The Solar System

Nature and mechanics

Note that ¹⁰C isotope is unstable on standard (U₀) scale, with a half-life of ~19.3 seconds. Its apparent relative stability on U₁ scale must be the result of time dilation (e.g., due to scale difference and/or difference in state/conditions) and/or exchange of strength between components of general force (transition from dominantly electromagnetic to dominantly gravitational) with possible relative inversion of stability of isotopes between adjacent scales (discrete vertical energy levels - as postulated in CR). No element can be absolutely stable, therefore, in case the inversion is real, due to instability of ¹⁰B (decay product of ¹⁰C and ¹⁰Be) on U₁ scale, the Solar System could be cycling between ¹⁰C and ¹⁰Be states (¹⁰B being the intermediate state).

Obviously, one should be familiar with CR in order to fully understand this paper. Reader is therefore advised to consult CR for definitions of gravitational maxima, gravitons, general force and other important and commonly used terms in this paper if these sound unfamiliar or seem to deviate from conventional definitions.

Note, however, that this does not imply that dominant forms of energy on particular scale are absolutely dominant. Proper conditions (i.e., at certain properly scaled temperature/pressure) can ensure stability of non-dominant forms.

Naturally, electrons and positrons here should be considered as relative electrons and positrons - not only has charge been exchanged for gravity, the associated gravitons may have been in different mass eigenstates at the time of inflation. In general, outer planets may be vertically excited negative charges, while inner planets are vertically excited positive charges - or vice versa, in case of anti-matter counterparts. Relativity in positrons here may even be greater - they could represent quarks (and possibly also electron holes, which are usually considered as quasiparticles). It should also be possible for any of these to be paired with neutral fermions (e.g., neutrinos). All these possibilities will be explored later.

Here, 1e or 2e should not be interpreted as states holding 1*e or 2*e charges, respectively (where e is equal to the amount of charge of an electron) - the states may hold particles with fractional charges (e.g., quarks). When it comes to regions dominated by charged particles (positrons/electrons), the configuration 1e should be interpreted as a state holding 1 charged particle (whatever its charge), while 2e should be interpreted as a state holding a pair of charged particles (whatever their charges are). However, the total number of particles can be higher, as charged particles can also be paired with neutral particles (e.g., neutrinos), at least occasionally. In case of regions dominated by neutral particles (neutrinos/anti-neutrinos), the configuration 1e should be interpreted as a state holding 1 neutral particle, while 2e should be interpreted as a state holding 2 neutral particles.

In case of the Solar System, inner dwarfs (anti-neutrinos) or their remnants here are: Vesta, Ceres, Pallas, Hygiea (corresponding to number of neutrons in ¹⁰C). Possible primary neutrinos (outer dwarfs) are: Orcus, Pluto, Salacia, Haumea, Quaoar, Makemake (corresponding to number of protons in ¹⁰C). Note that, in equilibrium, there should be 6 primary neutrinos present, however, some could be grouped together in 2e states, just like in case of planets (6 dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt may not all be primary neutrinos then, and some could be dead remnants - representing possible energy levels).

Note the splitting of s levels on the left side. This is illustrated as a possibility, but might not be the case in reality. Due to dual interpretation, principal quantum number here has an imaginary value (n) and effective value (N) which here is either 1 or 2. For the standard carbon atom in ground state the maximal principal quantum number is 2, equal to N here (which means that electrons occupy states 1s, 2s and 2p, as shown in the figure). However, is it reasonable to expect for a system that has been vertically excited from the standard atom scale to the scale of planets to fossilize the ground state? The particles were probably in excited states prior to inflation. The imaginary value (n) may be interpreted as that excited state (values used in the Fig. \fig5 represent values derived later in the paper and are relative to the group - inner/outer particles). Note that n on both sides seems to be inversely proportional to planet's mass. Saturn is roughly 3 times smaller than Jupiter, while Uranus and Neptune are roughly 5 times smaller than Saturn. Mars is roughly 10 times smaller than Earth, however, either Mars' or Mercury's mass (or both) is apparently anomalous in this regard. This may be a consequence of mass oscillation. Note, however, that Mercury and Mars coupled together would be almost exactly 5 times smaller than Venus, so the anomaly may be the result of perturbation. In any case, should such anomalies be surprising, especially if the fossilized system is an unstable one, e.g., ¹⁰C isotope? Probably not. Note also that 2 particles are allowed per sub-shell and there is no reason for a lone electron not to pair up with a bound neutrino, possibly forming a boson (e.g., W), although such pairing may be extremely unstable at room temperature/density, oscillating in existence (on U₁ scale though, this state can be relatively stable).

Note that it may be possible for the number of inner planets to actually reduce with increasing number of neutrons due to increased gravitational potential provided by neutrons, but this also requires either low [properly scaled] temperatures/densities for condensation of charges beyond the 2e configuration or excessive number of neutrons compared to protons. Thus, in heavy elements, due to condensation of mass and with no significant change in atomic radii, it may be possible for all planets of a system to be gaseous giants, where the number of charges cannot then be precisely determined from the number of planets. This may be unlikely though (condensation of mass/charge beyond 2e may be confined to the star). However, masses can be inflated due to mass oscillation. E.g., assuming U₁ electron neutrino mass is on the order of the mass of Ceres, the mass of U₁ tau electron neutrino would be on the order of 10²⁴ kg. Mass oscillation should exist in all particles, leptons and quarks included. Thus, even inner planets in 1e or 2e configuration may become gas giants. However, symmetry/inversion should exist between inner and outer planets and it should be possible to make a distinction between inner, outer charges and neutrinos in between.

Note that, while bound anti-neutrinos/neutrinos should correspond to number of neutrons/protons, they may not be in the same configuration as positrons/electrons. Thus, it is possible that TOI-178 has a single inner dwarf planet (holding 2 anti-neutrinos) instead of two dwarf planets, and two outer primary dwarf planets instead of four. Additional particles may also be bound to the system, however, orbitals of these should probably lie beyond the primary components, unless these are lower mass homogeneous particles with no distinct large scale gravitons (such as smaller asteroids and comets). Note also that, with the exception of the innermost planet, planets of the TOI-178 are in orbital resonance (18:9:6:4:3). The pattern does suggest one additional particle (or a binary) between the inner and outer planets, one that would complete 13 revolutions for every 18 revolutions of the second planet (pattern 18:13:9:6:4:3).

The values of constants used here are values listed in chapter Constants.

If the energy is stored mostly in the Sun, this would imply non-homogeneous storage of kinetic energy as gravitational potential - likely proportional to the scale of the large scale gravitons. However, it is also possible that energy was accumulated before the birth of planets. Most likely, this energy was accumulated with nucleus inflation during the conversion of electro-magnetic potential to gravitational. Of course, the Sun loses energy over time but lost mass is on the order of 10²⁷ kg, significantly lower than hypothesized relativistic energy. There are other possibilities for excess mass acquisition, however, acquisition of mass on the order of 10²⁹ kg is, after inflation, probably unlikely, especially considering distances and motion of bodies in the galaxy.

At first, it might seem that this calculation cannot be valid since both velocities are relative to CMB and v_p should not be included in calculation. However, the obtained c₁ is confirmed later. This puts certain constraints on Sun's evolution, implying that Sun's graviton (or, superposition of large scale gravitons) was, after initial inflation, accelerated to 628+368 km/s (additionally inflating) in the same direction as the local galactic group, then decelerated to 368 km/s, however, not losing the acquired energy (it is yet to lose it on U₁ scale). This is a plausible explanation with hypothesized duality taken into account - on one scale transition is quantized, on the other continuous. Here the energy of the graviton is quantized and requires certain time to collapse to lower energy level. Indeed, if one assumes that fusion in the Sun started with the moment of deceleration when its speed became equal to 368 km/s and assuming at that point real mass (fusion fuel) was equal to the mass of the outer (or, surface) gravitational maximum it would be reasonable to assume that collapse would occur once fuel spent in fusion becomes equal to acquired relativistic mass (ΔM). Since this mass has not yet been depleted, the collapse has not occurred yet, but, according to my calculations (see chapter Quantization of the Sun: Energy replenishment), this moment could be relatively near. The other possibility is that accumulated energy does correspond to the current speed (368 km/s), but the mass of Neptune has been decreased instead, from 1.08 * 10²⁶ kg to 1.02 * 10²⁶ kg (current mass). Explanations for this may include mass oscillation, moon creation and conversion of gravitational potential to electro-magnetic potential, however, I consider this less likely, especially comparing the rates of energy absorption and emission between the Sun and Neptune.

Comparing masses of systems of different scales requires proper relativistic treatment. Apart from the speed of light being different between the scales, a proper reference frame must be chosen. In case of comparison of U₁ scale system (such as the Solar System) with an U₀ system (such as a ¹⁰C atom) a proper reference frame is the CMB (Constant Microwave Background) radiation rest frame. Proper equation is thus (for v₁ = v₀ = v): $\displaystyle {\text { Sun mass } \over \text { Neptune mass }} \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}} = { \text { 10C nucleus mass } \over \text { 10C outermost electron mass }} \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_0}^2}}$ v = v_⊙ = cumulative speed relative to CMB = 996 km/s
c₁ = speed of light on U₁ scale = 2.93 * 10⁶ m/s
c₀ = c = speed of light on U₀ scale = 2.99792458 * 10⁸ m/s Note that CMB radiation is of U_-1 scale. Note also that maximum speed (c_n) depends on pressure and density of space and it is generally not equal to the standard speed of light. Here thus, even though the term speed of light may be used, c₁ should be understood as maximum speed of U₁ scale information, and also particles (stars) in local space. Within the galaxy, speed limit for orbiting bodies is generally defined by the gravitational maximum (event horizon) of the well - stars orbiting galactic centres with semi-major Keplerian velocities larger than c₁ could exist in other galaxies.

The following is an attempt to validate the EH operator defined in CR. However, this is completely unnecessary for validation of main CR postulates and hypotheses. Masses between discrete vertical energy levels have already been calculated in CR. This is simply an attempt at alternative calculation of these masses.

There can be no symmetry between current space and time, but due to cyclic nature of a universe and with cycle states being inverse of each other, symmetry would exist between past and future dimensions (space and time dimensions exchange in a way that current space is symmetric with previous space).

Here, M_p = M_n / m_U1 = 6.453032383 * 10^-88 kg could be interpreted as the mass of carbon half-photon in inverse cycle state.

Note that here, mass of the photon is obtained from: $\displaystyle M_p = {{^{10}C\text{ atom mass}} \over M_e} M_n = 6.791044478 * 10^{-88}\, kg$ suggesting inverted roles of photon and graviton.

Assuming inflation is stimulated by annihilation and considering conversion of electro-magnetic potential to gravitational potential, the inflating graviton here probably represents a superposition of two standard photons. The product of density and volume on the left of the equation (2.337660431 * 10^-72 kg) should then roughly represent the mass of two standard photons localized to outermost electron radius in ¹⁰C in Solar System equivalent state. Indeed, it is roughly equal to previously calculated photon rest mass in CR (1.821876712 * 10^-72 kg). Using momentum conservation, one can now calculate photon mass relative to the standard (conventionally presumed absolute) reference frame, where its speed is limited to c = c₀ = 2.99792458 * 10⁸ m/s: $\displaystyle p = m v = m v_{\scriptsize{U_0}} = 2.337660431 * 10^{-72}\, kg * 3.486882257 * 10^{26}\, {m \over s} = m_0\, c_0$ $\displaystyle m_0 = {p \over c_0} = {p \over c} = 2.719 * 10^{-54}\, kg$ or, using photon rest mass obtained in CR: $\displaystyle m_0 = 2.119 * 10^{-54}\, kg$ This mass is in agreement with localized photon mass obtained from recent experiments.

