As of 2023.06.06 this paper is also available as a book, however, it is at this point, outdated.

Nature of observables

A complete relativity in all phenomena, with relative scale invariance in physical laws, is postulated and discussed.

Postulates are followed with definitions of new terms which may be used in the current and follow-up papers written in the context of the theory. In order to conform to this physics, a redefinition and generalization of some terms and factors already in use have also been presented. This is followed by hypotheses on nature and mechanics of natural phenomena, based on the postulates of the theory, along with suggestions on the formulation of scale invariant physics. In conclusion, the theory suggests that everything must be completely relative in order to exist and everything must evolve in order to conserve this relativity.

There's nothing abstract about physical reality. Therefore, the best approach to understand nature is to combine and balance the power of mathematical language with experience and observation on all scales of energy and in the process approach problems from different perspectives, rather than limit interpretation to that of a mathematician, physicist or a biologist. Increasing complexity of mathematical language, for example, might make equations more elegant but beyond certain point it becomes harder to understand their correlation with physical processes, as elegance is neither abstract nor absolute in reality. Specialization, combined with religion (eg. belief in absolute elegance), will create illusion. Illusion of understanding and illusion of knowledge. Here, the aim is simply to understand nature as much as possible. The theory is the result of research, experience, observation, computation and logic that followed and confirmed strong intuition suggesting that overly non-intuitive, abstract and absolute reality is just an interpretation chosen, consciously or unconsciously, by a biased observer and it cannot be absolutely correct. In this, and follow-up papers, I provide foundations, details and evidence for the theory.

While complete understanding of the theory will require deeper focus and understanding of equations, the essentials and foundations of the theory should be understandable to any inquisitive mind.
It should be noted that even I find myself scratching my head at times when revisiting works such as this one, mainly because at the time of writing I was in a very different state of
mind. Therefore, a reader should not be discouraged if some information seem confusing, out of place or hard to grasp, it may be my fault - I wrote this primarily for my self as I was trying to
understand everything and, although I did have it in mind during rewrites, presentation to the world was always just an option to consider. I am deeply dissatisfied with this world and perhaps my
work doesn't belong here just as I feel I do not. However, as such I'm unlikely alone, so here it is, a discovery any non-biased mind trying to understand nature should find valuable. I do update
my works in cycles, in the process resolving issues and adding details. Thus, any inconsistencies and *fuzzy* paragraphs should be converging to zero over time. At this
point (December 2023), I feel the peak of updates has passed and the paper has matured into a work of considerable quality, and understandable to wider public.

Here are the postulates of Complete Relativity (CR). They are all

Small update in *Everything is relative* postulate. Added *Finite energy* chapter in graviton definition.

$\displaystyle \Delta E <> 0$

No system can be completely isolated at all scales of energy. Everything existing must be absorbing and radiating energy at some scale at any time, but never in such proportions enabling non-zero possibility for absolute invariance of that phenomenon in time/space. Maintenance of relative constancy requires energy.$\displaystyle \Delta E \neq \infty$

There is no single, absolute and infinite universe (
One could argue that the sum of all universes is infinite and that sum is a single absolute entity. However, such *Universe* is absolutely unobservable. In CR, all existence
has to be relative and thus observable at some scales, unobservable at other scales.
Infinities and zeros as absolute values are mathematical abstractions - in reality they must be relative, as any other value. This implies relatively simultaneous existence of energy at different scales of space/time.

Any physical entity having absolute properties would have to be absolutely isolated in order for these properties to remain constant. With no ability to
change (exchange energy) such absolutely elementary entities would be unobservable. Thus, relativity is an intrinsic property of reality.
Any distinct form of energy may be considered as an universe, however, in the framework of CR, universe will generally represent a particular scale of energy. These are discrete (stable) vertical
energy levels for relatively elementary particles (called gravitons in CR). Any form of energy thus *belongs* to a universe of the scale of largest graviton(s) coupled to (or, highly entangled
with) the system. Gravitons, however, can be [relatively] naked or uncoupled. Energies of the same scale may be considered as instances of the same universe, but, generally these should be
considered as horizontally parallel universes as no two instances are absolutely equivalent at any time (physical constants are relative, oscillate and will be different between the
instances, even if these differences may not be generally resolvable).

As transfer and transformation of energy require capacity for energy storage, structural quanta of any medium must have real size.
- Every universe must be divisible - contained within a larger universe and contain universes of smaller scale,
- reality containing these universes must be, spatially, at least 3-dimensional,
- universes of different magnitude (vertically parallel universes) are self-similar but evolutionary dominantly separated (and entangled) in time,
- instances of a universe (horizontally parallel universes) are dominantly entangled in space,
- instances can acquire energy beyond the potential or rest energy of the associated level, but values between discrete energy levels are generally unstable and instances in between will generally evolve toward one or the other stable level.

Note that speed of transformation is proportional to speed of transfer of energy at some scale. Therefore, time has a physical interpretation at some scale - ageing of phenomena is strongly
correlated with transfer of quanta of energy at some scale, and these quanta may be interpreted as carriers of change or carriers of time.
Note also that transformation can occur at different scales, hence, multiple time dimensions exist with different speeds of information (energy) transfer (generally inversely proportional to scale).
It seems that 4-dimensional manifolds (at least) should be used for any scale of energy, however, relatively scale invariant framework can be constructed in which, either units will depend
on scale (scalable metric) or dimensional *constants* will be scale dependent.

- relatively the same energy relatively oscillates between relative existence and relative non-existence,
- oscillation between vertical energy levels generally involves transformation of scale and exchange between angular momentum components (m,v,r),
- scales of relative invariance of physical laws are discrete, with exponential progression and may be separated by multiple orders of magnitude.

I argue that causality is a special case of synchronization between correlated entities and can be violated on any scale. This is required by CR.

Proper solution in complete relativity is general correlation of past and future states which may be locally
Note that distance between past and future is relative. And distance between phenomena is never absolute 0. Every interaction is a relative interaction and is the manifestation of
synchronization - correlation in space and/or time. Causality is simply biased (polarized) interpretation of synchronicity at particular scale.
All interactions or forces in nature depend on distance and all involve correlation. This suggests that distance should be generalized to distance in correlation.
To conserve relativity (existence), forces cannot be exclusively attractive or repulsive and strength of force will sometimes be proportional, sometimes inversely proportional to distance.
Note also that non-existence of absolute 0 distances together with non-existence of absolute point sources of energy (field source, or maximum, is not at the centre rather at a non-zero distance
from it), fixes a common issue in physics - appearance of infinities, usually discarded
in an arbitrary way using a technique called *renormalization* (which often probably could be translated as, more or less educated, guesswork).

Update in *Everything is relative* postulate.

Note that exotic matter hypothesis (at least by current interpretations) simply doesn't match observations - eg. *cold* dark matter halos within galaxies should slow down the rotation of
galactic bars but the expected slowdown is not there.
There are
other problems too.
These can all be solved through decoupling of space and matter, allowing different densities of space within the galaxy. Equivalent exotic matter here may generally
be *hot* but transforming to *cold* with coupling, not absolutely free-streaming, rather *orbiting* about the galactic centre as *static* particles [forming
galactic space].

Multiple interpretations and multiple solutions are common in nature. This problem is no exception. Suppose that everything exists [relatively] simultaneously on different scales - a bigger sphere
can then be relatively contained within a smaller one if the smaller one has its identical copy on some larger scale.
Note that, if everything must be relative, location and scale of existence must be too, therefore, everything should exist on different scales. This explains self-similarity of universes and
suggests that planetary systems such as the Solar System are likely not only similar to atoms (certainly not by coincidence) - they might correspond to specific atoms in relatively
equivalent (properly scaled) conditions (pressure/temperature). From some reference frames this may be interpreted as a change in discrete vertical energy level - they have been inflated from
standard atoms.

Note that, since existence is relative, existence of containment must be relative, so there also must exist a reference frame in which one cannot tell which sphere is contained within the other.
When integrated over time, such state may be interpreted as superposition or fusion of different states (spheres), while its derivative in space is an entirely new sphere (a chimera of multiple
states).
Unless one accepts the notion of multi-scale existence, it might seem that relativity of containment is generally not conserved, even in time. Consider the example of a chicken in an egg - there is
no apparent oscillation, chicken may be growing inside the egg and will eventually get bigger than the egg but the egg is not getting smaller and is at no point inside the chicken.
However, another kind of relativity can solve the problem - the egg was once inside the adult chicken. This means there must exist a reference frame relative to which there is no distinction between
the two chickens (relativity of identity). Such reference frame does exist and is enabled by the finite resolution (scale) of information carrier particles.
Effectively, both the chicken and the egg are oscillating over time. With absolute containment nothing would be able (required) to grow or decay - neither chicken nor any other universe, with relative
containment everything must grow or decay (or oscillate between the two).
Complete relativity and its conservation in reality is what makes everything possible.

Apparently, both GR and QM allow [or are at least partially based on] the existence of an absolute rest frame [correlated] with constant speed Any absolute constant is an absolute reference frame. The more absolutism there is in the description of reality, the more illusionary it becomes. This description may be satisfactory
for spatially and temporally limited observers, but even in such, at times evolution may introduce observable discrepancies which will require *recalibration* of supposed absolutism.

Assumptions like that make GR absolutely non-relative and in QM produce many non-intuitive phenomena in space which would otherwise be completely understandable. Even space in GR is
non-intuitive in common interpretation - it has
Note that conservation of quantum entanglement requires relative isolation, or non-transformation, of energy. If the state of a particle doesn't change, its speed in time is 0. Therefore, distance
between two entangled particles in time remains the same (relative 0) even if they are separated in space. Such particles obviously must share a time dimension, and in CR, that is a physical
dimension on some scale. Strength of entanglement here is then proportional to correlation in time.
However, there are no physical point particles in reality, therefore, distance in physical reality is not 1-dimensional, it's volumetric. Thus, correlating volumetric distance with entanglement, with
increasing distance in space, the cross-section of time dimension between two particles is shrinking in the middle but the volume (volumetric distance) remains constant.

Wave/particle duality with a change of scale (collapse/inflation of entangled quanta) also becomes intuitive, and a reasonable explanation of quantum tunnelling.
The scale of time entangled with the scale of standard atoms may generally be the scale of standard photons, however, it is not impossible for entangled scales of space and time to be of the
same order of magnitude from some reference frames (eg. entanglement of a positron and electron).
Note that speed in space is limited by the specific scale entanglement (it is now obvious that annihilation of matter and anti-matter must involve a change of scale) - due to relativity in
density and pressure of space, speed limits will depend on [the scale of] particle energy (the experience of space, or sensitivity to particular energy quanta, is different for gravitons of
different scale).
Energy of larger scale is, of course, generally composed of energy of smaller scale. Here, however, one must distinguish between *living* and *dead* bodies. If the collective of
smaller scale energy is coupled to a graviton of larger scale the body is considered *living* and the speed limit for that body is different (generally smaller) than the speed limit for
individual constituent particles. If the collective is not coupled to a large scale graviton, the body is *dead* and its speed limit is equal to the speed limit of individual constituent
particles (this body is also generally less stable than the *living* body).
Superluminal particles must exist at some smaller scale, however, as noted before, observers are always limited in resolution and may not be able to directly detect them.
However, collapse of quantum entanglement (superposition of states) in one interpretation involves collapse and contraction of time dimensions between particles and speed of that contraction
then inevitably becomes superluminal at some distance in space. This is then indirect observation of superluminal transfer of information, even though, in some contexts contraction of time could
be interpreted as contraction of space and from that reference frame information may be at rest.

If space is real, there is no reason for intrinsic coupling of matter and space curvature, therefore a reference frame must exist where there is no such coupling -
One might argue that the existence of physical space has been disproved with experiments, however, that is not the
case - various interpretations of aether have been disproved. While
space in CR has some similarities with, what was originally called, aether, it is not the same phenomenon. One could consider the space in CR to have the same geometry as
space in GR, however, with part of the energy of curvature in real density and pressure of space, instead of all energy being attributed to matter, making space nothing more than non-intuitive
abstract geometry (completely and absolutely flat with absence of matter).
There are other differences though and GR requires modifications to become completely relative even if energy of space is attributed to exotic matter (eg. implementation of
scale-dependent *constants* or scale-dependent metric).

If space has energy, then energy between matter and space (or, generally, energy between one scale and the other) can be exchanged. The mechanism for this exchange is generally annihilation of
energies. Annihilation, in general, may be interpreted as
Note that this could be stated differently - a reference frame must exist in which an form of energy (observable) has angular momentum. This then implies that the observable universe is
rotating, even though the centre of that rotation may be outside of it.

Capacitance of space allows transfer of momentum, but also its conservation. Any mass (energy) at relative rest is a conserved momentum in form of local spin momenta. The rest energy is thus
locally conserved kinetic energy and a reference frame must exist relative to which the energy is in motion.
Individual momenta may entangle to form larger structures, and with enough energy, fuse to form larger momenta. Since momenta are quantized not every momentum is stable, and
even the stable ones are only relatively stable with a difference in decay rates.
Obviously, rest mass is relative and will not be absolutely equal even between individual particles of the same species.
$\displaystyle \propto {1 \over r^n} \propto {\Delta E \over E}$

where
Note that entanglement can be effectively invariant to distance in space if entanglement is physically manifested in time and [volumetric] distance in time (which, in some contexts, may be
interpreted as distance in evolution) remains unchanged (eg. if the observer cannot differentiate between entangled photons, distance in time is effectively 0 and so the information
transfer, occurring with changes in entanglement, will effectively be infinitely fast).
Also note that the strength of entanglement is relative and can be asymmetric (**E** may be different between entangled bodies, as well as **ΔE**). Entanglement strength is never
absolute zero, but it is variable and non-resolvable amounts may be interpreted as relative zero amounts.

Strong entanglement is established when it becomes physically impossible for an observer to disturb the proportionality of
Here, state generally refers to scale relative pressure (or temperature) and density, which generally differ between vertical energy levels.
Temperature and density on standard scale are proportional to kinetic energy and density of standard atoms, respectively, on a higher vertical energy level this may be kinetic energy and density
of planetary systems, on a lower energy level energy and density of photons.

Universes are self-similar, however, the values of Added postulate *Hidden variables always exist*.

It should be noted that intuition too must be relative. If common intuition (eg. one involving hidden variables) cannot be observed, it is valid to conceptualize non-intuitive reality (and declare this non-intuition as
natural or intuitive from some reference frame), however, one cannot claim such reality is absolute - there are always possibilities for different interpretations.

One other concept problematic for common intuition is the concept of spinors, or generally, algebra not correlated with geometry, or, not correlated with Here are the definitions of terms and expressions that may be used here and other papers and articles in CR context.

Note that these may be different than standard or common definitions in use. Some contain important details and additional hypotheses. Therefore, I would not recommend skipping them, even if the reader
aims to consult them as needed.

$\displaystyle F = {d \over dt} p = {d \over dt} (m v) = m a = G {{M m} \over r^2}$

$\displaystyle F_1 = m_1 a_2 = m_1 {{m_2 G} \over r^2} = m_2 a_1 = m_2 {{m_1 G} \over r^2} = F_2$

Here, forces acting on bodies
Note that in both cases action/reaction is instantaneous, so even in Newton's gravity distance between the sources is effectively 0 for whatever is mediating the force, only the 1st order
sources of interaction differ.
In Complete Relativity there are no absolute zero and infinite distances, thus every action is action at a distance which may only relatively be equal (set) to 0.
If gravitational entanglement is understood as physical entanglement at some scale and it is never absolutely zero between two bodies one can understand why are the forces acting apparently
instantaneously - particles mediating the force are constantly streaming between two bodies (forming subspace in space, which may be interpreted as another dimension, eg. time). So even though they
are travelling at finite speed (which in GR would have to be the *speed of light* c if these particles are massless) the action appears instantaneous. Changes in gravity at
sources, however, obviously propagate at the speed of carrier particles of that change.
These particles are not absolutely massless, so they too are sources of force and are mutually entangled. At appropriate density they form a medium enabling wavelike transfer of
information (energy). The wave can be considered massless relative to the medium (energy is stored in temporarily excited quanta of the medium), however, quanta of *excitement* are not
massless and are also mutually entangled.
Since wavelike behaviour of energy is synchronized excitation of quanta of smaller scale energy, a wave of energy can be considered as superposition in time (distance between entangled quanta in
time is relative 0). Then, if momentum is disturbed, this superposition in time can, partially or fully (in case of strong entanglement), collapse to superposition in space as well (distance between
entangled quanta in space also becomes equal to relative 0).
In GR however, space is not quantized - no constituent quanta (gravity carrying particles) of spacetime are defined (geometry is not interpreted as physical).

