a lot more than just gluons, it just seems too easy to conclude that force carrying particles bind the matter together. QCD, therefore, is not the answer according to IMAC Theory. This topic will be dealt with more later.
With QCD excluded as a possible explanation, assuming all the experiments that have confirmed the binding up quark dilemma of the proton referenced above were not flawed, the only way for this to have been possible is if a second down quark at some point existed in the proton, as it did in the neutron, and increased in force by a factor of three, allowing it to neutralize one-half of the two combined up quarks, and thereafter continued to hold them together by relativistic laws of nature. This, according to IMAC theory, is exactly what happened.
Before explaining this assertion, as I will thoroughly do in the next chapter, it’s important to illustrate the IMAC theory proposition that charges are not fixed, and change frequently, as do other properties within particles. While the combined energy of particles within any atomic nuclei is in fact immutable, there’s absolutely no reason why their charges can’t change. Scientists who claim there’s nothing perfect in the universe will contradict themselves by claiming that the charges amongst every single subatomic particle in the entire universe can never change by so much as a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent, but rather remain perfectly equal throughout their entire relatively enormous lives. This may very well be confusing energy with charges, however. Particles of matter change in properties constantly, such as mass and gravity. Charges should, and I believe accordingly do change as well.
Considering the enormous amount of energy it takes to make a tiny amount of mass, these changes are always very small, rarely if ever impacting bonds between particles, but they still have to occur, and the unusual structure of the proton seems to evidence this very strongly. Considering the nature of charges pursuant to IMAC theory it would be the inevitable result of any change in mass of a particle. This will be better explained in the next two chapters of this book involving gravity and the IMAC theory. For now, just trust that it wasn’t a magic act that brought such a seemingly unbalanced trio of charges together into one particle.
The unusual quark trio prevented annihilation and left protons with a surplus of positive charge equivalent to six tenths of the proton’s overall mass. This positive charge is typically described as a charge of +1 in modern physics, but to be more precise, it equaled 1.6 X 10-19 Coulombs, (one Coulomb equaling the amount of force needed to produce a joule of energy, or the amount of force needed to pull a Newton of force a meter from the Earth’s gravitational pull). “Coulomb.” Energy Education, energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Coulomb. This was exactly equal and opposite to the charge of another particle created at the same time as the proton. This particle, of course, was the electron.
The electron had a mass 1/1,835th that of a proton, (approximately 9.1 X 10-31 kg. at rest, compared to 1.67 X 10-27 kg. for protons), yet an equal and opposite charge, which allowed the two particles to bond as hydrogen atoms. “Electron.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/electron. A seemingly perfect match, they were meant for each other about to the same degree as the moon was meant for the Earth. It seems it was by sheer accident that they ended up together to eventually dominate the material universe. The seemingly lopsided mass difference between these two particles will be explained further in the next chapter.
GRAVITY AND IMAC THEORY
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is an amazing and elegant theory explaining gravity, building on, and in some ways replacing the former notions of gravity inspired by his predecessors in physics. After studying this theory to an in-depth level of understanding I’m personally convinced of its veracity in many aspects. There’s no doubt in my mind that the gravity generated from massive objects warps space, the same way an accelerating object of matter warps space, as GR proposes. “Understanding Gravity –Warps and Ripples in Space and Time.” Australian Academy of Science, www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity.
That being said, I nonetheless believe there are several problems with the notion that warped space alone could be responsible for all recorded gravitational behavior. Firstly, warped space alone shouldn’t be enough to pull bodies of matter into each other. I have no doubt the warping of space can influence their paths, as Einstein so elegantly explained, but it just doesn’t sound like enough to explain an attractive force that pulls bodies of matter together. Ibid.
Forget about the trampoline analogies that you may have read about, and seen pictures of. (If you’ve completed any courses involving physics you know exactly what I’m talking about). Not only do these involve two dimensional fabric, (while the fabric of space is obviously three dimensional), the Earth’s gravity is a factor when demonstrating what happens when you place bowling balls and marbles on top of trampolines. Obviously you can’t use gravity to explain gravity.
With respect to these analogies, let’s try one of our own that better resembles the fabric of space. Imagine a cubic mile of square sponge in orbit, free of any gravitational attraction from the Earth. Now imagine a bowling ball shoved somewhere inside the sponge. There’d clearly be a great deal of warping within the sponge’s fabric as a result. The change in the sponge’s fabric from this one bowling ball, in fact, would be noticed throughout the entire sponge’s volume, (more minutely, of course, the further you move from the ball, but still noticeable).
Now, imagine that a marble is pulled through the sponge on a string in a path that would miss the bowling ball by just a few feet. If the marble passes through the exact same fabric of the sponge as it would have if the bowling ball had never been placed there, it’s path would be somewhat warped, perhaps a bit curved, by the bowling ball’s presence, but it wouldn’t accelerate into the bowling ball as one would expect gravity would do if the bowling ball were a planet in space, and the marble a large passing meteor. In fact, no matter how close the marble passes the bowling ball, there’s no scenario in which it would curve its path directly into the bowling ball, unless it was set on a path in which a direct collision would occur.
Ultimately, warped space caused by the presence of mass within it does influence the paths, and even the velocities of other massive bodies, but I don’t believe it’s enough to tug them together. Einstein proved that warped space influences the paths of star light as well, which again I don’t dispute, but accepting most scientific conclusions that light does not have mass that couldn’t be caused by gravity, (unless science is wrong and light does have a small amount of mass). Einstein, Albert, Gutfreund, and Renn. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Princeton University Press and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015, (p. 210). As we know, gravitational pull depends on the mass of two separate objects. It cannot be calculated, and therefore presumably doesn’t exist in massless substances, like light.
Furthermore we still use Newton’s equation for calculating gravity’s force, (although not exclusively in rare cases where there’s tremendously warped space, as near black holes, in which case it’s still a factor), and it relies on the inverse of the radius squared between two massive bodies. This clearly suggests a force that attracts, like electromagnetism, rather than just a change in paths due to warped space. Any equation that involves the inverse of radius squared between two objects indicates an attraction in all directions from a three dimensional object giving rise to acceleration which can only be caused by a force. The “force” caused by warped space needs to be better explained.
Moreover, as we know, gravity goes to the core of every massive object. How could gravity in the bowling ball scenario above exist at the ball’s core when the sponge only wraps around it and does not obstruct its interior? This may be a bit misleading, as the interior of bowling balls consist of mostly space we can’t see. Thus, while a sponge couldn’t intrude its interior, space still can, and does. As such, this concept may not be an issue in objects like planets, in which the majority of their interior consists of space gaps.
This would, however, be an issue in objects like neutron stars and supper massive black holes, where it’s believed little to no space gaps between particles exists. “Squishy or Solid: A Neutron Star’s Insides Open to Debate.” Quantamagazine, 30 Oct. 2017, www.quantamagazine.org/squishy-or-solid-a-neutron-stars-insides-open-to-debate-20171030/. If gravity is merely the warping of space, there’d be no gravity within these objects. It would only exist around them. It goes without saying that this clearly cannot be correct. There has to be more to gravity than just the warping of space caused by the presence of matter within it. IMAC theory proposes that gravity is the warping of space, as Einstein suggested, but also the charge created by such warping. Gravity, like electromagnetism, is the result of charges caused merely by the presence of matter within space, which itself contains warped space. This explains why gravity moves in waves through space, and also answers the questions specified above.
What exactly does this mean, and how does it explain all this? Getting back to the early universe description, fast forwarding past the creation of antiprotons, and their near extinction by way of annihilation through collisions with protons. Hydrogen atoms have now formed, (and, according to many scientists, a small amount of fusion of helium atoms as well, but we’ll just focus on hydrogen for now, as the bulk of helium did not exist until nuclear fusion within the cores of stars began). Ryden, Barbara. “The First Three Minutes.” 12 Mar. 2003, www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_10/notes44.html.
With these hydrogen atoms stimulated with potentially enormous amounts of absorbed energy, more displacement waves from the first generation of particles would have continued to collide with them. In these waves’ crests electrons and protons would’ve become excited with the presence of potential energy. In the waves’ troughs this potential energy would have been released, exciting protons and electrons in the released energy’s path, (like a docked boat rocking forward and backward when hit by waves).
While absorbing and releasing energy electrons and protons experienced minute increases and decreases in the relativistic mass they had acquired since their creation, (as we know from Einstein that energy and mass are different forms of the same thing, and at this point in the early universe this was in fact the case). Some such changes were greater than others, but the overall combined mass of the matter and trapped space within the atoms would have remained nearly unchanged, (minus a small portion of energy that likely escaped through clear paths between gaps separating the atoms, which would have been how the system gradually cooled as it expanded).
Relativistic mass increases in hydrogen atoms since the big bang have likely trapped little or no additional warped space within these particles, as no subsequent event has even come close to matching its magnitude. Thus, new relativistic mass did not itself contain charge significant enough to inspire any noticeable differences, but it did impact particles’ existing charges in a noticeable way. Since relativistic mass increases also increased the ratio of balanced space to warped space within both positive and negative particles, it decreased the charges of negative particles, and increased it in positive particles.
This is probably why experiments have indicated that the force between quarks gets stronger when stretched apart, rather than weaker, as one would expect. Sutton, Christine. “Strong Force,” Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/strong-force. Because pulling one particle out requires the remaining particles to stay braced in place, which means energy transferred in by means of the work performed would convert to relativistic mass in the entire proton or neutron. This energy would be divided unequally, as three-fourths of it would go to the up quarks, and one-fourth would go to the down quarks, (which will be explained later), strengthening the up quarks twice as much as it weakens the down quarks. Thus, no matter which quark is experimented on in this manner, and regardless as to whether the experiment is conducted on a proton or a neutron, the force will always grow stronger no matter how much the quark gets stretched, until enough energy is transferred to the nuclei for a new quark to develop.
The fact that this occurs with quarks when stretched apart appears to be a unique natural phenomena restricted only to the micro world, as no matter how massive and/or dense much larger objects are, it seems they can always be pulled apart, if subjected with adequate force, without strengthening resistance from the object’s own natural force faster than the opposing force. Taking a well-known massive black hole, such a Sagittarius A, as an example, with a third of this black hole possessing a mass of roughly 2.7 x 1036 kg, and an average estimated radius of 27 billion meters, an estimated 730,000 joules of energy would be needed to lift each kg one meter, (about 73,000 times more than that needed on the surface of Earth). “Super Massive Black Hole Sagittarius A.” NASA, 29 Aug. 2013, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/black-hole-SagittariusA.html.
The black hole would ultimately gain roughly 6.5 x 1025 kg of new relativistic mass in the process of lifting a third of its mass one meter. This would be equally distributed amongst the piece being lifted and the dormant piece possessing two-thirds of the mass, as it would gain energy too by way of the necessity of remaining braced in place. Thus, equally dividing the new mass, 2.17 x 1025 kg (4.34 x 1025 kg)/r2 (7.3 x 1020 m) K(6.67 x 10-11) = 8.6 x 1019 Newtons of additional gravitational force would exist as a result of the added relativistic mass. The extra meter would reduce the original force of 2.7 x 1036 kg (5.4 x 1036 kg)/(7.29 x 1020 m) (6.67 x 10-11), equaling 1.334 x 1042 Newtons, to 2.70000000002167 x 1036 (5.4000000000434 x 1036 kg)/ (7.29000000054000000001 x 1020 m) (6.67 x 10-11), equaling 1.3339999999 x 1042 Newtons, a loss of 1032 Newtons of force, dwarfing the new gravitational force.