The result is obtained from the following: $\displaystyle v_{tot} = v_a + v_s \tag{Q1.2}$ $\displaystyle M_e\, v_{tot}\, r_a = {1 \over 2} \hbar \tag{Q1.3}$ Splitting the momentum in scalar space: $\displaystyle m_{re} v_a r_a + m_{img} v_s r_s = M_e v_{tot} r_a$ $\displaystyle {m_{re} \over M_e} v_a + {m_{img} \over M_e} v_s {r_s \over r_a} = v_{tot} \tag{Q1.4}$ and assuming: $\displaystyle m_{re} = M_e$ from Q1.2 and Q1.4, follows: $\displaystyle m_{img} = M_e {r_a \over r_s} \tag{Q1.5}$ M_e = standard electron mass = 9.10938356 * 10^-31 kg
r_a = r_U0 = orbital radius of the outermost ¹⁰C electron = 70 * 10^-12 m
r_s = spin radius of the outermost ¹⁰C electron Obviously, Q1.2 is satisfied with r_s = r_a. However, it would now be interesting to see what happens if Q1.2 remains satisfied with the collapse (localization) of the spin momentum (r_s < r_a). In that case, masses of orbital and spin momenta must be different. With orbital mass equal to standard electron mass, spin mass m_img is: $\displaystyle m_{img} = M_e {r_a \over r_s} = 1.66303410 * 10^{-25}\, kg = 9.99817551 *\, ^{10}C\, \text{nucleus mass}$ $\displaystyle m_{img} \approx 10 *\, ^{10}C\, \text{nucleus mass} \approx 93.3\, GeV/c^2$ r_s = R_U0 = spin radius of the outermost ¹⁰C electron = 3.834298096 * 10^-16 m A certainly interesting result. The quantization of the imaginary mass with ¹⁰C nucleus mass may be interpreted as confirmation of the carbon-like nature of the Solar System equivalent on the standard scale, however, the magnitude of exchange of polarized (electro-magnetic) potential for neutral gravitational potential suggests the Solar System may be a scaled Bose-Einstein condensate of multiple atoms. Note that the obtained mass (93.3 GeV/c²) is equal to predicted W boson (or electron-neutrino coupling) mass in some Electroweak models. Did the system inflate in the process of β decay? Or does this signal mass oscillation/temporary coupling? From the calculated mass one can now obtain [initial] real component of Neptune's total mass: $\displaystyle {m_{re} \over m_{img}} = {m_{{re}_1} \over m_{{img}_1}} \approx {m_{{re}_1} \over M_{U_1}}$ $\displaystyle m_{{re}_1} \approx {M_e \over m_{img}} M_{U_1} = 5.60974244 * 10^{20}\, kg$ In the above, it was assumed that charge radius is equal to mass spin radius (r_s) of the gravitational maximum. However, real charge radius is smaller. If one assumes Earth's mass was initially condensed to the inner core and inner core radius was the radius of the associated large scale graviton(s), the gravity at that radius was equal to the Sun surface gravity (274 m/s²), and charge radius of Earth must be at the radius where gravity is equal to half this value (this will be validated later): $\displaystyle r_c = \sqrt{GM {2 \over 274}} = \sqrt{GM \over 137} = 1705704\, m \tag{Q1.6}$ M = Earth's total mass = 5.9723 * 10²⁴ kg
G = G₀ = standard gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10^-11 m³/kgs² Using Q1.5, one can now calculate the initial real mass component of the Earth: $\displaystyle m_{re} = {r_c \over r_a} m_{img} \approx {r_c \over r_a} M \approx 6.81 * 10^{19}\, kg \tag{Q1.7}$ r_a = Earth's orbital radius = 149.6 * 10⁹ m This initial real mass will be further validated later. However, obtained charge radius is, as it will be shown later, induced charge radius, rather than the primary or primordial charge radius. Note that real mass is, per definitions in CR and applied to this case, standard observable matter, while img mass is the mass of a large scale graviton and associated dark matter. In calculations above real mass was associated with orbital angular momentum, while img mass was associated with spin angular momentum. This may be valid for some bodies, but for some bodies the inverse is likely true. I believe the inverse is certainly valid for terrestrial planets (in other words, their souls are much less massive than their bodies), while in black holes the img component may generally dominate (possibly in stars and gas planets as well). Thus, calculated real mass component of Earth is actually the img component of its mass (implying Earth's gravitational well is over-capacitated), however, this can also be interpreted as the initial real mass component (as it was interpreted here) or real mass at full capacity (where real mass is equal to img mass in value). It will be shown later that Earth's mass relative to U₁ scale is about 6.95 * 10¹⁹ kg, very close to here obtained mass.

Note that, according to CR, all velocities are average values of oscillation. Therefore, in eccentric orbitals, stars can exceed c₁ at periapsis - this is not forbidden, but the average (semi-major) velocity should not. There are two interpretations of this - either the orbit (shape) of the maximum itself is eccentric or the star is in [properly scaled] thermal motion relative to the maximum - oscillating perpendicularly to maximum's surface (the gravitational maximum generally has a torus shape).

Plausible locations for large scale gravitons of galactic space are radii of maximal velocities of stars in a galaxy. However, if angular velocity of stars is much lower than the expected velocity of the maximum, any such extreme is unlikely the location of the graviton. However, these stars could be fossils of the body of matter previously bound to a graviton - which had collapsed. Since collapse must include a reversal of momentum, the spiral galaxies could be the result of collapse through discrete energy levels. Consider the rotational profile of the Milky Way galaxy in Fig. \fig7 (right). Assume that the gravitational maximum was initially located at ≈13.33 kpc, at which point the stars at that location had 10 times higher angular velocities, when the maximum (graviton) started collapsing:

1. the reversal of momentum slowed down the stars at the location 10 times,
2. another reversal occurred at ≈7.33 kpc restoring the velocity of the graviton, accelerating and igniting local stars,
3. another collapse, slowing down the stars 10 times,
4. restoration at ≈1.33 kpc, acceleration then reversal and deceleration of stars 10 times,
5. ... possible intermediate levels ...
6. restoration at 428.838 AU, stars accelerated.

The primary question then is - is the gravitational maximum currently located at 428.838 AU? And is there a standard supermassive black hole at all in the centre of the Milky Way [or any other galaxy]? In other words, is every supermassive black hole simply a large scale graviton with an escape velocity greater than the speed of standard light? The profile of the Milky Way galaxy suggests that velocity of the maximum remains constant with collapse (the GM product and radius change equally) at least to some extent, while speed of stars about 428.838 AU suggests the gravitational maximum is still there. After all, assuming the maximum had collapsed to the radius of a hypothesized supermassive black hole (≈0.1 AU radius), the Sun and other stars should conform to the speed limit of c = c₀ = 2.99792458 * 10⁸ m/s, not 2.93 * 10⁶ m/s. In any case, the gravitational maximum at 428.838 AU appears to be the black hole for stars and similar large scale objects of the Milky Way. This does not rule out the existence of standard black holes (event horizons for standard particles) in the centre but, if they do exist, their individual masses should be much smaller than 10⁶ M_⊙. Of course, multiple gravitational maxima are possible and may be likely, the galaxy could have at least two (like the Sun itself) - one about 428.838 AU and the other about 0.1 AU in radius, with mass accreted in between and about the maxima.

Note that the effect is the same even without initial ionization - in that case, discontinuities would be inflated along with the atom, rather than produced in the process.

In case of dipole waves, absorption will induce separation of charges and collapse of a spherical form of the graviton into a two-dimensional ring form.

Note that there is a discontinuity in the seismic profile of the Sun at 0.63R_⊙. This is where Sun's angular velocity starts differentiating with latitude (it rotates as a solid from 0.63R_⊙ down to the core). Note also the following: $\begin{aligned}\displaystyle { 1 \over v_c } * 10^{12} = { 1 \over 2 \pi r_c f_c } * 10^{12} &= { 1 \over { 2 \pi * 0.2 * 695700 * 1644 * 10^{-9} } } * 10^9 \\ &= 695771 \text{ } km \approx R_{\odot}\end{aligned}$ suggesting that this should be satisifed: $\displaystyle v_c * R_{\odot} = 1 * 10^{12}\, {m^2 \over s}$ or, in terms of areal velocity of the core: $\displaystyle v_a = { 1 \over 2 } v_c r_c = {{{R_{\odot}}^2 \pi} \over {5^2 t_c}} = 1 * 10^{11}\, {m^2 \over s}$ A hint of deeper entanglement between the Solar core and surface (or rest) radius, also suggesting radii quantization (rest radius being exactly 5 times the core radius) which should not be surprising if these radii represent energy levels of large scale (U₁) gravitons. A value of R_⊙ which would produce the result equal to the input radius, in the first equation above, is 695735496 m. Should this value be interpreted as real Sun's rest radius? If so, assuming the Sun's outer graviton collapses once the Sun expands to this radius, with the rate of expansion of 2.35 cm per year, there would be about 1.5 million years left until next collapse (although expansion is probably accelerated near the end of the cycle). In any case, assuming 1st order periods of 4.25 - 4.5 billion years, a rate of expansion significantly greater than about 1 cm per year would be suggesting end of the cycle is near.

I believe that the currently accepted age of Earth and the Solar System of ≈ 4.54 billion years is incorrect and the correct age should be closer to 4.25 billion years (this will be elaborated later). This then suggests that the system is at the end of a 1st order cycle, however, these periods should be understood as averages and the length of 1st order cycles may vary by up to a couple of hundreds of millions of years.

Note that it has been recently discovered that Saturn's rings are much younger than previously thought. The age reported is ≤100-400 million years, with 10-100 million years being most likely, as already suggested by others. Due to proposed orbital disturbances, the age of rings is likely to correlate with the length of the 2nd order cycle. In that case, assuming they are recreated with each cycle, the rings should be 26 million years old at most (± a few million years). This is probably also the age of hypothesized Earth's rings during Ordovician. Interestingly, cosmic-ray exposure ages of chondrites (86% of all meteorites) are less than 50 million years. Exposure ages of achondrites, in example, cluster between 20 and 30 million years. This too certainly could be correlated with the hypothesized 2nd order cycle. Note that typical origin of achondrites are differentiated bodies (planets, moons and dwarf planets) which, unlike small asteroids, should have a distinct large scale graviton coupled to real mass. Thus, ejection, reformation or breakup of achondrites (resetting exposure) could by synchronized with collapses of gravitons of these bodies with the end of a 2nd order cycle, while additional collisions and orbital disturbances could be sourced in the collapse of Jupiter's graviton(s). Gravitons can aid both creation and destruction of rings. A delocalized graviton can capture a nearby body and ensure it collides with a planet. Suppose an asteroid's trajectory crosses the radius of a delocalized graviton (within Roche radius or not). If graviton energy is higher than the energy of the asteroid it may cause a breakup of the asteroid which would then result in the formation of rings about the graviton radius. Subsequent graviton collapse (localization toward the planet centre) will destabilize the rings and cause bombardment of the planet with the debris. If, on the other hand, the energy of the graviton is lower, it may localize toward the asteroid, however it will eventually encounter Earth's body mass and start localizing toward Earth. This will then impart a momentum on the asteroid sending it toward a collision course.

One may argue that the 6th major extinction is caused by humans, therefore, unnatural and should not be correlated with the end of a 2nd order cycle. I disagree, for various reasons. First, this cause could be much more relatively natural (as shown later, in chapter Earth, as a living organism) than relatively unnatural. Secondly, causality in CR is relative - the end of a 2nd order cycle could be interpreted as the cause for the ongoing extinction through influence on human psyche (it should be clear now that free will can only be relatively free). Note that I have associated consciousness with gravitons. If Earth's graviton is near the collapse and constituent small scale gravitons of Earth's space are coupled to human bodies (providing consciousness to humans) why wouldn't Earth's sense, or expectation, of collapse manifest itself through collective human action? Why would nature care for human intelligence or human egos? In my experience, effect matters much more than the cause in a universe and collective human actions are simply a manifestation of convergence to a certain effect. But this is not a one-way communication, theoretically at least, human action should also be able to influence the Earth's soul (graviton). I believe, however, that we are effectively helpless here. This development is all coded and if cataclysmic changes are scheduled, humans may soon become an insignificant actor in the play.

Here, 25.92 * 10⁶ years was assumed for the 2nd order period.

Note that the same results can be obtained with a period of 9157.4 years (obtained using 25.74 * 10⁶ years for the 2nd order period) and a phase shift of 64 years, assuming year 1958 (3rd Industrial Revolution, rapid rise in CO₂ emissions) should be associated with current events.

Note that, since the 4th order period was derived from the first three periods, evidence for the 4th order period may also be interpreted as the evidence for these three.

Evidence can also be found for additional harmonics of the 4th order period. The 3rd harmonic could be correlated with the Noah's Great Flood (dated to ≈6000 years by Biblical scholars), giving a date about 6148 years ago. The same harmonic could also be correlated with the recent rapid shrinkage of human brains (recently dated to ≈3000 years ago), giving a date some 3074 years ago. The 2nd harmonic (1536.9 y) of that harmonic (or, 6th harmonic of the 4th order period) could be correlated with Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events (for which some have previously hypothesized a ~1470 year period).

It is however, a legitimate question - why should a gravitationally bound mass in a galaxy obey the orbital law, while clouds of gas orbiting near the surface of a star should not (if most of M is below the surface)? Of course, the source of anomaly can be conversion to thermal (radial) motion but can it fully explain the deviation and how is the conversion linked to it?

Every large scale graviton has its own gravitational well and is a dark matter source. However, the addition (acquisition) of matter of smaller scale (real mass), in one interpretation, shields the existence of the inner graviton(s), effectively decreasing imaginary mass content of the well. Note that, in this exchange of dark gravitational potential for real gravitational potential, net gravitational force remains constant, but the capacity of the well (for real mass) is decreasing. A body may also have multiple gravitational maxima, in which case, the outermost (surface) graviton may shield existence of inner maxima. The shielding effect is not limited to the neutral gravitational component of general force, electro-magnetic component may be shielded as well. Thus, if there is no exchange of neutral gravitational potential for electro-magnetic potential, and if there are no changes in kinetic energy, despite the loss of matter, the gravity of a star, in case of shielding interpretation, should not change its average value with age (it should, however, still oscillate). The attraction remains, but its nature changes - from being mostly in its looks (real mass) to being mostly in its mentality (dark matter), as in any living being. Luminosity is then, generally, a good measure of gravitational mass only if the well is at full capacity, otherwise it is only correlated with real mass, and age (if there is no fuel replenishment). However, even if real mass may not be correlated with total gravity at all times, these should get synchronized periodically. The reason why they are not synchronized at all times may simply be a difference in scale - since energy changes are discrete, burning of real mass (small scale mass) will appear continuous, while on large scale, where energy quanta are orders of magnitude larger, change in mass (gravity) may require millions or billions of years. It is thus possible that the Sun does not have much fuel (real mass) left at this point, its gravity is rather in dark matter associated with the graviton that is yet to collapse. It is then likely that a collapse is synchronized with depletion of fusion fuel.

Note that even if pressure from high temperature (kinetic energy) is balancing gravitational force, the thermodynamics (within the gas cloud) cannot break the orbital entanglement of the gas cloud as a whole.