The two bodies have an effect on space (and vice versa) but they also affect, albeit indirectly in GR, each other.
In CR, with applied scale invariance, it is obvious that even the interaction between quanta of space and quanta of bodies must also be an action at a distance, albeit this
distance is orders of magnitude shorter than distance between the bodies (without applied scale invariance on distance) and may be considered infinitesimal.
The sources of force of action and reaction are thus relative to scale - measuring on larger scale it may be more appropriate to attribute the sources to bodies, while on lower scale the quanta
of space may be interpreted as such.
From a 3rd perspective one may consider the action between a force carrier particle in space (even if it is a bound
Causality is a relative illusion, created by high synchronicity (correlation strength in space/time) of events.

The relativity of sources (force carriers) and distances has an important consequence on the law of action and reaction - it should be generalized:
$\displaystyle \int\limits_{t=0}^T \Bigl[\vec{F_1}(t) + \vec{F_2}(t)\Bigr] dt = 0 \tag{1.1}$

Instantaneous action and reaction is thus a special case of action and reaction impulses, where the period of energy oscillation T is compressed to an instant - a single elementary quantum of time (dt = T):$\displaystyle \vec{F_1} + \vec{F_2} = 0$

Note the equivalence of distance in time and space of different scales - in the 1st order interaction (GR) distance in space is 0, while in the 2nd order interaction (Newton) distance in
time is 0. Increase of distance in space between two bodies at 2nd order scale proportionally increases the distance in time at 1st order scale.
Also note that, although not required, it is not forbidden for action and reaction to be simultaneous, nor it is forbidden for reaction to precede action, allowing relativity of cause and
effect - something that is, with absolutely invariant **c** (speed of information transfer), forbidden in GR, but required in CR.
In CR thus, causality is not absolutely fundamental nor intrinsic - it could be understood as a result of force, relatively emerging (or evolving) between correlated (entangled) phenomena
decreasing distance in space and/or time. However, proper interpretation is that causality is simply localization of synchronization (synchronicity) of events in a polarized reference frame.
Violation of [absolute] causality will exist on all scales of energy, but amount will differ between the scales. However, the amount has to oscillate too and will correlate with changes in
polarization of space (ie. electro-magnetic).

The equation (1.1) is equivalent to momentum pulse (energy) reflection:
$\displaystyle \int\limits_{t=0}^T \Bigl[\vec{F_1}(t) + \vec{F_2}(t)\Bigr] dt = \int\limits_{t=0}^T \Bigl[{d\vec{p_1} \over dt} + {d\vec{p_2} \over dt}\Bigr] dt = \int\limits_{t=0}^T \Bigl[d\vec{p_1} + d\vec{p_2}\Bigr] = \vec{p_1} + \vec{p_2} = 0$

With
The *original* action may be the reaction to action from a 3rd body in which case the source returns to equilibrium after the action and the body may be interpreted as
simply the energy conductor (momentum carrier).
In reference frames where force of reaction is absent, the interaction may be more appropriately described through conservation of momentum:

$\displaystyle p_1 + p_2 = C$

Note also that, even if all energy must oscillate, this is never absolutely identical energy - never will absolutely the same body experience the reaction (zero in equations above is also a relative zero).
Note that states in superposition are correlated (entangled).
Note also, if *observation* involves changes in vertical energy levels (scales of energy) the system may conserve its [relative] value (superposition) in the transition and may remain
in that state on the new scale. This is a consequence of effective time dilation and exchange of nature of potential between scales - unstable (or *forbidden*) states on
one scale may be physically stable on another scale. However, even in that case, some states (values) will generally have larger probabilities than other.

Note that, here, difference between vertical energy levels is generally such that physical constants differ significantly in value. The equations for determination of these levels are provided later.
For example, one vertical energy level represents the scale of standard atoms, the other represents the scale of planetary systems.
Note also that, even though these levels are considered discrete, the values of physical *constants* anywhere still should oscillate and may even differ horizontally (between systems of similar
scale), however, such differences are probably generally negligible (although may be detectable).

$cU_{n.m} = cU(n.m)$

**n** = vertical energy level (scale) of the universe (0 = reference universe)**m** = scale of the (horizontal) sub-universe**c** ∈ {-, +}**n** ∈ ℤ**m** ∈ ℤ

$L = m v r$

where$L = \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n L_i$

$\displaystyle {d \over dx_i} = a_1 f\bigl(\omega_1 \left(x_i + {\phi}_1\right)\bigr) \Bigl[1 + a_2 f\bigl(\omega_2 \left(x_i + {\phi}_2\right)\bigr) \Bigl[1 + a_3 f\bigl(\omega_3 \left(x_i + {\phi}_3\right)\bigr) \Bigl[1 + ...\Bigr] \Bigr] \Bigr]$

f = oscillating function

a_{j} = amplitude of j^{th} order oscillation

ω_{j} = frequency of j^{th} order oscillation

φ_{j} = phase shift of j^{th} order oscillation

$\displaystyle f_x = {1 \over T_x} = {1 \over {\Delta T_1 + \Delta T_0}}$

where ΔT
Polarized humans tend to discriminate between living and non-living *things* based on convenience. I do not and I do not think nature generally does. I believe any collective of energies coupled to
a graviton of larger scale is not only alive but conscious to certain degree - large scale graviton here being the carrier of that consciousness or at least required for its emergence. It is only
the amount (or detection) of consciousness and its introversion/extroversion ratio that will depend on a reference frame.
And if energies are oscillating between vertical energy levels (in the process, weakly or strongly evolving/transforming) the question of what evolved from what becomes relative (it must be
relative in CR). It is then valid to say that atoms evolve from complex forms of life, just like vice versa is valid from conventional reference frames. Note that here, in case of progressive
evolution and complex life of our scale, atoms represent planetary systems - even if, obviously, they are only relative equivalents to standard atoms in special states or at specific
times. Here and in follow up papers, I hypothesize and provide evidence that planetary systems are vertically excited atoms.
All this, however, does not imply complex life forms on Earth will evolve into celestial bodies - among other things, this would require enormous amounts of energy and that energy here is simply
not available. Humans will thus reach a peak (some may have reached it already) and perhaps even start evolving regressively to the atoms of smaller scale. Obviously, these peaks are different
for different species. Whales probably represent the maximum peak reachable on Earth.
Oscillations and fluctuations are relative and will not be apparent in all reference frames. Sometimes, energy will be observed as a pulse or a relatively non-changing (weakly evolving) phenomenon.
Oscillations can also be disturbed and fragmented.
It is, however, not hard to observe energy in the form of a human being as a pulse of energy growing from conception to a maximum then decaying until death and dissolving after it. Note, that no
form of energy grows from nothing or decays to nothing. Growth is synchronized with defragmentation or accumulation while decay is synchronized with fragmentation or dissipation of energy.
As gravitons oscillate in energy they will also oscillate inter-species. The coupling of gravitons with human bodies is explored in more details in follow-up works (including even
evidence for it). Universes are self-similar (which stems from complete relativity) and this is why the frequency of existence applies to what we perceive as particles from our perspective and to
what we perceive as human beings as well.

This is commonly formulated as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
**ℏ** is interpreted as an absolute constant, or, if dimensional units of components are not scalable, the interpretation is limited to a particular scale of space.
Per CR postulates, there can be no absolute point particles, thus, *volumetric* position in reality is not limited to waves and large scale objects.

Relativistic uncertainty is:
$\sigma_x \sigma_y \ge {1 \over 2} \hbar$

However, if$\sigma_x \sigma_y \ge {1 \over 2} {\hbar}_n$

${\hbar}_n > 0$

where$\displaystyle {\lim_{n \to -\infty} {\sigma_x \sigma_y}} = 0$,

In conventional quantum theory (QM) [virtual] particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, which is$\displaystyle \Delta E \Delta t \ge h $

should then be [roughly] interpreted as:$\displaystyle \Delta(m v^2) \Delta t = \Delta (m v^2) \Delta({{2\pi r} \over v}) = \Delta(m v) \Delta s = \Delta p \Delta r \ge \hbar$

Exchange of angular velocity$\displaystyle m = {m_0 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over c^2}}}$

By the equation, at speed
Speed **c** is also considered to be the speed of massless particles in QM. However, standard *massless* particles will also slow significantly below **c** in strong gravitational
potential (although local observer would measure no slowdown as units of distance are decreased proportionally).

Also, constituent quanta of space are of particular scale and not all scales of energy are equally sensitive to these (pressure/density of space is relative), thus, speed
Although momenta in a universe will be inevitably limited, in CR, **c** cannot be an absolute constant. Even if **c** is interpreted as proportional to the ratio of units of distance in space
and time and these units scale with geometry (as in GR) conserving that ratio, the geometry itself must be relative.

Absolute infinity is an insurmountable problem for reality. This is why every observer (reference frame) must be limited. For any observer thus there exist limits to
existence (observable energy) - maximum and minimum size of observable phenomena. As the limits are relative, they are also variable, but cannot ever become absolutely infinite (which is even
mathematically obvious - for any number there is a bigger number).
Generally, real graviton may be considered as an elementary particle, while effective graviton as composed of real gravitons of smaller scale.

The force (curvature in some interpretations) is greatest in a real graviton and generally decreases exponentially with distance of effective gravitons from the real one.
Generally, graviton in its ground state may be interpreted as a rotating torus-shaped region of space at some scale. The associated well of gravitational potential may be considered its
In CR, everything must have an angular momentum from some reference frames. This is a consequence of intrinsic rotation of space on all scales.

Its exact shape depends on electric charge and spin momentum (which may be quantized from some reference frames). Relativistic momenta may further distort the shape of a graviton. However, shape and
distribution of mass of a graviton generally depends on its excitation state (quantum numbers) and how well it is localized. Travelling as a wave, its mutually entangled mass will be distributed
over larger regions (and may be interpreted as wave-like excitation of existing
Physics of a theory of everything cannot be reserved for particles and their interactions at specific scale. From certain reference frames, even living beings are particles, and vice versa.
Distinction between living and non-living forms of energy is very relative and physics will necessarily merge with biology in a successful attempt to understand the universes (because nature is not
reductionistic).
In follow-up papers I hypothesize that real graviton is, considering its nature, also a quantum of consciousness and I find it appropriate to use the term "soul" as its synonym. As complex
bodies evolve from *simple* particles (although what evolves from what is in CR, with relative causality, relative), the souls evolve as well. Thus, what is described here may be
interpreted as a simple or *elementary* graviton, its complex form may be interpreted as a relative superposition and localization of smaller scale gravitons just like the complex bodies
may be interpreted as relative superposition and localization of smaller scale components. Forces or interactions evolve as well, from *elementary* ones to complex ones. Thus, what is
interpreted as simple gravitational or electro-magnetic force between two gravitons on *elementary* scale, may be more complex between complex gravitons. The standard nuclear strong force
is an example of such more complex force. In case of life-forms on the scale of animals on Earth, complex forces/interactions are mental forces/interactions between the souls whose components may
have billions of degrees of polarization (in these, associated spectrum of energy levels may be interpreted as continuous rather than discrete). Naturally, these mental interactions/forces are
stronger between strongly entangled souls, which can be interpreted as shorter distance in some dimension of space (including time), just like gravity is stronger for spatially closer bodies.

Chapter *Graviton: Physical interpretation* revised. Chapter *Gravitational well* updated.

Note that these couplings will generally result in change of momenta for **U**_{n-2} particles - exchange of orbital momenta for spin momenta (which may generally be interpreted as
mass inflation).

Graviton can be excited and exist on different vertical energy levels (scales), however, on some scales the neutral (gravitational) component may dominate, on others its nature may be dominantly electro-magnetic.
While real gravitons induce gradients in vacuum density (or space curvature), space inside of a real graviton from an internal reference frame may be globally flat with extremely low density
and temperature of [whatever is interpreted as] matter. However, high curvature should be present at the membrane, which then represents a source of extroverted gravity of a graviton.
While temperature and density are both low globally within the graviton, high temperatures and densities are possible and do exist on smaller scales. The particles may be in
condensed states and grouped into quantum vortices (galaxies).
The ground shape of a graviton is generally a torus, with an intrinsic spin momentum. This spin momentum is relatively quantized with
As a discrete quantum of space, graviton must have an effective membrane.
Note that it is relatively easy to maintain existing conditions inside the graviton, as accumulation of particles is extremely hard due to flat space and low-density of matter.
Any particle having a momentum perpendicular to the graviton may be accelerated inside (in most cases, the trajectory of the particle may be simply bent about the graviton surface), but will be
equally decelerated again, and will exit the graviton with the same momentum. Collisions will be hard even if existing and passing particles are of the same scale, but if existing particles are of
smaller scale (discrete vertical energy levels differ in energy by multiple orders of magnitude), accumulation becomes almost impossible. In that case, graviton is relatively
transparent (transparency is dependent on energy scale).
Note that polarization will be generally shaping a graviton into a *2-dimensional* ring, while neutralization is expanding it to a more spherical shape. To conserve
volume, expansion will be decreasing the thickness of a torus, converging to a *2-dimensional* sphere [surface].
Note also that conservation of that volume can also be interpreted as conservation of correlation between opposite sides of the membrane. If the symmetry of the membrane would increase, the
volume would decrease.
Recent analyses have
shown that the
shape of the local universe is consistent with that of a torus. Considering its characteristics, by the definition of a graviton here, the observable universe is likely a part of a [large scale] graviton.
If distances between galaxies (large scale quantum vortices) are increasing, this graviton is increasing its internal flatness and must be changing shape.

How is gravitational energy of a graviton exchanged with electro-magnetic energy in the transition between energy levels? Different interpretations are possible, but this should involve changes
in momenta. All components of graviton momenta are effectively exchangeable between vertical energy levels. Changes in vertical energy levels will probably generally involve annihilation of
particles on some scale as well as such events involve fast inflation and deflation of momenta components.
Since elementariness is relative, one can assume that the charge and spin magnetic momentum of an
Note that relativistic energy can have different interpretation between scales. Eg. interpretation of velocity may be effectively scale variant. On one scale, velocity, or difference in
velocity, generates mass (mass is relativistic), on the other it generates charge (charge is relativistic). High orbital velocity of standard quarks is considered to be the main contributor
to rest masses of standard protons. High orbital velocity of constituent particles of quarks and electrons may be the main contributor to their charges and spin magnetic momenta.

Charged gravitons, in addition to gravitational field Update in *Acquisition of matter* and *Static particle*.

- with inflation and coupling of an
**U**.space constituent_{n}**U**graviton with_{n-2}**U**particle, one graviton is shielding the other, energy relatively equal to energy of_{n-1}**U**particle is confined and there is no increase in gravity of the well with acquisition of_{n-1}**U**matter,_{n-1} - there is no shielding and total gravity of the well is increased with acquired matter.

Note that each graviton has finite capacity for coupling - number of constituent quanta is not infinite.
Note also that violation of energy conservation in case of shielding is relative - even though gravity may be unchanged (relatively) the total energy is conserved by compression (confinement) and
will be released with decoupling.

Since real graviton represents a maximum of gravitational potential it will form a discontinuity in the system. Electro-magnetic nature of a graviton will concentrate polarized matter in the
equatorial region, while neutral matter can start concentrating in the centre with collisions.
Coupling of standard matter (eg. standard atoms) with the gravitational well of a large scale graviton is the coupling of
If the whole observable universe is a part of a large scale graviton, galaxies and planetary systems may be the result of inflation and coupling of its constituent quanta. One of my hypotheses is
that at least one discontinuity (eg. between inner and outer core) of a planet represents the radius of a real graviton that has been inflated from the scale of a standard atom, or even a much
smaller scale.
For stars, I hypothesize multiple such gravitons in superposition. This is all further investigated in follow-up papers.

\ch_added

It appears that evidence
for this already exists.