The result would end up differently, however, for a Neutron Star, with a mass of 2.8 x 1030 kg, and a radius of 15,000 m, (as are known to exist), but it still wouldn’t change enough to exceed to reduction in force due to the increase in the radius. Such a massive structure would require about 830 billion joules of energy to lift one kg one meter. Thus, 2.58 x 1025 kg of relativistic mass would be added to its existing mass if a third of its mass were lifted one meter. Applying the same equation as in the above scenario, 8.6 x 1024 kg (1.72 x 1025 kg)/r2 (2.25 x 108 m) K (6.67 x 10-11) equals 4.385 x 1031 Newtons of additional gravitational force. Adding the extra meter would reduce the original force of 9.34 x 1029 kg (1.868 x 1030 kg)/2.25 x 108 m (6.67 x 10-11), equaling 5.172 x 1041 Newtons, to 9.340086 x 1029 kg (1.8680172 x 1030 kg)/2.25030001 x 108 m (6.67 x 10-11), equaling 5.1715 x 1041 Newtons, a loss of 5 x 1037 Newtons of force.
While much closer in change than with the black hole scenario referenced above, the reduction in force due to the extra meter in radius would still exceed the gravitational force increase by a factor of roughly a million. (Note that in these two examples radius has been calculated from the surface of both massive bodies, while in actuality it would need to be calculated slightly beneath the surface to compensate for mass being lifted closer to the center of both objects, but this still wouldn’t change the results enough to make any significant difference). There’s a reason why force in large massive objects doesn’t behave in the same manner as in tiny subatomic particles, however. It will be explained in the paragraphs soon to follow.
Based on this nature as it exists in the micro world, hypothetically speaking, if ten meters cubed were trapped into one meter cubed of a negative particle, equaling 10 cubic meters per one cubic meter, an increase in mass, (volume times density, with density remaining at its presumed maximum), by a theoretical factor of 2 would decrease the charge from 10, (10 cubic meters per one cubic meter), to five, (five cubic meters per one cubic meter). To the contrary, if positive particles had 1/10 of a cubic meter per one cubic meter, their charges would have increased to 1/20 of a cubic meter per one cubic meter following a relativistic increase in mass by a factor of 2. (The closer the charge is to zero, the weaker the force becomes, with the charge always equaling the difference between the constant rest mass and the changing internal mass of particles).
Getting back to hydrogen atoms in the early universe, the opposite would have occurred when energy was released as they smashed together within the waves’ troughs. Due to the released energy, causing decreases in relativistic mass up quarks’ charges got weaker and down quarks and electrons’ charges became stronger.
It follows, therefore, that ▲Q = Q (1/▲M), where Q equals initial charge and M equals mass, (relativistic mass, as particles’ rest mass never changes, except through decay or annihilation), and the magnitude of a charge always equals the difference between the rest mass and the internal mass of particles. So with particles’ rest mass always remaining the same regardless of changes in relativistic mass, if a particles’ relativistic mass were to double, ▲Q for positive particles with an initial charge of 1/10 would equal 1/10(1/2), or 1/20. With an immutable rest mass of 1, the difference between 1 and 1/20 is 20, representing an increase in charge by a factor of two. The opposite would be true for a negative particle with an initial charge of 10. ▲Q for such a negative particle would be 10(1/2), equaling 5. With the difference between 5 and 1 equaling 5, the particle’s charge would have decreased by a factor of two.
It also follows that so long as up and down quarks hold together, their combined energy can never change, regardless of their relativistic mass, as antimatter grows stronger at the same rate that matter grows weaker, and vice versa. No matter how big or small their relativistic mass becomes, the amount of energy they hold remains consistent. It’s like the rubber band example in the third chapter. If you have relaxed rubber bands in one closed fist, and a rubber band stretched from your wrist to the top of your knuckles in the other closed fist, releasing your grips would strengthen the rubber band over one fist, and weaken the rubber bands in the other. Just the same, no matter how big or small the external relativistic mass of particles becomes, the energy influenced by the internal mass, or charge, originating from the particles’ pure mass remains consistent. If a charge were to increase or decrease to zero, however, (at which point up and down quarks would long since have repelled apart), a particle would seize to exist, as without charge it can have no mass.
While the above-referenced charge changes, (as well as others that followed), were obviously very, very minute, considering electromagnetism between two electrons at their current determined mass is 4.167 X 1042 times stronger than gravity, (which I will later demonstrate these changes are responsible for), pursuant to Coulomb and Newton’s relevant equations, which we still use to measure these two forces’ strength, they were slightly different for protons and electrons, considering the protons’ much greater mass. “Newton’s Laws and the Electrical Force.” The Physics Classroom, www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Laws-and-the-Electrical-Force.
This difference was not by a factor of 1,835, however, as while the proton does in fact contain 1,835 times more mass than the electron, the combined mass of its three quarks, from which the electromagnetic force emerges, is only about 19.23 times greater than that of the electron. According to the most recent measurements, which are allegedly accurate, the earliest down quarks had an average mass of 4.9 MeV, or 8.77 X 10-30 kg., and the earliest up quarks had an average mass of half that of the down quark, 2.45 MeV, or 4.386 X 10-30 kg. This adds up to a total mass of 1.75 X 10-29 kg., which is 95.4 times less than the mass of the proton itself. Theor, Brian. “Precise Calculation of the Up and Down Quark Mass Using an Adjusted Compton Wavelength Common Factor Analysis.” Journal of Theoretical and Computational Science, 30 May 2015, www.longdom.org/open-access/precise-calculation-of-the-up-and-down-quark-mass-using-an-adjustedcompton-wavelength-common-factor-analysis-jtco-1000125.pdf.
There’s theories as to why this is, one of the most popular of which suggests that the extra mass of the proton is comprised of the total energy of the strong force caused by gluons, (which as described in the prior chapter supposedly hold the quarks together according to a theory I personally disagree with). “Why is the Proton so Much More Massive than the Electron, yet Holds the Same Charge.” Quora, www.quora.com/Why-is-the-proton-so-much-more-massive-than-the-electron-yet-holds-the-same-charge. While seemingly speculative, I believe this theory is more on the right track than Quantum Chromodynamics in general, but it just doesn’t seem to explain the mystery with satisfactory. Fortunately, IMAC theory provides a much better answer to this question.
The proton, a seemingly odd particle with its unbalanced charges, contains a combined total of a 5/3 charge, (two 2/3 charges up, and one 1/3 charge down). Since the up quarks have twice the charge of the down quarks, and theoretically half the mass, the average mass for a 1/3 charge is the mass of the up quark, which is one-fifth the mass of the quarks combined. The electron is 1/4.5 the mass of the up quark and 1/9 the mass of the down quark. It further contains a charge 2/3 more than the down quark, which is three times as much charge.
Therefore, if the electron were thought of as a former down quark within a neutron that got ousted by its partner in an extreme mass decrease, possibly in the trough of a large displacement wave shortly after the big bang, or through beta decay, strengthening the sole down quark and weakening the up quark enough for the sole down quark to bind a second up quark created by the conservation of the neutron’s unchanging energy at rest, the ousted down quark would have to have returned with one third its mass to bind with the second up quark after the combined quarks regained their mass in an inevitable subsequent wave crest. The new up quark would have absorbed one half of the former down quark’s mass, giving it its current mass, and the remaining 1/6 of the down quark’s lost mass would have went into the extra force needed for the electron to bind one full second up quark, (out of the one-fourth of its mass utilized for its binding force, 1/6 would apply to the full up quark, and 1/12 to the other half up quark).
I submit this is exactly what happened. Not only does it make sense, it explains a lot about the oddness of electrons and protons, and why there’s a surplus of matter in the universe, and even why time moves forward at a relatively slow rate for matter made up of protons and electrons, (one could argue it moves much faster for free neutrons, which could explain their relatively brief lives). I promised I would explain why I believe it’s still the case that there’s as much matter as antimatter in the universe, and this is the answer. It seems obvious to me that electrons, with their given negative charges, and considering the nature of charges I’ve discussed in theory in this book, constitute antimatter, even though they’re generally not considered antimatter in the scientific world. The same can be said about down quarks, which I believe electrons actually are. They would annihilate if confronted with particles of equal and opposite characteristics. They exist for reasons stated herein. In summary, they found their perfect matches.
With regards to electrons in particular, the relativistic distinctions between them and protons described in the next paragraph are what I believe enabled their lasting bonds. These distinctions are also why I believe there’s a surplus of matter, and why time moves forward at a relatively slow rate compared to neutrons for matter made up of protons and electrons. While many of the electrons I believe formed in this manner may have detached from their bonds with neighboring protons on account of inevitable energy overloads, it’s the ones that remained stable, (or released enough energy to reunite with protons, which would’ve remained stable so long as there were electrons in the neighborhood they could attract), that would’ve given rise to the first hydrogen atoms.
With three times the charge, one-third the mass, and three times the relativistic length, (parallel with its waves), and time, as the two up quarks and down quark within the proton, one might think from the proton’s perspective the electron would have appeared as a down quark three times closer than it actually was, (at least from our relativistic perspective), with one-third the volume, (assuming no change in density), three times the charge, and an equal overall mass, (including charge), as its other down quark. However, given the concept associated with relativity, that relativistic changes are only noticeable by observers who didn’t experience such relativistic changes, from the proton’s perspective there likely would have appeared to be no changes from its appearance as a neutron whatsoever, following the above-referenced transition.
From the electron’s perspective, (and from the perspective of conscious organisms, which presumably came much later, as conscious organisms’ relativistic mass presumably must equal the greatest relativistic mass of the particles that make them up), it would have had one-ninth the mass of the down quark, however, as its tripled length expansion essential to have ensured the constant perspective of light speed, (C), of exchanged anti-energy waves between the proton and the electron in light of its equally tripled time dilation would have been, and still is translated as a nine factor mass reduction, as reason would indicate we can’t perceive contracted or inflated length as anything other than a change in three dimensional mass.
To be more precise, it’s actually the proton that appears three times larger, since it’s time would be three times slower, and length three factors shorter, (parallel to its waves), than ours. This I believe is why the electron appears to have a mass nine times less than the down quarks, when from the proton’s perspective nothing has presumably changed in appearance from its former status, from the electron’s perspective, as a neutron. With our time moving at the same rate as the electrons’, it’s the only way to perceive the waves from the proton as moving at C constant, (as they would otherwise move 1/3C, which is impossible by the constant nature of light speed).
Hence, my earlier analogy of electrons and protons resembling the Earth and the Moon should now be obvious. Much like common theory as to how the Moon began as a piece of the Earth ripped from the Earth’s surface before falling into perpetual orbit around our planet, the electron can be thought, according to this theory, to have formed in very similar fashion. It’s common scientific knowledge as well that protons and electrons oftentimes compact into neutrons, as in neutron star formation. Why, therefore, isn’t it common belief that electrons and protons formed from neutrons, electrons transitioning from down quarks, as well? Popular science supports that free neutrons convert into protons, but to the best of my knowledge it does not support the notion that electrons originated as down quarks. Although electrons emerging from stable neutrons within atomic nuclei has been proposed in science. “Neutron.” Energy Wave Theory,” energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/neutron/.