Assuming the orbital momentum of Sun's plasma has a dominantly electro-magnetic origin, its neutral gravitational equivalent can be calculated: $\displaystyle v = v_e = {2 \pi r \over T} = \sqrt{GM_2 \over r} = 2066.95\, {m \over s}$ v_e = equatorial velocity of the Sun surface
G = gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10^-11 m³/kgs²
r = equatorial radius of the Sun = 695500 km
T = rotation period at equator = 24.47 days which gives for the mass of the hypothetical neutral graviton: $\displaystyle M_2 = 4.45215 * 10^{25}\, kg$ If the electro-magnetic component of the graviton would be exchanged for neutral gravitational component, the equatorial matter could remain entangled with such maximum. The observed angular velocity could be interpreted as evidence of spin change during the transition between vertical energy levels and transformation of electro-magnetic potential into neutral gravitational potential. Suppose that entire potential was initially electro-magnetic but with an opposite spin. During transformation, Keplerian velocity component would be decreasing total angular velocity and, as the neutral component becomes larger than the electro-magnetic component, real mass would start spinning in another direction - aligned with Keplerian velocity. With complete transformation, real mass would have a Keplerian angular velocity. However, with the exchange of potential and inflation of space, [assuming real mass is acquired not inflated] increasing gravity must be radially compressing orbitals, increasing density of real mass. If the compression is not isotropic and the mass is spiralling inwards (as expected for interaction of binaries at the event of annihilation), angular velocity (being exchanged for radial) will be decreasing from Keplerian with orbital radius. This will be increasing pressure and temperature about the centre which will balance the neutral gravitational force at equilibrium. Angular velocity of matter about stars is thus generally proportional to the difference between neutral and electro-magnetic potential and, in magnitude, inversely proportional to temperature/density of real mass.

Note that orbital radius of a sunspot pair should be equal to the radius of the maximum before collapse. Gravitational wells of planets, dwarf planets and major moons have likely been formed in the similar way to sunspots. In other words, if the Sun would be unstable (as it was during planetary formation) and contracting, the created sunspots would have a good probability to more permanently localize and form protoplanets. The radii where collapses occur should be the radii of discontinuities in the Sun (possibly limited to outer layers). Inner planets and dwarf planets have probably been created from the original Sun in this way, while outer planets may have been created, similarly, from the original Jupiter (the moons of outer planets then could have been similarly created from the parent planet). The Sun itself may have been created similarly, during the contraction of a supermassive black hole. The equivalent of sunspots bathing in Sun's plasma, in standard atomic nuclei is probably the sea of quarks, which are popping in and out of existence (oscillating between vertical energy levels). Note also that the size of sunspots ranges from the size of a moon to the size of the biggest planet (Jupiter) in the Solar System, which I do not believe is a coincidence. Graviton sizes are quantized, however, since gravitational (and electro-magnetic) wells can be under/over-capacitated this may not be so evident (slow and continuous oscillation and transition of real mass between energy levels can also, as noted before, mask the quantization). But is sunspot creation/decay induction initiated locally? Or is it the result of absorption and emission of large scale photons (e.g., communication between stars)? I believe it is communication, just not sure whether it is conscious or not. Similar is probably happening inside planets, just not near surface, rather in the cores. And stars probably communicate with planets as well. This then begs the question - should solar flares and coronal mass ejections toward Earth or any planet be considered as intentional rather than coincidental? Discontinuities in the Sun are entangled with terrestrial planets. What happens in the Sun could then be mirrored inside Earth. Should it be surprising then if a particular ejection from the Sun would be synchronized with magnetic excursion (temporary magnetic field collapse) on Earth? As noted before, causality can be very relative on this scale. Of course, solar ejecta is generally not desirable (that's one reason for the very existence of Earth's magnetic field) as it harms the surface life, but surely there are exceptions. In some cases one might want to harm the surface life. Just like humans fry cancer cells with radiation, humans themselves could be fried with solar radiation, as they might have been during the Laschamp excursion, which could be interpreted as a precursor of a larger excursion, or a warning. In that case, it is probably not the Neanderthals that were targeted rather polarized Cro-Magnons (who probably exterminated Neanderthals during the time, possibly in fights over shelters). If that interpretation is true, considering Laschamp excursion failed to exterminate the [then perhaps still potential] disease, could an increase in radiation dosage be expected in next excursion? I believe so, with probability for that increasing with increasing extinction of wild animals and destruction of the biosphere. If this is a major extinction, as everything suggests, complete sterilization probably can be expected. But it is not only causality that is relative in existing conditions on large scale, multiple interpretations are commonly valid. These will be explored later. In any case, I find it likely that the Sun periodically showers terrestrial planets with energetic ejecta (in 4th order cycles) but whether this will be synchronized with a magnetic excursion on a particular planet depends on local conditions (e.g., presence of disease). Thus, magnetic excursions may not generally show periodicity, rather only at times when sterilization is desirable. Apparently, we live in times when it is very much desirable.

Note that interpolated values near 0.2 R_⊙ do not represent the current state, rather initial state at the core when the discontinuity had more pronounced thickness. In the current state, discontinuity is extremely compressed and velocities increase sharply at 0.2 R_⊙. This will be elaborated below.

Assuming the Sun is not solid anywhere (as expected in conventional theories), it should be mainly composed of plasma. However, there is a possibility that fusion in stars operates differently (or at least has a secondary component) - through the bombardment of solid (or solid-like) material with particles produced in the radiative zone. These may be high energy photons produced through matter/anti-matter annihilation and/or high temperature of plasma.

Rigid rotation is a consequence of relative cancellation of neutral and electro-magnetic influence on angular velocity, making it dependent on real mass (solar wind) density (pressure) which for particle orbitals falls of proportionally to distance r (number of particles per 2πr is constant).

Note that 33 R_⊙ is equal to 0.1 MAU (Sun-Mars distance), while the above equation gives 0.1 R_⊙ for v = 0. This correlation of the radius of the Sun with the orbit of Mars is not a coincidence - Mars is the outermost positive charge of the U₁.¹⁰C/¹⁰Be atom (Solar System).

Radius independent Keplerian velocities, like those at the outskirts of galaxies, are the effect of stretched space between maxima. With shorter distance between maxima, minimum is more localized and changes in velocity are sharper. Apparently, such stretching occurs in the Sun too, which is not surprising, considering established (and predicted in CR) self-similarity of universes. Note that the equation S1.1 is defined by the straight line passing through 0.1 R_⊙ and 1.18686 R_⊙, so if one assumes that, without space stretching, the defining points would be 0.0 R_⊙ and 1.0 R_⊙, 0.286 R_⊙ is the sum of translation of both points in radial direction due to stretching. Note also that, if the Sun loses all outer mass with the collapse of the outer graviton, with leftover mass roughly equal to initial core mass, the Solar System becomes geocentric. Space on particular scale is composed out of dark matter of particular scale so the stretching of space is a physical phenomenon in CR. Dark matter is thus relatively omnipresent. This is in contrast with conventional theories where dark matter is assumed to be present only in anomalous gravity. In other words, in conventional theories non-anomalous gravity is attributed solely to real mass which is coupled to absolute (single-scale) and abstract space, while, in CR space is physical and therefore carries part of the mass itself, the only question is how much and at what scale does coupling with real mass occur (which then determines the speed limit and possibilities for local accumulation of relativistic energy).

The Sun should have at least (or can be reduced to) two large scale gravitons (each of which can be a superposition of multiple gravitons). Gravity between the two maxima must be cancelled near 0.2 R_⊙. Therefore, any particle escaping the core will overcome escape velocity at the surface of the Sun (if not slowed down by other particles). The same is true for the other direction. Thus, orbitals of particles in the vacuum area near 0.2 R_⊙ must be highly unstable and it should be the area of lowest [real mass] density. However, gravitational stress can induce the collapse of the outer graviton. If that stress is low (insufficient for full collapse), the graviton will be fragmenting and collapsing into quanta of smaller charged graviton pairs, starting in polar regions (and, without further increase of stress, limited to polar regions). At these places (sunspots), gravitational escape velocity is decreased allowing higher bandwidth of escaping mass, although significant transverse velocity component will exist, especially for charged particles. Note that orbitals at polar regions seem to be entangled with the core. Strong entanglement between large scale [quark] pairs may exist between the core and surface, it is also possible that gravitational stress is adding energy to such entanglement and inflating maxima of such pairs (creating wormholes). In that case space is effectively stretched from the core to the surface (at sunspots) entangling orbital velocities but also being fixed to specific latitude by magnetic field lines (shielding inclined velocity component), the period of rotation of such plasma on the surface would be equal to: $\displaystyle T = {2 \pi R_{\odot} \over v} = 3041363\, s = 35.2\, days$ which is the rotation above 75° latitude and should then be the location of sunspot creation near surface. Note that, once the orbital entanglement is lost, being charged, the sunspots will drift along the magnetic field lines.

Note that the collapse of the outer maximum would act as dark energy for the gas inside the convection zone - it would expand and cool. At the same time, with the collapse of the inner maximum, the accumulated real mass (in the radiative zone and below) would contract. If now the planetary systems are equivalents of atoms, expansion of the universe is large scale atomic gas expansion, expanding possibly in a large scale convection zone (it thus has a torus like shape) and at the same time orbiting a central contracting or already contracted mass - possibly even an U₂ scale black hole. However, considering the properly scaled density/pressure of this gas, the observable universe is more likely [part of] the expanding graviton itself. Low large scale pressure outside the observable universe then explains the cosmological constant, or dark energy (note that vacuum energy has nothing to do with this expansion, it is the energy of spacetime). The core graviton of the Sun may be the result of vacuum induction during inflation, but, all gravitons could be interpreted as results of vacuum induction and quantization. In example, similar to inner Solar planets, the stars of an arm of a spiral galaxy could be a result of vacuum collapse into smaller quanta (gravitons). One may understand the creation of vacuum as stretching of space and decrease of density, but no space can be absolutely empty. Thus, if one is stretching space, one is also inflating smaller scale maxima. The stretching of space between entangled galaxies would result in creation (inflation) of dark matter filaments between them. Intergalactic and galactic dark matter may have thus been created with inflation of space. Due to discretization of stable energy [levels], with enough energy applied to vacuum creation, the inflation will result in [relatively] permanent maxima of larger scale. Vacuum inflation may be most likely in annihilation events, due to high symmetry and energy localization. However, stretching of space between strongly entangled particles can also result in permanently inflated particles (as in quark/anti-quark pairs). If inflated particles are always of equal species to the original particles, evidently the [private] space of such particles is composed of the same particles but of lower scale. In case of annihilation, the stretched (inflated) space might not be the space of the annihilating pair, rather the underlying space, making the product of inflation highly dependent on the point of interaction. In any case, it seems that everything must be mirrored, and when it appears that is not the case, the cause is simply a large distance - in scale of space/time. If the point of interaction of an annihilating pair imparts energy to the pair in highly asymmetric manner, the inflation would result in a pair of maxima of different scale (in fact, one of the particles could even be deflating). Thus, a possibility exists that even the proton and electron particles are a result of an anomaly in annihilation of particle/anti-particle pairs of equal scale. Note that a gravitational maximum must have a real radius - a point maximum would imply infinite gravity and no possibility for containment of smaller maxima.

The idea of planets or moons, even habitable ones, inside the Sun is not that ludicrous as it may seem. Note that, in the hypothesis, Sun's core is a Jupiter-like planet and nuclear fusion in the Sun is occurring outside the core, within the radiative zone - in case of thermonuclear fusion, and possibly also at its edge about 0.66 R_⊙ - in case of low energy nuclear reactions if these are occurring at this time. A layer of vacuum between two maxima would prevent conduction and convection of heat between the two, while a strong magnetic field generated by the core [or the core moon] can provide protection from energetic ions. This only leaves radiative transfer of energy between the core and the radiative zone as the potential problem but definitely not an unsolvable one (e.g., radiation can be reflected or attenuated). The flow of energy between the core and outer layers must be balanced in such a way the equilibrium conditions allow for habitability. However, seismic profiling and inertia can put constraints on the vacuum volume (e.g., the torus-like layer of vacuum may be more ring-like than spherical) but this must take into account the presence of dark matter and the possibility that seismic waves may be bent about some structures (effectively acting like an invisibility cloak for sound waves). The dark matter, where sufficiently dense, could insulate parts of the sun from electro-magnetic radiation as well. In any case, deduction of details of the interior by seismic profiling is very prone to interpretation bias, e.g., interpretation strongly depends on the ratio between dark matter (img mass) and real mass. Another problem is the inherently low resolution in profiling the core area (mostly due to reliance on g-modes of oscillation, for which unequivocal detection is very difficult). For all these reasons, habitable areas inside the stars, planets and other celestial bodies cannot be ruled out. In fact, there are many reasons to consider it likely that most life in the observable universe is concentrated in the interior of celestial bodies. How did matter accumulate in the radiative zone, so the core is not as dense as conventionally assumed? Assuming the Sun's outer gravitational maximum was initially dominantly electro-magnetic (it should have been, as hypothesized already) it was in the form of a two-dimensional ring, with a strong magnetic field. The outer and inner maxima would be channelling charged particles into the equatorial region in between. Neutral particles would be concentrating in the centre, forming a core. In the end, majority of the mass (fusion fuel) would be concentrated between the core and outer maximum, at which point the outer maximum had exchanged most of its electro-magnetic potential of general force for gravitational (also becoming almost completely spherical) and in the process must have contracted from the original size.

However, proper reference frame in this case is not the Sun, rather the asteroid belt.

If QM cannot describe the Solar System as an atom, it is QM that should be revised, not reality.

Note that spin radius cannot be 0 in CR. Every spin radius is thus orbital radius and if orbital radii are generally quantized, spin radii [and associated Keplerian velocities] should be too.

