Skip to main content

A New Theory of Everything: Internal Mass Anticorrelation Theory (IMAC), & Energy/Mass Ratios (EM Ratios)

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





INTRODUCTION


When I was a 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 led 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.

Scroll to Continue

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 latter 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-Keating 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 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 hypothesize 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 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 focuses 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 strength from the resulting forces from these charges 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 quantum 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 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 comprising 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.

That's not to suggest that some quantum fields, like the Earth's magnetic field, aren't important. The Earth's magnetic field has long since been proven to exist, but it's also easy to explain, merely consisting of a propelling electromagnetic force from freed electrons within the Earth's solid inner and liquid outer core. This force isn't really a field, as it has an infinite range in all directions, but it looks like a figure eight on maps revealing the boundaries through which solar wind is unable to penetrate, growing shallower at the poles, and wider at the equator. This is simply because the Earth rotates faster at the equator creating greater friction in this region within the core. It's called a field because of these boundaries, but it actually doesn't have any boundaries, and it influences the entire universe. Calling it a field, like the far more mysterious theoretical Higgs Field, just because its strongest influence by far is at its closest ranges surrounding the Earth is therefore a bit misleading.

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 conscience 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.





CHAPTER ONE

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-Keating 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 latter. 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 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=T°√1-V2/C²


▲T meaning change in time, and T° meaning rest time.

The relativistic mass equation is:

▲M=M°

√1-V2/C²


“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, led 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 object's 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 composed 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 led 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 1) SR/▲Mass 2) SR/▲Time 3) E/MC²/▲Time 4) Difference

.2 light speed

1) 1.02 Kg

2) .98 Seconds

3) .98 Seconds

4) 0 Difference


.3 light speed

1) 1.048 Kg

2) .954 Seconds

3) .953 Seconds

4) .001 Seconds


.4 light speed

1) 1.091 Kg

2) .9164 Seconds

3) .913 Seconds

4) .0035 Seconds


.5 light speed

1) 1.155 Kg

2) .866 Seconds

3) .856 Seconds

4) .01 Seconds


.6 light speed

1) 1.25 Kg

2) .8 Seconds

3) .775 Seconds

4) .025 Seconds


.7 light speed

1) 1.4 Kg

2) .714 Seconds

3) .657 Seconds

4) .057 Seconds


.8 light speed

1) 1.666 Kg

2) .6 Seconds

3) .467 Seconds

4) .133 Seconds


.9 light speed

1) 2.294 Kg

2) .436 Seconds

3) .071 Seconds

4) .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 cease 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.





CHAPTER TWO

INTRODUCING THE QUEST FOR UNIFICATION

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 seem to be 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. This is likely because a sole unified force seemingly makes sense. Just like time is a constant that moves at different rates depending on circumstances involving energy, it would seem one force perceived in different ways depending on various circumstances would be the more likely result of nature than a number of different forces serving different purposes. There's also evidence to suggest such is the case. Despite the distinctions noted above, considering the similarities between the electromagnetic and gravitational forces in particular, including the dependence on the inverse of radius squared in both equations, as well as the multiple of two properties, and the infinite ranges associated with both forces, I for one am absolutely convinced they are merely different expressions of the same force. Further support for this conviction will be furnished in paragraphs to follow, but for now let's return to the background discussion.

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 being 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, (explained 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 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 the 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. Einstein in fact proved his theory of warped space by justifying the 43 arc seconds per century Mercury's orbit around the sun was off by when measured strictly in accordance with Newton's equation for gravity, and by showing that stars behind the sun, when observed during a solar eclipse, weren't where they would be if space was not warped. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity Stands up to Scrutiny." The Guardian, 4 Feb. 2014, amp.theguardian.com. Everything he predicted conformed beautifully in accordance with his relevant field equations. His ideas for general relativity are ultimately not theories anymore. They're in fact utilized when rockets and satellites are launched into space.

Einstein never explained why space is warped, however, other than to indicate the presence of matter causes it to warp. Furthermore, if you stretch a fabric that's finite in size it becomes larger, unless another part of such fabric compacts to compensate for the stretching. Moreover, a universe in which space only stretches, but doesn't compact, wouldn't conform well with the notion of an expanding universe in which matter is seemingly becoming less abundant due to energy conversions. If the presence of matter causes space to grow larger, a universe in which matter is vanishing faster than it's being created would be getting smaller rather than larger. An expanding universe in which space compacts and stretches, in which compacted space converts back to its natural volume faster than stretched space does, would explain the expanding nature of such space. As will be explained in subsequent chapters, such could be the case in our universe, in which electrons are not impacted by nuclear fusion the way protons are. "What Happens to Electrons during Nuclear Fusion." Physics, 7 Feb. 2018, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/384748/what-happens-to-the-electrons-during-nuclear-fusion.