This would also result in a transfer of energy from the ring (graviton) to the central body. If the orbital radius changes too then the process should also imply transfer of energy between different systems.
\ch_added

Graviton mass in ice-worlds (Neptunian planets), gas giants and stars is probably at least 1 order of magnitude higher than coupled real mass. In case of terrestrial worlds, vice versa is probably
true.

Another problem for conventional theories is the quick formation of large bodies, eg. supermassive black holes or galaxies in the early universe. Inflation and deflation (collapse) of gravitons
should be a relatively fast process and this can then explain any sudden and fast accumulation or concentration of mass, like fast collapse of formation discs - in case of formation of planetary
bodies, or early
appearance of supermassive black holes (for which real mass content, compared to graviton mass, could be negligible).
$\displaystyle F = \delta_{ij} {GMm \over {r^2}}$

$\displaystyle i = {{r - r_0} \over {\left| r - r_0 \right|}}, j = 1$

r_{0} = graviton radius

r = distance from graviton centre

δ_{ij} = Kronecker delta

Added definition for *Static particle*.

The tube may be considered as elementary quantum of continuous space, however, in reality it is a sum of constituent smaller tubes. The tube(s) may also be generally curved (entangled
particles may not be connected by the shortest path possible in flat geometry).
Consider magnetic field *lines* connecting opposite poles - if these are tubes of entanglement, they obviously do not follow shortest paths and may be compressed and expanded.
Of course, these may be shortest paths possible considering conditions on field formation and one can model entanglement of poles with geometry where these paths are shortest.

Chapter *Gravitational maximum* updated.

Note that multiple gravitons may be in relative superposition, where they spin about the same central region but with different (spatially separated) mass radii. This is then also a superposition
of gravitational wells, each having its own maximum. In these cases and in some contexts, gravitational maximum might represent a graviton with maximal mass (energy) of all the gravitons.
In equilibrium this will generally be the outermost graviton as lower energy gravitons with larger radii are less stable and are likely to collapse (localize) the wave-like (or cloud-like) spin to
orbital angular momentum (corpuscular orbit). Radius of a graviton will thus generally be proportional to its energy.
In some reference frames (contexts), separation between gravitons may be negligible and gravitational maximum will then represent a superposition of gravitons and their masses.
Note also that quantization is relative and for every graviton a reference frame exists in which that graviton is, not only a gravitational maximum, but relative superposition of gravitons of
smaller scale.

Energy of a gravitational maximum is proportional to the capacity of the associated gravitational well for coupling with matter.
Note that capacity is scale relative. The capacity of a **U**_{n} graviton for coupling with **U**_{n-1} mass may be full, but the capacity of **U**_{n-1} wells
for **U**_{n-2} mass may be not.
However, note that constituent quanta of space of a **U**_{n} graviton are **U**_{n-2} particles, exactly the mass scale the constituent particles of **U**_{n-1} wells
should couple with. Thus, the capacitances of different scale here are correlated (the coupling correlation is manifested as attractive force) and what is considered as a component of space in one
reference frame may be interpreted as acquired matter in another.

The question is what happens to wells at full capacity and can they be over-capacitated? This is related to the problem of dark matter and changes in energy levels, and is discussed later.
Note that for a hollow sphere of standard matter, gravity is cancelled at any point inside the sphere (*Shell theorem*). This is generally not the case for gravity inside a hollow sphere
of a naked graviton for a couple of reasons:
**r**, it is filled with effective gravitons relatively mirroring the gradient outside of the sphere.

Gradient of energy density in a naked gravitational well is a superposition of a gradient of mass (inversely proportional to range) of - gravitational potential cannot be absolutely the same everywhere on the sphere,
- polarization of the sphere is always greater than absolute 0 and the sphere will have openings (or lower concentration of energy) on poles,
- the sphere can be deformed by external energy or relativistic energy.

The mechanisms used to prevent annihilation may be interpreted as mechanisms of creation, or maintenance, of asymmetry (or distance in correlation) between inflated products.
This can be the asymmetric exchange between gravitational and electro-magnetic potential of particles, even between them. Another possibility is that particles are allowed to
annihilate, however, this results in disequilibrium (*recoil*), and the particles are inflated back for another cycle. Both solutions are possible, one may dominate during maintenance
in equilibrium (relative rest), the other, during changes in energy of the real graviton itself (eg. at the time of its own inflation).
The asymmetry of potential (carried by effective gravitons) allows for interesting solutions where different forces could dominate inside and outside of the relative event horizon. Of course, there
will be *leakage* because the carrier particles themselves have their own wells of potential carried by effective gravitons of even smaller scale (containment of potential has to be relative).
Note also, that real graviton can contain other real gravitons of the same vertical scale but at different horizontal energy levels and thus at different radii. This allows for greater
asymmetry and more complex mechanisms for its creation and maintenance. Absorption of real mass can provide stability in the gravitational well but this additional energy also adds more
complexity.

Small update in *Black hole* definition.

Note that, in CR, this region does not have a singularity at the centre, it has a ring, or torus, of relative singularity at the gravitational maximum. Therefore, some material that wouldn't be
able to escape at the equator can escape at the poles.
However, even though energy can escape, its path will be more or less curved and it might be difficult to observe this from reference frames where the line of sight is aligned with the axis
of rotation of the black hole.

More charged a graviton is, more two-dimensional it will be and the density of the gravitational field will be decreasing from equator to the pole. Thus, the gravitational escape
velocity (without taking rotation into account) can be significantly lower at the poles.
Note that, otherwise, the particles forming [internally generated] magnetic field *lines* cannot be standard photons or of standard photon rest scale, but of even smaller scale, as they would have to
be faster than standard light, unless the *lines* are not closed.
However, generally, just as an **U**_{-1} graviton slows down from **c** with momentum transformation synchronized with coupling, a particle faster than **c** can similarly be
slowed down and transformed to a standard photon.

This restricts the feeding potential of a black hole, thus, instead of being trapped, some matter may simply be accelerated at the equator ring and ejected through the poles at extreme
velocities. In an extremely polarized case, such black hole does not acquire additional energy and is simply the most efficient transformer of energy (life-form) - transforming composite energy into
individual charged particles so these can be digested elsewhere (eg. in young stars, where they combine to form hydrogen fuel).
However, in neutral black holes, most matter will have a momentum parallel to the equator plane forming a disc of orbiting material.
The shape of a graviton explains not only the formation of jets in black holes but also why some black holes don't have them (such black holes should have a more neutral, 3-dimensional form).
The jets are not accelerated by gravity alone, the more energy there is in plasma (accretion disk) the more powerful will be the magnetic field which will focus incoming charged particles making the
jets more energetic. This correlation
has been observed.
Note that magnetic field Body | Inclination (ecliptic) [°] | Inclination (Sun's equator) [°] | Inclination (invariable plane) [°] |
---|---|---|---|

Mercury | 7.01 | 3.38 | 6.34 |

Venus | 3.39 | 3.86 | 2.19 |

Earth | 0 | 7.25 | 1.57 |

Mars | 1.85 | 5.65 | 1.67 |

Vesta | 7.14 | 3.48 | 7.13 |

Ceres | 10.59 | 3.40 | 9.20 |

Pallas | 34.93 | 36.45 | 34.21 |

Hygiea | 3.83 | 10.79 | - |

Jupiter | 1.31 | 6.09 | 0.32 |

Saturn | 2.49 | 5.50 | 0.93 |

Uranus | 0.77 | 6.48 | 1.02 |

Neptune | 1.77 | 6.43 | 0.72 |

Pluto | 17.14 | 11.86 | 15.55 |

Note that a black hole is only relatively special form of a gravitational well. Particles faster than light must exist (even if one may not be able to detect them) and every gravitational
well has a relative event horizon - digesting energy of one scale and ejecting smaller scale ions which then combine to feed *moons*. The only difference is scale.
The self-similarity is not limited to celestial bodies - every metabolism is ionic.
Note also that the trajectory of ejected charges is bent by the magnetic field *lines* (tubes) and these can be considered as a form of intestines.

In CR, there can be no absolute singularities, only relative ones. If a black hole is the result of graviton inflation or deflation, its gravitational maximum has a real radius and, if any
gravitational collapse of standard matter would result in a black hole the collapse would end at that maximum - a ring-like (or toroidal) relative singularity. The collapse of the body of matter
is, however, likely relatively synchronized with a change in energy level of the graviton (and exchange between gravitational and electro-magnetic potential).
The graviton may collapse to smaller scale but never to a radius of absolute 0 as this would require absolutely infinite mass or angular velocity (due to conservation of momentum). Infinite
momenta (energies) are never involved in such collapses.
Furthermore, collapse to smaller radius is generally coupled with increase in angular velocity and decrease of rest mass of a graviton. This will generally be reflected in
acquired mass. Conservation of momentum is thus effectively replacing gravitational attraction with centrifugal repulsion at some scale.
Therefore, although acquired mass can be compacted to extremely dense forms of energy, this energy won't occupy 0 volume and will be radiated away (at whatever scale possible) until it matches
the graviton scale. However, with collapse of scale, graviton might exchange spin momentum for orbital angular momentum and decouple from acquired matter. In that case, the particles of compacted matter may be
considered dead as a collective and will tend to decompose, decay and spread. Nature evolved diverse mechanisms for such decay - in some reference frames it may be observed as rapid and
abiotic, in other organic and slow.
In general, distinct conscious life (by my hypotheses) of any system (collective) starts and ends with a change in discrete energy level of a graviton (or gravitons in superposition) at times of:

- conception (coupling), synchronized with graviton inflation or deflation, and
- death (decoupling), inversion of momentum with inflation or deflation (breaking entanglement with coupled matter).

A neutral force here is interpreted as a force of unipolar nature (eg. non-discriminating attraction).

With changing complexity, one force, may evolve from the other. Complexity can be increased by strengthening entanglement (localization in some dimension of space) of two or more sources of
polarized force. Strong localization can be interpreted as superposition in some scales and, if this is a superposition of mass (eg. gravitational), bigger mass of force carrier particles
will reduce the range of force.
One strongly localized force is the force holding the particles of the atom nucleus together (it is even called
Note that polarization too is relative. It may even be induced by a *polarized* observer.
Note also that evolution can be regressive too - reducing, instead of increasing, complexity.

If one is to unify all possible forces and represent them by a single equation, that equation cannot contain any absolute constants. It must be as variable (or evolvable) as possible.
In practical applications, however, it will generally be more usable not to generalize as much, as variability and evolution of reality localized in an dimension of space (including time) is
inevitably limited.
Therefore, instead of using this for a general force (that includes all possible interpretations on all possible scales):
$\displaystyle F = *$

more convenient and usable expression would be the one of a relatively general force that discards forces of negligible influence on context. In typical local contexts a relatively general force may include electro-magnetic and gravitational terms. Such form is also useful in the context of transformation of energy (inflation/deflation) between discrete vertical energy levels, as all terms are hypothesized to be entangled and one potential may be exchanged for the other, eg. electro-magnetic force might regress to gravitational force with inflation of energy, but also vice versa, depending on scales in question. This is exactly what I hypothesize had happened with the inflation of energy in the observable universe.
Note that inflation of particles on one scale may be interpreted as annihilation of particles on the other.

This is the case for particles forming atomic nuclei, held together by strong force (strong entanglement), and one reason why proton may be considered an elementary particle in most contexts.
However, assuming that the binding of an electron to proton, due to increasing correlation of charges, localizes proton charge into a positron, in that context, the structure of a proton becomes
more complex.
Since the decrease of distance between charges will result in emission of photons, the photon can be interpreted as a product of strengthening entanglement between negative and positive
charge. It then must be a composite particle, a pair of particles produced with annihilation on one scale (inflation on the other).
Obviously, if two charges are fermions (having half-integer spin momenta), the photon must be a boson (full-integer spin momentum) - elementary for some observers.
The composite particles of a photon are then fermions of smaller scale (half-photons), which may be interpreted as an electron-positron pair of a smaller scale (or, perhaps electron-proton pair).
Absorption of that photon by entangled proton-electron pair (atom) will cause [inverse] annihilation of the pair through deflation into constituent quanta of space forming the entanglement.
Obviously, as charged particles lose energy with photon emission, the question is in what form is the lost energy, neutral gravitational mass or charge? In other words, do half-photons carry
opposite and equal charges or do they carry mass away from charged particles? The proper answer in CR is both, although the energy can be decomposed into electro-magnetic and gravitational
waves and energy may be exchanging between these during travel.
Generally, photon is, like a gravitational wave, a more or less spherical wave (energy distribution depending on conditions during emission), exchanging energy between spin momenta components
during travel, with greatest probability for absorption in the direction aligned with the spin momentum axis (although the direction of that axis can change during travel, eg. in non-flat
gravitational space).
Note that, with enough energy, annihilation of a photon pair can result in inflation to an electron-positron pair.
The reason why constituent particles of the photon do not annihilate (assuming they're symmetric) between emission and absorption may be the fact they're not localized in space (travelling
as a wave) although they are correlated in time. However, photon components likely do oscillate (annihilate) in mass [generation] exchanging spin momentum components, they're simply constrained
by the entanglement.
This can even be interpreted as oscillation of space and time, or exchange of correlation in one dimension for the correlation in other.
Note also that structure of emitted quanta with changes in entanglement is not limited to scaled electron/positron pairs, other particle/anti-particle combinations are possible, resulting
in heavy photons or even [pairs of] neutrinos, although, in that case, these may not be interpreted as standard photons or carriers of electro-magnetic force.

Rather than transformation of spin momenta and decoupling from the entangled pair of charged particles (atom), emission of a photon can also be interpreted as radius inflation of the orbital
momentum of entangled quanta of space, with average inflation velocity equal to the speed of light. In that case, the orbital momentum would only collapse (localize) to a spin momentum with
absorption by another atom (pair of charged particles).
The energy of a photon cannot be absolutely constant.
The change in energy of a photon, in case of the spherical expansion [propagation], may be interpreted as caused by changes in distance in correlation between the quanta of space
forming the spherical wave [surface]. With symmetric emission and absorption this energy is regained. In other words, total energy is conserved.
However, since absolute alignment between momenta of the photon and the absorber is impossible (no perfect symmetry), some energy will be lost. And if the misalignment is generally proportional
to distance, loss of energy will be proportional to distance between emission and absorption. The cause of misalignment with distance? Different interpretations are possible. One possibility is
the quantization of the loss by potential intermediate absorbers as these affect the photon just as the photon affects them, even though the effect may not be big enough to cause a more permanent
absorption (changes in local energy levels). In these cases, the passing photon causes a temporary disturbance which can be interpreted as partial resonance with local energy (photon may be
interpreted as a non-divisible quantum of energy in some reference frames, but in others it is itself quantized). This absorption would compress the photon front, but if it is unstable, the
absorbed quantum will be re-emitted in the direction of the original emitter. With increasing distance, it is unlikely that the original emitter will absorb it. It is however, quite likely, it
will be absorbed by the *tail* of the original photon (light can be a continuous stream of photons or a single photon, but even a single photon can be interpreted as a stream of smaller
photon quanta). This would drag the photon *tail*. Overall, thus, the photon wavelength remains unchanged, it just becomes temporarily deformed (which can be interpreted as relativistic
deformation). However, the probability that the photon tail will __not__ absorb the quantum is non-zero. Thus, overall, photon should lose energy with distance, which, in wave interpretation is
a loss in frequency.

Regardless of physical manifestation of photon propagation, it obviously carries information on the source, including original location in flat space (which may be locally manifested as recoil
in specific direction at time of absorption). It is a relative clone of the system that caused emission, albeit of different energy.
As carriers of force, photons, or gravitons in general, can be interpreted as carriers of changes in specific entanglement between entangled entities (emitter and absorber). The entanglement channel (or
dimension) is present as long as the exchange of gravitons exists, or, in other words, as long as the entanglement is changing. But the entanglement is always changing at some scale, and from some
reference frames, channels may be interpreted as permanent. Since this horizontal information transfer can proceed faster than standard light on smaller scales,
Interestingly, considering there is no visual stimulation of standard scale during sleep, dreams might just represent information transferred from different scale and locally interpreted as
absorbed photons, at least in some cases.