Small deviation in calculated gravity from real gravity in tables \tbl4 and \tbl5 probably stems mainly from horizontal oscillation of surface gravity. Note, for example, with rotation taken into account (g_N = 11.0 m/s²) calculated gravity for Saturn would match exactly the measured value of 10.44 (which is the value without rotation!). On the other hand, the gravity of Jupiter with rotation closely matches the calculated value (without rotation). This confirms that the definition of surface relative to fixed pressure (1 bar in this case) is appropriate for outer planets but should oscillate (cycle) between planets to take into account fossilization of a previous gravitational maximum in rotation period. Correlation with rotation is expected, as conversion between electro-magnetic and gravitational potential affects both gravity and rotation of mass. For terrestrial planets surface gravity is defined unrelated to pressure, as gravity at ground (sea) level. In case of Venus, the calculated value matches Venus' gravity at the transition zone between mesosphere and thermosphere. For Earth, the value matches the transition zone between upper and lower mantle, or, if one calculates with constant mass, it is, just like in case of Venus, the value of height of the mesosphere/thermosphere transition zone, but negative (below surface). So, here too, the cyclic nature of surface gravity (and fossilization) is evident. The constants h (ℏ) and G (gravitational constant) are scale dependent, but they also must oscillate. The above results could thus be interpreted as due to oscillation of energy of space (as h/G directly depend on it). This oscillation may be, for the electron, confined to the atom, at least at non-condensing temperatures. Another interpretation for the excitations of G is the absorption of large scale external gravitational waves, however, these cannot explain the confinement of the oscillation to atoms. In any case, when comparing small scale atoms with large scale atoms (e.g., planetary systems), one must not only choose a proper reference frame and take into account the possible effects of measurement, but resolve the issues of QM - make constants (properties of space) relative, with proper attribution of relativistic effects.

Indeed, looking at required total mass in Table \tbl4, the sole required mass that doesn't match others well is that of Jupiter. But that can easily be solved, if one assumes that energy level n is 2 instead of 1. It is similar for inner planets, setting n = 6 for Venus and n = 9 for Earth, yields good results. Note that, with such changes, n would be decreasing with a decrease in distance from the Sun, for both outer and inner group of planets (expected if n is correlated with orbital harmonics).

As all constants, constant masses of standard protons and electrons are a superposition of oscillation. As with the ℏ constant, the oscillation can be detected on large scale. On standard (U₀) scale, proton to electron mass ratio is: $\displaystyle { m_p \over m_e } = 1836.15267343(11)$ On U₁ scale: $\displaystyle {N \over P} {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = 1840.66694172611441$ $\displaystyle \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = 1826.09096003909666$ From these, the value of superposition might be obtainable using the EH operator, e.g., using 12/4 for the 1st order approximation: $\displaystyle EH_{12/4}(, \lambda) + \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = { m_p \over m_e } = 1836.182024284$ $\displaystyle \lambda = {N \over P} {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} - \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = \Biggl ({h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}} + {N \over P} - 1 \Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}}$

Note that here obliquity to orbit was not taken into account, it is assumed that primordial total velocity does not depend on it. For the same reason, it is assumed that the component of total momentum that transformed into the spin momentum is equal to its projection on the z axis once localized. In other words, it is the process of localization which produces obliquity in the spin momentum, in such way that the previous total spin magnitude now becomes a projection (added momentum is perpendicular to the original - see Fig. \fig1). Localization is thus adding energy to the particle (inflating spin radius/mass in this interpretation), or removing energy from the particle (in case of negative s), which should not be surprising. There are various interpretations for the primordial spin component being equal to the standard projection. One of them is spin component annihilation. Generally, two fermionic particles have to have anti-aligned spin (e.g., -1/2 and +1/2) to occupy the same sub-shell, however, with the exchange of electro-magnetic potential for gravitational potential some spin components may be annihilated. The annihilation of spin can be confined to single axis, thus it should be possible for a sub-shell to have 0 total spin even if it is occupied by a single particle (1e). It is also possible for total spin to be equal to 1 in 2e states, but this may indicate that conversion started with 2 particles separated (or in a triplet state - where magnetic spins are aligned). Therefore, here spin momentum magnitude s can have the following values: 0, ±1, ±1/2. Another, probably more likely, interpretation of integer spins in 1e states is pairing with neutral fermions (e.g., neutrinos). In any case, the above values of s probably represent local singlet, doublet and triplet states of coupled particles. Note that out of 4 largest bodies in the main asteroid belt that are supposed to represent primary anti-neutrinos, only Ceres is classified as a dwarf planet and has the most energy to remain active (alive). Other three (Vesta, Pallas, Hygiea) are not in hydrostatic equilibrium and probably represent dead bodies of dwarf planets. In that case, where are the gravitons (naked anti-neutrinos) that were coupled with these bodies? I believe they are coupled with certain terrestrial planets. Similarly, if the 6 hypothesized primary neutrinos are limited to dwarfs in the Kuiper belt region (which apparently does contain 6 dwarf planets) and further limited to most massive, or those in resonance with Neptune, some of these could be missing (being coupled to outer planets). However, since the main asteroid belt contains 4 dwarf bodies (matching exactly the hypothesized number of primary anti-neutrinos) while the Kuiper belt contains 6 dwarf bodies (matching exactly the hypothesized number of primary anti-neutrinos), I'm inclined to consider that neutrinos (or anti-neutrinos) do not like sharing shells with other neutrinos (anti-neutrinos) - they prefer coupling to electrons/positrons if these are not already paired. Just like in case of main asteroid belt, where 3 bodies are dead, 3 bodies in Kuiper belt are likely dead as well. These are probably bodies not in resonance with Neptune - Salacia, Quaoar, and Makemake. Note that any celestial body coupled to a localized U₁ graviton should be in hydrostatic equilibrium (once fully formed), however, the body can remain in hydrostatic equilibrium for significant time even after death, although its activity should be generally decreasing and it should be more vulnerable to disturbance.

These results show that constants in QM are the result of superposition (average) of oscillating values.

Note that spin radius R_s should correspond to a detectable discontinuity. By these results, this may be the inner inner core boundary or a dipole offset.

Interestingly, calculated spin radius of Mars is roughly equal to radius of Neptune. It is also roughly equal to orbital radius of Deimos, the outermost moon of Mars, which may be interpreted as evidence of Mars' primordial charge radius and a source of quantization of Moon radii. If that is indeed the case, remains of moon charges of Mercury might also be present about the 12k km orbit and small deviation between the obtained spin radius and the orbit of Deimos may be attributed to oscillation of radii or mass (real mass of 6.6 * 10¹⁹ kg gives the orbit of Deimos). I believe current moons of Mars are remains of a larger moon, or moons, the gravitons of which have collapsed into Mars in the process of planetary neurogenesis (hypothesis which will be presented later), thus, it is possible the original orbit was equal to obtained spin radius. Collapse of moons in this process is simultaneous with the recession of a planet's magnetic field. Moons with a distinct large scale graviton are thus entangled with the magnetic dipole of the planet. Small update in \ch (\ch_title). If the obtained primordial radius is interpreted as a localized ground state radius and, assuming negative excitation for inner planets, the excited radius [for terrestrial planets] may be the ground radius divided by n. For Mercury and Mars, this gives roughly the radius of Mercury (2x radius of Mars' core, 2x radius of Earth/Mercury inner core). For Earth, this gives the inner inner core radius or possibly dipole offset maximum (the dipole offset orbital [radius] thus being the real charge radius, opposed to the induced one in the outer core). Note that, core differentiation into molten outer and solid inner part should probably be associated with 2e configuration. Both Mercury and Earth are hypothesized to be in 2e configuration and both presently do have differentiated cores. Current data on Mars indicates its core is likely entirely liquid, again, consistent with hypothesized 1e configuration. The same should thus be true for Venus. However, even in 1e configuration, core splitting is expected in the early stage of planet development and may even periodically occur in adult form. This should probably be interpreted as relatively temporary coupling of the particle with a neutrino. Generally thus, it is the integer value of s (or perhaps only a triplet state, where s=1?) that is a primary signal of a differentiated core. If Solar System gravitons are oscillating between ¹⁰C and ¹⁰Be configuration, even with the change in scale [of a graviton], Mars must periodically exist in 2e configuration (acquiring one of Earth's gravitons, while Earth acquires Venus' graviton). Even if the lifetime of the ¹⁰Be configuration may be short, created temperature difference in the core should be sustainable over longer periods of time if the collapse of the 2e configuration induces splitting of the 1e maximum into 2 quanta (or pairing with a neutrino). Since both Mars and Venus appear to have been habitable on surface some time ago, both must have been in such configuration. The switch most likely occurs with the end of a 1st order Solar System cycle (4.25 Gy), but it likely also has precursors of shorter duration with the end of 2nd (≈26 My) and possibly even 3rd (1.512 My) order cycles. There is a high possibility that Mars' surface (or at least part of it) becomes habitable for a short period of time with the end of each cycle, not only when these are synchronized with the end of a major (1st order) cycle. In any case, as we apparently are at the end of at least a 2nd order cycle, the magnetic field of Mars could be [partially] restored within a decade or a couple of decades, and, once it is stabilized, should persist for millions of years. If 1e configuration can effectively morph into a 2e equivalent, two maxima of 2e configuration can certainly fuse into the 1e equivalent maximum (which could be, again, interpreted as neutrino acquisition and reconfiguration - into a doublet state in this case). Generally, this happens when a planet reaches the adult stage (acquired real mass with its own gravity stimulates inflation of the inner core maximum), but the same effect can also be achieved with suspended animation (spin momentum), as demonstrated by Mercury. Simultaneously with increasing habitability of Mars, one can thus expect decreasing habitability of Earth.

Note that the constant on the right is, for m_img = 7 * 10¹⁹ kg, equal to: $\displaystyle {{g_0 m_{img} {h_g}^2} \over {M_{\odot}}} = 2.93050621 * 10^{20}\, m^3$ apparently an integer multiple of the speed of light on U₁ scale (2.93 * 10⁶ m/s). For Neptune this gives spin (charge) radius equal to half of the current surface radius - as expected, like in case of Earth, real charge radius should be half of the mass radius of the maximum (for Earth, mass radius of the maximum is the inner core radius). Note that dipole offset for Neptune is roughly half the radius, consistent with the result. For m_img equal to 5.6 * 10²⁰ kg, one gets the mass radius of the maximum (surface radius). The result is similar for Uranus. Note that the equation might not give accurate current spin radius for Jupiter and Saturn. Reason for this may be that the initial assumption of current radius being equal to collapse radius (r_a = r) is not valid, however, more likely explanation is oscillation of mass (and therefore, spin radius) - even if the Solar System is carbon-like, its negative and positive charge components are not necessarily all electrons and positrons. Inflation of mass can be asymmetric due to lepton oscillation. However, the result for Jupiter gives radius exactly two times the dipole offset of Saturn in surface radius relative units (2 x 0.03778 R = 0.07557 R), but roughly 2/3 the actual dipole offset of Jupiter (0.119 R). The value is also equal to dipole offset of Earth (0.076 R). On the other hand, the result for Saturn gives radius 0.146 R (4 x 0.0365 R), closer to dipole offset of Jupiter. Again, these results suggest the cause for deviation is oscillation.

Consistent correlation of results with dipole offsets suggests the primary or primordial source of magnetic dipoles in planets is concentrated (collapsed) orbiting charge with a large spin momentum close to the dipole offset radius, rather than currents induced with Coriolis force in outer parts of differentiated cores. In fact, deviation of a dipole offset from calculated value should, in some part, be due to induced currents rather than oscillation. In that case, faster rotation rates and greater liquid mass would introduce greater deviation. This is consistent with obtained results, as Jupiter and Saturn do rotate much faster than Uranus and Neptune, while Earth rotates much faster than Mercury. However, as calculated and experimentally obtained dipole offsets both seem to be multiples of ≈0.034-0.038 R, only deviation from integer multiples of that quantum may be attributed to induced currents, the rest is more likely due to [quantized] oscillation.

With oscillation and inflation taken into account, the fact that planets of the Solar System have different masses goes in favour of it being the atom, rather than against it.

Atoms which are not under influence of strong external magnetic fields may be dominantly in neutral or oscillating configuration, regardless of scale - there is a lot of energy for mass oscillation in nucleons. If neutrinos oscillate in flight they must be absorbing energy in space, but their flavour may instead be predetermined with oscillation of particles inside the atom. In fact, lepton oscillation [of electron scale particles] might be confined to atoms if discharge of outermost particles is synchronized with their mass flavour being in ground (lowest energy) state in the form of electron. There is no such requirement for neutrinos as their mass is much lower than that of the electron. Probability of discharge of masses greater than electron mass might be simply too low due to much greater gravitational attraction.

Note that, with em force almost completely neutralized (especially for inner planets), due to equal energy of positrons and electrons there are no large differences between these particles, apart from anti-alignment of magnetic spins. One might ask why and how are positrons created (extracted) here? The answer is in neutralization - when charged they balance the electrons and, most likely, they are, together with neutrinos (main dwarf planets), the result of β⁺ decay of protons. However, due to charge neutralization, instead of being ejected from the nucleus, they remain bound to it. The β⁺ process implies that each positron (1e⁺ terrestrial planet) or positron pair (2e⁺ terrestrial planet) is entangled with a specific neutrino (1v_e main dwarf planet) or a neutrino pair (2v_e main dwarf planet) since the entangled pairs have been created at the same time, through the intermediate W⁺ boson. Note also, that, in order for the equation Q1.1 to remain valid, the mass excitation of Neptune must be equal to the [scaled] mass excitation of the nucleus (Sun). Thus, for the Solar System atom, and perhaps generally, the oscillation is synchronized between the innermost and outermost parts of the atom, consistent with absorption of wave-like forms of energy. Oscillation can thus explain the difference in masses between the planets, but oscillation itself should be quantized.

Note 1: The only reason for neutralization during inflation may be a difference in [relative] external magnetic field strengths between the two scales, with larger scale system being under influence of much weaker magnetic fields.

Note 2: If the inflation starts with an already neutral system, the end result is similar. In that case, large scale system is a relative clone of the small scale system, with no energy wasted on neutralization, only on inflation. However, any excess energy (beyond the discrete energy needed to change the vertical energy level) will result in cloning imperfections proportional to the excess energy.