While the existence of positrons, a seemingly equal elementary particle to the electron with an opposite charge, could potentially explain why such a theory, to my knowledge, has not yet been proposed. Positrons, however, could have formed far less abundantly in a similar fashion, only their distinctive charges would have ensured instability, and ultimately their inevitable detachment from the resulting protons. Positrons, which constitute a far less common particle in the universe than electrons, are not relevant to this book, but their known existence does not refute this theory in any way.
The proposal that electrons emerge from W bosons, a ghost particle that allegedly creeps out of down quarks during beta decay of free neutrons, has also been presented. According to this theory, the extra up quark in the proton comes entirely from the missing down quark. “Protons and Neutrons.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/proton.html. Not only are up and down quarks distinctive in mass by a factor of two, rendering such a transition impossible without a logical explanation as to where the extra mass of the down quark vanishes to, much like quantum chromodynamics, this theory sounds to be more based upon faith than on facts in my opinion. (Nothing against faith, but I think objective people would agree that it shouldn't be relied upon in the court of science).
Faith aside, with regards to the vanishing mass dilemma, bear in mind that neutrons and hydrogen atoms are almost identical in mass. There’s no major release of energy during beta decay of free neutrons, at least not enough to justify the vanishing of half of a down quark. The release of a near massless, if not massless neutrino, as science proposes to be part of this process, can’t explain it either. There’s nonetheless theories for this as well, but nothing sound. IMAC theory proposes it’s the down quark, not some ghostly particle, which turns into the electron, (as well as the other up quark).
While the portion of the down quark that creates the electron pursuant to IMAC theory could simply be interpreted as a W boson to other scientists, suggesting the possibility that IMAC theory and the above-referenced W boson theory could merely constitute different means of arguing the same idea, it’s clearly one of the neutron’s two down quarks mass that leads to the electron’s mass according to IMAC theory. This would solve the mystery involving the missing mass, and it would justify the force necessary to keep the particles stably united, without the necessity of presenting a mystery ghost particle, like a W boson.
Getting back to the resulting structure, a reduced relativistic mass by a factor of three, perceived as a factor of nine would explain why the proton’s combined quarks’ mass is perceived as 19.23 times greater than that of an electron. As for the rest of the mass difference between the electron and the proton, and between the proton’s quarks and the proton itself, the electron’s force that’s utilized at short range is exchanged in waves with the up quarks in the proton to balance the charge. Therefore, the electron’s mass, as determined, would not include the energy from the force it produces, as the proton’s mass does, (minus the energy it exchanges with the electron). Rather, the energy from the electron’s force is discarded from its mass through the waves that carry this force to the proton. This is the only way the neutron can have a total mass greater than the proton by a total of the mass of roughly five electron masses, and have quarks with a combined mass greater than that of a proton’s quarks by the same amount of mass, the mass of roughly five electrons, evidencing that the electron was a down quark that lost 66.6 percent of its relativistic mass, as described above.
Since force pursuant to IMAC theory is determined by charge, (the ratio of internal compressed or stretched space to perfectly balanced space), then the energy from the force that apparently comprises the missing mass of the proton has to be the multiple of the difference in the charges of the electron, down quark, and up quarks. To equal the factor necessary to justify the missing mass, the up quark would need a charge of +1/13.8, the down quark would need a charge of -6.9, which would leave the electron with a charge of -20.7, (three times the charge of the down quark), but a mass perceived by us as one-ninth this amount, or -2.3. The down quark’s charge is half that of the up quarks’ because it has twice the mass, thus, one-fourth the mass per equal charge allowed the two particles to bond without annihilating. Note I believe these are the actual, non-arbitrary charge estimates for these particles, and given current data they should be very close to, if not exactly correct.
The down quark and half up quark that neutralize each other in the proton would, therefore, have a force of 6.9 x 1/6.9, which equaling 1 balances space, and also equals a total internal mass magnitude of 6.9 x 6.9 equaling 47.61. And the electron and the 1.5 up quarks that balance each other would have a force of 20.7 x 1/20.7, which equaling 1 also represents balanced space, and 20.7 x 2.3, (our perception of the electron’s mass), equaling 47.61, when added to the 47.61 internal mass magnitudes between the down quark and half up quark, equals 95.22, which is almost exactly the measured difference in the mass of the proton’s quarks, and the overall mass of the proton, (95.4). 95.22 times 19.23, (19.23 being the difference in mass between the electron and combined mass of the proton’s up quarks), also equals 1,831, which is almost exactly the difference in mass between the electron and proton, (1,835).
Applying this to the neutron, with two down quarks and one up quark, since, as with the proton, one down quark neutralizes one half of the up quark, the force between them would be 6.9 x 1/6.9 + 6.9 x 1/6.9 which equaling one in both cases represents balanced space, and also 6.9 x 6.9 + 6.9 x 6.9 equals 95.22 internal mass magnitudes, the near exact number of times larger its mass is compared to the combined mass of its quarks. The slight difference in perceived mass between it and the proton is merely the result of it having one extra down quark than up quark, (as with the proton), the down quarks having twice the mass as the up quarks.
The fact that the exact number of quark masses present in neutrons and protons, (27.6 in neutrons, and 34.5 in protons, up and down quark masses equaling the same when including charges), is still less than the total masses of neutrons and protons pursuant to IMAC theory is only reflective of the thrice mass we perceive in these particles due to their relativistic time dilation and length contraction of 1/3 these relativistic perceptions from our perspective. There would also be approximately one-fourth of 27.6 quark masses more mass in the neutron, (27.6 rather than 27.6 x 3 as energy doesn’t experience relativistic changes), stored as force, (one fourth of its mass, but never part of it, as anti-energy waves are perpetually exchanged), and one-fourth of 20.7 less mass in the proton, (as this portion is waves exchanged with the electron, which isn’t considered part of its mass), equaling almost exactly the correct mass result.
In addition to conceptions of space, this would mean that the equation, E=MC2 would remain mostly unblemished in the macro world, but in the micro world, at the elementary particle level, it would need some adjustments, as in the subatomic world it would have to be changed to E=MQC2. For up quarks, therefore, incorporating the charges E=MC2(13.8), for down quarks E=MC2(-6.9), and for electrons E=MC2(-20.7), (or 2.3 from our perspective). This accounts for the above-referenced missing mass in every proton and neutron. Any new energy that protons and neutrons absorb would be multiplied by the above figures accordingly, but divided by the proton or neutron’s overall internal mass. Thus, after particles unite and balance by forming atoms, E would equal MC2 perfectly, never changing despite relativistic changes, and minute charge imbalances, (as will be explained later), for the resulting atoms, and for neutrons.
Remember internal mass magnitudes are always the numerator for the negative particles, and denominator for positive particles, as they always equal the difference between internal and rest mass. The fact that positive particles’ mass are determined by a fraction does not change their representation, when combined with the negative particles, of perfectly balanced space. If a cubed foot were stretched into a cubed yard, (giving 1/27 cubed feet per cubed foot), and a cubed yard were compressed into a cubed foot, (giving 27 cubed feet per cubed foot), when multiplied by each other the result would be 1, a cubed foot with perfectly balanced space. It’s all still three dimensional.
To test the accuracy of these new established charges by comparing these results to the equation for electromagnetism, we would have to determine what Coulomb’s equation establishes regarding the percentages of mass utilized in every particle to exert their force. Since electromagnetic force emerges from particles’ energy, if we take their mass multiplied by C2, and divide by their charge, (which demonstrates the potential amount of joules its force would produce from mass), and then multiply that by the attributable portion of the constant of proportionality we can get the portion of each particles’ mass that is utilized, according to IMAC theory, in exerting its force.
Thus, properly using modern established charges for purposes of this exercise, since the up quark has a +2/3 charge, and the down quark has a -1/3 charge, attributing 1/3 of the constant, K, to the up quark, and 2/3 to the down quark, the equation will look like MC2 (67,000)/Q for the up quark, and MC2 (134,000)/Q for the down quark, (as 134,000 is twice 67,000, and the multiple of 134,000 and 67,000 is 8.978 X 109, which is roughly the exact K for electromagnetism). Q of course is the established charge pursuant to Coulomb’s law, as measured in joules. For the down quark, therefore, the equation would look like 8.77 X 10-30 (9 x 1016) (134,000)/5.333 x 10-20, which equals 111. For the up quark the equation would look like 4.386 x 10-30 (9 x 1016) (67,000)/1.067 x 10-19, which equals 55. Since, as previously explained, Newton’s equation for kinetic energy, KE = 1/2 MV2, limits all bodies of mass to utilizing only half their mass in exerting any force, (as V2 can never exceed C2), the maximum mass two binding particles can utilize in exerting the force maintaining the bond is 1/4. We would expect this to be the case with particles created by the big bang.
Therefore, with the up quark using 1/55 of its mass, and the down quark using 1/111 of its mass, we can determine actual mass by taking the multiple of 1/55 and 4 over the multiple of 1/111 and 16, (since the down quark contains one-fourth the mass per charge as the up quark, the amount of mass it utilizes in exerting its force is limited to one-fourth of one-fourth). One-fourth of 55 is 13.75, and 1/16 of 111 is 6.9375. 13.75 over 6.9375, allowing room for a tiny margin of error due to rounded large decimals, would confirm the charge table referenced above of 13.8 for up quarks over 1/-6.9 for down quarks, or 13.8/-6.9.
From this information we can derive at the following equation for calculating gravity and electromagnetism: F = (▲M/Q) (Mᵞ/MN ∨ MC2/Qᵞ)1 (▲M/Q)( Mᵞ/ MN ∨ MC2/Qᵞ)2/R2. Just a brief explanation for the less obvious symbol referenced in this equation, ∨ stands for “or.” MN stands for Mass/Neutral. It’s a figure determined by a quantized amount of energy received by particles, which leads to an extremely minute unbalance in charge responsible for gravity pursuant to IMAC theory. It’s always the same number, as it’s always the same quantized amount of energy. This will be explained better a little bit later. The two different options in each set of parenthesis represent the two different versions of mass that exist, pure and relativistic, both of which are distinguished in Kg by a factor of C2. This will also be explained better a little bit later. For now it should already be clear, however, that according to IMAC theory gravity and electromagnetism are two different magnitudes of strength of the same force. Pure mass never has the weaker magnitude, and relativistic mass never has the stronger magnitude. Magnitudes aside, it’s still always the same force.
Getting back to explaining the above equation, Q for elementary particles would need to be substituted with the charges in the table referenced above, and adjusted for relativistic distinctions between particles, (which is only applicable to the electron). ▲M/Q stands for the difference in mass per charge between the two particles, with all properties and relevant factors considered. It’s not a constant, as it can vary, as it does between up and down quarks, and between protons and electrons. It’s applicable only to pure mass, (elementary particles), and protons, (since, unlike other hadrons, protons are only neutralized when their elementary up quarks are bonded with elementary electrons). Where Mᵞ, (which stands for Mass Relativistic), is referenced, ▲M/Q is not applicable, as it’s already worked into the MN constant. To establish ▲M/Q we need to take 1/2 (M:Q) (▲M) (▲Q) (M:M) for each particle in comparison to the particle to which it’s being attracted. 1/2 represents the maximum portion of each particle that can exert potential force on another particle without threatening annihilation, as described the previous chapter. This can be thought of as a constant, but an easily explainable one.