Channels of entanglement carry energy and can, therefore, affect other energy of a particular scale. These channels or filaments (note the dark matter correlation), which can be of different
complexity (depending on the complexity of information they carry), can guide this energy into particular configuration. With inherent limitation of observers, the guidance channels may be
unobservable, and the behaviour of energy can be interpreted as a result of spontaneous change in energy levels, random fluctuation, or free will.
This may be interpreted as expansion (creation) of time between two charges if their magnetic field tubes are interpreted as time forming subspaces.

The former may be the correct interpretation in case of the force of electric charge while the latter is the proper interpretation in case of entanglement of magnetic
spin momenta.
If constituent photon orbital momenta cannot cancel, repulsive electric force between like charges must be fictitious - decreasing distance between them is simply inversely proportional to the
strength of entanglement between opposite charges that would result in increase of that distance. In that interpretation, electric force reduces to gravitational force at some
scale (dimension), eg. in specific magnetic field tubes connecting opposite charges.
Small updates in *Weak entanglement*.

In CR, both interpretations are valid (possible). One can only argue what and when any information is transmitted. Information that is *observable* could be limited to information transmitted
with the collapse (deflation) of entanglement, which will, in both interpretations, decrease energy in the tube.
Since weak entanglement is relatively unaffected by change in spatial distance alone, the first interpretation (volume invariant to spatial distance) is convenient as it implies proportionality
of volume (or volumetric distance) with distance in correlation (inverse of [scale of] entangled energy or strength of entanglement).
Note that the
observer who cannot resolve (observe) the tube of entanglement cannot use the tube for information transfer or control information transmitted on collapse (superluminal or not). In that case, weak
entanglement reduces to standard non-local QM entanglement (note that, per CR postulates, QM entanglement cannot be absolutely non-local, implying existence of reference frames with interpretations
stated above).

$\displaystyle \Delta E_1 = \Delta E_2 = \Delta E = \text{const.}$

What is the initial speed of information transfer? Speed of information transfer always depends on distance in some dimension. If distance in time is distance in evolution, distance in time between two equally evolved or relatively identical particles (eg. two entangled photons) will be a relative 0, so the speed of information transfer with the collapse of entanglement in time will be a relative infinity, relatively invariant to spatial distance. For a limited observer, these relative values (eg. zero, infinity and invariance), may be effectively interpreted as absolute.$\displaystyle {m_d}_0 = \left(9 + {\left(2 \over 3\right)}^2 \right) m_e = \left(3^2 + {\left(2 \over 3\right)}^2 \right) * 0.511\, {MeV \over c^2} = 4.826\overline{1}\, {MeV \over c^2} \tag{1.2}$

However, assuming this superposition is stable (particles have undergone fusion and indeed form a new particle), total mass will be somewhat lower (by the binding energy).
Binding energy is not always lower though, for bound hadrons (eg. quarks bound into a proton), due to large angular momenta, total mass can be significantly higher than the sum of rest masses of
bound particles (from some reference frames).

Assuming particles are bound as atomic nuclei are, and scaling binding energy of $\displaystyle m_d = {m_d}_0\, {MeV \over c^2} (1 - 0.00464) = 4.8037\, {MeV \over c^2}$

This is in agreement with mass determined from lattice$\displaystyle \left(m_d - m_u\right) = 2.78\, {MeV \over c^2}$

Note that conversion of electric charge to gravitational mass by that ratio would release enormous amounts of energy as gravitational force is ≈10
Electric polarization of a graviton is represented by positive (+) or negative (-) charge. As such, they are sources of electric, magnetic fields and electro-magnetic radiation. In one
interpretation of CR, positively charged particles may be referred to as anti-matter, negative as matter. Composite, neutral, matter particles are those with more mass in negative charge, neutral
anti-matter particles are those with more mass in positive charge.

The particle | charge quanta [e] | total charge [e] |
---|---|---|

electron | [ -2/3 -2/3 +1/3 ] OR 3x [ -2/3 +1/3 ] ? | -1 |

proton | [ +2/3 +2/3 -1/3 ] | +1 |

neutron | [ +2/3 -1/3 -1/3 ] | 0 |

$\displaystyle {GM \over r} e^{-{\mu}_g r} = {2 \over 3} {1 \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {q_e \over r}$

$\displaystyle e^{-{\mu}_g r} = {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}}$

$\displaystyle {\mu}_g = ln{\left( {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} \right)} {1 \over r}$

$\displaystyle m_g = ln{\left( {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} \right)} {1 \over r} {\hbar \over c} \tag{1.3}$

q_{e} = 1.60218 * 10^{-19} C

ε_{0} = 8.85419 * 10^{-12} F/m

G = 6.67430 * 10^{-11} m^{3}kg^{-1}s^{-2}

ℏ = 1.054572 * 10^{-34} Js

c = 2.99792458 * 10^{8} m/s

For r = 1 * 10ε

G = 6.67430 * 10

ℏ = 1.054572 * 10

c = 2.99792458 * 10

$\displaystyle m_g = 2.44819 * 10^{-26}\, kg = 13.7333\, {GeV \over c^2}$

Roughly 100 times the range (
Note that the calculation for up quarks (conversion of 1/3 charge to mass) gives almost equal results (due to up quark mass being roughly half the down quark
mass, 2/3 m_{d}^{-1} ≈ 1/3 m_{u}^{-1}).
Note also that it has recently been discovered that a
charm/anti-charm quark pair may be more intrinsic to the proton than previously thought. Could it be that the whole hypothesized baryon/anti-baryon pair gets periodically inflated then?
If one assumes that the mass of the pair is inflated by the ratio of charm quark mass to proton mass (1275/928.272), the mass radius becomes 0.521 * 10^{-15} m, in agreement
with recently obtained proton mass
radius of 0.55±0.03 fm.
Interestingly, conversion of charge to mass using (1.3) for **M** equal to proton or anti-proton mass yields the graviton mass **m**_{g} on the order of electron mass for **r** on the order
of electron orbitals in the atom. Coincidence? I think not.

Thus, the nuclei of atoms may generally not be held together by a force stronger than electrostatic repulsion, rather the repulsive electric potential is periodically converted to strongly
localized gravitational potential. This oscillation could be interpreted as relative superposition of electro-magnetic and gravitational forces, which collapses to a particular eigenstate with
interaction (observation).
The requirement for nuclear fusion (
Note that, in CR, absolutely infinite stability is impossible. Therefore, any superposition is a relative fusion, and vice versa.

This difference in phase shift can be achieved with difference in [the amount of] momenta between two nuclei (inducing time dilation in one) - bombardment of one nucleus with the other.
This suggests that the probability for fusion may be higher between different species (different rest masses between nuclei).
Interestingly, the non-dimensional factor in equation (1.3) is almost equal in value to the natural logarithm of the inverse of electron mass ($\displaystyle ln{\left( {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} \right)} \approx ln{\left( {1 \over m_e} \right)}$

Rearranging (1.3), one can get the orbital angular momentum of the graviton (in local rest frame). Assuming inverse of 2/3 of electron mass (better fit):$\displaystyle m_g\, c\, r = ln{\left( {3 \over 2} {C \over m_e} \right)}\, \hbar \approx ln{\left( {3 \over 2} {1 \over m_e} \right)}\, \hbar \approx \sqrt{69 * (69+1)}\, \hbar$

C ≈ 1 kg

Is it a coincidence that graviton momentum is quantized by [the inverse of] 2/3 electron mass?
Here, one should also question whether the **ℏ** constant (quantum of momentum) should be different (scaled) in the local rest frame.

Down quark mass ($\displaystyle {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} = {3 \over 2} {1 \over m_e}$

is:$\displaystyle m_d = M = {\left({2 \over 3}\right)}^2 {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m_e \over G} = 8.7348 * 10^{-30}\, kg = 4.9\, {MeV \over c^2} \tag{1.4}$

m_{e} = 9.10938356 * 10^{-31} kg

The obtained mass is in agreement with lattice QCD (4.79±0.16 MeV/c
Some might argue that graviton orbital velocity cannot be equal to **c** as it has finite mass, however, orbital momentum of the graviton should be understood as orbital momentum
of [a quantum of] space - it is relatively massless from the local reference frame.
However, once it gets coupled its orbital velocity will decrease below **c** (and mass will inflate to conserve the momentum). The coupling (inflation) of a graviton will decrease the
local gravitational capacity for coupling with a particular scale of matter, however, as this coupling is also a gravity source, it may increase coupling capacity of the local well for
another scale of matter.

If charge/mass conversion is common, it should not be limited to electron/down quark conversion. Indeed, equation (1.4) can match other quarks/leptons of the standard model, by changing input
mass (
Note that, if electron can convert to down quark, it should be possible for muon and tau electrons to convert to muon and tau down quarks.
Note also that only simple conversions (1:1 input/output) are considered here, more complex conversions are possible.

$\displaystyle M = {10}^n Q^2 {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G} \tag{1.5}$

input particle (mass m, charge) | charge fraction Q | n | output mass M (charge) | correlated standard model particle (mass, charge) |
---|---|---|---|---|

up quark (2.2 MeV/c^{2}, 2/3 e^{+}) | 1/3 | 0 | 5.2741 MeV/c^{2} (1/3 e^{+}) | anti-down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) |

up quark (2.2 MeV/c^{2}, 2/3 e^{+}) | 1 | -1 | 4.7467 MeV/c^{2} (1/3 e^{-}) | down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{-}) |

anti-down quark (4.7 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) | 2/3 | -1 | 4.5069 MeV/c^{2} (1/3 e^{-}) | down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{-}) |

anti-down quark (4.7 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) | 4/3 | 1 | 1.8028 GeV/c^{2} (1 e^{-}) | tau electron (1.7769 GeV/c^{2}, 1 e^{-}) |

anti-strange quark (96 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) | 2/3 | -1 | 92.0566 MeV/c^{2} (1/3 e^{-}) | strange quark (95 +9/-3 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{-}) |

anti-strange quark (96 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) | 1 | -3 | 2.0713 MeV/c^{2} (2/3 e^{-}) | anti-up quark (2.2 +0.5/-0.4 MeV/c^{2}, 2/3 e^{-}) |

anti-bottom[1S] quark (4.65 GeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) | 4/3 | -2 | 1.7836 GeV/c^{2} (1 e^{-}) | tau electron (1.7769 GeV/c^{2}, 1 e^{-}) |

positron (0.511 MeV/c^{2}, 1 e^{+}) | 1/3 | 3 | 1.225 GeV/c^{2} (2/3 e^{+}) | charm quark (1.27 ±0.02 GeV/c^{2}, 2/3 e^{+}) |

positron (0.511 MeV/c^{2}, 1 e^{+}) | 2/3 | 0 | 4.9 MeV/c^{2} (1/3 e^{+}) | anti-down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) |

muon positron (105.6584 MeV/c^{2}, 1 e^{+}) | 1/3 | -2 | 2.533 MeV/c^{2} (2/3 e^{+}) | up quark (2.2 +0.5/-0.4 MeV/c^{2}, 2/3 e^{+}) |

muon positron (105.6584 MeV/c^{2}, 1 e^{+}) | 2/3 | -1 | 101.3198 MeV/c^{2} (1/3 e^{+}) | anti-strange quark (95 +9/-3 MeV/c^{2}, 1/3 e^{+}) |

Note that neutrinos may be involved in other cases as well.

The same muon mass and appropriate charge/spin can also be obtained if input mass contains up/anti-up quark pair and a neutrino, with $\displaystyle M = {10}^n {2 \over 3} Q {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G} \tag{1.6}$

$\displaystyle q_{out} = q_{in} - Q {q_{in} \over |q_{in}|}$

m = input mass

Q = fraction of charge being exchanged for mass inflation/deflation = k × 1/3 (k = integer)

n = vertical energy level (integer)

q_{out} = output charge

q_{in} = input charge

This, in example, for input mass equal to positron mass (0.511 MeV/cQ = fraction of charge being exchanged for mass inflation/deflation = k × 1/3 (k = integer)

n = vertical energy level (integer)

q

q

$\displaystyle m_e = {10}^{-5} {2 \over 3} 2 {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m_{\tau} \over G} \tag{1.7}$

m_{e} = electron/positron mass

m_{τ} = tau electron/positron mass

A clear evidence for charge/mass exchange and vertical energy levels. And a possible evidence that there are no absolutely elementary charges (all are composite) - in the example above, tau
positron charge may be interpreted as a composite of 2 x 1 em

$\displaystyle m \approx {{m_{\tau} - m_e} \over 2} = 888.1745\, {MeV \over c^2}$

Interestingly, this particle can be obtained with (1.6) using 4.631 GeV/c
Note that equations 1.4 - 1.7 should contain a dimensional constant (**C**, as noted before), which was assumed to be equal to 1. The results obtained here suggest that indeed it is equal, or at least very
close, to 1. This is then equivalent to the notion that the following ratio is treated as non-dimensional in reality:

If $\displaystyle {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over G}$

which implies that kilograms are non-dimensional. However, the term 2/3 could be interpreted as [inverse of] the value of the constant.$\displaystyle M(n) = 10\, M(n-1) \tag{1.8}$

$\displaystyle M(0) = {2 \over 3} Q {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G}$

The constant$\displaystyle M = {10}^n {2 \over 3} Q \sqrt{{q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G}} \tag{1.9}$

This, again, yields interesting results but mostly for composite inputs. For example, top quark (173.1 GeV, 2/3) and electron (0.511 MeV, -1), with$\displaystyle M = {10}^n {2 \over 3} Q {\left({q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G}\right)}^{1 \over k} \tag{1.10}$

where$\displaystyle M = m_{img} + m_{re}$

It is usually denoted with uppercase letter
Note that if shielding is real, total mass is constant as long as the well is not over-capacitated.

Note that coupling of the body of real mass with the large scale graviton is indirect. The individual components of real mass are actually directly coupling with the components of
space, however, due to generally aligned entanglement between U_{n} and U_{n-2}, in equilibrium conditions, this is equivalent.

Couplings are not intrinsic, gravitons can be naked and real mass collective may not be coupled to a graviton of larger scale. Such bodies of real mass are considered dead and are generally less
stable than bodies coupled to gravitons.
Low mass asteroids and comets are assumed to be such bodies. These are most likely leftovers of dead planets and moons. However, it is possible that every barycentre of organized or localized mass has
a physical interpretation in the form of a more energetic graviton (compared to constituent gravitons of that mass), although this may be unlikely and even if true, distinct consciousness
of such body [as a collective] would be extremely low (a relative 0).
One could argue that large scale graviton is unnecessary in any case, however, recursion would then make gravitons of any scale unnecessary and there would be no gravity or any other force
at any scale (note that a small scale graviton coupled to an atom is a large scale graviton from the reference scale of atoms).

Real mass is usually denoted with
Note that continuous existence of [oscillating] transformation of energy may generally signal the existence of a discrete living being (superposition of a collective reflected in relative
mental singularity - distinct consciousness).

Universes are self-similar, and with recursion, any acquired real mass (or matter) of scale $\displaystyle \sum{m_{re}(n)} = \sum{M(n-1)}$

At full capacity of a well, angular velocity of space (effective gravitational field tube) at radius$\displaystyle {v_s}^2 = rg = {G M \over r} \tag{R1.1}$

Here, **M** is the total mass of the gravity source (or mass *below* radius **r**) and **G** is the gravitational constant.

while mass capacity of the well is:
$\displaystyle C = M - m_{re} = m_{img}$

Well capacity is related to spin velocity of its graviton (at its mass radius$\displaystyle {c_s}^2 = r_s g_s = {G M \over r_s} = G {{m_{img} + m_{re}} \over r_s} = 2 G {m_{img} \over r_s}$

Here, factor 2 indicates no-shielding interpretation.

However, evidently, angular velocities in gravitational wells are not always Keplerian (eg.
Note that gravitons are generally *orbiting* at the speed of *light* (local speed limit), they only slow down with coupling, reaching Keplerian velocity at full capacity.
In the process, they are inflating - exchanging orbital angular momentum for spin momentum.

In case of lack of velocity, the well is over-capacitated (real mass is greater than img mass).
Effectively, in under-capacitated wells space is dragging matter, in over-capacitated wells matter is dragging space.