Due to nuclear fusion within stars our universe could be converting positively charged particles into energy more frequently than it's converting negatively charged particles. While, if such were the case, most of our nuclear bomb yield estimates would had to have been off by approximately fivefold, according to information provided in chapter five, since they have all been mere estimates, this is certainly still possible. It could, however, simply be that electrons contribute a share of energy to nuclear fusion, despite being unbound from atoms in the process. This would justify yield estimates indicating the joules of energy released in nuclear blasts has usually been roughly equal to the kilograms of mass converted into energy multiplied by the speed of light in meters per second squared. Disputing these estimates, if the former hypothesis is true, however, this, according to IMAC theory, is partly why the universe is expanding.

The other, probably far more contributing reason why it’s expanding according to IMAC theory, at least according to notions involving EM ratios discussed in the last chapter, is special relativity. Given the nature of the perceived expansion, in which the velocity of an object moving away from Earth is proportional to its distance, in accordance with Hubble's law, special relativity seems by far the most reasonable explanation. One would simply have to assume that our galaxy is, or was slowing down, and special relativity would justify the rest. Expansion would come naturally according to SR, just as contraction would come naturally if we were speeding up. It would be safe to assume that if one could get as close to light speed as one possibly could, or stood on a gravitational force creating as much potential energy as the total energy that makes up one’s mass, the universe would be contracted down to the size of the singularity cosmologists believe it started out as, at least from that person’s perspective. From an onlooker at rest, or on a weaker gravitational force, however, this would only be perceived as a slowing of time.

Matter would shrink too, since it too is made up of space, according to IMAC theory. Some cosmologists say it wouldn’t, and that the Milky Way galaxy actually isn’t expanding like the universe around it is, given the red and blue shifts detected, but I think these conclusions are nonsense. Local expansion would be so minimal it would be virtually impossible to detect. Furthermore, our galaxy may not be slowing down anymore. Surrounding gravitational forces and energy may have stabilized its velocity, all evidence of the former slowdown locally having already passed us by, while still arriving from outside galaxies. Moreover, if only space contracted by way of special relativity, and not the matter within it, a space contraction at near light speed would leave a very odd and lopsided looking universe. Concluding that matter contracts and expands along with space is the only understanding that makes sense, and is justified according to IMAC theory.

That being said, in contemplating the thought of a possible existence a thousand times larger or smaller than our current volume, it’s safe to assume, in accordance with the relevant understanding of relativity, experiencing changes such as these would go almost unnoticed. Gravity wouldn’t change in the slightest, as with objects expanding apart from each other, as we witness outside our galaxy, time speeds up for these objects from our perspective enough to balance the gravitational fluctuations that otherwise would have occurred due to the radius modifications. To be a little more specific, while these objects’ masses stay the same despite their expansion, the gravitational waves they exchange with other bodies of matter that are also expanding take less time to arrive, thereby rendering gravity unchanged by expansion, regardless of the larger distances that occur between objects of matter.

The only thing that would change in a noticeable way would be the time it would take to travel from one location to another, (as well as the perception of energy in general, which would be much less distinctive from matter). If we were filled with kinetic or potential energy to the extent we could move at near light speed, traveling to the moon from the Earth could be accomplished in a flash, even though everything would look the same as it does from our current relativistic perspective. This is because the energy necessary for motion is a constant that never changes. All relativistic changes that occur merely accommodate it. This might be why the universe, it would seem, slowly vanishes, in an almost unnoticeable way, the closer one gets to resembling pure energy. Because without the properties of time and mass, pure energy is essentially nothing.

Anyways, having explained this new theory of expansion, (new at least from my understanding), I can’t imagine the expanding universe would have anything to do with dark energy, assuming dark energy is believed to possess the same characteristics as the energy that gets released from matter. Such energy doesn’t stretch space. Rather, it pushes matter that absorbs it. And the outward push from such energy against matter couldn’t reasonably be responsible for expansion billions of light years away, which observations confirm is faster than the speed of light. This theory also doesn’t satisfactorily explain where the space is coming from in which the universe is expanding.