M:Q is the sole difference between charge per mass between the two particles. ▲M stands for the fraction in the difference in mass between the two particles. ▲Q stands for the difference in overall charge. And M:M is the portion of mass utilized by a particle in its bond with another particle, or portion thereof that it neutralizes. Q for the down quarks is always -6.9, rather than -1/6.9, as their -1/6.9 charge has to be divided into the multitude of times larger the total volume they occupy must be over that of the up quarks. This number has to be, and evidence suggests it approximately is, 95.22, (see previous chapter), which when multiplied by -1/6.9 equals -6.9, (95.22 equaling 6.9 X 13.8, and also the approximate multitude of missing mass in protons and neutrons compared to the combined masses of their separate elementary particles, as explained above). 2.3 would be the charge used for the electron, as this represents its charge at its perceived relativistic mass, 1/9 of its actual 20.7 charge, which is the electron’s charge from the proton’s perspective.
Applying this to the bond between up and down quarks, ▲M/Q for the
down quark would be 1/2 (1/4) (2/1) (1/2) (6/17), which equals 3/68. 1/2 is the explained constant, 1/4 is the difference in charge per mass compared to the up quark, (as it has twice the mass and half the charge), 2/1 is the difference in mass, 1/2 is the difference in charge, and 6/17 is the portion of its mass that exerts the force necessary for its bond with half the up quark. One down quark would neutralize 1/4, (1/2 x 1/2), of the up quark, but two down quarks to one up quark would occupy the average of the multiple of 1/2, and 1/2 of 3/4, or 3/8, and 1/3, the inverse of the combined number of bonding particles, which equals 6/17. This applies to both protons and neutrons, since protons may all have started out as neutrons, and electrons, I believe, are merely down quarks with thrice the force from the proton’s relativistic perspective).
For the up quark ▲M/Q would be 1/2 (4/1) (1/2) (2/1) (3/17), which equals 6/17. 1/2 is the explained constant, 4/1 is the difference in charge per mass compared to the down quark, 1/2 is the difference in mass, 2/1 is the difference in charge, and 3/17 is the portion of its mass that exerts the force necessary for its bond with the down quark, (3/17 instead of 6/17, because it takes two down quarks to neutralize it, each bonding with an equal portion of the 6/17 of their mass utilized in the bond, which equals 3/17).
Applying these results to the above referenced equation, we get 3/68 (8.77 x 10-30) (9 x 1016)/6.9 for the down quarks’ potential force, which equals 5.047 x 10-15 J, and 6/17 (4.386 x 10-30) (9 x 10-16)/13.8 for the up quarks’ potential force, which equals 1.009 x 10-14 J. Applying a hypothetical radius squared between the two particles of 1 meter, the force between up and down quark would therefore equal 5.09 x 10-29 Newtons. Comparing this to the results using Coulomb’s relevant equation, the multiple of K, (9 x 109), the down quark’s charge of 5.333 x 10-20 C, and the up quark’s charge of 1.067 x 10-19 C, divided by a radius squared of one meter, we get 5.12 x 10-29 Newtons. The two numbers are virtually identical, and given approximates incorporated into both equations, if exact numerical figures could be established and utilized, the results would be exactly identical.
Moving on to the bonds between electrons and protons, ▲M/Q for the electron would be 1/2 (6.75/1) (1/6.75) (1/1) (1/4), which equals 1/8. 1/2 is the explained constant, 6.75/1 is its difference in charge per mass compared to the proton, 1/6.75 is the difference in mass, 1/1 is the difference in charge, (no difference in this case), and 1/4 is the portion of its mass utilized in its bond with the proton, (1/2 x 1/2). Since the electron alone neutralizes 1.5 up quarks, no adjustments need to be made to its M:M ratio with the proton, as it was with the two down quarks . It’s merely the multiple of 1/2 and 1/2, or 1/4. ▲M/Q for the proton would be 1/2 (1/6.75) (6.75/1) (1/1) (1/3), which equals 1/6. 1/2 is the explained constant, 1/6.75 is its difference in charge per mass compared to the electron, 6.75/1 is its difference in mass, (taking into account only the portion, 1.5 up quarks, that interacts with the electron), and 1/3 is the portion of its mass utilized in its bond, (because the whole of the half up quark, and the half of the whole up quark that attract the electron, equals 2/3 of the total combined mass, and the bond, therefore, would be determined by the multiple of 2/3 and 1/2, which equals 1/3).
Applying these results to the above referenced equation, the mass we need to use for the electron has to be 1/9 that of an average sized down quark which has been displayed in this book, or 9.74 x 10-31 Kg., although quark and electron masses do vary, (which is actually what makes gravity possible), but for purposes of this book the electron’s mass is slightly more than its constant rest mass typically referenced in relevant literature of 9.1 x 10-31 Kg., which is its mass determined separated from its bond with the proton. Binding with the proton one would expect additional mass by way of kinetic energy. Using our established electron mass the equation for the electron would be 1/8 (9.74 x 10-31) (9 x 1016)/2.3, (its relativistic charge, 1/9 that of 20.7), which equals 4.764 x 10-15 J. For the relevant portion of the proton, the equation would be 1/6 (6.5775 x 10-30) (9 x 1016)/20.7, which equals 4.766 x 10-15 J.
Note that these potential forces would apply to forces between two electrons, and between two protons as well, as ▲M/Q, (taking into account figures that would cancel each other out), would be the same. The force of the bond between an electron and a proton, therefore, applying a hypothetical radius squared between the two particles of 1 meter, would be 4.766 x 10-15 x 4.764 x 10-15, which equals 2.27 x 10-29 Newtons. Comparing this to Coulomb’s equation, which would establish the force by the multiple of K (9 x 109) and the two charges of 1.6 x 10-19 C, the result would be 2.3 x 10-29 Newtons. Again, the results are virtually identical.
Considering the fractions revealed herein representing the charges of the relevant particles were derived in determining the justification for the difference in mass between a proton’s three quarks, and its actual mass, their use in determining a nearly precise electromagnetic force when multiplied by MC2 and several other established particle distinctions, when compared to Coulomb’s equation, is convincing evidence that this equation is legitimate, and not just the result of a lawyer playing around with numbers. One may still argue that the fractions used for establishing the particle distinctions were made up to match the results of Coulomb’s equation.
However, for anyone who may be thinking this, if you take a closer look at the above figures you should understand why the fractions are necessary in reaching a correct result, and that they were in fact calculated accurately. Mass and charge distinctions, and the portion of particles’ mass utilized in their bonds with other particles, are relevant factors to consider pursuant to IMAC theory in calculating an accurate figure for force. If a single magnet has attracted ten separate pieces of iron, you would have to factor in some fractions in determining the exact force utilized by the magnet in attracting each individual piece. For reasons already stated it’s no different with elementary particles.
And with the exception of the referenced assumption that up and down quarks differ in mass by an exact factor of two, which is a very reasonable assumption given the established relevant statistics to date, and an assumption I personally believe to be accurate, the figures used herein are confirmed figures in science. These are not made up. That being said to conclude this equations’ results, and Coulomb’s equations’ results match so perfectly by sheer coincidence would be absurd given the magnitude of the numbers involved. It therefore follows that, whether or not you believe in any other new idea introduced in this book, it cannot be denied that the convincingness of this equation could easily spell a huge amendment to the Standard Model.
With regards to electromagnetism, or the portions of the equation that involve pure mass, Coulomb’s equation may be slightly easier to calculate, but for purposes of understanding the forces as unified, I think we need to begin weening ourselves from over dependence on it. This new equation uses kilograms, joules, and charges, rather than Coulombs, all of which seem far more fitting in calculating forces, and in physics in general. With regards to gravitational force, or the portions of the equation that involve relativistic mass, the constant representing mass/neutral will be revealed and explained in detail shortly. As specified in the equation it’s divisible by the results of each object of mass. Thus, it could simply be presented as one squared factor divided by the final results of the equation. For clarity purposes, however, I included it on both sides of the equation, as it’s obviously easier to understand presented in such manner.
As stated, this is the equation for calculating gravity and electromagnetism. New figures, of course, for charges would need to be established for the new quarks that have been discovered, (up and down quarks, and electrons are, from what we know, still the bulk of the material visible universe, however, but other quarks, like strange and charmed quarks are still known to exist), and possible minor adjustments to current figures. The equation is obviously somewhat complex, although it could be condensed for calculating electromagnetic force between protons, electrons, and neutrons, as exemplified above. To keep it applicable to everything, however, including the elementary particles, I believe for the time being the complex version presented is necessary.
GRAVITY AND IMAC THEORY
Applying all this to this chapter’s topic, aside from the obvious referenced in the above equation, what does all this have to do with gravity? Because of the relativistic mass changes in particles described towards the beginning of this section, tiny charge surpluses and deficits that emerged are exactly what causes it. In short, gravity is electromagnetic, and electromagnetism is gravitational, and they both can be determined by the equation referenced above. The only difference is gravity is caused by relativistic mass distinctions between opposing particles, whereas electromagnetism is caused by initial mass which, in the absence of relativistic changes, is equivalent to pure mass. Absent force, it undergoes no radioactive decay and, as such, like light, it’s timeless and eternal. Pure mass has no energy to mass ratio, just like pure energy, (achieved at light speed, which from the perspective of matter is the opposite of being at rest), which also has no energy to mass ratio.
Pure mass is not energy/mass/space, as described in chapter three, but it’s
equivalent to energy, rather than distinguished from energy by a factor of C2, as is the case with relativistic mass, which always gives rise to an energy to mass ratio. While pure mass may sound theoretical, if pure energy converted to matter, where no matter existed, as most astrophysicists believe was the case, matter should be able to convert to pure energy leaving behind no matter in existence. Yet it would seem, from Einstein’s relativistic mass equation specified in the first chapter, that this would be impossible without a shortcut for annihilation, as infinite energy would be required to accelerate matter into a timeless physical state. However, this must not be the case. The fact that light has a constant perceived speed, with which we’ve calculated, and are currently well familiar, indicates that it’s not in fact the case.
To better explain this, if matter moved at light speed there would be no value for C, as C is merely a product of time, and where time isn’t a factor, (as it isn’t a factor with light), C no longer exists. We know that C is a product of time because it’s a unit of speed, and speed is always determined with a unit of time, whether it’s kilometers per hour, or meters per second. Matter, it would seem, could never move at light speed, because unless it’s converted to energy, and so long as it remains in motion, it will always have time, and so long as it has time it is always distinguishable from the light that created it. As for light speed, it only exists from the perspective of matter, but it’s not really a speed at all. Rather, it can be described as energy at rest, (from the perspective of energy, theorizing that a timeless substance can have a perspective). The creation of space presumably would not affect the resting state of energy, but it would create the opportunity for obstruction, as waves can travel through space and collide with energy. Where such obstruction is massive enough, it can set energy in motion.
As nature has it, only a very large amount of energy can be set in motion, (motion from the perspective of energy), and the faster that motion gets, the more of that energy returns to its original resting state. It can’t be an infinite amount, however, as we assume the universe began with a finite amount of energy. As it turns out C, or C2, is a representative of the actual amount of energy it takes. C2 is merely the amount of joules of energy needed to create a kilogram of mass at a given velocity which, when multiplied by time, or when divided by mass, always equals 9 X 1016. So if you’re moving at a velocity where time is one second for every ten seconds at rest, (hypothetically assuming matter can exist at rest), it would take ten times more energy to equal a kilogram of mass than it would at rest.