Assuming thus that coupled mass has Keplerian velocity at full capacity on particular orbital radius (note that particular orbital radius represents the range of coupling gravitons), conservation
of momentum dictates that for unfilled capacity ($\displaystyle M = m_{re} + m_{img} = {m_{{re}_0} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img}$

$\displaystyle m_{{re}_0} = \left(M - m_{img}\right) \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}$

$\displaystyle v_{re} = {2 \pi r_{re} \over T_{re}} \approx {2 \pi r_s \over T_{re}}$

v_{re}, r_{re}, T_{re} = orbital velocity, radius and period of rotation of real mass, respectively

c_{s}, r_{s} = Keplerian angular velocity and mass radius of the maximum, respectively

Note that spin angular velocity of [real mass of] Earth is lower than Keplerian velocity. Earth's spin is thus locally relativistic and the gravitational well has excess energy. In one
interpretation that is the reason the planet is active - transforming, or digesting, energy (through fission, heat, chemical reactions, etc.). In another interpretation, it is these
transformations (particularly thermal energy) that are converting orbital angular momentum to radial. Cause and effect are relative in CR, and both interpretations are valid.

If real mass is quantized into multiple bodies with different periods of rotation, mass equation is:
$\displaystyle M = \sum{m_{{re}_0} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img}$

$\displaystyle M = {m_{{re}_0} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img} = {m_{img} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img} = m_{img} \left( 1 + {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} \right)$

$\displaystyle v_{re} = {{2 \pi r_{re}} \over T_{re}} = {{2 \pi r_s} \over T_0} - {{2 \pi r_s} \over T} = c_s - {{2 \pi r_s} \over T}$

$\displaystyle T_0 = {2 \pi r_s \over c_s}$

$\displaystyle {c_s}^2 = {GM \over r_s}$

G = 6.674 * 10^{-11} m^{3}kg^{-1}s^{-2}

Excess mass is:
$\displaystyle m_x = {m_{img} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} - m_{img}$

body | total mass M [10^{24} kg] | img mass m_{img} [10^{21} kg] | mass radius r_{s} [m] | rotation period T [h] | relativistic angular velocity v_{re} [m/s] | Keplerian period T_{0} [h] | Keplerian velocity c_{s} [m/s] | excess mass m_{x} [10^{24} kg] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Mercury | 0.330 | 4.8728 | 567028 | 1407.6 | 6231.6 | 0.1588 | 6232.3 | 0.3203 (97%) |

Venus | 4.868 | 63.6013 | 3079911 | 5832.6 | 10269.8 | 0.5234 | 10270.7 | 4.7408 (97%) |

Earth | 5.972 | 534.1110 | 1206084 | 23.935 | 18090.9 | 0.1158 | 18178.8 | 4.9038 (82%) |

Mars | 0.642 | 109.8515 | 1581777 | 24.623 | 5092.5 | 0.5304 | 5204.6 | 0.4223 (66%) |

Pluto | 0.01303 | 0.6371 | 224993 | 153.293 | 1963.4 | 0.1997 | 1966.0 | 0.0118 (91%) |

* Sources of data in Table \tbl3 for total mass and rotation period are NASA Planetary Fact Sheets.

Calculated values for some terrestrial bodies are shown in Table \tbl3 (values in parentheses for excess mass are percentages of total mass). Unsurprisingly, relativistic (excess) mass percentage
of total mass is, for terrestrial planets, decreasing with distance from the Sun. While Earth's excess (and thus complexity potential) is highest in absolute value, Venus has a maximum potential
for complexity relative to its rest energy (its interior is probably very active). However, in all bodies relativistic energy is high, and where pressure/temperature allows it (in interior
generally) one probably can expect complex life.
Complex life as *we* know it implies fluid-like interactions - transformation of random thermal fluctuations into organized flows of energy. This could be, however, interpreted as increase
in scale of thermal energy and pressure. Existing models of planetary interiors are based on the assumption of accumulation of mass (and a continuous gradient of pressure/temperature) - not coupled
with inflation of a small scale graviton to large scale.
In cases where there was inflation (which should generally be the case for stars, planets and dwarf planets), these models must be wrong, as gravitational maximum should generally be represented
by a spherical surface of a significant radius - not a point. And if changes in energy levels are frequent, multiple matter pressure/density maxima will exist. Therefore, possibility for complex
life is likely to exist in any layer of a mantle and probably for significant time even after graviton deflates and decouples from the body.
Taking asteroid bombardment and collisions into account, both, probability for complex life and maximal possible (evolvable) complexity are, with inflation hypothesis, much higher in interiors
of celestial bodies.
Changes in energy level of a graviton can produce significant thermal energy, allowing complex life even at large distances from a star.
The discovered features
and activity (complexity) on Pluto and Charon is thus not surprising. The fact that there are no
small craters on Pluto should then probably be interpreted as relatively recent tectonic activity, rather than lack of smaller objects in Kuiper belt (as
is the current interpretation).
Note that, if changes between energy levels of gravitons are relatively frequent (on the order of millions of years or less), crater counting may not be the appropriate method for estimation of
surface age (although effect on the surface may be localized). With oscillation (inflation/deflation) of gravitons, not only would surfaces of bodies be periodically *refreshed*, asteroid
bombardments should be more common and relatively periodic as long as oscillation exists.
Consider oscillation of a graviton between the *1e* moon and superposition with a graviton of the planet it is orbiting. Deflation of a moon graviton would result in decay of locally
relativistic energy. While that decay may be relatively slow, deflation of a graviton is not instant and it may even exit the surface with a radius greater than relative 0 (and high velocity) which
would cause ejection of compressed real mass toward the planet.
Similarly, it may start inflating before it reaches the surface of the planet, creating a tube (exact shape would depend on graviton polarization) increasing in size and curvature toward
the centre. At the same time the tube would be filled with fluid (eg. magma, water).
Due to graviton polarization (which is always present at some scale and increases with deflation in this case) the graviton is most likely to enter/exit the body at magnetic poles. These will
generally be aligned with geographic south and north poles in significantly polarized bodies. However, in case of low asymmetry between momenta of oppositely charged constituent
components (or presence of anti-aligned superposition), the most likely point of exit/entrance may be aligned with the orbital plane of the moon. In that case, possible impact latitude may range
from 0° to ±**a**, where **a** is the sum of planet's obliquity and moon's orbital inclination.
Since Earth is polarized (polarization was also likely stronger in the past), most likely location of previous entrances is the south pole. However, polarization of the Earth's current moon is
low and Earth's polarization is declining (relatively chaotic and fast movement of magnetic dip poles probably also indicates pending reversal). Therefore, in case of Earth, future graviton
entrance/exit latitude may be somewhere between 0° to ±(23.44° + 5.14°)=±28.58° degrees. The current obliquity to orbit of the Moon should likely be added to that range (axis of rotation
of the graviton coupled to Moon's body should be aligned with the axis of rotation of the Moon while they are coupled), extending the range to ±35.26°.
In the follow-up works I have hypothesized correlation of major mass extinctions with planetary moon(s), even suggesting Earth may have had more moons in the past, but it is also possible that
the current moon was [partially] destroyed and reformed multiple times at various distances (albeit increasing with time as real mass, due to conservation of momentum, likely continues on
tangential trajectory once uncoupled).
Note also that if graviton exit from the moon is non-polar while planetary entrance is polar, asteroids formed with exit will not impact the planet at the pole, unless they too are
polarized - which is not impossible, magnetic moment of the graviton could be fossilized in ejecta.
Assuming asteroid and graviton decouple near the Moon surface in non-polar exit and asteroid velocity exceeds escape velocity, possible range for asteroid impacts on Earth is a superposition
of 0° to ±35.26° and 0° to ±21.9°.
Interestingly, the Chicxulub crater, at 21.4° N, is within both ranges.
Also interesting is the fact that the volcanic region under ice in Antarctica (with
more than 130 volcanoes) is the largest on Earth.
On Mars, considering orbital inclination of its moons (or, more likely, moon remnants), Valles Marineris may be the product of impacts formed by asteroids produced by moon graviton decoupling.

Interestingly, Keplerian period
Note that mass radius for Venus and Mars is simply the core radius (as their cores apparently don't have inner and outer parts at this time).
I hypothesize that the formation of the inner core is synchronized with the compression (deflation) of a graviton to a smaller radius. In that case, outer core radius (discontinuity between the
core and mantle) is a fossilized former graviton radius, while inner core radius (discontinuity between inner and outer core) represents the current graviton radius. If there is no inner core,
current graviton radius is likely the outer core radius (assuming presence of the inner inner core can be excluded).
This should be interpreted as a change in energy level of a graviton. Since these are discrete, there are constraints on the radius - in this case it should change (scale) with a square root of **2**^{n} where **n** is
a positive or negative integer.
Strong discontinuities indicate that changes in energy level are relatively frequent. Therefore, most likely current energy level is the one with a most *solid* discontinuity (one which most
closely matches the corresponding energy level).
Due to required oscillation (and frequency of energy level changes), however, discontinuities may somewhat deviate from radii of graviton energy levels in any case.
Earth's mass radius has been calculated with the assumption that Earth's graviton surface gravity was initially equal to gravity at the Sun's surface (274 m/s^{2}), from:
**r**_{s} of 1206 km, almost equal to estimated inner core radius (1216 km). Of course, unless there is mass shielding, this is not presently the case (mass
below **r**_{s} is smaller than M) but I find it likely that all Earth's mass was initially concentrated below **r**_{s}, only to spread out with energy level changes of
the graviton, fossilizing **r**_{s} as inner core discontinuity (note that some growth on the inner core, and thus **r**_{s} is expected in this process).
Earth's [dominant] charge radius is then most likely at √2 **r**_{s}, giving gravity equal to 137 m/s^{2}, which gives a g-factor of 2, equal to electron or positron g-factor.
Since g-factor is dimensionless, it is relatively scale invariant (eg. electrons and muons have almost equal g-factors) and, assuming large scale Solar System gravitons have been inflated from
smaller scale, this implies that Earth's graviton has been inflated from a particle (or particle's graviton) with the same g-factor (muon lepton can be interpreted as inflated
electron, or, electron on a different vertical energy level).
Note also that √(2^{3}) **r**_{s} gives a radius of 3411 km, very close to the estimated radius of a discontinuity between outer core and mantle (3486 km).
The charge radius could be understood as the radius of an real graviton whose gravitational potential has been exchanged for electro-magnetic. It is likely, however, that Earth's real charge
radius is a superposition of multiple charge radii (with opposite charge likely to exist at some inner inner core discontinuity).
Mercury's mass radius has been calculated similarly, with the assumption of **g**_{s} = 274/2^{2} m/s^{2} = 68.5 m/s^{2}, based on inner core constraints
from recent studies.
For a Venus' mass radius, the **g**_{s} = 274/2^{3} m/s^{2} = 34.25 m/s^{2} has been used, giving **r**_{s} in
agreement with tidal constraints.
For Mars, the **g**_{s} = 274/2^{4} m/s^{2} = 17.125 m/s^{2} has been used, this gives a radius roughly 70 km smaller than most recent estimates on Mars' core
radius (1650±20 km).
This is significantly smaller than previous estimates (1810 - 1860 km), suggesting
that Mars' major graviton may have relatively recently changed energy level (decreasing radius), resulting in core shrinking and which may possibly result in core differentiation (creation of solid
inner core).
Other possible radii of inner levels, ordered by probability (from highest to lowest) are 1118 km (**n**=3), 790.9 km (**n**=2), 559.2 km (**n**=1), ...
Pluto's mass radius was calculated with the assumption of a ratio between inner core radius and surface radius equal to Earth's.

Apparently, complexity (excess mass percentage) of terrestrial bodies can be determined by the following equation:
$\displaystyle g_s = {GM \over r_s^2} = 274\, {m \over s^2}$

which gives radius$\displaystyle p = ln{\left[n * 10^{36-\left(2j+5i\right)}\, e^{\left( k\, r \right)} r^{-1}\right]}\, [ \% ]$

$\displaystyle k = {\pi \over 10}$

$\displaystyle i = \sum\limits_{x=0}^j {x}$

$\displaystyle r = d * 10^{-9}$

d = distance of a body from the Sun [m]

with parameters shown in Table \tbl4.
n | j | i | body | distance from the Sun d [10^{9} m] | complexity p (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 0 | 0 | Mercury | 57.9 | 97.0 |

3 | 1 | 1 | Venus | 108.2 | 97.2 |

3 | 2 | 3 | Earth | 149.6 | 82.2 |

1 | 3 | 6 | Mars | 227.9 | 66.2 |

3 | 17 | 153 | Pluto | 5906.4 | 91.1 |

Note also that orbital distances of terrestrial bodies scale the same as energy levels of planetary gravitons (with a square root of 2

$\displaystyle d_n = d_0 * \sqrt{2^n}$

$\displaystyle d_0 = 38 * 10^9\, m\,\, \text{(terrestrial planets)}$

$\displaystyle d_0 = 8.2 * 10^9\, m\,\, \text{(terrestrial dwarf planets)}$

This is not surprising with self-similar universes. It is even possible (and I find it likely) that gravitons of terrestrial planets initially were inflated to the scale (radius) of current orbital distance, only to collapse (deflate, or localize) afterwards to orbiting spin momenta while coupling with real mass.
Note that **d**_{0} should be different for different species of bodies as their graviton wavelengths are of different scale. Chosen **d**_{0} for terrestrial dwarf planets is based
on **n** = 19 for Pluto. In reality both parameters may be different.

Calculated distances are shown in Table \tbl5.
n | j | body | distance from the Sun d [10^{9} m] | calculated distance d_{n} [10^{9} m] |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 0 | Mercury | 57.9 | 53.7 |

3 | 1 | Venus | 108.2 | 107.5 |

4 | 2 | Earth | 149.6 | 152.0 |

5 | 3 | Mars | 227.9 | 215.0 |

19 | 17 | Pluto | 5906.4 | 5937.4 |

Note that inner and outer planets have relatively anti-aligned components of momenta. Inversion is relatively weak between horizontal energy levels, it is stronger between universes (vertical
energy levels).

Such splitting (entanglement) may be described by the $\displaystyle EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b) = {c \over d} {{d + 1} \over {c - 1}} a = {c \over d} {{d - 1} \over {c + 1}} b$

$\displaystyle a = {{d - 1} \over {c + 1}} {{c - 1} \over {d + 1}} b$

where$\displaystyle {\bigl [EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b)\bigr ]}^{-1} = EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N^{-1}}(e,f)$

Assuming the inverse must satisfy the following condition:$\displaystyle {EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b) \over {\bigl [EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b)\bigr ]}^{-1}} = {c \over d} {{d + 1} \over {c - 1}} $

this gives:$\displaystyle {\bigl [EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b)\bigr ]}^{-1} = a$

$\displaystyle {d \over c} {{c + 1} \over {d - 1}} e = {d \over c} {{c - 1} \over {d + 1}} f = a$

Since one of the parameters can be omitted, the following notations may be used:$\displaystyle EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b) = EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a) = EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(,b)$

While complexity of the brain can be correlated with consciousness, apparently, increasing complexity of physical expression beyond the brain is dragging, or blurring, consciousness.

External expression of intelligence of an individual can be interpreted as a product of superposition of intelligence of specific entangled individual cells and proteins, however, the
superposition is relative, it is not abstract and therefore exists independently - it can influence individuals of the collective just like it can be affected by the collective.
Any class or species of intelligence has two components: material and spiritual. Intelligence is polarized when one component is higher than the other.
$\displaystyle IP = {1 \over {\Delta I}}$

$\Delta I = \Bigl\lvert {1 \over I_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}}} - {1 \over I_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}}} \Bigr\rvert$

$I_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} + I_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}} = 1$

I_{M} = normalized material intelligence

I_{S} = normalized spiritual intelligence

I

I_{S}, I_{M} ∈ ℚ > 0

Note that for I_{S} = I_{M} this produces infinity. Since absolute physical infinity is impossible, such result can only be obtained due to limited precision in
measurement. Therefore, this infinity should be taken relative and proportional to precision.

Some species of animals on Earth may possess higher amount of consciousness and intelligence than humans. It may just not be generally expressed externally.
Signs of complex intelligence are diversity and coherence in brains, or brain equivalents, not in physical expression on generally observable scale.

\ch_added

Infinitesimal chances are, however, never an issue for gamblers or those who prefer illusion over reality. So, unless the existence of souls is globally accepted, forced shutdown of a conventional
computer could be considered immoral in the near future.

