Nature and mechanics

Main conclusions are:

- Solar System is a scaled Carbon isotope with a nucleus in a condensed (bosonic) state and components in various vertically excited states,
- Earth is a conscious living being of [relatively] completely introverted intelligence,
- life is common everywhere, albeit extroverted complex forms are present on planetary surfaces only during planetary neurogenesis,
- anthropogenic climate change is only a part (trigger from one perspective) of bigger global changes on Earth and in the Solar System during planetary neurogenesis,
- major extinction events are relative extinctions, a regular part of transformation and transfer of life in the process of planetary neurogenesis.

Note that ^{10}C isotope is unstable on standard scale, with a half-life of ~19.3 seconds. Its apparent stability on U_{1} scale must be either the result of time
dilation [due to scale difference] or inversion of stability between adjacent scales (vertical energy levels).
In case of inversion, stable systems on one scale would be unstable on the other and vice versa.

I hypothesize that the structure of planetary systems is the result of inflation of gravitational maximums from standard scale atoms, likely in the events of annihilation at event
horizons (gravitational maximums) of a particular scale.
I propose that, in this process, electro-magnetic component of the general force has been exchanged with the neutral gravitational component resulting in the dominance of gravity over
electro-magnetic force at this scale.
However, I also hypothesize that such exchange is natural on standard scale - the atoms are cycling between polarized and neutral states (although durations in particular states might be inverted
between scales).
Note that due to instability of ^{10}B (decay product of ^{10}C and ^{10}Be) at U_{1} scale, the Solar System must also be cycling
between ^{10}C and ^{10}Be (^{10}B being the intermediate state).

Implications of scale invariance of physical laws [and CR in general] on nature are large and some of these are further discussed and analyzed, primarily the implications on definition and
understanding of life.
Description | Constant | Value |
---|---|---|

Neptune mass on scale 1 | M_{U1} | |

Neptune mass on scale 0 | M_{U0} | ( 9.10938356 * 10^{-31} kg / ^{-31} kg |

Neptune orbital velocity | v_{U1} | |

Neptune spin velocity | s_{U1} | |

Neptune radius on scale 1 | R_{U1} | |

Neptune radius on scale 0 | R_{U0} | ( ^{-12} m = 3.834298096 * 10^{-16} m |

Solar System charge radius = Neptune orbital radius | r_{U1} | |

Sun mass | M_{☉} | 1.988500 * 10^{30} kg |

Sun radius | R_{☉} | 695735 km = 695735000 m |

Earth mass | 5.9723 * 10^{24} kg | |

Carbon-12 atom mass | 1.992646547 * 10^{-23} g = 1.992646547 * 10^{-26} kg | |

Carbon-12 charge radius = Carbon-10 charge radius | r_{U0} | 70 pm = 70 * 10^{-12} m |

Carbon-10 nucleus charge radius | 2.708 * 10^{-15} m | |

Carbon-10 nucleus mass | 10.016853 u = 1.663337576 * 10^{-26} kg | |

Standard speed of light | c = c_{0} | 2.99792458 * 10^{8} m/s |

Standard electron mass | M_{e} | 9.10938356 * 10^{-31} kg |

Table 1: Commonly used constants

Fig. 1: Spin momentum

Total spin momentum of the particle is thus:
Fig. 2: Charge wave

With decreasing environmental pressure (em/gravitational field interactions) a quantum may split into smaller quanta, spreading as far as possible, but still entangled, with a wave-like
distribution of potential. Fig. 2 shows such unbound, Fig. 3: Charge wave forces

Fig. 3
Note that polarization of atoms is done through emission and absorption of electrons, which is affecting the atom radius - positive polarization will generally decrease radius (in common
atom radius interpretation), while negative will increase it.
However, when radius is proportional to gravity, positive polarization would create repulsion, while negative would create attraction. Thus, this cannot be the equivalent of electro-magnetic
force, as nature of EM force (attraction/repulsion) depends on the pair of interacting charges, not solely on the polarity of individual charge.
This can be solved through selective absorption/emission.
Assuming that negative particles emit [or their space is composed of] lower scale particles (photon electrons = photon.e) while positive particles emit lower scale anti-particles (photon.e^{+}), annihilation of photon
electrons and anti-electrons at barycenter into graviton neutrinos (gravitational maximums) would create attractive force between oppositely charged particles.
Such created maximum would then attract all particles regardless of charge, unless the polarization of space is such that it is increasing the entanglement (specific wormhole) cross-section
between the interacting particles - effectively making created gravity more *private*. Note that such wormholes are magnetic field *lines* and annihilation must be happening on the
outer rim (event horizon) of the wormhole.
With no change in volume of the wormhole, increased cross-section must reduce the length of the wormhole - decreasing distance between entangled particles.
If the trajectory of emitted photon electrons/anti-electrons is effectively limited to 2-dimensional curved rim of the wormhole, for equally charged particles [emitting equal photon species], the
accumulation of emitted photon species would result in repulsive force (expansion of the wormhole [length] due to increased temperature, decreasing cross-section).
However, if emitted photon species are spin anti-aligned, even here the attractive force may be created due to boson condensation, and if magnetic field lines [pairings] are stable long enough will
result in bosonic coupling (fusion) of interacting particles - probability for this being inversely proportional to temperature/density.
Note that emitted photon species may be in the form of quanta of orbital momentum (having the radius of the wormhole cross-section) or spin momentum (collapsed orbital momentum) with orbital
radius equal to the wormhole cross-section radius.
Note also that in both types of interaction (attractive/repulsive), sum of radii of interacting particles must remain relatively constant - this is ensured through changes in other entanglements.