Although a kilogram of mass at the high velocity would seemingly appear ten times more massive than a kilogram at rest, time dilations and relativistic mass changes balance each other in such a way that a kilogram always appears to be merely a kilogram. It may look like more mass to an observer at rest, but if that observer were moving at near light speed, it would not appear to be anything more than one kilogram due to the time dilation, which balances the relativistic mass increase. Time and mass are really unified, as matter is merely light with time. So to summarize, the closer you are to the velocity, or lack thereof, of light, the more energy it takes to create a given unit of matter, but due to the effects of Relativity E still always equals MC2 from the perspective of matter because of its time.
Pure mass starts as energy at rest, (at rest from the perspective of energy). It accelerates, (or decelerates, depending on the perspective), from that rest instantly, but it literally starts out as pure energy. It did not take infinite energy to create it, however, but rather 9 X 1016 joules per kilogram. The speed of light is direct proof that this figure represents the amount of energy it takes to create a kilogram of mass where there’s no time. A kilogram of mass at light speed, however, (if such were possible), would therefore have to be 9 X 1016 kilograms as perceived by an observer traveling at any velocity less than light speed. However, if that observer were to accelerate to light speed it would only appear to be a kilogram of mass. This indicates that where a kilogram of mass is energized to the point of increasing to 9 X 1016 kilograms of mass, it would merely convert back to light, as this is the point at which the distinctions between light and matter are eliminated. Theoretically there would be no massive explosion, however, as one would expect from such a conversion while traveling at a velocity less than light speed. Rather, it would calmly convert to light, reduced from the light it took to create the matter by a factor of 9 X 1016.
It follows that when energy at rest, (at rest from the perspective of energy), gets put into motion, a kilogram of mass initially ‘starts out’ as actually 9 X 1016 kilograms of mass, but upon its presumably instantaneous acquisition of consequential time, it would only appear to be one kilogram from any perspective under light speed. This is the perspective of it ‘after’ time for it begins. It’s always 9 X 1016 kilograms of mass perceived as one kilogram of mass from the perspective of anything with time. This is how I believe pure mass behaves, and it’s what the smallest of particles are made up of.
After it’s created it gathers large amounts of relativistic mass by way of collisions with other matter and absorption of energy. On account of this nature, however, every kilogram of relativistic mass it gains is always perceived as the same as a kilogram of pure mass, but it’s actually less than pure mass by a factor of 9 X 1016. Pure mass is E=M imprisoned by relativity, destined to never release energy, except through annihilation, decay, and possibly if it were to ever come to a complete rest, while relativistic mass is E=MC2, and it’s the part of mass that frequently converts to energy, or transforms from one body of matter to another.
The more the newly formed matter accelerates, or decelerates, from the potentially illusional physical state of energy, the less energy it contains, but the value of C remains unchanged, as C2 always equals E/M or E(T), and as E decreases with the decreasing velocity of matter, M does as well, as time grows faster, enough to allow C to remain constant when E is divided by M or multiplied by T. On account of this dilemma, it would seem a nuclear bomb ignited at near rest might resemble a fire cracker, and a fire cracker ignited at near light speed might resemble a nuclear bomb, as energy isn’t affected by relativistic changes, (of course, to decelerate a nuclear bomb to near rest from our current velocity within the universe would require the release of far more energy than it would release if ignited at our current velocity). This, however, would not be the case due to length contractions, which balance the amount of perceivable energy released. Where one inch at a fast velocity equals ten inches at near rest, ten times more energy released at the faster velocity would appear to be the same as 1/10 that amount of energy released at the slower velocity, even though it’s still ten times more energy.
It’s difficult to conceive that mere velocity of one object could shrink the entire universe by a factor of ten, but bear in mind that it only appears shrunk from the one object’s perspective. Still likely difficult to understand, remember that the closer you get to being pure energy, (as is the case with increasing velocity), the closer you get to there being no universe.
For good or for bad, pure energy is the mortality of all matter, and the three dimensional universe as we know it. It’s worth noting that scientific conclusions regarding Quantum Entanglement, or what Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance,” serve to support some of these assertions I’ve made regarding pure energy, and the notion that quarks qualify as such. Whitwam, Ryan. “Scientists Capture Photographic Proof of Quantum Entanglement.” 15 Jul. 2019, www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement.
This notion of shrinking space being correlated with increasing EM ratios also seemingly undermines the equation briefly discussed in chapter two, ER=EPR. This is because theoretical wormholes aren’t required to produce a length contraction of zero, (which according to this analysis would in fact exist between particles of pure mass, but only from their perspective. From the perspective of anything containing relativistic mass, length would in fact exist).
I say seemingly, however, because as described above the purer the mass, the greater the length contraction, and the black holes that theoretical wormholes are comprised of would encompass mass resembling that of elementary particles, (at least more so than most other forms of large matter). In other words the mass that black holes are made up of must be very pure, as it would be high on E in a measurement of their EM ratios on account of the enormous potential energy they produce upon objects of matter they absorb. To put it slightly differently, the energy in a black hole is similar to the energy in an object of matter moving at close to light speed. Therefore, ER=EPR may actually be relevant to this analysis, given the similarities between black holes and elementary particles, as described herein. Since the equation is nothing more than a thought provoker, however, with all due respect to its founders, I see no reason to mention it any further within this book.
As for relativistic mass, it is only created when energy instantaneously comes to rest as a result of colliding with time restricted matter. After it’s created it can transfer from one source of matter to another, but on account of its distinguishable means of creation from pure mass, C2 is not already embedded within it. As such, it’s always calculated as E in EM ratios. Since it begins its life as matter with time, rather than without it, as with pure mass, it’s always equivalent to MC2. Note that where matter comes to rest from the perspective of matter, (if such were possible), and one kilogram of mass equaled one kilogram of mass from any perspective, E once again would equal M, (as it does with energy at rest from the perspective of energy). At any velocity from the perspective of either light or matter, however, E=MC2.
Pure mass, therefore, always constituting 9 X 1016 more mass than it actually appears is what I believe to be the main reason why the electromagnetic force is so much stronger than the gravitational force. The other reason will be described later in this chapter. This also gives rise to one of the most fundamental factors to consider in unifying the forces. One has to always recognize if the mass considered in calculating a force is pure mass, in which case C in the above equation equals 1, or relativistic mass, in which case C in the above equation equals 3 X 108. All quarks are presumably the result of pure mass, and thus require C2 in calculating their force, whereas all large objects, like stars and planets, force comes from variations in quark charges caused by changes in their relativistic mass, which means C2 is not used in calculating their force.
Thus, in the portion of the above equation that calls for Mᵞ ∨ MC2/MN, where ∨ stands for “or,” and ᵞ is the symbol for “relativistic,” the force from any mass that isn’t relativistic is always determined by MC2 rather than Mᵞ, and vice versa for any mass that is relativistic. The relativistic mass being the mass that determines an object’s gravity. C2 is not a factor for such mass. This difference taken into consideration, the two forces, (gravity and electromagnetism), shouldn’t even be referred to as “both” as there’s really only one force. To prevent confusion that force will typically be referenced as electro-gravitational from hereon, or the universal force, as I believe it’s different versions of the same force that enables both of these reactions.
Getting back to how this happened, charge changes in protons and electrons would have gradually seized as the earliest displacement waves in the universe simmered down, and eventually ended. The final result would have been trillions upon trillions of hydrogen atoms, many of which had gained a small amount of energy from the time their electrons first appeared, and thereby contained protons with slightly stronger charges than electrons, in which case the electrons would likely have jumped to the second energy level. On the other hand many of these hydrogen atoms had lost a small amount of their energy from the time their electrons first appeared, and thereby contained electrons with slightly stronger charges than protons, in which case the electrons would have remained in the first energy level, but with slightly less energy than they originally possessed.
Thus, I believe the -13.6 eV of energy every hydrogen electron in the first energy level has been determined to possess can actually constitute a representation of the atom stripped of a small amount of its relativistic mass. “Energy Levels of Electrons.” Sloan Digital Sky Survey, cas.sdss.org/DR5/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/energylevels.asp. It has to be this way as the first energy ever released after the initial energy emitted from the big bang could not have come from any other known source. It’s kind of like the assumption that Cain and Abel from Genesis had to have married their sisters. An interesting analogy, but getting back to the topic of this book, science, all of the atoms would have experienced either a mass loss or gain subject to their overall shared mass, and these gains and losses would have been fairly evenly distributed given the expanding nature of light and displacement waves.
Since electrons in the second energy level always have 10.2 eV more energy than electrons in the first energy level, knowing the difference in strength between gravity and electromagnetism, it can be deduced that the photons, or portions thereof, absorbed by the hydrogen atoms that gained energy contained 10.2 eV, each portion of energy absorbed being proportional to each particles’ total mass. Ibid. This deduction is also based on the knowledge that photon absorption only occurs when the photon’s energy is exactly equal to the energy gaps between the initial and final energy levels of the absorbing system’s electron(s) “Atoms and Light.” dept.harpercollege.edu/chemistry/chm/100/dgodambe/thedisk/spec/5back4.htm. This is additionally in accordance with Bohr’s confirmed proposition that when electrons jump or drop an energy level in their orbits around a nucleus, they must gain or emit the exact amount of energy that distinguishes the energies of the two orbits. “Bohr Atomic Model.” abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/bohr_atom.html.
Since hydrogen atoms consist of bonded elementary particles, all of which are in a perpetual state of shared energy, IMAC theory proposes that the 10.2 eV photons the electrons absorb or emit to jump or drop an energy level are shared by all the subatomic particles within each hydrogen atom in accordance with their total mass. This concept is not confirmed in science, but it hasn’t been discarded by science either. From my perspective it seems like the most sensible possibility. This would not be the case with energy absorbed by satellites of planets, but elementary particles, exchanging a much stronger version of the universal force, behave differently. As referenced earlier in this chapter, in fact, the majority of the hydrogen atom’s mass is comprised of energy shared by the particles that make up the atom. Such being the case, this will be the assumed response to photon absorption from this point on within this book.
This would also be the case when the proton absorbs the photon instead of the electron, although it’s believed that the electron will more often absorb photons in a hydrogen atom’s path, as they’re thought to shield the nucleus from passing radiation. “Interaction of Photons with Matter.” www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1122/ML11229A667.pdf.
This absorbed energy would be shared in accordance with each particles’ total mass to ensure the immutable nature of atomic energy pursuant to IMAC theory, and described herein. The positive and negative energy would, accordingly, cancel each other out given the external masses and charges of the relevant subatomic particles involved. Thus, the down quarks’ shares of each of the 10.2 eV of energy from each photon would constitute the same amount as the up quarks’ shares of the same energy, since the up quarks’ have twice the charge and half the external mass, equaling the same overall mass, unifying external mass and charge. This would enable each hydrogen atom to conserve its initial energy.
While electrons absorb this energy from our perspective, from the proton’s perspective, according to IMAC theory, the down quarks from which the electrons emerged absorb it. Due to the relativistic distinctions between electrons and protons described in the last chapter in the description of the emergence of electrons, from a proton’s perspective the initial neutron from which it emerged still exists. Remember that, according to relativity, relativistic changes are only noticeable from observers that don’t experience said changes. Thus, from the proton’s perspective, the neutron presumably hasn’t changed one bit. It still has one more down quark, and one less up quark than what we perceive, and the electron we observe in the hydrogen atom doesn’t even exist from the proton’s perspective.