Added definition of *life*.

Note that all terms are relative, even "mental" and "physical" - mental is physical at some scale, and vice versa.

Planets, in example, seem to be extremely introverted organisms - there is no apparent large scale physical DNA equivalent involved in development of a planet even though evolution of its
biome is relatively equivalent to DNA coded embryonic development. The equivalence is there because souls and bodies co-evolve, influence and mirror each other (albeit with a phase shift).
Nature does not hide anything. Contrary. Things one cannot see on a small scale, are shown on a big screen. But one may need to collapse its ego-system to see all these systems
as living eco-systems.

While the notion of gods is commonly *reserved* for metaphysical contexts of religion, where the lack of proper definition may be generally desirable, definition of a god correlated with
physical phenomena can deepen the understanding of some existing religions and provide meaning to those who are not satisfied with *hidden* agenda behind materialistic rituals
periodically organized to worship *untouchable* interpretations.

Note that this is equivalent to superposition of two aligned fermions:
$\displaystyle L = \sqrt{l\left(l + 1\right)}\, \hbar = \sqrt{ 2 {1 \over 2 } \left( 2 {1 \over 2} + 1\right)}\, \hbar = \sqrt{2}\, \hbar$
However, a 1 ℏ momentum can also be a result of superposition of anti-aligned spin-2 and spin-1 bosons.
Since there are no absolutely massless and absolutely neutral particles in CR, coupling of spin-2 gravitons and spin-1 photons should be intrinsic, the difference will only be in scale. Gravity
and electro-magnetic force are thus generally coupled and one force may be exchanged for the other but none is absolute 0 in any coupling.
If scale difference is large - eg. in electron the electric force dominates, one component can be considered as relative 0.
The strong confinement of quarks in protons can be interpreted as intrinsic entanglement strongly evolved between two forces.

If that momentum is inflated with conserved ratio between values of constituent components of the vector (non-dimensional ratios seem to be generally well preserved during inflation/deflation), proper
relativistic treatment here involves either scaling of metric or the
Note that, if **r**_{n} scales with a square root of **2**^{n}, this velocity corresponds to Keplerian velocity at **r**_{n-2}.

Standard photon carries information on standard atoms, in such way that in localized form relatively mirrors atoms, albeit on different scale and probably with a different ratio in strength
between neutral and charged forces. Its simplest form then can have two components (eg. mirroring hydrogen atom charges) or half-photons, electron half-photon and positron (proton) half-photon.
Complex forms can be considered as superposition of simpler forms.

Assuming simple pairing of positive and negative charge, mass of the simple standard photon is then roughly twice this mass:
I hypothesize that the Solar System is the equivalent of a Carbon-10 (^{10}C) atom. It has been inflated from U_{0}.^{10}C state (or even U_{-1}.^{10}C) and
electro-magnetic potential has been exchanged for gravitational in the process. Evidence is presented here and in follow up works.
Of course, the values obtained above will deviate slightly from current values due to required oscillation (significant time dilation of oscillation on large scale) and the fact that energy of
the outermost electron in Carbon-10 (corresponding to Neptune) slightly differs from the free electron energy used above.
Note that levels calculated above may be considered major vertical energy levels - there are smaller ones. In example, lepton mass oscillation can be considered as oscillation between minor
discrete vertical energy levels, or sublevels.
Note also that rest mass is relative - it may be localized to a particle but it may be spread in a wave-form where it can be considered as 0 relative to space (exchange between mass and frequency).

In effect, Neptune is a [vertically] excited electron, and electron is the excited photon [scale] electron.
It is obvious now that the difference in strength between electric and gravitational force between two electrons stems from the difference in rest mass between the standard electron and
photon [electron] - 42 (7*6) orders of magnitude.
Photons can consist of different particles. But different interpretations are also possible.
If the strength of electric force is invariant to mass of interacting particles, carrier photons produced with proton-electron interaction can be considered as having the same mass as those
produced in electron-positron interaction. However, that might not be the case in reality. Gravity carrier particles (gravitons) can couple to half-photons, in which case mass of one
half-photon in proton-electron interaction is inflated and photon can be considered as a carrier of gravity too.
Instead of half-photon mass inflation, another possibility is that a positron is produced (as intermediate force carrier particle) in proton-electron interaction.
Both interpretations may be equally present in reality.
Coupling to space-forming gravitons obviously enables mass oscillation of particles such as photons.
Note also that entanglement between charges in never absolutely lost. Motion of electrons outside of atoms (or ions in general) will still result in emission of paired half-photons as long as
that motion is relative to space of some opposite charge (emission of energy is generally the result of motion relative to space). In case of electro-magnetic energy space may be quantized into
magnetic field tubes with density of tubes increasing with distance from the source charge (volume of the tubes remains constant in one interpretation of weak entanglement so they are thinning
with distance). Distance between the tubes is distance between discrete energy levels and only at infinite distance from the source (assuming unlimited force range) distance between the tubes would
be zero. Emission of radiation outside of atoms is thus still the result of energy level changes relative to some other charge.
When localized within the atom on a particular energy level motion of the electron is coupled to angular momentum of specific magnetic field tube(s), electron is at rest relative to space and there is no
photon emission. The reason there is no photon emission due to electron motion relative to protons of other atoms must be dragging or distortion of weaker tubes by the local field (note that
proton field is effectively dragging the electron field with the electron).
Note also that *motion* of electron on a particular energy level inside the atom, due to lack of resistance, is equivalent to motion of charge in superconductors where magnetic field tubes are
expelled outwards.
Similar to coupling of electron half-photons (polarized gravitons) to proton half-photons in case of electro-magnetic energy, non-polarized electron gravitons are coupled with non-polarized proton
gravitons inside the atom.
However, the scale of gravitons forming space of standard (U_{0}) protons and electrons may generally be negligible compared to photons. On U_{1} scale this is inverted.
Changes in energy level within the U_{0} atom are likely generally synchronized with temporary inversion of half-photon orbital angular momenta. In U_{1} this is inversion of
graviton orbital angular momenta. Retrograde orbits are then the result of graviton momentum inversion and are unstable if graviton momentum is not aligned with real mass momentum.
Even if electro-magnetic and gravitational potential may be generally inverted between adjacent vertical energy levels, localized reversal of inversion is possible on either level.
In one interpretation, it is relative motion that creates (inflates) polarization. Boson condensates on U_{0} scale could then represent such localized reversals with limited range.

With a change in vertical energy level, nature of the force evolves, exchanging polarization (electro-magnetic potential) for neutral gravitational potential or vice versa, depending on
the direction of evolution.
Similar to neutral pions, simple standard photon is composed of a particle/anti-particle pair (eg. U_{-1}.e^{-}/U_{-1}.e^{+}). These may generally have
anti-aligned 1/2 spin momenta, with aligned orbital momenta forming total spin of the photon.

Note the following:
Symmetry could also be achieved simply by decreasing half-photon mass to 8.1 * 10^{-87} kg (setting K_{A} = M_{e} = 9.10938356 * 10^{-31} kg).

If vertical asymmetry needs to be preserved, the asymmetry breaking energy of K
Note that symmetry by decrease of half-photon mass requires considerably more energy - 8.9 * 10^{-15} kg (4.99 * 10^{21} eV = 4988 EeV).

At first, it might seem unclear why would it be necessary to preserve vertical asymmetry, but the reason is equivalent to the reason for preservation of horizontal asymmetry.
Particles with mutually inverted properties annihilate when distance between them is reduced to
Note that energy levels are physical. In case of electro-magnetic energy, energy levels are magnetic field tubes. Splitting of energy levels can then be interpreted as splitting of magnetic field
tubes, although alternative interpretations are possible.

Creation of symmetry would require adjustment of half-photon mass in either case, therefore the energy of 5.7 * 10
Changes in energy levels are generally correlated with changes in frequency. Consider photons. Even though rest masses of constituent half-photons are quantized, their orbital momenta must be proportional to
frequency if speed of photons is invariant to frequency.

Rest masses of gravitons are quantized too and will be different on different energy levels, but probable rest masses can be deduced assuming scale-invariance of non-dimensional mass
ratios. These ratios should be well preserved between vertical energy levels.
In example, one likely rest mass of an U
Obviously, half of mass of an atom [nucleus] is not the mass of a single graviton, rather a superposition of multiple gravitons, however, such superposition on U_{-1} scale is likely to
be interpreted as elementary from U_{0} reference frames.
Different atoms with different masses can be interpreted as having gravitons with different masses, however, masses of these gravitons may be limited to a couple of generations and difference in
atomic mass could be the difference in real mass (over-capacity, under-capacity).
Another interpretation, however, may be more likely.
If gravitons are oscillating in rest mass between different vertical sublevels, oscillation may be such that a superposition of oscillating mass produces the net gravitational effect matching coupled
real mass.
In more massive nuclei, gravitons would simply spend more time inflated to higher energy levels.
Complexity (diversity of charge coupling) in strong force should be correlated with this oscillation as it is coupled with exchange between electro-magnetic and gravitational potential.

Note that the obtained mass is in agreement with other
calculations of graviton mass (≈10
Note that there is no single dark matter particle. Any naked graviton of any scale is a particle of dark matter.
Note also that [rest] masses of standard photons and neutrinos may generally be determined from momentum, relative to **c** constant.
Masses obtained here are invariant to **c**. Obtained half-photon mass corresponds to a particle of vacuum energy density (9.9 * 10^{-27} kg/m^{3}), with a radius
of U_{0} scale Neptune equivalent (≈3.8343 * 10^{-16} m) and orbital velocity of ≈3.5 * 10^{26} m/s.
Physically, a particle with such momentum can be obtained with a collapse of a gravitational maximum of U_{0} Neptune equivalent (standard electron) to U_{-1} scale energy, converting mass to velocity to
conserve momentum (note that this speed would be valid even in GR, if the half-photon is understood as quantum of vacuum - here it does have vacuum energy density, and the vacuum is interpreted as space).
Rest photon mass relative to standard **c** (when its spin momentum is not taken into account) can then be obtained through conservation of momentum (p=m_{1}v=m_{2}c), and it is ≈2.1 * 10^{-54} kg.
This mass agrees with experimentally obtained
photon mass through its interaction with matter.
But the obtained photon rest mass of 1.821876712 * 10^{-72} kg may also be validated through conservation of energy. In CR, relativistic speed limits are different between different scales of energy.
For standard protons and electrons speed limit is the standard *speed of light* (**c**), however, for photons with rest mass obtained above, speed limit must be much higher. The reason
one does not directly observe photons travelling at greater speeds is probably because faster photons are not entangled (and do not directly interact) with atoms (quantum entanglement, however, could
be interpreted as indirect observation of superluminal photons although it is questionable whether these should be interpreted as standard photons, and this could also be interpreted as stretching
of [units of] space). Linear or angular momentum of unconfined photons is effectively limited by density/pressure of larger scale of space, so the superluminal velocities are limited to smaller
scales of space (subspaces). In other words, as the photon expands or inflates from scale U_{-1} it is slowed down to **c**, however, the constituent quanta could still have spin momenta
exceeding **c**, proportionally to frequency.
Validation of calculated photon masses and velocities can be found in the analysis
of the Solar System in CR context (chapter *Quantum nature: Outermost angular momenta
and c*_{1} confirmation) and other follow-up
papers, but also here in some of the following chapters.

M

M

To prevent annihilation, masses of two constituent particles should be equal for 0 time relative to other combinations (relative 0). The oscillation of one half-photon should thus be anti-aligned with the other (phase difference of 180° in ideal case) and the whole system (photon) can be reduced to two-body oscillation. Here the intermediate (0 time) state must be the state with lowest mass (state lifetime is proportional to mass).

Note that, there must exist a threshold frequency - at which point two half-photons will fuse and form a graviton half-particle.

Due to non-zero mass, photon must have a range, roughly equal to [reduced] Compton wavelength, ie.:
c = 2.99792458 * 10

Massive particles will generally either gain or lose energy in motion.
There are various interpretations for loss of energy of a particle such as a photon:

Obviously, - due to required oscillation of velocity, at times the speed limit imposed by space may be broken - resulting in radiation of energy of smaller scale,
- small scale temperature - energy of smaller scale will be radiated away if the environment is of lower temperature,
- experienced density of space cannot be absolutely zero (particles may be coupling with gravitons),
- transfer of momenta (eg. through gravitational interaction) to other small scale particles in space.

M_{1} | M_{2} | ϕ [°] | a [m/s^{2}] |
---|---|---|---|

M_{γμ} | M_{γμ} | 90 | ±0.481235302 * 10^{-10} |

M_{γμ} | M_{γμ} | 0 | ±0.240617651 * 10^{-10} |

M_{γτ} | M_{γμ} | 90 | ±5.732686887 * 10^{-10} |

M_{γτ} | M_{γμ} | 0 | ±2.866343444 * 10^{-10} |

M_{γτ} | M_{γτ} | 90 | ±8.092948194 * 10^{-10} |

M_{γτ} | M_{γτ} | 0 | ±4.046474097 * 10^{-10} |

There are two interpretations of photon acceleration (deceleration). In one interpretation photon *linear* momentum remains effectively constant - the change in energy (frequency) is
reflected in momenta of its constituent quanta. However, changes in spin momenta are generally correlated with changes in orbital/linear momenta and acceleration of photons will be a superposition
of both interpretations, only the dominant component will vary, depending on properties of space.

Indeed, analysis
of motion of Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses spacecraft shows anomalous relatively constant weak long-range acceleration of ~ - (8±3) * 10
There are two interpretations.
Either photon mass can be considered as relative 0 while graviton is considered as superposition of two of above calculated masses, or the photon mass is real mass while gravitons inflate to match
that mass.

Recently, dark matter was indeed proposed as the
solution to the problem.
However, in that solution no effect on photons is considered, rather on spacecraft exclusively.
It should be questionable, however, whether these gravitons form the gravitational potential of the Solar System, or the galaxy (as proposed, effectively, by the cited work).

Anomalies have been detected on other spacecrafts. Table \tbl7 shows the anomalies and calculated accelerations for matching graviton configurations.
spacecraft | distance [AU] | anomaly [m/s^{2}] | possible graviton configurations [M_{1}, M_{2}, ϕ] | calculated acceleration [m/s^{2}] |
---|---|---|---|---|

Pioneer 10 (<1999) | 40-60 | 8.09±0.20 * 10^{-10} | 2 * [M_{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 0°] | 8.092948194 * 10^{-10} |

Pioneer 11 (<1999) | <30 | 8.56±0.15 * 10^{-10} | [M_{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 90°] + [M_{γμ}, M_{γμ}, 90°] | 8.574183496 * 10^{-10} |

Ulysses (1992-1995) | 1.3 - 5.2 | 12±3 * 10^{-10} | [M_{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 90°] + [M_{γτ}, M_{γμ}, 0°][M _{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 90°] + [M_{γτ}, M_{γμ}, 90°] | 12.139422291 * 10^{-10}13.825635081 * 10 ^{-10} |

Galileo (1993) | ~3 | 8±3 * 10^{-10} | 2 * [M_{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 0°] | 8.092948194 * 10^{-10} |

Pioneer 10 (2003) | 82 | 8.74±1.33 * 10^{-10} | 2 * [M_{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 0°][M _{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 90°] + [M_{γμ}, M_{γμ}, 90°] | 8.092948194 * 10^{-10}8.574183496 * 10 ^{-10} |

New Horizons (2008) | 8 | 13.2±0.6 * 10^{-10} | [M_{γτ}, M_{γτ}, 90°] + [M_{γτ}, M_{γμ}, 90°] | 13.825635081 * 10^{-10} |

Interestingly, the results suggest that in all solutions masses should be equally aligned (both either 0°, or 90°). This would then imply that Ulysses anomaly is the same in value
to New Horizons anomaly.

Generally, any particle with finite range (mass > 0) should be converting radial component of velocity to angular orbital velocity with distance relative to the source, although this can be subdued if the range is continuously extended by mass loss. This is a consequence of entanglement (and physical interpretation of that entanglement on particular scale!) of emitted particles with the source, however, entanglements can change (decrease/increase).

Note that here the same velocity has been used for all photons. In reality, some difference in orbital velocity of half-photons may exist, especially for heavier half-photons where it could
result in inflation of photon mass to the order of 10^{-50} kg or beyond.