Note that a decay of W^{-} into an electron and anti-neutrino even when it is created from anti-up and down quarks would suggest that charge in electron is a composite
of 1/3 and 2/3 charge quanta. In the decay of a proton to neutron through electron capture, electron could then [inverse] decay to u^{-} and d^{-} by pairing with an
anti-neutrino (inflating to W^{-} boson), u^{-} would annihilate with u^{+}, leaving 2 down and 1 up quark, forming a neutron.

Outside of atom, the pairing is unstable (short-lived), except at extreme conditions.
Note that, in this case, to conserve equilibrium conditions, one of bound non-primary e neutrinos must reduce its orbit to become a primary component.
β

Note that a W boson has a rest mass over 80 times that of a neutron and orders of magnitude more than that of down and up quarks.
Thus, the production of a W boson is apparently a violation of energy conservation. In QM this is *solved* with time-energy uncertainty principle which allows production of such
particles out of vacuum providing they decay quickly (lifetime of a W boson is ~10^{-25} seconds).
However, mass of the boson is also considered variable with probability of deviation from rest mass decreasing fast with the amount of deviation, thus, making the probability of beta decay
proportional to creation of a low mass W boson.
In reality, there is no violation of energy conservation and high mass of a W boson is actually the result of conservation of energy due to momentum - energy equivalence (note
that, per CR postulates, even rest mass has a momentum), where one component of the angular momentum is exchanged for the other. In this case, the angular momentum of a particle orbiting the
nucleus is collapsed [localized] to a spin momentum, where radius has been exchanged for mass.
This is, generally, the process of conversion of a polarized component of the general force into a neutral (gravitational) component - effectively, the exchange of charge for mass.
If this is temporary, like in case of **β** decay, radius is inflated again (restoring em component) and two components of the force are again separated (concentrated) into multiple
particles (although neither can be absolutely zero for any particle).
Thus, although W boson is charged, and charge is conserved between the initial and final state of the system, it is not conserved in the boson itself (unless created mass is indeed extremely low
compared to rest mass) - otherwise the conservation of energy would be violated.
It will be shown later that, in reality, time-energy uncertainty indeed manifests itself in the exchange of angular momentum components.

β

Fig. 4: Primary components of the Solar System (planet images source: Pixabay/OpenClipart-Vectors)

Primary components of the Solar System are shown on Fig. 4.
Note that components of momentum are exchangeable and it is the reason why bound neutrinos/anti-neutrinos have significantly inflated real mass compared to free neutrinos/anti-neutrinos.

The current Solar System is in a Fig. 5: a) stable ^{12}C energy levels b) current Solar System (^{10}C) energy levels

Fig. 5 a) shows the configuration of
Note that the splitting of **s** levels on the left side should be attributed to the lack of neutrons, as they provide the neutral gravitational energy to inner planets.
This generally does not happen on the right side where this energy is provided by protons.
Note also that, due to condensation (the system may be carbon-like, not carbon), principal quantum number has an imaginary value (**n**) and effective value (**N**) which here is
either 1 or 2.
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, forming a [W] boson, although such pairing may be extremely
unstable at room temperature/density, oscillating in existence.

Fig. 6: Primary components of the TOI-178 System (planet images source: Pixabay/OpenClipart-Vectors)

The discovered (star, planets) and hypothesized (dwarf planets) components of TOI-178 system are shown on Fig. 6.
With the assumption of maximum 2 electrons (positrons) per planet, the TOI-178 system has these restrictions on the number of particles:
- 2 terrestrial planets limit the number of positrons to 2 - 4,
- 4 gas planets limit the number of electrons to 4 - 8.

Note that it is also possible for the number of terrestrial planets to actually reduce with the increasing number of neutrons due to increased gravitational potential provided by neutrons, but
this also requires either low [properly scaled] temperatures for boson condensation of charges beyond the 2e configuration or excessive number of neutrons compared to protons.
Note also that, in heavy elements, due to condensation of mass and with no significant change in atomic radii, there is a possibility for all planets of a system to be gaseous giants. However,
equivalents of dwarf planets should exist in between positively and negatively charged giants - in that case, these should be of significantly lower mass and may be equivalents of terrestrial
planets with no significant magnetic dipoles.