The absorbed energy, which isn’t affected by relativistic changes, would therefore get divided by the two down quarks and the one up quark, with 3.4 eV going to each of these three particles. This would effectively increase the down quarks’ -6.9 charges by half as much as it would decrease the up quarks’ +13.8 charge, as the up quark would lose twice as much charge for every equal portion of energy gained as the down quarks would gain. In determining the change in force amongst these particles as a result of this absorption we would use the universal equation for force in the last chapter, F = (▲M/Q) (Mᵞ/MN ∨ MC2/Qᵞ)1 (▲M/Q)( Mᵞ/ MN ∨ MC2/Qᵞ)2/R2. In incorporating the numbers the divisible of Q for the relevant portion of the equation with respect to the up and down quarks cancels out, as the energy absorption measured in eV would have to be multiplied by the same numbers to account for the extra acquired internal mass, (see previous chapter). R2 also would presumably remain unchanged for the bound quarks. That leaves the established ▲M/Q factors, which are 3/68, or .044 for the down quarks, and 6/17, or .353 for the up quark.
Thus, each down quark would increase in charge by way of the photon absorption by a factor of 4.9 MeV (.044)/3.4 eV, (eV being the unit used here for a charge unified with mass). This equals a charge increase of 1/63,412, or 1.58 X 10-5, of the quark’s total charge. The up quarks would decrease in charge, (which for stated reasons is always the result for them following any mass increase), by a factor of 2.45 MeV (.353)/3.4 eV. This equals a charge decrease of 1/254,368 or 3.93 X 10-6 of the quark’s total charge. This anticorrelation of charge amongst these particles would create an attractive force between hydrogen atoms exceeding the repelling force amongst like particles. The force would be based on these two results, which would constitute each MN divisible in the portion of the above universal equation for force involving gravity, as they would be applicable to the bonds between every proton and electron from our perspective. Combining the two results we get a total constant for gravity of 1/1.613 x 1010, or 6.2 X 10-11.
This according to IMAC theory is ultimately the portion of every hydrogen atom that’s no longer neutralized by its bonded particles as a result of an energy gain or loss of 10.2 eV. It’s obviously close to the gravitational constant we’re all familiar with, 6.67 X 10-11. It’s most likely not an exact match on account of lack in confidence amongst scientists in exact quark masses. Nevertheless, for the gravitational constant to have turned out this close to the established constant after exclusively utilizing properties associated with the smallest of particles for establishing a new equation typically used for calculating the forces of the largest of objects is quite astonishing from my perspective. Ultimately, I personally believe this is the correct unifying theory for gravity and electromagnetism, and the discrepancy in the results is merely the product of a minor inaccuracy in the exact masses of the relevant quarks.
As stated in chapter four, exact quark masses are not confirmed with a high level of confidence. Furthermore, as also previously referenced, I’ve used the average masses within the possible ranges of potential masses recently suggested for quark masses, with up quarks being exactly half the mass of down quarks, as this is not only in conformance with recently disclosed average masses for quarks, but it provides support for the IMAC theory as well. “Quarks.” Hyperphsics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html. Should the relevant quark masses actually turn out to be just a few percentage points less than the masses referenced herein, everything else remaining the same, the specified constant would precisely match the constant. Furthermore, this theory provides a justification for the constant, something science has never, (up to now in my view), been able to produce.
It should be further illustrated that the constant in Newton’s gravitational equation has not remained entirely precise over the years either. It in fact has changed by small amounts quite frequently. Kumar, Rohit. “Variation in Value of Universal Gravitational Constant – G And Rise of Current Universe.” hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02867435/document. For now note that where the electromagnetic forces were calculated above using the equation for force, the relativistic conversion from hydrogen atom to neutron described in the most recent two paragraphs was not needed, as the electromagnetic force comes exclusively from pure mass, in which case, for reasons stated, said relativistic conversion isn’t necessary. Gravity, on the other hand, always originates within relativistic mass according to IMAC theory, in which case relativistic distinctions are relevant. Distinguishing the two forms of mass is simply a matter of separating the elementary particles and protons from everything else.
Returning again to the discussion about the early universe, following the referenced relativistic mass changes, and resulting changes in electron orbits, atoms with protons slightly stronger than electrons began attracting atoms with electrons slightly stronger than protons. Any surplus of atoms would’ve repelled each other out of the hydrogen cloud in a perpetual state of repellant motion fueled by the nature of the forces, (which as this chapter indicates was antigravity), between them.
This is because, by nature of the surplus, such atoms inferably contained the same charge, and thereby repelled each other. While it’s inevitable that every atom produced in the early universe eventually experienced a collision of some sort, which left it with either a positive or a negative charge, there likely wasn’t an even balance of positively and negatively charged atoms. Thus, antigravity would have been the result. This would not defy the notion that all matter, (aside from free elementary particles, at least according to IMAC theory), exerts a gravitational force, but merely suggest that only the matter that we notice exerts positive gravity. Matter with antigravity, such as the hydrogen atoms described above, would be very difficult, if not impossible to detect. Moreover, these atoms may very well have found a surplus of rejected atoms of opposite charge elsewhere in space, converting their antigravity back to gravity again. Nevertheless, they were ousted from the original hydrogen cloud in which they first dwelt, as their presence resulted in an unbalance in the attractive force that had developed.
Out of those that remained, half would have had stronger protons than electrons, and half would have had electrons stronger than protons. However, from our perspective the difference in strength between electrons and protons would not be the exact same. Gravity is not a noticeable force at the elementary particle level, for reasons already illustrated. It’s only noticeable at the level at which matter can be distinguished by the amount of relativistic mass it contains. Consequently, the hydrogen atoms that contained protons with slightly stronger charges than their electrons became attracted to the hydrogen atoms that contained electrons with slightly stronger charges than their protons. While this attraction was extremely small compared to the bonds between the electrons and protons that created the hydrogen atoms, it was enough to begin attracting these atoms together, as any such charge, regardless of how small, would give rise to such attraction.
While the electrons now had a slightly stronger attraction to protons elsewhere in space, they still would’ve remained attached to their current proton companions, as the distance squared between the other protons they were attracted to was far greater than the orbital distance between them and their proton counterparts. After possibly numerous years of slow attraction to outside protons pursuant to this electro-gravitational force, however, their relationships with their proton counterparts was put in jeopardy. This was the point at which their orbital distance and the distance separating them from outside protons they were attracted to was close to the same. The threat of developing covalent bonds with other protons, however, and swapping electrons was likely obstructed by the hydrogen atom alignment that would have existed by this time. “Covalent Bonds.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/covalent-bond.
Due to Coulomb’s law of electromagnetic attraction, and the universal equation for force referenced herein, at this point every hydrogen atom with a higher charged electron than proton was aligned with a hydrogen atom with a higher charged proton than electron. This alignment was inevitable, because the atoms with higher charged protons would have remained neutral to atoms with the same charged protons, while attracting atoms with their higher charged counterparts, and likewise with atoms with higher charged electrons. This was possible because the repelling force was slightly less than the attracting force between these bonding atoms.
This is determined by way of simple math. Using the constant established above for MN, and understanding that an electron is to a proton from our perspective exactly what two down quarks are to an up quark, an electron’s charge would have increased from -1.6 X 10-19 Coulombs to -1.600025 X 10-19 Coulombs, and its proton counterpart’s charge would have decreased from +1.6 X 10-19 to +1.5999937 X 10-19 Coulombs upon absorbing a photon containing 10.2 eV of energy, if the proton and electron both started out with exactly 1.6 X 10-19 Coulombs of charge. Coulombs are being used to represent charges in this example simply to compare results. If another hydrogen atom a meter away lost 10.2 eV of energy while its electron remained in the first energy level, its proton’s charge would have increased from +1.6 X 10-19 to +1.6000063 X 10-19 Coulombs, and its electron’s charge would have decreased from -1.6 X 10-19 to -1.599975 X 10-19 Coulombs.
Using Coulomb’s relevant equation for calculating electromagnetic force, (which for gravity is always divided by C2, for reasons described earlier in this chapter), we can merely multiply like particles and opposing particles charges amongst the above-referenced atoms to determine the overall force, as the radius squared between both atoms cancels, and then multiply the results by the constant in Coulomb’s equation, 9 X 109. In doing so we find that the repelling force would be 2.304 X 10-28 Newtons, and the attracting force would be 2.304045 X 10-28 Newtons. Ultimately, as explained above, by way of the anticorrelation in charge changes due to the photon absorption, they attracted slightly more than they repelled, by an amount almost precise with Newton’s equation for calculating gravitational force. Thus, with equal numbers of both these atoms, they would have aligned in such a fashion in which every other atom would be at a higher energy level, and every other atom would be at a lower energy level.
Atoms with the strongest attraction to each other would have been in the center of the alignment, as they would have been the first to encroach each other before reaching a point of dormancy. This would have represented the core of the thickening mass. From the core outwards the bonds between atoms would have grown increasingly weaker, but the above-referenced alignment would have remained consistent. Given this alignment, with atoms attracted in all directions they likely lost their sense of direction, and remained increasingly vibrant, yet dormant.
With aligned armies of protons and electrons growing thicker, deeper in the core, where the strongest bonds between atoms existed, attracting and repelling forces would have been very hard at work at this point. A great deal of interacting amongst hydrogen atoms would have been taking place as well, given the attracting and opposing forces in all directions, forces that would have been much stronger the deeper atoms and neutrons drifted inside the thickening cloud of hydrogen gas. Energy thus began releasing in tremendous quantities from these particles, particularly in the core.
Atoms at this point would have been shedding energy rapidly, but provided protons and electrons released energy in equal amounts per volume of mass with equal charges, (which would be expected, considering the particles’ charges were the reason for the energy), the alignment triggering electro-gravity would’ve remained consistent, as protons would weaken as a result of the energy loss at the same rate electrons would strengthen. And while releasing energy would have gradually reduced their electro-gravitational pull, it also would’ve reduced the mass of the overall system they had developed into. This scenario, therefore, fits well with Newton’s equation for calculating gravitational attraction between two objects, which depends on the mass in kilograms of two separate objects.
And since electro-gravity has an infinite range, the attracting force from the slight imbalance of charges within these hydrogen atoms would have expanded throughout the universe without boundaries, weakened only of course by the inverse of radius squared. The electrons in a large body of mass would be attracted by the protons in another large body of mass, and vice versa. The hydrogen atoms too would have been attracted to each other. This is exactly the way we perceive electro-gravity, (assuming that’s what it is, which I believe, for reasons stated herein, to be the case). This theory, therefore, works.
How can gravity be constant, however, as it’s known to be according to this theory? In a universe filled with nothing but hydrogen, explaining this would be quite simple: hydrogen atoms’ electrons are almost always only going to be in the first or second energy levels, distinguishing the amount of energy amongst them almost always by 10.2 eV. Thus, hydrogen atoms that attract each other in these presumed most common energy levels are always going to be distinguished in energy by 10.2 eV, which according to the above equation provides the exact amount of leaked electromagnetic force to nearly equal the force of gravity, (remember that C2 is removed from the two mass sources in the gravity equation in accordance with the explained distinctions between relativistic and pure mass). Gravity and electromagnetism are the same force.