For these reasons why scientists and physicists in general continue to argue mysterious dark energy instead of special relativity in explaining this phenomena is beyond me. With all due respect to these individuals, considering dark energy theories phenomena that are impossible to prove or disprove, there could be a hot market for such ideas. Much as I hate to say it, that's about the only logical explanation I can come up with. I could also suggest a conspiracy theory by indicating that they’re forbidden by governments from disclosing ideas to the public that involve anything other than a big freeze as the likely fate of our universe for reasons of avoiding possible panic, but I typically don’t give much credence to conspiracy theories, unless there’s good evidence to back them up.

Regardless of the reason, to apparently justify this notion there seems to be a general consensus that special relativity is far different from general relativity. According to the theories presented in this book, however, it’s not. They both involve the warping or stretching of space. As an uncontestable example, in light of the evidence, if you could speed up in a spaceship so close to the speed of light you could travel 4.3 light years in one minute, you could get to the next closest star beyond the sun, Proxima Centauri, in a mere sixty seconds. Someone viewing you from Earth would perceive it as taking 4.3 years, however. They would also perceive you as acting in extreme slow motion, but for you the trip would be over in a mere moment. This motion therefore would change space for you, but time for anyone not in the ship, enabling the universe to change for you, but seemingly remain the same for them. And since space wouldn’t change for onlookers, but compact for you, (and stretch back out after you slow down), this explanation conforms perfectly with Hubble’s law defining expansion, because when you stretch out an elastic fabric the further you look from the stretching force the more the fabric stretches apart. This would further explain why Andromeda is approaching the Milky Way, while more distant galaxies are repelling away.

Traveling that distance that fast, of course, is not possible, however, unless the space between Earth and Proxima Centauri was significantly shrunk from your perspective. And as previously stated time dilations have been proven. They’re not science fiction, or even theory. Rather, they’re a substantiated fact. Space therefore would do the opposite, expand, for an object of matter that’s slowing down, as most physicists think the universe would be doing if theoretical dark energy weren’t a factor, given the gravitational effects within it. This wouldn’t necessarily be the case, however, given surrounding gravitational forces and energy that exist around all galaxies.

There’s no reason to assume a big crunch would be the inevitable fate of our universe, assuming special relativity causes the expansion rather than an unknown mysterious dark energy, for which there would have to be an unimaginable amount if it were the cause. Gravity doesn’t win the tug of war battle with energy in stars that result in supernovas, and centrifugal forces can last forever, even around super massive black holes. On top of this, we humans can come up with matter saving ideas and technology as well. Our universe can last forever, even if it’s not expanding the way Hubble proposed, (and if special relativity is causing the expansion it wouldn’t be, as from a relativistic standpoint distances between objects wouldn’t actually increase, and as explained above the gravity holding them together would also remain unchanged. This theory does, therefore, suggest that Hubble, despite his brilliance, was fooled by the constant, never changing speed of light).

This not only explains expansion without the need for dark energy, but it also means the universe can have a center, (as it would have to if it were finite in size, as the big bang theory would certainly indicate), but because of the effects of special relativity on our perception of the universe the center would be impossible to find. Furthermore the center would be unimportant. Unlike the centers of galaxies, which tend to possess super massive blackholes around which the stars rotate, the center of the universe would merely be a random speck somewhere in space of meaningless value. Its only significance would be that it represents the location at which the universe is believed to have begun.

Einstein never grasped why the universe was expanding, but he also apparently never discussed the opposite of warped space either. If space can stretch, it can also wrinkle. While pursuant to both special and general relativity space will unstretch as well, why not presume further that it could expand after returning to its natural, unobstructed status, (assuming there is one). Under the circumstances we know of regarding our universe, this would seem to be the expected nature of space. Not only would this explain the expanding universe, it also unifies the small with the big. By that I mean quantum mechanics and general relativity. This was also something Einstein never accomplished. He never applied his theory of general relativity to the world of elementary particles, yet according to IMAC theory it fits beautifully with this world as well. As far as I'm concerned Einstein's proof for general relativity is proof for IMAC theory also. It makes logical sense. If everything is nothing, as Einstein’s most famous equation, time dilations, and indications of equal amounts of matter and antimatter within the universe clearly indicates, and space is nothing, or stretched nothing, then it’s reasonable to conclude that matter is made up of space. And since Einstein has proven that space will stretch as a gravitational pull increases, and relax as the gravitational pull decreases, it can be concluded that different degrees of compaction or expansion of space should exist within matter.