Note 3: I assume that only naked gravitons are inflated (in other words, at time of inflation they are decoupled from real mass at the original scale, or have been decoupled some time before), real mass is then acquired mostly after inflation - from existing mass (asteroid) fields on new scale. These fields may be generally created with deflation of other gravitons in nova like explosions. Deaths (deflations) and births (inflations) of a particular scale are relatively synchronized.

Note that, on the right (outer) side, the energy of inflation is decreasing, while on the left (inner) it is increasing. This fluctuation is the result of an attempt to balance the left and right side of the system. Note also, that, if the original (small scale) system was in an electric field, the system did have a left and right (or top and bottom) side, not only inner and outer orbits.

The grouping and correlation of Venus/Earth and Uranus/Neptune here is understandable, as the pairs share the same quantum shell. Correlation of Uranus/Neptune with Mercury/Mars lies in the fact that Mars and Mercury were the first pair created on the inner side, while Uranus and Neptune were the last to be created on the outer side - with increasing energy on the inner side and decreasing on the outer side, the ratio of Uranus+Neptune/Mercury+Mars becomes roughly equal to the ratio of mass of outer to inner planets. This gives mass of 0.198 * 10²⁴ kg for the Mercury embryo (1e⁺). Comparing Venus (1e⁺) and Earth (2e⁺), the addition of another maximum doesn't impact the total mass significantly (as most energy comes from neutralization which is, at least roughly, invariant to number of particles occupying the state). If Mercury embryo mass was entirely core mass, total core mass of current Mercury should be equal to: ${{\text{Earth core}} \over \text{Venus core}} \small{\text{(Mercury embryo mass)}} = {0.325 \over 0.32} \small{0.198 * 10^{24}\, kg = 0.2011 * 10^{24}\, kg}$ , 61% of its total mass (for Venus' core at 32% of total mass, Earth's core at 32.5% of total mass).

Note 1: The correlation suggests that inflation energy for these planets came individually from specific particles, with roughly equal kinetic energy. This is consistent with the hypothesized matter/anti-matter atom pair annihilation - with colliding positron/electron pairs producing the particles inflated into planets. Such annihilation would likely occur within the gravitational maximum (event horizon) discontinuity, sending created matter and anti-matter in opposite directions, perpendicular to the maximum. The central galactic black holes and dark matter maxima in inner/outer layers of galaxies are likely remnants of such maxima.

Note 2: Due to neutralization, there are no significant differences between planetary systems created from matter and anti-matter atoms, apart from mass distribution - if the Solar System is created from matter (a matter of convention), in an anti Solar System inner planets would have greater mass than outer planets. The reason for this is the asymmetry of space at the event horizon, where opposite charges are separated to opposite sides of the horizon. Note that this implies that horizons are, at the moment of collapse, between outer and inner planets at the place where, after collapse, a neutrino (main dwarf planet) is formed. Note also that an event horizon for electron/positron annihilation can be provided by the atom nucleus itself - with the incoming electron, a graviton is extracted (expanded) from the nucleus (and possibly from the electron too) together with positron charge. At the point of annihilation, maximum (or a maximum pair) collapses with energy distributed between the created neutrino(s) and two charged particles, with none of them having enough energy to overcome escape velocity. Due to mass asymmetry the pair will not annihilate again and the external energy (photons) is required to decouple mass and charge, and return the system to original state. Likely, all annihilation events require expansion of particle maxima and creation of a temporary event horizon pair even if one [of larger scale] is already present at the point of annihilation.

Note 3: In CR, not only are the flavours oscillating, but, neither the rest or inertial mass is constant. Deviation from average mass is greatest in bound systems where it depends on the energy level particle occupies in the system.

Note 4: Correlation of standard masses with planetary rest mass in reference frames of orbits of bound neutrinos (main dwarf planets) is overall very good, with lower confidence only in case of the participants of the first planetary creation event - Mars and Mercury (unless the standard particle equivalent is yet to be discovered). For Mars, the horizon at Jupiter orbit is a better fit, while for Mercury, it is the Venus orbit.

Note 5: Correlation of the Solar System with standard scale particle generations, reveals the existence of new particles in the standard model of physics (which, obviously, should be scale invariant), for example, if one interprets Saturn as K^-, the Sun/Saturn mass equivalence with tau/electron reveals 2 additional standard particles: ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small K^- = 1717.751\, GeV = 1.72\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small K^- = 102.143\, GeV$ or, with the assumption of new energy splitting, a completely new generation (based on Sun's relativistic mass): ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 3477.228 * 571.864\, MeV = 1988.500\, GeV = 1.9885\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 206.768 * 571.864 = 118.243\, GeV$ or, with Sun's proper rest mass: ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 3477.228 * 537.552\, MeV = 1869.190\, GeV = 1.8692\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 206.768 * 537.552 = 111.149\, GeV$ One of these may have been discovered already.

Consider the case of elementary hydrogen (¹H). If 1e+ charge (e.g., positron) is extracted from the nucleus to balance the electron, what prevents them from annihilating? Obviously, between the two particles there must exist an event horizon [pair], which collapses in the interaction, forming a [bound] neutrino, but also emitting a gravitational wave of 2 graviton quanta, one of which is absorbed by the electron, the other by the positron - pushing them to stable orbits and preventing annihilation. Note that both positron and electron are now [even more] entangled and form a standing wave. If absorbed maxima are neutral they will increase masses of particles, decreasing charges (albeit in asymmetric manner relative to event horizon). This may be negligible but a probability exists the absorption will trigger charge [scale] collapse and mass [scale] inflation inverting the dominant nature of general force (em/gravity exchange) between the particles.

If one interprets Neptune as the electron, Jupiter contains the mass of two down quarks, while Saturn mass has been increased with the equivalent of one up quark mass (note that charges were separated from mass before neutralization). Assuming these masses came from protons (nucleus is scaled equally to Neptune), there are only 4 complete protons left in the nucleus. If now free up quarks [masses] couple with down quarks of a neutron, it will be converted to 2 protons. With 6 protons and 3 neutrons left, 3 more neutrons are needed to balance the core. With a complete neutron (2 down quarks + 1 up quark) mass on the outer side, and with remaining proton quarks left in the core, it might seem that neutralization is quantized by neutron mass. However, the fact that Neptune and Uranus are significantly neutralized suggests that neutralization energy is correlated with quantum states and is likely scaling with element mass. In any case, biggest planets should always be the most charged ones. Note that, with imaginary mass being dark matter and with outer planets having significant excess of gravitational potential compared to inner planets, Solar System mirrors the galaxy. The reason why outer planets and nearby masses are not rotating faster is due to collapse of orbital maxima into spin momenta with acquisition of real mass (where Keplerian velocity indicates real mass/graviton coupling at full capacity).

Planets orbiting at rest velocity are effectively at rest in the system. Since every gravitational maximum has its personal space/time - planetary orbitals are orbits of space/time within another space/time.

Typical ionization energy for standard Carbon electron at the scaled distance of Saturn (<70 * 10^-12 m) is ≈50 eV. The same amount of energy should be required to excite the mirrored positive charge (scaled Earth). From this, one can calculate roughly how much energy is needed for the orbital excitation of Earth's graviton: $\displaystyle M_x = {E_p \over E_e} M = 5.84 * 10^{20}\, kg$ E_p = 50 eV
E_e = 0.511 MeV
M = U₀.M_E = 5.9723 * 10²⁴ kg The obtained value is 1 order of magnitude bigger than calculated previously. The reason for discrepancy is likely mass (vertical) oscillation. Assuming Earth is in a state of an anti-down quark equivalent, the energy E_e in calculation should be roughly 10 times bigger. Assuming anti-down quark mass of 4.8 MeV/c², the energy needed becomes: $\displaystyle M_x = 6.22 * 10^{19}\, kg$ This is now much closer to previously calculated 6.95 * 10¹⁹ kg. The Earth should, however, by hypotheses in this paper, be a composition equivalent to coupling of two particles (2e state). This does not change excitation energy significantly, it is rather split into two levels. These levels are 64.5 eV and 47.9 eV for standard Carbon, and the excitation energy that would match the previously calculated value should be the superposition of these two. Indeed, taking superposition into account, excitation energy becomes: $\displaystyle M_x = {1 \over 2} {{{E_p}_1 + {E_p}_2} \over E_e} M = 6.99 * 10^{19}\, kg$ E_p1 = 64.5 eV
E_p2 = 47.9 eV
E_e = 4.8 MeV

It should not be surprising that average velocity of the solar wind matches the Keplerian velocity of the Sun's maximum if the angular Keplerian momentum is converted to radial electro-magnetic momentum.

Given the fact that universes are self-similar, why assume that evolution of a planet is not similarly scripted as is the embryonic development of a human being? Feeling of free will does not imply one has free will. In CR, everything is relative. Therefore, even anthropogenic triggers of global changes should be entangled with code execution at some level.

Note that this orbital deflection does not have to be synchronized with the impact, it could occur years before. The coupling itself could be hard to observe. Travelling (inflating) as a wave the graviton may be unnoticeable (it can be interpreted as inflating sphere surface made of diluted dark matter), although its emission might be synchronized with CME. What will happen at the time of coupling with the asteroid depends on energy ratios. In any case, the shape, spin and orbital momentum of the body can all be affected. If graviton collapse is isotropic from the asteroid reference frame and perpendicular to its orbital velocity the effect on the asteroid orbit will be small. However the total mass is likely to double, affecting gravitational acceleration. The collapse cannot be absolutely perpendicular (the angle depends on wave frequency, distance from the source and amount of mass dragging with collapse) and the two effects combined could affect the orbit enough to put the body on a collision course with Earth. Note that, at the time of impact, the graviton should decouple from the asteroid and either couple with some mantle layer and/or stimulate energy level change of the existing graviton already coupled with Earth.

This is based on the hypothesis of initial inflation where discontinuities in the Sun also represent fossils of initial radii of gravitons of terrestrial planets (the Sun's outer graviton radius initially was roughly equal to the current orbit of Mars). The Earth is entangled with two discontinuities (which may be due to 2e configuration, although this is not a requirement) which also represent local energy levels. Note that Earth's orbital distance is at 2/3 orbital distance of Mars (hence the entanglement with the 2/3 R_⊙ discontinuity).

Velocities c_1.1 and c_1.2 have been calculated in the Quantization of the Sun: Layers of the Sun chapter.

The 5.9 y period oscillation in LOD is equal to a solar orbit in 2:1 resonance with Jupiter and a 5:1 resonance with Saturn. If Mars (assuming current 1e configuration) is entangled with 1e of Jupiter, the Earth (2e configuration) may be entangled with the remaining 1e of Jupiter and 1e of Saturn, instead of being entangled with 2e of Saturn. The resonant orbital (outer edge of the main asteroid belt) must be the event horizon (which should currently be in a collapsed form - similar to larger horizons collapsed into dwarf planets) of such entanglements. This is (or rather, a memory of - due to neutralization of EM force) a magnetic spin entanglement between particles (notice the anti-alignment of magnetic fields between Earth and Jupiter/Saturn), and thus should have a signature in geomagnetic field.

Obviously, one can keep the gravitational constant fixed and assume it is the mass (M) of the source of gravity that oscillates. However, this creates illusion because both have to oscillate and the two oscillations cannot be absolutely synchronized (only in cases of absolute equivalence, which in this case would be G = M, there would be no illusion).

Note that, although used here, this kind of correlation of rotation periods of real mass with gravity is not generally appropriate. Note also that radii of large scale gravitons (gravitational maxima) should oscillate and, once real mass is acquired, a phase shift may exist between the graviton radius and radius of condensed mass associated with it. Also, a difference in radii is expected with presence of multiple gravitons. Concentration of real mass will also depend on graviton angular momentum. Thus, current somewhat larger inner core radius (≈1220 km) of Earth is not surprising (note that the Sun as well is a bit larger than [what is defined as] its surface radius). Inner inner core has also been detected, with a radius of ≈650 km, about 50 km larger than the radius of the corresponding hypothesized energy level in Table \tbl17. Note however that this (or any) seismic discontinuity does not necessarily imply presence of a real graviton, it may rather represent an energy level that has been occupied at some point by a real graviton. Of course, discontinuities can also represent areas of phase transition or differentiation of matter (real mass), in which case the discontinuity may not represent an energy level.

Each layer of the mantle is then a relatively independent body, just as terrestrial planets orbiting the Sun are independent bodies. This is a consequence of enforcement of self-similarity. It should thus not be surprising that Earth core mimics the Sun - the Earth is relatively mirroring the Solar System nucleus (up to Mars).

Definition of life in CR allows for development of life with no dominant genetic code in the body. In extremely introverted forms of life development of the constitutional biome (including cells) may not be a result of interpretation of physical genetic code (e.g., DNA equivalent), rather interpretation of code existing on another scale (e.g., mental). I argue that the code is relatively universal, its interpretation, however, is scale dependent.

Gyrification of tissue may be present in standard complex life only due to presence of organs required for extroverted interaction (eyes, nose, ears, mouth, body from the neck down).

Proper interpretation of lava solidification is thus coagulation of blood.

Note that, unlike human blood, Earth's arteries do not carry large quantities of dissolved oxygen while its veins do not carry dissolved carbon dioxide (at least not in high concentrations near surface). Rather, they carry bound oxygen and carbon, which are then used as fuel to produce molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide where needed. It is possible, however, that within the mantle, arteries and veins do carry significant amounts of dissolved gases.

Lifetime may be interpreted as the age of the body, while lifecycle is the average interval a major soul is coupled with that body (or, average duration of coupling between souls and bodies). In other words, lifecycle represents the lifespan of soul/body coupling and body can survive many lifecycles if it does not disintegrate between couplings (Earth's body obviously does not). I hypothesize that lifetime and lifecycle are generally different at or near discrete scales of invariance (postulated in CR), converging to equality with distance from these scales. Lifetime and lifecycle should thus be different for relatively elementary particles of particular scale, such as planets. In these creatures, with expiration of a lifecycle, soul and body decouple but the body is generally reused, possibly by another soul (graviton). Lifetime for planets will thus be generally larger than lifecycle.