The strong nuclear force then becomes a result of exchange of large source rest mass (~10^{11} kg black hole) for large force carrier mass, resulting in range decrease (collapse).
Proton radius can then be interpreted as a *fossilized* black hole radius.
This has to be one of the most fascinating features of the observable universe - not showing any care for absolute numbers, it's shuffling energies regardless of their magnitudes, all while
leaving fossils behind as memories left for someone to process sometime in space and somewhere in time.

In GR, metric may be scaled proportionally to energy, but scaling is limited to space and time dimensions (mass itself doesn't scale in GR, leaving other constants absolute). Another problem is that
the constant of proportionality between space and time is interpreted as an absolute constant - invariant to scale. In CR, this cannot be a correct interpretation.

In conventional (absolute) form, the Lorentz factor allows a graviton of infinite mass to move, bound by the same speed limit as any other body of mass. Since such mass requires infinite
energy just to start moving, its speed limit is, however, effectively 0.
Similarly, a particle of absolute zero mass should have a speed limit equal to infinity as it has absolute 0 mass relative to any scale of space.
Of course, one could interpret change in metric of GR as change in energy density - for a non-local observer, infinite mass would indeed not move in GR due to infinite time dilation, while a
massless particle in infinitely flat space would have infinite velocity. However, one cannot assume that there exists only one and absolute space-time entanglement (at least not in CR).
One can use such reference frame in calculations, but this will lead to misinterpretation of reality on large and small scales.
According to CR, space and time both must be quantized (force carrier particles have quantized and non-zero rest masses). This, effectively, makes curvature of space-time relative to scale.
Space is thus relatively continuous (due to infinite number of carrier particles) but also relatively quantized (due to quantized ranges and entanglements of carriers with different sources).
The infinite number of space-time entanglements only reduces to GR interpretation if the ratio between space and time scales is absolutely equal to
Speed limit may be determined from density and pressure of space. Since density and pressure of space are relative [to scale], for a graviton of infinite mass, density and pressure are such that
speed limit is 0.
If standard photons are quanta of space they will (or can) travel at the speed limit (**c**) determined from pressure and density of such space only if they don't have mass relative to
that space.
However, if they do have kinetic energy relative to that space they must have mass, therefore must travel at speed < **c**. Effectively, while in motion relative to space, they are
no longer quanta of space.
Note that this implies that a photon travels at rest velocity as quantum of space, while its own space can spin at higher velocity (>>**c**, as calculated) although that velocity can
be exchanged for radius (which should be the case if photon travels in non-localized wave-form).
In CR, **c** should be interpreted as average velocity of travel (inflation). If rest masses of neutrinos and photons are different, the final radius (range) of inflation will be different
and so may be the average velocity unless both photon and neutrino have the same source and are detected [collapsing radius] at the same location.
On small enough distances, average velocity should be higher than **c**, on long enough distances lower than **c**.
Are magnetic field tubes of polarized space half-photons?

Speed limits for particular mass are thus relative to [the scale of] that mass and speed limits can relatively be broken.
The relative breaking of a speed limit is synchronized with a change in rest mass energy level, when speed is adjusted to match
Increasing mass [dimension] is thus increasing time dimension while decreasing (quantizing) space dimension (or less likely, keeping one constant while changing other). This can then be
interpreted as exchange between space and time which can be correlated with exchange between gravitational potential and electro-magnetic potential or exchange between gravitational
mass (range) and carrier mass. Space-time is then an entanglement of quanta or quantum of space orbiting a quantum or quanta of time. Each can be localized at their rest orbital, while in between
they may generally travel non-localized (inflating/deflating radii).

Change in speed limit thus requires emission or absorption of a minimum discrete amount (impulse) of energy which can take the body to another vertical energy level.
This allows for planetary systems such as the Solar System to be inflated atoms or a system of bound, but individually inflated particles.
Note that inflation must be sufficiently fast to preserve the structure, but it cannot be infinitely fast to break the inevitable asymmetry.
It is likely that such inflation is triggered by matter/anti-matter annihilation (similar to annihilation/inflation of standard photons into standard electron/positron pairs).
Such event is both, the moment of death, and birth, since it likely occurs in the space of a dark matter particle pair (soul, gravitational maximum) where one pair is inflated and the
other collapses (exchange of souls) - eg. a collision occurs at UM

M

If one is comparing relatively equivalent systems between scales, a precise value can be calculated assuming strongly non-dimensional ratios are well preserved (eg. space/space, not space/time) and knowing
precise values of some variables in space and time between two systems, or between one system and the intermediate equivalent.

The limit on scale r

r

Angular velocity of charge forming the quantized momentum of electron is then:

Note that electron at standard scale (**U**_{0}) may not generally orbit the atom as a particle rather as a wave. In that case, due to conservation of momentum, the velocity of its
charge is much lower as the radius **R**_{e} becomes equal to atom radius (**r**_{0}).
Its charge, however, may not be distributed as an *orbital wave-line*, rather *orbital wave-surface*, which would then increase velocity somewhat (by 3/2 maximum) but this is negligible
compared to initial decrease. Generally, its charge forms a spinning tube.
Closer to nucleus the charge velocity may become relativistic but it still won't exceed **c**_{-2} and probably won't even exceed **c**_{0} (between the innermost electron
and atom centre speeds can be greater than **c**_{0}).
Note how using the standard speed of light (**c** = **c**_{0}) would produce a picture inconsistent with reality. If electron would in a wave-form orbit the atom at
speed **c**_{0} the atom radius would have to be 2.9 * 10^{-13} m, some 241 times smaller than it is in reality.

Even though these dimensions are cyclic there can be no absolute space, time or mass travel - only relative.

In example, dimension of time (or a quantum of a dimension of time) may be considered as a circular thin tube (or even a relative 1-dimensional ring), a torus, with relatively discrete or relatively continuous
degrees of polarization. Space (or a quantum of a dimension of space) may be considered as a thin sphere surface, a torus with significant asymmetry in tube width and height - a relative
superposition of time dimensions of various radii. Charge - a superposition (localization) of time dimensions. Mass - a superposition (localization) of spaces.
CR implies a relatively simultaneous existence of energy on various vertical scales (self-similarity).
If energy existing on one scale can be aware of, or be sensitive to, adjacent discrete vertical energy levels only, direct sensitivity is strongly limited to 3 dimensions. This will be, with
implied self-similarity, replicated on all these levels - splitting these into 3 components, hence explaining three generations of particles.
Note that not all universes have to be limited to direct awareness of 3 scales (splitting of energy can result in more than 3 levels) and even those limited to 3 may be aware of other
scales indirectly - which might become direct awareness over time.
Note also that self-similarity can be interpreted as relatively simultaneous existence of energy on various scales.

If nature does not discriminate between scales of energy (just as it does not between units), then entanglement and operations between adjacent scales should also be natural. In which
case, the scaling vector may be normalized.
Let
Note that, if dimensions here represent scales, geometrical representation of the state with orthogonal unit vectors would be misleading.

and, with no discrimination between scales:
μ

K

Even in weak entanglement, where speed of information transfer increases with distance (due to decrease of particle/wave radii), the speed only becomes infinite at infinite distance between
entangled dimensions. Decrease in scale in entanglement is increasing probability for establishment of a bigger entanglement with a closer dimension (switch of context). At infinite
distance, entanglement is stable for absolute 0 time.

Therefore, the ratio
Note that **ω**^{-1} is the eccentricity of the ellipse of width equal to **2kc** and height equal to **2v**, as shown in Fig. \fig5.
Fig. \fig5: Relativistic ellipse
With **k** = 1, width is fixed to **c** and omega factor degenerates to Lorentz.
Note also, if **k** itself has the form of **ω**^{-1}, degeneration to Lorentz becomes degeneration of a variable ellipsoid to an ellipse of fixed width.
In GR, for an *relativistic* ellipse it is absolutely forbidden to form a circle (**v** = **kc**).
However, in CR, this must be only relatively forbidden.
Assume **v** is the angular velocity of a rest frame 1 contained within (or relative to) a rest frame 2 which has angular velocity equal to **kc**.
It is not forbidden for a rest frame 1 to reach velocity **kc** and no infinite energy for that is needed either (infinity also must be relative) - however, needed energy is equal to energy of
rest frame 2 (minus rest frame 1 energy). Thus, rest frame 1 can reach velocity **kc** by using all available energy of rest frame 2. This is then simply a transformation or exchange of
rest frames - rest frame 1 was born (inflated) into rest frame 2, while rest frame 2 died (deflated) into rest frame 1.
With rest frame 1 becoming rest frame 2, its velocity is now rest velocity and speed limit now may be increased to angular velocity of rest frame 3 it is entangled with.

However, this should be further generalized, to allow polarization of space and summation of (sensitivity to, awareness of) different scales of energy.
In a physical reality in which every universe (or distinct form of energy) has a momentum the energy of which is stored into its gravitational maximum and its space, it is appropriate to
introduce the concept of rest velocity for rest frames (or rest spaces), equal to:
Note that entanglement may not be broken. In that case the speed limit now represents a speed minimum and velocity is relativistic if the rest frame slows down.
Since entanglements cannot be absolute 0, velocity becomes relativistic when it is either increased or decreased from rest velocity. In that case, rest velocity can be interpreted as a velocity
where entanglements cancel.

This is all relative to some remote reference frame. From the perspective of rest frame 1, due to scale change, speed limit may be relatively invariant.
Note that energy can also be applied externally, rest frame 2 (generally a graviton) can merge with another such particle, changing its angular velocity and speed limit for rest frame 1.
μ = rel. const. (eg. 4π * 10

m ∈ ℕ

M

M

At any moment in space/time the force acting on a body is a superposition of gravitational and electro-magnetic force. In extreme conditions (temperature/pressure) one component may
collapse (deflate) as other inflates.

Source of the force is a general rotating graviton with its field spread through the well:
Even though the particle has multiple associated charges and real charge/mass radii, to simplify equations, it is useful to reduce it to a point particle, especially in cases where it effectively
is a point particle - eg. when space/time resolution is such that real radii or the oscillation in charge/mass distribution cannot be determined.

μ = magnetic permeability of space (/4π)

g = 1/G = energy density of gravity at the maximum (inverse of the gravitational constant)

s = relativistic factor

M = spin electric field at

B = magnetic field at

E = electric field at

G = gravitational field at

S = spin gravitational field at

v

Note that **s** is non-dimensional (invariant to scale) and must be equal to:
$\displaystyle s = {{v_s v} \over {c_n}^2}$
For **n** = 0 (**c**_{0} = **c**), using substitution:
$\displaystyle {v_s}^2 = {{G m_r} \over r}$
, with the angle **φ** between **v** and (**v**_{s} x **r**) being equal to the angle between **v**_{s} and **r**, the **qmS** term reduces to:
$\displaystyle qm\vec{S} = {{G m_r m v^2} \over {c^2 r^2}} \sin^2{\phi}$
which, when simplified to one-body problem - using reduced (effective inertial) mass (**m** = **μ**, **m**_{r} = **M** + **m**), becomes the correction factor to
gravitational potential from General Relativity:
$\displaystyle V(r) = \int{qm\vec{S} dr} = - {{G(M+m)\mu v^2} \over {c^2 r}} \sin^2{\phi}$

At extreme momentum change, polarized and neutral components can exchange potential - E exchanges with G, while M exchanges with S.
Note that in equilibrium (full capacity) **v**_{s} = **v** (**v**_{s}v becomes **v**_{s}^{2}), and, using the above substitution for **v**_{s}^{2}, spin gravitational
vector S becomes:
$\displaystyle \vec{S} = \vec{v} \times \biggl({1 \over q} {G \over {c_n}^2} {m_r \over r^2} \vec{v_s} \times {\vec{r} \over r}\biggr) = \vec{v} \times \biggl({1 \over q} k {m_r \over r^2} \vec{v_s} \times {\vec{r} \over r}\biggr)$
k = specific vacuum density [m/kg]
making vector S the gravitational equivalent of spin electric vector M.
Note also that even the ratio between *constants* of the polarized and neutral force vectors is equal:
$\displaystyle {1 \over \epsilon} {1 \over \mu} = {1 \over g} {1 \over k} = G {{c_n}^2 \over G} = {c_n}^2$

Note that if momenta are quantized on one vertical energy level, they must be quantized on all levels - from a proper (scale invariant) reference frame.
Due to [relatively] low energy oscillations in vertical scale (eg. lepton oscillation) caused by the splitting of a vertical level, inflation of a system of multiple bodies may
inflate different bodies [of the same species] to different [relatively] low energy levels and quantization might not appear conserved (as timescales might be inadequate to detect oscillation).
Also note that, with a change in level (eg. oscillation), due to finite speed of propagation of changes in space, distant bodies might not feel the same force as local bodies.

Of course, these equations are valid down to the radius of the field source,
Note that horizontal energy levels may not be treated equally to vertical energy [sub]levels. In example, carrier rest mass may be treated unchangeable across the horizontal energy
levels (levels of the same energy magnitude), it may only be considered [relatively] temporarily excited (or, having excited range).
In any case, at stable energy levels, Yukawa term disappears for coupled gravitons.

However, sensitivity (probability for coupling) of real mass to these gravitons will be inversely proportional to difference in scale of energy between the two.
To take this into account, each Yukawa term should be multiplied by the sensitivity factor, proportional to:
$\displaystyle {\left({E \over E_n}\right)} \delta_{ij} + {\left( {E_n \over E} \right)} \left( {1 - \delta_{ij}} \right)$
$\displaystyle i = \left\lfloor {E \over E_n} \right\rfloor,\, j = 0$

Therefore, due to quantized ranges, energy levels are quantized, however, due to different scales, quantization is relative. This is evident in planetary systems - planetary orbitals are obviously
quantized while quantization for smaller bodies is not as obvious due to greater density of energy levels.
Furthermore, the amount of polarization of force carrier particles (gravitons) is likely to change with scale (which may be the source of difference in sensitivity). In that case, distant bodies
might effectively feel one force while close bodies would feel another force. Nuclear atomic force, when interpreted as general force, is one such example - on close range gravity
dominates, otherwise, electro-magnetic force.
Exchange of one potential for the other has two interpretations - either charge of the field source is exchanged with mass, or energy is exchanged between polarized and non-polarized
space (mass/charge exchange in carrier particles).
In reality, superposition of both, should be present.
δ_{ij} = Kronecker delta

Of course, one should also take into account mass oscillation here.
M = mass enclosed within radius r

The effective graviton is forming the toroidal quantum of space which the matter is traversing, its mass **m**_{s} is thus the total mass of constituent gravitons
while **v**_{s} is their average velocity.

From (G1.1), orbital velocity of matter is:
Note that such gravitons can't accelerate matter beyond **c**.

At full capacity,
Note that **v** and **v**_{s} are generally vectors, while here it is assumed that the angle between **v** and **v**_{s} is 0. This should be fulfilled in equilibrium but
may not be fulfilled otherwise and should be taken into account.

- annihilation of matter with anti-matter,
- critical temperature/density (extremely low, extremely high).

Note that any entanglement decrease must be coupled with another entanglement increase.

The exchange of potentials of general force could thus be common in birth and death of bosons and boson (Bose-Einstein) condensates.
The equivalence of bosenovas and supernovas/novas, galaxies and quantum vortices, planetary systems and atoms, in that case, may go far beyond abstract similarity.
In any case, it should not be impossible, in any universe, to ensure conditions that would reduce the relativity of self-similarity (similarity to a universe of adjacent vertical scale) to a
minimum.
Ten condensed atoms of ^{10}C may just form a U_{0}.Solar System at some moment of oscillation.

R = radius of the maximum

M = gravitational mass of the maximum

ρ = mass density of the maximum

v

T

Note that **v**_{s} here is Keplerian velocity. Assuming **M** is the mass of a graviton, non-Keplerian velocity may be interpreted as a difference in **G** (due to a difference in graviton mass).