IMAC Theory goes further, however, by explaining why space is warped. It's not just because of the presence of matter within space, but the presence of space within that matter. If the space within that matter is stretched, the space around it is as well, and vice versa. This could very well explain why space apparently remains warped, and doesn’t return to a natural, unwarped form quickly, as water would do after being obstructed with an intruding object of matter. Locked warped space within matter, which doesn’t annihilate quickly for reasons stated in chapter four, won’t allow it to. The tiny imbalance that causes gravity is the result of an anticorrelation that will be explained in chapter six, but for now just understand that the stretchable, and compactible fabric of space, proven by Einstein, is the most fundamental element of IMAC Theory.

Getting back to the elastic feature of space, a balanced space by an equal amount of stretch and wrinkle would be the favored appearance of space. 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 flat 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.

As will be described in subsequent chapters, this nature appears to be what causes the laws of physics. A little off topic, but to go even further in analyzing its potential relation to the origins of everything, it also appears to be associated with the existence of life. Objects of matter, however, appear to oppose this nature once they’ve broken free from the laws of physics and constitute living organisms. The three primary instincts associated with living organisms, to reproduce, socialize, and survive, can really be merged into one general instinct to conserve energy, and thereby prevent the decay and annihilation of matter. It might be a safe assumption to conclude that matter possesses this living instinct even before it becomes characterized as living, but merely lacks the muscle to express it. Regardless, these two opposing natures appear to constitute a theory of everything, although why matter seems to do the opposite as space is less clear.

I would suggest, however, that as one possible explanation, what seems to be an opposing nature is actually a supporting nature. By this I mean that conserving energy requires feeding on energy, which eventually turns matter back into energy, which is exactly what space wants. As described in the previous chapter, the more energy matter feeds on, the more like energy it becomes. Chapter six presents the further notion that when relativistic mass increases to the multiple of C2 from mass at rest, it converts entirely back into energy. Thus, where matter is created its nature is to convert back into energy as quickly as possible, whether that be through physics or through the process we call life.

Through physics the process of converting into energy could be left up to radioactive decay, which could take many septillions of years, thus, the nature of life could actually be quicker. In other words, for living organisms to lose the will to survive could actually slow the process of converting back into energy down. It sounds ironic to claim that the nature of life isn’t to prevent annihilation, but to seek it, but it seems to be at least a possibility, although nature may be flawed in that the amount of energy needed to annihilate entirely would be nearly impossible to achieve. This anomaly could backfire on nature, causing matter to exist potentially for eternity, which I doubt many intelligent living organisms would consider a bad thing. Although, from a realistic standpoint, as mortals it really doesn’t matter. There’s nothing much more we can do but trust our instincts, including our will to survive. However, if such were proven to be the case it may cause intelligent living organisms to think twice about eating again.

A theory that might sound better to intelligent living organisms is the suggestion that in our universe intelligent life is inevitable, considering Drake’s Equation. Given that matter is merely the combination of positive and negative particles, such as up quarks, down quarks, and electrons, to consider these particles equal proportions of matter and antimatter, together constituting nothing, the only way to ensure that nothing in such form is never disrupted would be to ensure that matter never vanishes entirely by way of annihilation or radioactive decay. Thus, life is necessary to prevent this result, which would appear to be inevitable without it, and to ensure that the state of nothing that the universe constitutes remains constant. I say inevitable because, even if the universe goes on expanding, and nuclear fusion in stars someday ceases, leaving only cold and lonely matter, the atoms that make up that matter are slowly decaying, and will completely vanish someday, many, many trillions of years from now, if something isn’t done to prevent this. Thus, the instincts that characterize life become a necessity. Intelligent living organisms are capable of figuring out ways of preventing this seemingly inevitable fate.