Note that Earth is in a superposition of quantum states and our [energy] scale is too low to disturb that superposition. The fact that we can measure these rates [and anything else in the Solar System of similar scale], with high precision without disturbing the system, shows that, while uncertainties in measurement are fundamental, the size of uncertainty is a measurement problem arising from inadequate scale of observational energy, a relative quantity (Planck's constant, ℏ, as a dimensional constant between entangled properties, must be a relative, not absolute constant). Note that this also shows the nature of superposition - as postulated by CR, a system cannot be in multiple states at the same time unless these are separated in space, and cannot be in multiple states at the same space unless they are separated in time.

This number of heartbeats with a heart rate of 76 bpm corresponds to a human lifespan of 50 years. This, I consider as the global average human lifespan over the course of evolution on Earth's surface (or at least, during the last 1.512 million years).

Spherical form may thus be interpreted as a pinnacle of evolution, rather than an undeveloped form of life, even though it externally manifests itself as a mere particle, or, a piece of rock. If a man should regard any cosmic phenomena as a deity, it should certainly be Earth, as it would be the one closest to us. A god with whom we are strongly entangled and thus evolutionary depend on. A god who can take and give, and thus be real.

Note that the ratio of sums of elements of n₂ and n₁ is: $\displaystyle {\sum{n_2} \over \sum{n_1}} = {14 \over 21} = {2 \over 3} = {N \over P} = {4 \over 6}$ where N is the number of neutrons, while P is the number of protons of the Solar System, assuming a ¹⁰C state (6p4n).

Note that the value of T_x⁴, 5.2 * 10²⁴ is of the same order of magnitude (and even close in value) as the total gravitational mass of Earth (M = 5.9723 * 10²⁴).

The results suggest the equation relating mass and lifespan is incomplete (it works for standard mammals, where total mass is basically equal to real mass). With no metric (or G) scaling, Earth's mass is apparently bigger. There is ~10¹⁸ kg in surface oceans alone, ~10²² kg in the crust, ~10²³ kg in the inner core and more in the mantle (based on density inferred from seismic profiles), however, these values are relative to the gravitational constant of the standard (U₀) scale G₀ (6.674 * 10^-11 m³/kgs²). Properly scaled mass of Earth on U₁ scale is mass obtained using G₁ (e.g., previously calculated 5.731534632 * 10^-6 m³/kgs²). Proper, relativistic, equation for relationship between mass and lifespan is thus: $\displaystyle G_1 m_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = G_0 m \biggl({T_x \over T_{x_M}}\biggr)^4 \tag{M1.1}$ Various results can now be obtained, depending on the value of variables, as shown in Table \tbl19.

n	G1(n) [m3/kgs2]	G0(n) [m3/kgs2]	Tx	mE(n) [kg]
1	5.731534632 * 10-6	6.674 * 10-11	25.82 My	6.9543 * 1019
2	6.674 * 10-11	6.674 * 10-11	1.512 My	7.0244 * 1019
3	6.674 * 10-11	6.674 * 10-11	25.82 My	5.9723 * 1024
4	6.674 * 10-11	5.731534632 * 10-6	1.512 My	7.1816 * 1022
5	6.674 * 10-11	5.731534632 * 10-6	25.82 My	5.1290 * 1029
6	6.674 * 10-11	6.674 * 10-11	19.3 s	1.8802 * 10-30
7	4.9000394 * 10-2	6.674 * 10-11	4.25 Gy	5.9723 * 1024

Table \tbl19: Relative Earth mass Here, m_E(1) is the proper relativistic mass of Earth calculated with 2nd order T_x, m_E(2) is the relativistic mass calculated using 3rd order T_x. Third mass, m_E(3), is the mass of Earth relative to standard scale (m_E0) calculated using 2nd order T_x. Masses m_E(4) and m_E(5) could be considered as inverse (or anti) masses of Earth relative to the gravitational maximum of radius r_s. Note that m_E(4) is [roughly?] equal to 2/3 of the mass of the Earth's inner core, while m_E(5) is roughly 1/4 of the Sun's mass. Interestingly, the Tx associated with m_E(5) is almost equal to the calculated lifecycle of the Sun's core. Note also the presence of multiple periods in the cycling of Earth's [maximum] existence, 1.512 My and 25.82 My. While the shorter period could be considered as a fossil of the Solar System U₀ half-life (¹⁰Be₀), this entanglement cannot be lost completely and some time compression at the end of 1.512 My cycles can also be expected. I have previously hypothesized that the Solar System is a product of annihilation and inflation of ¹⁰C and ¹⁰Be atoms of smaller scale, thus, entanglement with ¹⁰C can also be expected, although the collapse and the induced time (evolution) compression should be negligible due to short half-life (19.3 s) of ¹⁰C. Note that with T_x of 19.3 s, mass of Earth [m_E(6)] becomes roughly equal to the mass of 2 standard electrons (or positrons). If m_E(4) and m_E(5) are correlated with Earth's inner core and Sun [core] mass, the data suggests asymmetry between mass and inverse mass, growing with period T_x. The solution is the inflation of T_x and/or G. With G₀ [roughly] equal to 2.222 * 10^-5 m³/kgs², m_E(5) becomes equal to the mass of the Sun, while for G₀ [roughly] equal to 1.9561 * 10^-5, m_E(4) becomes equal to to the proper relativistic mass of the Sun. The same can be obtained with T_x equal to 36.23 My and 2.06 My, respectively. With a period of 555619.11 years, m_E(4) becomes equal to Earth's inner core mass (assuming that mass is 1.1 * 10²³ kg). Interestingly, for T_x equal to the 1st order period (4.25 Gy), the value of equation M1.1 (G₁m_E product) is 2.93 * 10²³, equal to the speed of light on U₁ scale (2.93 * 10⁶ m/s) multiplied by 10¹⁷. Note also that the ratio between G₁(7) and G₁(1) is roughly equal to the ratio between G₁(1) and G₀(1) divided by 10: $\displaystyle G_1(7) \approx {1 \over 10} {G_1(1) \over G_0(1)} G_1(1)$ which is consistent with association of different G's to different vertical energy levels and therefore to scale (period) of general oscillation. If G₀(1) is associated with U₀ scale and G1(1) is associated with U₁ scale (as hypothesized), G1(7) should be associated with U₂ scale. If one assumes that: $\displaystyle G_1(7) = {1 \over 10} {G_1(1) \over G_0(1)} G_1(1)$ one obtains a T_x of the 1st order of 4.254788 Gy (4.254788 * 10⁹ years).

Homo.beta refers to species of humans currently inhabiting the Earth's surface, self-proclaimed homo sapiens. For various reasons, I consider the title homo sapiens premature for this species, so I have reserved it for an evolved form of human.

One fact going in favour of this hypothesis is that during all previous major extinctions there were periods when poles were free from ice. Although, one could argue that, during Phanerozoic, world was more often without polar ice caps, than with.

The ocean is, of course, currently stratified and pH varies with depth. However, I believe it is the surface pH that is the important marker here. Various interpretations for this are possible (perhaps only surface layers are used - which I find likely, or different layers of the ocean are used for different things, e.g., surface layers may form CSF, others may be used for cytoplasm equivalents) but the evidence that indeed surface pH here is relevant comes from the analysis of past extinctions. In example, the pH minimum (about 7.33 as hypothesized), associated with CSF, has been already confirmed for Permo-Triassic extinction. The cited work shows a [relatively] rapid drop in pH to a minimum, followed by rapid increase and slow progress toward stabilization. Two models were developed for CO₂/pH concentration (low- and high- CO₂, with a difference in pH minimum between the two being less than 0.2), in high-CO₂ model, the pH minimum is ~7.35, in agreement with the predicted minimum. The work, however, favours the low-CO₂ model, so it cannot be excluded that Earth's CSF pH is somewhat higher (less acidic) than human. In any case, the existence of a pH minimum and its value strongly support the theory of neurogenesis.

Here, homo.omega is a species of life Earth belongs to.

Development and evolution of organisms is generally strongly correlated with temperature. It should not be surprising then that increasing CO₂ (which is synchronized with increasing temperature) is correlated with the increase in rate of evolution on Earth's surface. However, it is probably unlikely that the CO₂ will remain the main driver of temperature increase.

Note that the equation roughly corresponds to IPCC RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) scenario. Both predict equal CO₂ for year 2100, however, RCP8.5 predicts 800 ppm to be reached sooner - in year 2066. RCP8.5 is considered a worst-case scenario and, at this point, still may be considered unlikely. However, while replacement of coal and oil with other energy sources may eventually reduce human CO₂ emissions, it is not reducing human impact on nature, which is generally not directly proportional to CO₂ emissions, rather to energy (resources) consumption, which is growing as usual. If the impact threshold is reached (point of no return), human emissions are completely irrelevant and positive feedback mechanisms will produce climate consistent with the RCP8.5 scenario. Studies are already confirming this. Humanity may be [very] slowly abandoning the business of CO₂ emissions, but, as proper cancer, it has not abandoned the unsustainable infinite growth policy. Climate is a part of an eco-system, it evolves with the eco-system, and one cannot expect that disruption of eco-systems won't impact climate. Since causality is relative, disruption of eco-systems can be interpreted as a precursor to bigger climate disruption, mass extinctions are always relatively synchronized with climate disruptions.

Lower requirement for energy from asteroids, natural earthquakes and volcanism, if real, may in part be due to presence of effective anthropogenic equivalents (e.g., wars, nuclear detonations, drilling, etc.). However, energy requirement primary comes from the difference in graviton energy levels and these can be associated with mantle layers/discontinuities. Here, I assume that layers III, IV and V are the result of splitting of a major energy level - thus, the mantle has 4 major layers, although effectively 6 due to energy splitting. Note that the thickness of major layers is roughly doubling with depth. Since the energy requirement for excitation is decreasing with distance from the centre (reflected in decreasing thickness of 4 major layers toward the top) and assuming the current energy level is increasing with each major extinction, the energy requirement for excitation must be decreasing too.