It seems 10.2 eV has to merely constitute a quantized amount of energy hydrogen atoms obtain by way of photon absorption when their electrons are in the first energy level. This would also have to be the quantized amount of energy released whenever they sacrifice energy while their electrons are in the second energy level. “Quantization of Energy.” Lumen, courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-1-quantization-of-energy/. While these assumptions will likely go undisputed, as Bohr’s energy propositions referenced earlier in this chapter, along with other relevant cited sources, would serve to confirm this very notion, one more assumption needs to be made that, to my knowledge, hasn’t yet been confirmed by science.
As you may have already guessed, this assumption is that 10.2 eV must also be the quantized amount of energy necessary to modify proton and electron charges. This, it would seem, is perhaps the best, and maybe even the only way gravity could remain constant pursuant to IMAC theory, (although there certainly could be other ways, this seems to be the one obvious possibility). Given the already confirmed nature of quantized energy, however, I believe this is far from an unreasonable assumption regarding this unifying theory. Not only is energy believed to be quantized, particle sizes are believed to be quantized as well, as referenced in chapter three. It is not impractical, therefore, to believe that charges, (assuming they’re mutable), could also be quantized.
Assuming this to be the case, it’s well established by above sources that atoms can receive lesser quantized amounts of energy in electron shells higher than the second energy level. Thus, in the universe we live in, filled with mostly hydrogen atoms, but a diversity of other atoms as well, every atom heavier than hydrogen, (which constitutes every atom that exists other than hydrogen), had to have at some point received a quantized amount of energy equal to 10.2 eV, as every other atom besides hydrogen at some point was hydrogen. Additionally, pursuant to the earlier relevant cited sources, all atoms are believed to give and receive quantized amounts of energy which, when added together, equal precisely 10.2 eV. It’s when this amount is achieved, pursuant to IMAC theory, the atoms’ charges will effectively change.
This is how I believe gravity remains constant even in objects made up primarily of heavier elements than hydrogen. Atoms, regardless of how heavy they are, are almost always going to attract other atoms distinguished in energy by 10.2 eV. Since hydrogen atoms make up the majority of matter in the universe, most gravity in the known universe is nevertheless inspired by hydrogen. Geggel, Laura. “Why is Hydrogen the Most Common Element in the Universe.” Livescience, 1 Apr. 2017, www.livescience.com/58498-why-is-hydrogen-the-most-common-element.html.
A molecular attraction would be the only exception I can think of to this notion, but this would involve the stronger version of the universal force, otherwise known as electromagnetism, as molecular attractions involve unstable atoms with too many or too few electrons. “Molecule.” WhatIs.com, whatis.techtarget.com/definition/molecule. Once molecules are formed, each atom making up the molecules will continue attracting other atoms distinguished in energy by the quantized amount of 10.2 eV, according to IMAC theory. Thus, if every atom in the molecule are at the same energy level, which is possible, since the molecule formed as a result of the stronger version of the universal force, they’d merely attract other atoms with 10.2 eV more, or 10.2 eV less energy than they possess. The gravitational attraction remains unaffected.
In elements heavier than hydrogen I cannot deny the possibility that atoms distinguished in energy by twice, or even three times 10.2 eV could end up attracting each other. This could obviously give way to small deviations in the seemingly constant force of gravity. While I can say this probably isn’t likely, as atoms will more likely attract nearby neighbors that experienced similar changes as they have, (which likely contributes to why stable atoms of the same element are typically found together), even if it happens the deviations in the gravitational force would probably be too small to detect. Gravity, for the most part, will always still remain constant pursuant to this theory.
So what about after nuclear fusion, or a super nova? Wouldn’t phenomena like these mix up the attraction, dramatically modifying the gravitational force? I don’t think that it would. Where atoms are surrounding a major energy source it’s reasonable to assume they’ll gain or release energy in uniformity with their neighbors, allowing the attraction to remain consistent, despite decreases or increases in the energy the entire body of atoms possesses. Electrons may jump or fall in energy levels, but so long as it’s uniform across the board it would not disrupt the gravitational force one bit. It should be further noted that this theory works even in massive bodies with very few, if any electrons, such a neutron stars, as it’s based on the notion that free neutrons are what dominate the universe in reality.
I’m aware that this is the kind of theory that can be researched. And while I’m not certain how difficult it would be to confirm or deny it, considering a mere human cell, as an example, is estimated to contain 100 trillion atoms, the energy levels of a seemingly large portion of which would have to be observed, I certainly would not object to the performance of such a study. “How Many Atoms are there in a Human Cell?” ThoughtCo., www.thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-in-human-cell-603882#. I would be very curious to learn the results. Until then it remains a theory that makes sense, and seems to harmonize against the odds with current known physics. It also seems more mundane than other popular similar unproven theories, such as string theory.
With regards to the curvature of space’s potential role in gravity in relation to this theory, as explained in the beginning of the last chapter, it likely assists in creating guiding paths between two bodies of mass, but I believe the electro-gravitational force described herein is the force that would actually bring them together under the correct circumstances, when they’re not directly on a collision course. That being said, I believe there exists a strong possibility that the curvature of space is actually caused by this electro-gravitational force. Since pursuant to this theory space exists within matter, and when it’s not completely balanced, as it wouldn’t be pursuant to this theory, as the unbalanced nature of trapped space according to this theory is exactly what attracted the portions of matter together, the force exists within matter. Thus space can be warped even where space wouldn’t appear to exist: within elementary particles. This resolves the mystery of how gravity could exist within matter in which very little, if any space exists, proposed in the beginning of the previous chapter.
Should such turn out to be the case, the curvature of space alone would not be what produces the force, but would simply be a result of it. Considering the manner by which space compacts when surrounded by an accelerating object of mass, according to Special Relativity, and the equivalence principal referenced in the first chapter, this would seem most likely the case in my view. The force from the unbalanced charges amongst the particles would create to potential energy to mass ratio, or EM Ratio, as described in the first chapter, which would warp, or compact space, the same way the kinetic energy to mass ratio would do in an accelerating object of mass, according to Special Relativity. Thus, according to this theory, Einstein’s explanation of gravity pursuant to General Relativity isn’t wrong, but incomplete.
As for relativistic time dilations, it seems they are better explained by this concept than by the mere bending of space caused by the presence of matter within it as well. As explained in the first chapter, while there’s a correlation between changes in space and changes in time in response to relativistic modifications in matter, the time doesn’t necessarily have to be in the space, and can very well, (in fact more likely in my view, for stated reasons), exist exclusively within the matter instead. And while, as also explained in the first chapter, whether existing in space, matter, or both, time dilations are caused by EM Ratios, which result from gravitational attraction due to increased resulting potential energy, according to General Relativity time slows down for both objects of mass being attracted to each other.
This begs the question as to how potential energy could increase in both objects as a result of a mutual gravitational attraction, when common sense would seem to indicate one of the two massive objects could only increase in potential energy by swiping it from the other. Thus, one would expect time to slow down in one of the two objects, and speed up in the other. Hawking et al. A Briefer History of Time, (p. 47).
While a seemingly confusing dilemma, this isn’t an issue with IMAC theory. As explained in chapter three, according to IMAC theory, the universal force is the result of the compression or decompression of external space resulting from the locking of stretched or compressed space within matter. Gravity, as explained, is the far weaker version of the force, and it results from the described anticorrelation in charge resulting from energy absorption or emission amongst atoms. This anticorrelation always results in stronger electrons than before attracted to stronger protons than before within other atoms.
The increased potential energy in both bodies of mass, that always results from a gravitational attraction, which can also be thought of as anti-energy pursuant to IMAC theory, as it always decreases the distance between two objects, therefore emerges from the attraction from these two opposing stronger particles: trillions upon trillions of electrons in one body of mass attracted to trillions upon trillions of protons within the other body, (neutrons as well within elements heavier than hydrogen, as for stated reasons they attract other particles the exact same way). It’s these two stronger opposing particles that create the attraction, overpowering the repelling force amongst like particles, which enables both bodies of mass to increase in potential energy, or anti-energy, increasing the EM ratios of both objects, and thereby causing time to slow down in both objects.
If the two objects collide as a result of the attraction, they would obviously release the potential energy buildup between them, resulting in a decrease in overall mass proportional to the total potential energy they both possessed at the time of the collision divided by MC2 in Kg. The energy release would result in electrons dropping in energy levels, those closest to the point of impact dropping the most levels, while less energy would be released by atoms the further from the point of impact you get. The gravitational attraction would remain unchanged, as atoms aligned with each other distinguished in energy by 10.2 eV would continue being distinguished by such amount, assuming they released the same amount of energy. There might be a minute change following the collision, but any such change would likely be too minute to be detectable.
Getting back to the atom alignments discussed herein, nature has a way of keeping these kind of alignments consistent. Assuming bodies of mass never contain atoms that all have the exact same charges, (which would seem an incredibly bizarre coincidence, to say the least), the gravitational attraction described above occurs. Any exposure to energy and gravity by such bodies of mass would make little to no difference, as the energy needed for gravity is always by a seemingly overwhelming magnitude the overall shared energy of the atoms themselves. Thus when stronger bonds between atoms get stronger, weaker bonds between atoms elsewhere in the mass would get weaker, balancing out the overall gravitational force.
This, according to IMAC theory, is what prevents stars from collapsing into singularities, and from exploding for billions of years. The shared energy of the atoms making up stars provide both the thermal outward push and the gravitational pull, perfectly balancing the star’s mass throughout its unimaginably long life.
While it’s true according to this theory that elementary particles, such as quarks and electrons, as well as free protons would only possess the strong version of the universal force, which constitutes examples of mass without gravity, a notion many scientists assume to be incorrect, I cannot conceive of any reasonable basis for such assumptions. While there isn’t many examples of free electrons and protons I can think of, solar wind, electric current, and lightning do come to mind. I can’t think of any reason to assume that the free electrons in these examples have gravity, merely because they have mass. The mass from such particles would be so overwhelmingly dwarfed by the mass on any given body of matter exerting gravity that it would not impact gravity’s constant force by any detectable magnitude. Moreover, the electrons in solar wind seem only attracted to magnetic fields, which involve unstable protons, thus the stronger version of the universal force.
Furthermore, free elementary particles, and protons will always exert the much stronger version of the universal force, until they’re neutralized by bonding with an opposing particle, in which case gravity would begin to take effect. That being the case, how could anyone possibly claim to be able to record the far weaker force of gravity in a particle exerting the stronger version of the universal force? It would be like claiming you could detect the damage caused by a fire cracker ignited in the same place and at the same time as a twenty-five megaton hydrogen bomb. Needless to say, any such claim should be perceived with a major grain of salt. This justifies the conclusion pursuant to IMAC theory that free elementary particles only exert the stronger version of the universal force.
One final note on gravity pursuant to IMAC theory, the nature of the energy giving rise to gravity described herein indicates that the force should always be very close to the same, no matter how differently it emerges. For reasons referenced in this chapter, any deviations in the force should be too minor to detect. It would be naïve not to admit, however, that it’s possible there could be detectable variations in the gravitational force amongst the different bodies of mass within the universe. This is just an honest admission on my end.