In rejecting notions that seem to constitute essential parts of evolution, such as war, and racism, as many modern day humans do, it seems intelligent species have generally already risen above the nature that agnostics like me believe created us, and in ways have become gods over our own creator, yet by this theory that would be exactly what nature intended. And while considering the instincts that define life just more laws of physics, and the matter that makes up living organisms simply the matter in which those laws perform, might sound a bit offensive to life in general, unless we conclude we were created by a deity, the existence for which there is zero good evidence, and only contrary evidence when considering the regular dangers we face and tragedies that occur in the world we live in, (although faith can still justify it for the religious folks out there whom I respect), we have to somehow logically explain why we’re here based on what we know really does exist. I think this is about as logical an explanation one can possibly derive at. And to me personally, concluding that we might be designated by nature as the guardians of the universe doesn’t sound half bad.

Such a theory sounds just as scientifically sound as the former theory, and would also enable people to continue looking fondly at their dinner plates, as it gives a meaning to life in maintaining the above-referenced eternal balancing act of nature. It also means we might be relatively new to this universe, and can possibly continue on forever, while migrating to millions of different galaxies while figuring out appropriate ways to control nature and physics in ways we never dreamed possible so far. For the above reasons I personally like it much better than the former theory. This is deeper than I was planning to get, but I think it was at least worth noting in a book with the theory of everything included in its title. The topic of life won’t be discussed any further in this book, as it’s not relevant to the primary thesis.





CHAPTER THREE

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 canceling each other out to equal nothing are eternally occurring. To envision this, imagine stretching a bungee 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 bungee 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 canceling 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 canceling 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 led 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 canceled 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 canceled 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 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 to 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 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.




CHAPTER FOUR

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 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 to 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 an 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 +⅔ 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 wavelengths, 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.




CHAPTER FIVE

GRAVITY AND IMAC THEORY

PART ONE


Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is an amazing and elegant law of attraction explaining gravity, building on, and in some ways replacing the former notions of the gravitational force inspired by his predecessors in physics. After studying this theory to an in-depth level of understanding I can't imagine any concept that would severely undermine its veracity. The evidence that the presence generated from massive objects warps space, the same way an accelerating object of matter warps space, as GR proposes seems as compelling today is the evidence indicating the Earth is round. “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 it sounds immensely incomplete to assert that warped space is responsible for all recorded gravitational behavior. The force that pulls bodies of matter together isn't thoroughly explained by simply stating the space is warped, so the objects attract each other. Warped space needs to be explained. Why is it warped?How does being warped lead to objects attracting each other? Is there a more detailed explanation than the mere presence of matter within space for the influences behind the most widely observed force in the universe? 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). They're the examples where one sets a bowling ball, or a marble on a trampoline to demonstrate what warped space resembles. 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 objects on top of stretchable fabric. 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, to assert that the presence of matter within space alone causes adequate warping to not only influence the paths, and the velocities of other bodies of matter, but to tug other bodies of matter together would be seemingly incorrect. Einstein proved that warped space influences the paths of star light as well, 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 for objects not under a relatively tremendous gravitational influence, (where there’s a large amount of warped space, the time and space elements with which Einstein amended the gravitational laws become undeniably relevant). Newton's gravitational law 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 mostly of 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 super massive black holes, where it’s believed little to no space gaps between particles exist. “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, unless space exists within matter, a concept Einstein apparently never entertained. Unless such is the case, as IMAC theory proposes, 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 the warping of space is part of gravity, as Einstein so elegantly proved, but it goes further to demonstrate that the warping is caused by a tiny surplus of force created by the opposing anomalies of stretched and compacted space. While equal amounts of stretched and compressed space coming together should leave space in its natural, non-warped volume, an anticorrelation caused by the sharing of energy among particles proposed by IMAC Theory gives rise to an attracting force that slightly outweighs the repelling force. This surplus leaves a stretch in the fabric of space, and it can be described as gravity. This will be better explained in the next chapter. This stretch would explain how a massless object, like a ray of light, could bend when moving past an object of matter. The stretch results in less space per given volume, meaning less distance for the light to travel through.

It's also worth noting on this topic that it's a fact that if you take C² x C² multiplied by the divisible of the portions of the elementary particles’ mass within an neutron that reflect said particles’ total charge according to IMAC Theory measured in electron volts, and 10.2 you get the difference between the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Why is this significant? This will also be thoroughly explained in the next chapter. Finally, describing gravity from the perspective of the quantum world this way also explains why gravity moves in waves through space, which 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 cease 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 satisfactorily explain the mystery. 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 have 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 its 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 often 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 the 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 cubic feet per cubed foot), and a cubed yard were compressed into a cubed foot, (giving 27 cubic 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, proper