Note 1: According to current models based on Newtonian or GR mechanics, none of these asteroids is on a collision course with Earth in near future. However, these models do not predict periodic existence/extinction pulses coupling with a collapse and inflation of gravitons. As argued before (see, for example, chapters 8 The cycles and 12.3 Correlation with extinctions), there are good reasons to believe that courses of asteroids are altered at times of extinctions. If these impacts are genetically coded at some level, as hypothesized, they should not be questionable, it is only the source and method of delivery that may be unknown prior to the event.
Note 2: Interestingly, there was an impact event on Earth at the time when 400 ppm CO₂ was reached (Chelyabinsk meteor, ≈ 20 m diameter, 2013.), agreeing with hypothesized 50 ppm quantization and suggesting that, not only are intervals between impacts quantized, but that impacts may possibly be expected with every 50 ppm of CO₂ increase. However, if the events are generally correlated with the average ppm value given by the C1.1 equation, which gives year 2015 for 400 ppm, the 400 pm in year 2013 should be understood as deviation due to inherent uncertainty. Assuming probability of correlation of these events with CO₂ significantly increases once CO₂ rises above background levels, the first event should have occurred at 300 ppm - the beginning of industrial revolution. Indeed, one such event had occurred at 300 ppm - Tunguska, 1908. Note that the Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest known body entering Earth's atmosphere since the Tunguska meteor. The equation gives year 1992 for 350 ppm. No meteors of comparable impact energy were recorded in or about 1992., probably eliminating significant direct impacts on land area. If such event did occur, it had likely occurred over the ocean (or island), triggering large waves and possibly earthquakes. Interestingly, an 7.2+ magnitude earthquake and tsunami wave did occur offshore in Nicaragua - in 1992. This earthquake is notable for tsunami wave being unusually large (9.9 m high) for the strength of the earthquake (belonging to a group of rare tsunami earthquakes). I do not believe, however, that the impact (assuming it happened) caused the earthquake. This was likely the effect of synchronization of events (synchronicity) - the tsunami was caused by the earthquake but it was amplified by the impact. The Earth is a living being and it would not be surprising it reacts, even if unconsciously, to incoming bolides and impactors (just like humans do) to some degree. I have witnessed such synchronization myself - on 2019.03.07 I have observed a larger meteor burning up in the atmosphere exactly at the time of an earthquake in Hungary, its trajectory was toward the epicentre. It is even possible that Earth reacts to every possible impactor, although the reaction may be proportional to impactor energy and thus usually negligible. Note that, due to enhanced relativity in causality on the scale of U₁ gravitons, the reaction can happen some time before or after the impact. Also interesting about the Nicaragua event is that it occurred at the time of my birthday (September 1st, local time) producing an obvious signal for me. I interpret this as a confirmation that the meteor was involved in this event, although I am aware many could have a problem with such interpretation. At the point of writing of this paper, such sign[al]s are still considered meaningless by modern science (they are treated as mere coincidence). However, with CR the phenomena becomes not only real, but a [relatively] special form of synchronization and a driver of evolution with exponentially increasing significance near the end of an existence cycle. Thus, if one doesn't believe in signals of synchronicity (I didn't before I started experiencing them) I suggest one to study all my work, particularly the work referenced above. I must admit, however, that my interpretation of the signal could be wrong. Note that Nicaragua, Chelyabinsk and Tunguska impact sites on the world map can be connected with a straight line - a correlation suggesting that next impact may also occur somewhere along this line (even the Chicxulub, Yucatan crater is close). Although there were no sightings of large meteors over land, a smaller magnitude impact was recorded on land area in 1992 - the Peekskill meteorite. It was recorded one month after the Nicaragua event and is notable for hitting a car in urban area (possibly a fragment of a larger body that fell elsewhere?). Also interesting, and symbolic, is the fact that the last visit of the Halley's comet to the inner Solar System occurred at the time when 350 ppm CO₂ was first reached - in 1986., and the next time it will be close to Earth is 2061. - exactly at 650 ppm (calculated using the C1.1 equation). On the other hand, the assumption of 50 ppm quantization may be wrong, a 100 ppm quantization does not require the impact in 1992 while still predicting Tunguska and Chelyabinsk (gives year 2040 for the next possible impact). It is currently hypothesized that Tunguska event was caused by a large body which eventually escaped Earth's atmosphere - it can thus be interpreted as a warning. Given the fact that neither the Chelyabinsk nor hypothesized Nicaragua meteor did not directly impact land, it appears these too were warnings. However, I do not interpret these as warnings. I believe one purpose of the atmosphere is to disintegrate incoming bodies to protect life during weak evolution. Without it the Chelyabinsk meteor would be called a meteorite. Tunguska asteroid close-by, however, would not leave any effect but the atmosphere might have caused the Tunguska asteroid to split. I thus believe that whatever caused the Tunguska event is destined to eventually hit Earth, the Earth might have just quantized it and spread over time with its instinct (manifested as atmosphere) to defend its surface life. These recent events may then be interpreted as signals of things to come. Note that Newton calculated year 2060 as the first possible year of the Day of Judgment (but what I interpret as the beginning of the end of surface world), although allegedly he revised this year later to 2016 by the suggestion of others. His final decision to revise the year was, however, based on a signal. As he was doing calculations, large earthquake occurred which he later interpreted as a signal that the year 2060 is wrong. This earthquake could be interpreted a signal, but he misinterpreted its meaning - large and frequent earthquakes are to be expected at the end. Newton also calculated the end cannot come after year 2344. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the previously determined pH minimum (which should be reached sometime between ≈2040 and ≈2300, with earlier dates probably more likely). The year 2016 is not there without a meaning for me too, it is the year [of the start] of my soul rebirth (transformation, or change of soul energy level) occurring at the age of 36±1 (here, margins may be interpreted as the spread of the transformation in time as it is not absolutely instant) of the incarnation.
Note 3: Interestingly, at the time of the Chelyabinsk event, Apophis asteroid was in close approach. Considering that the composition of Chelyabinsk meteor seems to match the composition of Apophis surface (LL chondrite) a possibility does exist that the meteor broke off of Apophis and is thus a part of impactor energy splitting.
Note 4: The equation C1.1 is one variant of a universal equation for a pulse of strong evolution. That 800 ppm as the CO₂ marker maximum was a good prediction can be confirmed with another variant (inverse) of the equation, one correlated with half-lives of elements: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2C_1 - {C_1 \over CO_2(T_1)} * CO_2 = 2C_1 - {C_1 \over CO_2(T_1)} * 300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x \tag{C1.2}$ $\displaystyle x = {{T - 1905} \over {10 * 55}} = {{T - 1905} \over 550}$ where C₁ = T_1/2(T₁) is the half-life of the element measured at time T₁. The equation gives half-life of 0 at, or near, T = 2075, which is the year when CO₂(T) is equal to 800 ppm (half-life however cannot reach absolute 0, suggesting that 800 ppm is an unrealistic marker). Just like in case of CO₂ I do not expect for half-lives to follow the equation continuously (e.g., half-life might appear constant and then get reduced significantly in an instant). Generally, changes in decay rates should require sudden changes in properties of space. One exception to this could be the half-life of ¹⁰Be, due to vertical entanglement with the local U₁ system. If the Solar System cycles through ¹⁰(C-B-Be) in the 1st order cycles, a continuous precursor enrichment in ¹⁰B at a lower scale (U₀) may be effectively announcing the state change of the parent U₁ system (the Solar System). For ¹⁰Be, incorporating the value from the most recent measurements (T₁ = 2010, T_1/2(2010) = 1.387 * 10⁶ y), the half-life equation is: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2 * 1.387 * 10^6 - {{1.387 * 10^6} \over 385.915461731} * 300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x$ and it gives values in good agreement with previous measurements, as shown in Table \tbl22.

year	calculated [106 years]	sample	measured [106 years]
1947	1.665		1.7 ±0.4 * †
1947 (2)	1.665		1.6 ±0.2 * †
1972	1.608		1.5 ±0.3
1975	1.597		1.48 ±0.15
1986	1.550	NIST-4325	1.34 ±0.07
1987	1.545	ORNL-MASTER	1.51 ±0.06 †
1993	1.513	NIST-4325	1.53 ±5% (1.53 ±0.07) †
1993 (2)	1.513	ICN	1.48 ±5% (1.48 ±0.06) †
2007	1.413	ICN	1.36 ±0.07
2010	1.387		1.388 ±0.018
2010 (2)	1.387		1.386 ±0.016

Table \tbl22: Calculation and measurements of ¹⁰Be half-life * the value is not the initially published value, but the result of reanalysis/correction in 1972.,
† these values are discarded by scientific community, citing potential systematic errors
(based on the presumption of absolute constancy of decay rates).

All measurements agree well with calculated values, except for 1986 - if there were no flaws in measurement, this may be attributed to deviation due to cycling (similar to yearly fluctuation of CO₂). Note, however, that measurement 1993 was done on the same SRM (Standard Reference Material) sample and discrepancy suggests one of these measurements is wrong. If indeed the half-life of ¹⁰Be is decreasing as hypothesized, modern science has been effectively doing cherry-picking here - discarding results which do not agree well, or are in discrepancy, with latest measurements. Given the current precision of measurements, a new measurement at this point in time which would agree with the calculation would be in discrepancy with measurements from 2010. and would thus confirm the hypothesis of continuous decrease of ¹⁰Be half-life with the extinction event. Note that this effect on decay rates is temporary and significant only at the end of a cycle of general oscillation up to the 3rd order. Note also that decay rates may not be always changing directly (affecting half-life) rather effectively (CR requires effective oscillation in particle decay, but these changes will not always be reflected in half-life of the element) - e.g., through spallation reactions. However, also note that the measured/calculated strong decrease of ¹⁰Be half-life (with no associated apparent significant gravitational disturbances) can be interpreted as a consequence of relativity in causality. In that case, this decrease could be a precursor to real global change (across all unstable elements), announcing pending gravitational disturbance - collapse of the local gravitons. If ¹⁰Be half-life continues to follow the equation, collapse probably has to occur before year 2075.
Note 5: In the previous note it was assumed that half-life decreases fast and the equation allows it to eventually drop to zero (although, the compression of time implies that this state lasts 0 time - thus, effectively, half-life never becomes 0). Another possibility, although unlikely, is that half-life cannot ever reach zero, even for 0 time. In that case, the equation might have this form: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = C_1 * CO_2(T_1) * {1 \over CO_2} = C_1 * CO_2(T_1) * \Biggl[300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x\Biggr]^{-1}$ This yields, for T₁ = 1987 (C₁ = 1.512 * 10⁶ y, CO₂(T₁) = 341.83707500861), results in Table \tbl23.

year	calculated [106 years]	sample	measured [106 years]
1947	1.676 ±0.044		1.7 ±0.4 * †
1947 (2)	1.676 ±0.044		1.6 ±0.2 * †
1972	1.593 ±0.044		1.5 ±0.3
1975	1.579 ±0.044		1.48 ±0.15
1986	1.518 ±0.044	NIST-4325	1.34 ±0.07
1987	1.512 ±0.044	ORNL-MASTER	1.51 ±0.06 †
1993	1.473 ±0.044	NIST-4325	1.53 ±5% (1.53 ±0.07) †
1993 (2)	1.473 ±0.044	ICN	1.48 ±5% (1.48 ±0.06) †
2007	1.365 ±0.044	ICN	1.36 ±0.07
2010	1.339 ±0.044		1.388 ±0.018
2010 (2)	1.339 ±0.044		1.386 ±0.016

Table \tbl23: Calculation and measurements of ¹⁰Be half-life where uncertainty in calculation is the scaled variation of CO₂ (10 ppm).

Note that, if this is the last embryonic neurogenesis event of Earth, a collapse of Moon's graviton probably should be expected. Remains of the Moon could then be the source of eventual impacts of cometary nature (dust/water/ice) - assuming the collapse can significantly affect the mantle (otherwise disintegration of the Moon could take millions of years).

Such compression of time is easily achievable using C1.2. In example, for ¹⁰Be: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2 * 1.512 * 10^6 - {{1.512 * 10^6} \over 341.83707500861} * 300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x$ Half-life of ¹⁰Be decreasing by the above equation, reaches required time compression in year 2065, on day 66 of the year.

Source code:

Number of 3rd order cycles of existence since Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event (66 mya): $\displaystyle n = \left\lfloor {t_{\scriptscriptstyle {KPg}} \over T_x} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor {66 * 10^6 \over 1.512 * 10^6} \right\rfloor = 43$

This, may or may not - depending on interpretation (mass being shielded or not) and the current energy level of the outer graviton, result in the release of condensed energy beyond the Sun's surface - effectively expanding the Sun.

Note that such delay of extinction could have some benefits due to more evolved precursor neurons at time of differentiation, although with the cost of increased probability of cancer development. Also note that neurogenesis implies correlation of many processes. Therefore, calculated periodicity should not be limited to mass extinctions, rather present in plethora of other phenomena affecting the planet - volcanism, magnetic reversals, seafloor spreading, orogenic events, etc. Indeed, such periodicities have been found in previous analyses.

Such correlation should not be surprising - all lifeforms grow in layers. But it also confirms the previous hypothesis that asteroid impacts are correlated with discontinuities (changes in energy levels) in Earth. Note that encapsulated growth/development is common in standard embryogenesis. It appears this is the case with planets such as Earth as well.

There are two interpretations for the correlation. Extinction events are either memorized in Earth's [brain] mantle as they occur or they are programmed events and can be predicted through the analysis of discontinuities (layers) in the mantle. The ongoing 6th major extinction and existing discontinuity at 100 km depth suggest the latter, although superposition may be more likely - discontinuities are ancient but they move/adjust as extinctions occur. In any case, the correlation is good evidence for living Earth and its neurogenesis. The entanglement of 3 discontinuities (I/II, III/IV, V/VI) suggests that all 3 move during a single extinction, thus, if movement is correlated with asteroid impacts, 3 impacts may be ahead.

Note that layers in human neocortex also vary in thickness, depending on the area, so this is not unexpected. No graviton can be completely neutral. At the time a discontinuity is occupied by a [large scale] graviton, a hole, proportional to polarization, is expected. Physical imprint may be further complicated with the presence of multiple gravitons and may be affected by additional disturbances.

Interestingly, corrected ages are in all cases except for i=4 in better agreement with mantle layers. Unless an artefact of rounding/imprecision (e.g., in depths of discontinuities, which may be averages) this can be interpreted as evidence for effective time compression (pulses of abrupt temporary changes in decay rates of elements).

It is a common assumption that all planets in the Solar System have been formed at the same time (this is also the case with my theory of inflation of the system), and calculations above certainly can be interpreted as a confirmation of that assumption. However, the term is relative and a deviation on the order of millions or tens of millions of years is possible.

Note that Earth has kidney [precursor] equivalents on surface.

Carbon footprint is not the issue, it's a symptom. Human footprint is of relevance.

Earth's cells are not fuel cells, they are living cells.

Note that the aphelion of Mars can also be obtained as volumetric mean of Schwarzschild radii associated with 3 discontinuities: $r^3 = {1 \over 3} \left\{{\left[{\left(1\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32} + {\left[{\left(\frac 23\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32} + {\left[{\left(\frac 12\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32}\right\}$ $r = 249.2 * 10^9\, m$ Similarly, approximate aphelions can be obtained for other planets, e.g., for Mercury: $r^3 = {1 \over 2} \left\{{\left[{\left(\frac 25\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32} + {\left[{\left(\frac 14\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32}\right\}$ $r = 70.4 * 10^9\, m$

I have previously hypothesized that the Sun had inflated to a much larger radius before being compressed to current one. In the exchange of components of angular momentum, radius may have been exchanged for space (Keplerian) velocity, as shown in Table \tbl34.

discontinuity (r/R)	space velocity vs	correlated radius (106 km)	possible body correlation
1	436.6 km/s	436.6	end of the main asteroid belt
3/4	286.6 km/s	286.6	beginning of the main asteroid belt
2/3	230.6 km/s	230.6	orbit of Mars (semi-major)
1/2	151.3 km/s	151.3	orbit of Earth (semi-major, aphelion)
2/5	108.2 km/s	108.2	orbit of Venus (semi-major)
1/5	74.6 km/s	74.6	orbit of Mercury (aphelion?)

Table \tbl34: Possible initial radii of Sun's discontinuities and correlation with bodies However, orbits may be correlated with arithmetic mean of v_s and v_p. This gives much better results for the orbit of Mercury - 56.8 * 10⁶ km, agreeing with semi-major, rather than aphelion. Another possibility is entanglement with v_p instead of v_s. In that case 1/4 R discontinuity roughly agrees with the orbit of Mercury. Remarkable correlations are found subtracting velocities between layers, as shown in Table \tbl35.

discontinuity (r/R)	space velocity vs (km/s)	correlated radius (106 km)	possible body correlation
1 - 3/4	436.6 - 286.6	150	orbit of Earth (semi-major)
1 - 2/3	436.6 - 230.6	206	orbit of Mars (perihelion)
3/4 - 2/3	286.6 - 230.6	56	orbit of Mercury (semi-major)
3/4 - 1/5	286.6 - 39.1	247.5	orbit of Mars (aphelion)*
2/3 - 1/5	230.6 - 74.6	156	orbit of Earth (aphelion)
2/5 - 1/5	108.2 - 39.1	69.1	orbit of Mercury (aphelion)*
1/2 - 2/5	154.4 - 108.2	46.2	orbit of Mercury (perihelion)*

Table \tbl35: Alternative initial radii of Sun's discontinuities * here, one of the velocities used in subtraction is v_p, rather than v_s Entanglement with v_p suggests that Mercury and Mars were created before Venus and Earth, as hypothesized previously. Entanglement with both, v_s and v_p, seems to be the cause of orbital eccentricity.