If such were the case, it would just go to show that, however, as so many scientists remind us frequently, there is nothing perfect in the universe. Bear in mind that scientists are still baffled by the fact that their data indicates there’s far more mass in the universe than can be detected. Rather than suggest there may be errors in the laws they’ve established involving gravity, they’ve proposed there is a huge overwhelming volume of matter out there that’s invisible. They’ve called this matter dark matter. Redd, Nola. “What is Dark Matter.” Science.com, 19 Jul. 2019, www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html. Despite fruitful and expensive efforts, however, no scientist has ever detected it yet. I’m not hereby proposing that IMAC theory can account for the huge volume of missing mass scientists claim to exist, given the fact that gravity should always be the same pursuant to this theory, but I do think scientists should at least consider other possible options for this discrepancy.
Having concluded my two chapters on gravity, I decided not to endeavor with the strong and weak nuclear forces in this book. I considered it at first, but decided in the end it would have simply been too much to take on. It seems the Standard Model has a pretty good handle on both of these forces anyways, the weak force already being explained as unified with electromagnetism to some extent, as referenced in chapter three. My guess is all four forces can be unified, and eventually will be. And while I did criticize Quantum Chromodynamics, the method by which the strong force is believed to derive, back in chapter two, I believe there is a similar process that involves the universal force described herein that explains the strong force as well. As explained in chapter two, I believe scientists have observed it correctly, but just haven’t described it correctly.
Anyhow, I don’t think I should say anything more on this topic, as I feel I’ve probably criticized science enough in this book already. It’s probably time for a few scientists to criticize me now. That I definitely can expect, although I hope the new ideas in this book get taken seriously. At the very least, I hope the two equations referenced in the two paragraphs below receive their due attention.
To summarize this book’s highlights, special and general relativity can be unified upon associating potential energy associated with gravity, and kinetic energy associated with a moving object of matter as different forms of the same thing. As such, by simply comparing the ratio of potential or kinetic energy to mass, time dilations associated with relativity and the relevant Lorentz Factor can be calculated using the following equation, which works with both special and general relativity scenarios: ▲T=T°(1-KE+PE/MC²), (see chapter one for a more detailed explanation). Tested against the relevant Lorentz Factor equation, and the general relativity time dilation equation, this new equation’s results matched up almost perfectly.
General relativity and quantum mechanics can also be unified by considering particle charges as mutable, and by the notion that space is not only warped externally, but internally, within elementary particles as an internal form of mass. It’s the warped space within particles that gives rise to force, rather than the external warped space, as general relativity has proposed. This is on account of two distinctive manners by which space can become locked within matter: as stretched space, or as compressed space. The matters’ ultimate charges are determined by the manner by which space is locked within it. The resulting force is distinguished by a factor of C2 between pure mass, comprised of elementary particles and protons, and relativistic mass, comprised of any mass added to, or taken from elementary particles, or protons, after they have bound with other particles to create larger forms of matter.
The force from relativistic mass can further be distinguished from the force from pure mass by a constant dubbed Mass/Neutral, which constitutes the portion of mass neutralized by way of bound opposing particles compared to the entire body of mass. The equation for calculating this general electro-gravitational force is as follows: F = (▲M/Q) (Mᵞ/MN ∨ MC2/Qᵞ)1 (▲M/Q)( Mᵞ/ MN ∨ MC2/Qᵞ)2/R2, (see chapter five for a detailed description). Tested against Coulomb’s equation for calculating electromagnetic force, this new equation’s results were nearly identical. The results were also very close in comparison to Newton’s equation for calculating gravitational force, off only by a very slight amount likely due to lack of certainty as to relevant quark masses, a necessary factor in calculating the weaker version of the universal force pursuant to this equation. To change the given quark masses by only a few percentage points would have resulted in an identical match between the two results.
As for gravity’s causation, it exists due to quantized 10.2 eV of energy photons, which atoms absorb through their electrons, giving rise to minute mass increases creating slight imbalances in their charges, negative charges increasing and positive charges decreasing. This anticorrelation effect gives rise to the attracting force we call gravity, present in all atoms, and in neutrons, as neutrons are essentially hydrogen atoms from a distinctive relativistic perspective, (see chapter five for a more detailed description). It is, as explained above, a much weaker version of the same force we call electromagnetism.
In summary this constitutes the primary points I’ve made herein. I hope you enjoyed reading this book as much as I enjoyed writing it. If you can elaborate, simplify, correct, or improve upon any new information included in this book I’ll be excited to learn what ideas you’ve brought to the table, and how you’ve helped the notions in this book to evolve. That being said, I’ll conclude by saying that mysteries are meant to be solved, and while I don’t expect a resolution to everything about the universe we’re unclear on, I believe it’s important we at least have confidence that it’s possible. It’s important that we keep trying, because it seems for every mystery we solve, a new and tougher mystery presents itself.
- Austin, Rickey W. (2017) Gravitational Time Dilation from Special Relativity and Newtonian Gravitational Potential.
- “Hafele-Keeting Experiment.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html.
- Mann, Adam. “What is Space-Time.” Live Science, 19 Dec. 2019, www.livescience.com/space-time.html#:~:text=That.
- “Herman Minkowski Pioneers the Concept of a Four-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum.” Encyclopedia.com, Feb. 2021, www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hermann-minkowski-pioneers-concept-four-dimensional-space-time-continuum.
- “Time Dilation/Length Contraction.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html.
- “10.2 Consequences of Special Relativity – Physics.” OpenStax, 26 Mar. 2020, openstax.org/books/physics/pages/10-2-consequences-of-special-relativity.
- Possel, Markus. “The Elevator, the Rocket, and Gravity: the Equivalence Principle.” Einstein Online, 2005, www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/equivalence_principle/.
- “Gravitational Potential Energy.” Hyperphysics, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html.
- “The Physics of Time Dilation.” Relativity, users.sussex.ac.uk/~waa22/relativity/What_is_gravitational_time_dilation.html.
- Wood, Charlie. “What is String Theory.” Space.com, 11 Jul. 2019, www.space.com/17594-string-theory.html.
- “The Unification of Electromagnetism with the Weak Force.” Physics Today, 1 Dec. 1989, physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.881185.
- “Electricity and Magnetism.” Electrostatics, Electric Fields, Current and Resistance Review, www.commackschools.org/Downloads/Review-_Electrostatics_and_Electric_Fields.PDF.
- Matthews, Robert. “Why Didn’t the Big Bang Produce Equal Amounts of Matter and AntiMatter.” Science Focus, www.sciencefocus.com/space/why-didnt-the-big-bang-produce-equal-amounts-of-matter-and-antimatter/.
- Brown, Lachian. “Reality is an Illusion: Everything is Energy and Reality isn’t Real.” HackSpirit, 19 Jan. 2018, hackspirit.com/illusion-reality-scientific-proof-everything-energy-reality-isnt-real/.
- “New Results Indicate New Particle is a Higgs Boson.” Cern, Accelerating Science, 14 Mar. 2014, home.cern/news/news/physics/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson.
- “How did Inflation Happen – and why do we Care?” Space.com, 26 Oct. 2018, www.space.com/42261-how-did-inflation-happen-anyway.html.
- “What is the Higgs Field and Higgs Boson?” Futurism, 19 Nov. 2013, futurism.com/what-is-the-higgs-field-and-higgs-boson.
- Wilson, Gail. “Scientists Discover how to Turn Light into Matter 80-Year Quest.” Imperial College London, 19 May 2014, www.imperial.ac.uk/news/149087/scientists-discover-turn-light-into-matter/.
- “Newton’s Second Law.” The Physics Classroom, www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law.
- Quarks.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html.
- Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/neutron.
- “Quantum Chromodynamics.” Encyclopedia.com, Feb. 2021, www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/quantum-chromodynamics.
- “Coulomb.” Energy Education, energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Coulomb.
- “Electron.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/electron.
- Einstein, Albert, Gutfreund, and Renn. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Princeton University Press and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015.
- “Understanding Gravity – Warps and Ripples in Space and Time.” Australian Academy of Science, www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity.
- Ryden, Barbara. “The First Three Minutes.” 12 Mar. 2003, www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_10/notes44.html.
- “Strong Force,” Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/strong-force.
- “Super Massive Black Hole Sagittarius A.” NASA, 29 Aug. 2013, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/black-hole-SagittariusA.html.
- Tyson, Neil. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 2017.
- “Newton’s Laws and the Electrical Force.” The Physics Classroom, www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Laws-and-the-Electrical-Force.
- “Why is the Proton so Much More Massive than the Electron, yet Holds the Same Charge.” Quora, www.quora.com/Why-is-the-proton-so-much-more-massive-than-the-electron-yet-holds-the-same-charge.
- Theor, Brian. “Precise Calculation of the Up and Down Quark Mass Using an Adjusted Compton Wavelength Common Factor Analysis.” Journal of Theoretical and Computational Science, 30 May 2015, www.longdom.org/open-access/precise-calculation-of-the-up-and-down-quark-mass-using-an-adjustedcompton-wavelength-common-factor-analysis-jtco-1000125.pdf
- Whitwam, Ryan. “Scientists Capture Photographic Proof of Quantum Entanglement.” 15 Jul. 2019, www.extremetech.com/extreme/295013-scientists-capture-photographic-proof-of-quantum-entanglement.
- “Energy Levels of Electrons.” Sloan Digital Sky Survey, cas.sdss.org/DR5/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/energylevels.asp.
- “Covalent Bonds.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/science/covalent-bond.
- Hawking, Stephen, and Mlodinow. A Briefer History of Time, Bantam Dell, 2005.
- “Squishy or Solid: A Neutron Star’s Insides Open to Debate.” Quantamagazine, 30 Oct. 2017, www.quantamagazine.org/squishy-or-solid-a-neutron-stars-insides-open-to-debate-20171030/.
- Geggel, Laura. “Why is Hydrogen the Most Common Element in the Universe.” Livescience, 1 Apr. 2017, www.livescience.com/58498-why-is-hydrogen-the-most-common-element.html.
- “Quantization of Energy.” Lumen, courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-1-quantization-of-energy/.
- “Atoms and Light.” dept.harpercollege.edu/chemistry/chm/100/dgodambe/thedisk/spec/5back4.ht
- “Neutron.” Energy Wave Theory,” energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/neutron/.
- “Protons and Neutrons.” Hyperphysics, hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/proton.html.
- “Bohr Atomic Model.” abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/bohr_atom.html.
- “Interaction of Photons with Matter.” www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1122/ML11229A667.pdf.
- Kumar, Rohit. “Variation in Value of Universal Gravitational Constant – G And Rise of Current Universe.” hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02867435/document.
- “The Standard Model.” Cern, home.cern/science/physics/standard-model.
- “Estimates of the Mass Densities of Up and Down Quarks and Estimates of the Outer Radii of the Small, Medium, and Large Up and Down Quarks.”
- “How Many Atoms are there in a Human Cell?” ThoughtCo., www.thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-in-human-cell-603882#.
- “Molecule.” WhatIs.com, whatis.techtarget.com/definition/molecule.
- Redd, Nola. “What is Dark Matter.” Science.com, 19 Jul. 2019, www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html.
- Wright E., Selwyn. Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity: A New Theory of Relativity, Trafford, 2014.
- Cole, K.C. “ER=EPR – (The EPR paradox named for its authors – Einstein Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen).” ScienceSprings, 24 April 2015, https://sciencesprings.wordpress.com/tag/er-epr-the-epr-paradox-named-for-its-authors-einstein-boris-podolsky-and-nathan-rosen/.