While the 3-dimensional (spherical) form of one maximum may cloud the existence of inner maxima, outer maxima can have different spin momenta. Even if the whole system changes spin, changes
cannot be instantaneous across all maxima, rather propagate in a wave-like nature.
v = orbital velocity of the maximum

r = radius of the maximum

m

v

R = r

M = M

Note that graviton may, instead of deflation, start inflating after decoupling. It will then continue inflating until it reaches maximum range - if it does not collapse and couple to another
mass before that point is reached.
Maximum range becomes a relative term if graviton is losing energy with inflation - in that case, range would be expanding continuously. However, most energy is lost with coupling.
Regardless of interpretation, lost energy at the moment of coupling should be proportional to distance between inflation/emission (decoupling) and absorption/deflation (coupling) due to
increasing distance in correlation between entangled constituent quanta of the wave (graviton) - the volume of entanglement cannot remain absolutely constant and it is unlikely to conserve
constancy (oscillation average) with distance.
Note also that collapse of a wave-form is only a relative collapse of wave nature - difference between a particle and a wave is simply in a radius of a wavelike form. The inverse interpretation
is also valid - in some reference frames, the larger wave-form may be interpreted as a particle.

In reference frames where collapse is discrete, low energy collapse occurs when this is established:
Inversion here is commonly represented by inversion of appropriately scaled pressure and temperature.

Assume now that instead of fixed superposition, mass oscillation is fixed to certain frequencies. Obviously, this gives rise to charge - repulsive or attractive force between energies depending on
correlation in frequency. Things get increasingly complicated with the number of discrete masses in oscillation.
Opposite (anti-aligned) charges are decreasing spatial distance due to increasing correlation manifested in *sharing* of coupled carrier particles (eg. half-photons) between them. Coupling
of these particles increases carrier mass, decreasing range. This contraction of a radius of one dimension (eg. time, or magnetic field tube) is then synchronized with contraction of spatial
distance. Decrease of distance will be accelerated due to positive feedback (the rate of fusion of carriers increases inversely proportionally to distance).
The [superposition of] carrier particles is thus alternating in entanglement between two sources of force (synchronized with mass oscillation).
If charges (frequencies of mass oscillation) are aligned there can be no sharing and carriers will be annihilating or deflating into smaller scale, increasing range.
Note that difference in velocities between two charges can affect mass oscillation and, therefore, alignment of frequencies, when relativistic effects are manifested locally.
This implies that rates of nuclear fusion should increase if fusing protons have different velocities.

One interpretation of strong force could then be oscillation of particles between 2*3 different mass (colour charge) oscillations, giving 2Given the determined scales of discrete vertical energy levels, it is reasonable to assume that the centre of the observable universe (

One might even argue there are 6 distinct wavelengths (after 6th, the spectrum becomes continuous) in Lyman series and that such differentiation is a direct consequence of the
Solar System being an atom with 6 protons and 6 electrons (carbon), or that series beyond the 6th may be influenced by more distant systems.

All particles having a momentum always generate waves. A particle itself may be in wavelike or corpuscular form. This form, like everything, is relative. One observer might detect a wave while other may observe a particle form (both forms can even be observed at the same time). Forms are dependent on properties of local space, which may be affected by the observer too. Generally, with more energy density, a corpuscular form is more likely to be detected. These are coherent waves which have more concentrated mass due to wave collapses initiated by self interference. Waves may be coherent in space (laser waves) and/or in time (high frequency waves). Coherence in both, space and time, will thus produce the most dense energy. A wave collapse may also be initiated by interaction with other waves (particles). From human perspective, wave nature prevails on

Poison was the cure (1990), D. Mustaine
Psychotron (1992), D. Mustaine
Tornado of souls (1990), Megadeth
Earth
My last words (1986), D. Mustaine
Countdown to extinction (1992), Megadeth
Ludwig van Beethoven
Albert Einstein
Red Dwarf (1988-1999), C. Barrie et al
False existence (2000), M. Ljubičić
Ode to joy (1785 - 1824), F. Schiller et L. v. Beethoven
Jim Carey
Mars
Vedran Ljubičić
Elysian fields (1994), Megadeth
7th son of a 7th son (1988), S. Harris
David Attenborough
Alien, S. Weaver et al
Venus
The number of the beast (1982), S. Harris
This is the new shit (2003), Marilyn Manson
Jaws, S. Spielberg et al
Pantera
'Oumuamua
Rondo ala turca (1780), W. A. Mozart
I thought I knew it all (1994), Megadeth
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
John Carpenter
Dubioza kolektiv
Call of the wild (1987), Deep Purple
Clint Eastwood
Majke
Neptune
Manowar
Kurt Russell
Anthony Hopkins
Metallica
Leo Cimbal
Mariamne
Apophis
Isaac Newton
Stephen King
Katarina Perić
Rough stuff (1988), AC/DC
We're from America (2009), Marilyn Manson
John Lithgow
Rammstein
Predator, A. Schwarzenegger
Rihanna
Sirius B
Marko Prišuta
Fuck the system (2002), System of a down
Jesus Christ
Father Ted
Alice Cooper
Ameno (1997), Era
Nikola Tesla
AC/DC, M. Young et al
Megadeth, D. Mustaine et al
Iron Maiden, S. Harris et al
Antonio Vivaldi
Sun
Monty Python
Christiano Cimbal
Marilyn Manson, M. Manson et al
F. F. Chopin
Claude Debussy
System of a down, S. Tankian et al
J. Pachelbel

Some additional, old, unformatted, unchecked and possibly incorrect data stemming from delusion.

SUM photon -------- The SUM photon is a system of multiple photons fused into one body. SUM proton ---------- The SUM proton is a system of multiple protons fused into one body. These protons are in the form of distinct layers of the SUM proton: sun outer core layers, sun mantle, planetary cores and outer space, comets, dwarf planets between asteroid belts. The mantle layers of the sun are terrestrial planets (SM UP quarks). The sun itself is the core (SUM SM DOWN quark). SUM neutron ----------- The SUM neutron is a system of multiple neutrons fused into one body. These neutrons are in the form of distinct layers of the SUM neutron: sun inner core layers, planetary mantles, planetary and sun atmospheres, asteroids, dwarf planets between cometary belts. The Solar system ---------------- Sun and the terrestrial planets form one SUM proton composed of 6 standard protons. Solar system contains 6 protons and 4 neutrons making it a Carbon atom (10C). Solar inner core (-) = SUM SM UP quark (4 SM UP quarks - 4 neutron parts) = *NEW, pending addition of one 1 SM UP quark | *The inner and outer core have inverted (exchanged position) as part of 6p4n -> 4p6n conversion Solar outer core (+) = SUM SM DOWN quark (6 SM DOWN quarks - 6 proton parts) *NEW, pending loss of dwarf planet (1 SM DOWN quark = 1 proton part) Solar inner mantle (-) = SUM SM UP quark (6 SM UP quarks = 3 proton parts) = +2/3 -1/3 Solar outer mantle (-) = SUM SM UP quark (6 SM UP quarks = 3 proton parts) = -2/3 +1/3 Mercury (AJ) (-) = SUM SM UP quark (2 SM UP quarks - 1 proton parts) Venus (AN) (-) = SM UP quark (1 SM UP quark - 1/2 proton part) *Earth/Moon (AU)(-) = SM UP quark (1 SM UP quark - 1/2 proton part) *pending conversion to SM DOWN quark, orbital changes Mars (AS) (+) = SUM SM UP quark (2 SM UP quarks - 1 proton parts) Solar crust (-+) = SUM SM DOWN quark = Asteroid belts (-+) = SUM e + anti e neutrinos (6 proton parts) *pending loss of asteroids in 2 belts (1 proton part) about 2.66' AU Inner dwarfs Vesta (-) = SUM SM UP quark [2 SM UP quarks - 1 neutron parts (2/3 of the SM DOWN quark)] *2.66 AU (+) = SM UP quark [1 SM UP quark = 1/2 neutron part (1/3 of SM DOWN quark)] *NEW, forming dwarf planet (1 neutron part) Ceres (+) = SUM SM UP quark [2 SM UP quarks - 1 neutron parts (2/3 of the SM DOWN quark)] *3.00 AU (+) = SM UP quark [1 SM UP quark = 1/2 neutron part (1/3 of SM DOWN quark)] *NEW^2, forming dwarf planet (1 neutron part) Pallas (-) = SM UP quark [1 SM UP quark = 1/2 neutron part (1/3 of the SM DOWN quark)] Hygiea (-) = SM UP quark [1 SM UP quark = 1/2 neutron part (1/3 of the SM DOWN quark)] Solar atmosphere = (+) SUM electron = +2/3 -1/3 Jupiter (+) = SUM electron (2 electrons) *Saturn (-) = SUM electron (2 electrons) *pending loss of 1 electron planet + 1/2 rings Uranus (+) = electron (1 electron) Neptune (+) = electron (1 electron) Solar outer space Cometary belts = SUM anti e + e neutrinos (6 proton parts) *pending loss of comets in 2 belts (1 proton part) about 66.42 AU Outer dwarfs = SUM SM DOWN quark (5 SM DOWN quarks - 5/2 neutron parts) Pluto/Charon (2 SM DOWN quarks - 2 neutron parts) Haumea (1 SM DOWN quark - 1 neutron part) MakeMake (1 SM DOWN quark - 1 neutron part) Eris (1 SM DOWN quark - 1 neutron part) *66.42 AU (1 SM DOWN quark - 1 neutron part) *NEW, forming dwarf planet (1 neutron part) Outer g-spheres = SUM anti e neutrinos + e neutrino (4 neutron parts) = *SUM anti e neutrinos + e neutrino (1 neutron part) *NEW, forming whole (1 neutron part) The notation: The expression in braces after the expression denotes relation. Eg. counter-clockwise(Polaris) = counter-clockwise relative to Polaris Rotation of Solar system space ------------------------------ The Solar system space is rotating in the same direction as the planets, counter-clockwise(Polaris). The rotation speed decreases with distance from the Sun. This space is layered both horizontally and vertically. Vertically it corresponds to layers of the Sun, but it is losing density with distance so the layers expand vertically and horizontally. However in matter dominated space, due to coupling with matter The space of planets rotates in the same direction as the planets The Solar system is entangled with Sirius system. Spin change ----------- Spin change radiates energy - more spin changes = more energy radiated. Jumps from higher to lower orbit include multiple spin changes. Spin momentum gives energy to matter, angular momentum gives energy to space. The Earth-Moon system --------------------- The Earth and Moon are one body. Together they form one of the SM UP quarks in Sun total proton. When both were neutral they were almost touching each other, rotating about the barycentre. Both cores had a radius of current Moon radius. As they moved away from each other (losing charge) they were shrinking accelerating spin and acquiring mass, forming: * Solar system nova * Ejection of outer comets and dwarfs * Ejection of electrons (current gas giants) * Ejection of main asteroids and dwarfs * Ejection of quarks (current terrestrial planets) * Neutron 1 completely unpacked 1. outer space (Earth hill sphere) + Proton 1 unpacked * Neutron 2 unpacked 2. atmosphere + Proton 2 unpacked 3. upper mantle ----- Event horizon * Neutron 3 unpacked Here they started losing spin, getting closer to the Sun + Proton 3 unpacked * Neutron 4 unpacked ----- Event horizon + Proton 4 unpacked 4. lower mantle + Proton 5 unpacked 5. outer core + Proton 6 unpacked 6. inner core The Moon core capacity relative to Earth core is empty (and vice versa) - they have opposite charges and attract, and they are fully entangled as the capacities match each other. When the Moon and Earth core were closest together (at the Earth-Moon barycentre - Earth mantle) Since these charges were at full capacity they started discharging by exchanging orbital momentum (charge) for a spin momentum (mass) - thus moving away from each other. The discharge of electric energy is through magnetic (spin) radiation. We are at the end of the discharge process - the magnetic field of the Moon is fully contained inside the Moon, while the magnetic field of earth is rapidly declining to interior. The magnetic fields are created and maintained by the difference in rotation velocities of the layers: The Earth-Moon entanglements ---------------------------- E inner core <=> Moon core E outer core <=> Outer space (beyond atmosphere to the Moon) E lower mantle <=> E thermosphere CHANGING TO E upper mantle <=> E upper atmosphere - mesosphere -----------> E astenosphere <=> E lower atmosphere - Stratosphere E litosphere <=> E troposphere General entanglements --------------------- Entanglements are not constant (they oscillate too). Entangled entities are connected by wormholes which periodically and relatively open and close. As Earth rotates entanglements change. The side of Earth facing the Sun is entangled with the Sun and the planets it can see. Evolution --------- The evolution is a change in "rest" energy ("rest" frequency of oscillation) of the species. The evolution can be weak or strong, it is oscillating and it has a half-life. Each evolution is composed of weak and strong evolutions. Currently for our universe, after 2 weak evolutions comes 1 strong. The evolution cannot result in new species if there is no overlap of multiple evolutions. When the overlap is low (no strong gravitational changes) the dominant driver of evolution is natural selection = fine tuning of species = weak property change. When the overlap is high (strong gravitational interactions - cataclysmic events) the dominant driver of evolution is mutation = strong change of properties. Weak evolution is the evolution in a weakly interacting gravity field (such as current Earth). Evolution overlap (mutation) ---------------------------- When the end of previous and the start of next evolutionary period overlap, the evolutions themselves mutate causing mutations of gravity fields and matter, resulting in stable mutated species. The strength of the mutation depends on the overlap and strength of interacting evolutions. Generally, the strength is increased when evolution periods forcibly (unnaturally) shorten. The extinction (annihilation) ----------------------------- If the evolutions are oppositely charged the overlap results in inversion of species - transforming larger species to smaller [1:n] (and vice versa), inverting sex (chirality). The overlap of evolutions of the same sex increases size of the species. The extinction can be relatively total or partial, but no annihilation results in extinction of life - rather transformation of life (death). In compressed evolutionary periods the mutations can progress in a much faster chain reaction. The opposite sex (charge=chirality) overlap (mutation) ------------------------------------------------------ The overlap of species of opposite sex (chirality) reduces the size by 2/3. New mass radius = (FC) * m The opposite spin (mass) overlap (mutation) ------------------------------------------- The same sex overlap (mutation) ------------------------------- The same sex overlap results in species almost doubled in size, with annihilation of differences between the interacting forms causing less variation of species properties. New mass radius = 2^n - ΣA Strong overlap (mutation) ------------------------- Eg. fusion of human with cattle => a hairy humanoid creature with horns, a tail and hoofs, popularly known as devil fusion of devils of the same sex => a larger (2^1) devil fusion of two great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) of the same sex => Carcharocles megalodon (2^1) = Carcharodon carcharias (2^1), of opposite sex Weak overlap (mutation) ----------------------- Eg. fusion

A universe is a relatively complete, relatively deterministic, relative chaos.
A truth hard to accept is still truth. Failure to accept it only prolongs the due pain.
Treating time as money is the abuse of time. Abuse time and you will be abused by time, in space. Treating space as a resource is the abuse of space. Abuse space and you will be abused by space, in time.
Humanity. A bug, at first, in otherwise perfect software. Evolved into a malicious virus, a malware of epic proportions, spreading into every pore of perfection. Destroying and consuming reality.
Chemists.. always cooking something. If only they would know what it is.
Mathematicians.. should stay away from physics. Unless they are prepared to get physical.
Everything is physical. Thoughts are bodies. Every body hurts. Sometime. Someone.
Polarized by fear of the unknown, a master of science is transforming into a monster of religion. And the science fades into Prisca Sapientia.
Simple explanation often requires complex imagination.
Temples, shrines, pantheons and deities. One can only laugh at all the ingenious forms of human epitaphs, to the waste of energy. All shall be recycled, by the recycled tears, of recycled earth, in recycled universe.
Another year, another dimension for a mathematician.
General Relativity is a good theory, it's just not relative enough.
Most selfish addiction is the food addiction. All humans have it. None are fighting it.
Slavery. Safety. Salvation. Starvation. Stupidity.
I have been given life, I gave life. I have been given knowledge, I gave knowledge.
The legal and illegal. Ridiculous.
At the period of contraction tornadoes become so strong and charged they strip flesh from the bodies. At certain point it becomes a vortex of dark space. The tornado of souls.

#EXTM3U
F:\MP3\(computer) emily_howell_sample_1.mp3
F:\MP3\02_Beethoven_-__Moonlight__Sonata__1st_movement.flac

#EXTM3U
E:\MUSIC\Bruce Dickinson - Man Of Sorrows - YouTube.MP4