Note that Fig. \fig28 shows gravity in absolute values. Gravities of maxima cancel at multiple points inside the Sun. At these points, gravity is zero. Induced gravitational maximum should thus, in reality, have negative gravity relative to other maxima.

Note that there should be two major charge radii inside the Sun, if the outer charge is located at tachocline, and charge radii are mirrored relative to the induced real maximum, other charge radius boundary should be at 2/5 R_⊙ (mirroring the 2/3 R_⊙ boundary).

When compared to other living beings, it would be reasonable to assume that Sun has a relatively constant real rest (constitutional) mass and an amount of fuel which may be cyclically replenished.

Note that calculated mass implies such density of the core that temperature should be orders of magnitude higher than current assumptions, for thermonuclear fusion to occur. If fusion is occurring in the core, most likely it is not thermonuclear.

From this one can calculate core radius at the end of the cycle (all fuel spent): $\displaystyle R = R_i - \Delta t {dR \over dt} = R_i - (M_i - M)^2 {R_i \over {M_i}^2} = 0.158221\, R_{\odot} = 110074291\, m$ R_⊙ = Sun surface radius = 695700000 m With current core radius at 0.2 R_⊙, amount of fuel left is: $\displaystyle {{0.2 - 0.158221} \over {0.286 - 0.158221}} = 0.327 \approx {1 \over 3}$ It is unlikely though that all fuel is spent during the cycle, total amount spent is probably equal to 2/3 (equivalent to fusion), in which case the cycle period is: $\displaystyle \Delta t_{re} = {2 \over 3} \Delta t = 25746608\, years$ and the core is at the end of a cycle. The obtained core cycle period agrees well with the hypothesized 2nd order cycle period of the Solar System (≈ 26 million years). Since the 2nd order cycle period is also equal to periodicity of impacts and extinctions on Earth and other planets, all these Solar events are likely synchronized - once the core fuel is exhausted, additional fuel is provided by the outer half of the Sun at the same time equal quantity of its own fuel is replaced with new mass (from impactors?). Gravitational stress may even create relative wormholes through core/surface sunspots enabling direct consumption of new mass by the core. Note that, with core radius oscillation, its time independent radius is obtained from the volumetric superposition of 0.2 R_⊙ and 0.286 R_⊙ cores: $\displaystyle {4 \over 3} \pi R^3 - {4 \over 3} \pi {R_c}^3 = {4 \over 3} \pi {R_i}^3 - {4 \over 3} \pi R^3$ $\displaystyle R^3 = {{{R_i}^3 + {R_c}^3} \over 2} = {{(0.286^3 + 0.2^3) {R_{\odot}}^3} \over 2}$ $\displaystyle R = \sqrt[3]{{(0.286^3 + 0.2^3)} \over 2} R_{\odot} = 0.25 R_{\odot} = {1 \over 4} R_{\odot}$ Such oscillation must be present on standard scale too - thus, all results obtained from measurements of nuclear observables may be understood as superpositions in time and/or space, however, in reality these are not constants, rather statistical mean state of evolving phenomena. Regardless of scale, no equally evolved (identical) phenomena can exist at two points in time, nor can they exist at multiple points in space. De-localization may seem possible through stretching of [a point in] space/time, however, this is fragmenting (quantizing) the phenomena and its space. Even if it remains strongly entangled, it is never, as a whole, at multiple points in space/time, although, with energy applied, de-localized space may collapse to one of the fragmented points.

The value is in agreement with the hypothesized 1st order cycle and it is likely equal to previously calculated real age of Earth (4.29±0.05 * 10⁹ years), suggesting the Solar System is at the end of the 1st order cycle. Note that the calculated age is exactly 1/3 of the obtained age of the observable universe in one class of measurements (Lensedquasars/Near) - 12.75 * 10⁹ years (also in agreement with more recent bTFR measurements), supporting the cycling hypothesis (this would be the end of the 3rd cycle). This would suggest that the beginning of the 1st cycle may have also been the beginning of cosmic inflation, imposing constraints on the growth of the scale factor of the system. Assuming Solar System was inflated from the scale of a carbon atom (with atom radius inflated to Neptune orbital radius), this is an increase in the cosmic scale factor on the order of 10²². Assuming it was inflated from the scale of a carbon atom nucleus, the cosmic scale factor grew by 10²⁷. These values are generally compatible with the theory of cosmic inflation, although some scenarios impose tighter constraints (e.g., GUT epoch inflation requires growth of at least about e⁶⁰ ≈ 10²⁶). However, it is possible that the atom itself was inflated from an even smaller scale (e.g., U_-1). Gravitational stress of the 1st order must be order(s) of magnitude larger than that of the 2nd order. Likely, at the end of a 1st order cycle, Sun's outer graviton briefly loses some momentum (relative to CMB) inverting spin in the process. It falls into a lower energy level, closer to the galactic centre. Afterwards, it starts expanding again consuming hydrogen fuel as it returns to the current state again (process may be relatively equivalent to initial inflation). Note that the reason for discrepancy in measurements of the age of the universe (Hubble constant) could be the same as in the case of the age of Earth. I have previously hypothesized cyclic time compression (evolution inflation, due to gravitational stress), with coupled periods of 1.512 and ≈26 million years. With the next larger period being T_u = 4.25 Gy, its time compression should be: $\displaystyle \Delta t_{c_u} = {\Delta t_{c_x} \over T_x} T_u = { {24751.794\, y} \over {1512000\, y} } 4.25 * 10^9\, y = 69573495.04\, years$ where Δt_cx is the previously calculated compression of time with a single Tx (1512000 years) pulse. Now one can calculate how much overestimated is the currently accepted age of the observable universe T_img = 13.799 ± 0.021 * 10⁹ years: $\displaystyle \sigma_{T_{img}} = \left\lfloor {T_{img} \over T_u } \right\rfloor \Bigl[ \Delta t_{c_u} + \bigl( \Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle {E_{img}}} - T_u \bigr) \Bigr] = 1.07872048512 \pm 0.05 * 10^9\, years$ where ΔT_Eimg (4.54±0.05 * 10⁹ years) is the currently accepted age of Earth. This gives for the real age of the universe: $\displaystyle T = T_{img} - \sigma_{T_{img}} = 12.72027951488 \pm 0.071 * 10^9\, years$ resolving the discrepancy.

This solution is not plausible as it requires continuous hydrogen uptake from interstellar medium. While charged protons and electrons may be absorbed at Sun's poles (at least at times) and could be combined to form hydrogen at the centre (assuming the Sun is not ideally neutral and has gravitational holes at poles - at least periodically opened, although the charges could also be inefficiently transferred inside as electric current), energy bandwidth is not sufficient to power the Sun. Interestingly, the solution (with N = 2/3) is close to the polar rotation period of the Sun (N = 1/2 gives equatorial period) where the uptake would happen. However, although unlikely in a stable state, this is likely the feeding method at the end/beginning of the 1st order cycle (4.25 * 10⁹ years cycle). Once the spin momentum collapses into a two-dimensional form, the Sun's maximum will be extremely charged. With an extremely strong non-homogeneous magnetic field it would be able to acquire required mass efficiently and quickly. Differential rotation of the Sun could be a fossilized evidence of spin collapse, suggesting it breaks into multiple quanta in the form of concentric rings (oppositely charged rings must have anti-aligned spin to conserve the magnetic field). Such fossil is perhaps more evident on Jupiter, where wind velocities are correlated with gravity. The extremely stable and static cyclones on Jupiter's poles indicate that it may have small gravitational holes open today. However, if these are open, small gravitational gaps or indentations should also exist between layers associated with each ring quanta. Strong magnetic field and measurements of gravity do support this theory, although the indentations would have to be extremely small - if gravitational disturbances are not due to standard (U₀) scale matter, as currently interpreted (in which case they would be the fossil of the healing process). Fig. \fig29: Jupiter gravity disturbances and wind gradient

In comparison with living beings, one might notice a problem of exhausted fuel - what happens with the ash from fusion reactions (end products of fusion)? There are couple of solutions:

1. the ash is ejected periodically,
2. the ash forms the constitutional mass.

Time compression at the end of Solar System cycles implies gravitational stress of Solar System maxima. While the 2nd solution may be plausible during initial formation of the Sun, at least at the end of one of the cycles some mass must be ejected out from the Sun. It certainly seems easier than in case of planets, as unlike the planets, the Sun does not have a solid [real] mantle to block the explosion (although terrestrial planets may be interpreted as Sun's mantle they are in a collapsed form with plenty of space in between). The ash content depends on the cycle period, being mostly Helium in smaller cycles but with heavier elements formed in explosions at the end of larger cycles. A full collapse of the graviton is a collapse of a 3-dimensional spherical neutral form into 2-dimensional charged form. Since the surface graviton of the Sun is entangled with Mars' graviton, at the time of collapse, two ring maxima are aligned and the ejection of ash is probably not isotropic, rather targeting Mars. At that point, both the Sun and Mars have a significant (extreme) magnetic field generated by charged maxima so Mars would likely attract ferromagnetic/charged ejecta from the Sun. The Fe covered surface of Mars could be interpreted as the evidence for this. Note that the collapse involves change of spin of the gravitons. First, the holes are opening on the poles of the spherical Sun maximum while the axial tilt starts increasing, the poles of the Sun and Mars are only briefly fully aligned before the equilibrium of stable spin states is reached. Thus, most mass is ejected in the first and last moments of the spin change, through the equilibrium poles - out of the Solar System. Note that the magnetic field is weakest at these times, as it increases, the momentum of particles is curved and aimed at Mars.

Note that constants C₁ and C₂ are the same as those determined in chapter Earth, as a living organ[ism] - Age, lifespan and the 3rd order period - Speed of time.

As shown previously, components of general force, charge and mass are exchangeable through inflation/deflation of momentum components (even in neutral particles, the amount of gravitational mass can increase at the expense of charge mass, with particle remaining neutral). Nature of the force can thus oscillate. Taking into account error margins, obtained distance is equal to the radius of observable universe, assuming currently accepted [img] age (13.799 * 10⁹ years), constant speed of light and flat space: $\displaystyle r = c \Delta t = 2.99792458 \times 10^8 \times 13.799 \times 10^9 \times 365.25 \times 24 \times 60 \times 60 = 1.305 \times 10^{26}\, m$

Note that 0.63R discontinuity is, similarly to 0.4R (2/5 R) discontinuity, weak (unstable) - it may not always be present in the rotational profile of the Sun. The 0.63R has been revealed in seismic analysis (periodic, 1.3y signal), and possibly the 0.4R discontinuity too (noted as a low significance bump in rotation variability between 0.2R and 0.6R).

Note 1:

This is analogous to the decrease of Bohr radius due to relativistic mass of the electron. Bohr radius: $\displaystyle a_0 = {\hbar \over {m_e c \alpha}}$ using relativistic mass: $\displaystyle a_{rel} = {{\hbar} \sqrt{1 - {v_e^2 \over c^2}} \over {m_e c \alpha}}$ It follows: $\displaystyle {a_{rel} \over a_0} = \sqrt{1 - {v_e^2 \over c^2}}$ Here, however, the radius of the atom is decreasing with the relativistic mass of electron, while the radius of the nucleus must increase with the relativistic mass of the gravitational maximum.

Note 2:

Although GM changes proportionally to R, differential rotation can shift discontinuities. Effectively, for the polar regions of the Sun, change is proportional with R²: $\displaystyle R^2 = {{R_0}^2 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}$ This gives R₀ = 0.97 R, and, according to Fig. \fig38, it is indeed the correct value for polar regions. Note that, taking the shift of 0.03 R into account, 0.63 R discontinuity becomes 0.66 R. Note also that orbits of planets have been shifted equally, as shown in Table \tbl37.

planet	distance from the Sun r [109 m]	r/rM	initial r/rM	shift
Mercury	57.91	0.25	0.28	-0.03
Venus	108.21	0.47	0.5	-0.03
Earth	149.6	0.66	0.63	+0.03
Mars	227.92	1	0.97	+0.03

Table \tbl37: Shifting of planetary orbits The Earth had thus moved from 0.63 r_M to 0.66 r_M, while Venus moved equally but in opposite direction, from 0.5 to 0.47. Mars moved from 0.97 to 1 r_M and Mercury too moved accordingly.

Note that I have previously hypothesized that the shape of a gravitational maximum with charge neutralization is transforming from a ring like to sphere surface form. Here, it is assumed that ring form is preserved, for the sake of proving fossilization of initial conditions.

Since this distance is variable it explains variation in intelligence among individuals. A Moon in perigee at the point of formation of the 6th brain layer would increase general intelligence (at the time of formation of other layers would probably impact other skills). This is not a big increase, but enough to create a difference and allow weak evolution of intelligence, as brain structure is a genetic factor. Current increasing Moon distance and the fact that our brain size started decreasing 10-15k years ago support the hypothesis of such entanglement. As the Moon fuses with Earth, one can thus expect a strong evolution of the 6th layer in brains of species (including the brain of Earth itself). One must now ask whether the position of other planets and the Sun impact the development? Most likely, but not as much. Interesting is the fact that one has 5 vital organs - these are thus likely entangled with other 5 quanta of the positron associated with the Moon, so variation in the state of these can be determined by organic variation between individuals. Strong disturbance could thus cause mutation in evolution. Thus, one can not only expect our 6th brain layer to expand during the next strong evolution event, but also a new vital organ (a 6th sense) and mutation of a body into new species.