The number of bound [primary] anti-neutrinos should also correspond to number of neutrons, while the number of bound [primary] neutrinos should correspond to the number of protons.
Note that, while bound anti-neutrinos/neutrinos should correspond to the number of neutrons/protons, they will not necessarily 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, and two outer primary dwarf planets instead of four.
Additional particles may also be bound to the system, however, the orbits of these should lie beyond the primary components, unless these are lower mass particles with no
distinct gravitational maximum (asteroids, 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 terrestrial and gas planets, one that would complete 13 revolutions for every 18 revolutions of the second planet (pattern 18:13:9:6:4:3).

Note that this implies non-isotropic storage of kinetic energy as gravitational potential, such that it is mostly concentrated in the Sun - density distribution following the gravitational
law (~1/r^{2}).

From this one can calculate the scaled speed of
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 U_{1} scale system (such as Solar System) with a U_{0} system (such as ^{10}C atom) a proper reference frame is
the CMB (Constant Microwave Background) radiation rest frame.
Proper equation is thus (for **v**_{1} = **v**_{0} = **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_{⊙} = speed relative to CMB = 996 km/s

c_{1} = speed of *light* on U_{1} scale = 2.93 * 10^{6} m/s

c_{0} = c = speed of *light* on U_{0} scale = 2.99792458 * 10^{8} 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, **c**_{1} should be understood as maximum speed of U_{1} particles in flat intergalactic space equivalent to
standard (U_{0}) vacuum.
Within the galaxy, speed limit for orbiting bodies is generally defined by the gravitational maximum (event horizon) of the well - stars do exist orbiting black holes faster
than **c**_{1}, however, probability for stars moving at speeds ≥ **c**_{1} outside of galaxies is negligible.

c

c

One can now attempt to resolve the excess mass of TOI-178 (^{6}Be) system. Assuming its velocity [relative to CMB] is 77.22 km/s larger than Sun's velocity, its mass should be:
$\begin{aligned}\displaystyle M_{TOI-178} = {M_{Be-6} \over M_{C-10}} M {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}} &= 1.207764563 * 10^{30}\, kg \\ &= 0.607\, M_{\odot} = 0.646\, M\end{aligned}$
M_{Be-6} = rest mass of the ^{6}Be atom = 6.0197 u

M_{C-10} = rest mass of the ^{10}C atom = 10.016853 u

M = rest mass of the Sun (relative to CMB) = 1.870062271 * 10^{30} kg

v = 1073.22 km/s
However, mass of TOI-178 obtained from measurements is 0.650^{+0.027/-0.029} M_{⊙}.
Apparently, *measured* mass is bigger by the relativistic [omega] factor:
$\displaystyle {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}} \approx {v \over v_{\odot}}$
The cause of discrepancy is, again, in the reference frame - calculation is done relative to CMB, while measurements were done from the Solar System (Earth) reference frame.
From such reference frame Sun is at rest and its rest mass is equal to relativistic mass relative to CMB, M_{⊙} (1.988500 * 10^{30} kg).
However, one must take into account the radial velocity [relative to the Sun] of TOI-178. Relative to the Solar System, the mass of TOI-178 should thus be:
$\displaystyle M_{TOI-178} = {M_{Be-6} \over M_{C-10}} {M \over \sqrt{1 - {(v_{\odot}+v_r)^2 \over {c_1}^2}}} {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}$
v_{r} = radial velocity of TOI-178 = 57.4±0.5 km/s
This gives 0.650 M_{⊙} for the mass of TOI-178, in agreement with measurements.
Note that relativistic effects must be physical, implying the existence of a lensing effect proportional to kinetic energy relative to CMB.
Solar System is thus a [negatively] polarized reference frame relative to TOI-178 and to convert the measurement to a proper [neutral] reference frame, one must multiply the measured value with
a positively polarized omega factor:
$\displaystyle {\left({1 \over \sqrt{1 - {(v_{\odot}+v_r)^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}\right)}^{-1} = \sqrt{1 - {(v_{\odot}+v_r)^2 \over {c_1}^2}}$

If the Carbon atom is the Solar System, Carbon photon is the Carbon atom of lower scale (vertical energy level).
One can thus calculate the [average] mass of photons, ie. electron photon:
M

M = rest mass of the Sun (relative to CMB) = 1.870062271 * 10

v = 1073.22 km/s

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).

Thus, CR predicts asymmetric invariance with exponential progression of discrete vertical states. Using this prediction, the masses of standard photon [scale] electron equivalent (half-photon) and
carbon graviton neutrino have been calculated already in CR (yielding 9.10938356 * 10
Here, M_{p} = M_{n} / m_{U1} = 6.453032383 * 10^{-88} kg could be interpreted as the mass of carbon photon in inverse cycle state.

Mass of current photon can now be obtained from Mn:
Note that here, mass of 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 neutrino.

Using conservation of angular momentum between the

Note that the product of density and volume on the left should be the mass of a standard photon (2.337660431 * 10^{-72} kg), and it is indeed 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 standard (absolute) reference frame, where its speed is limited to **c** = **c**_{0} = 2.99792458 * 10^{8} m/s:
$\displaystyle p = m v = m v_{U_0} = 2.337660431 * 10^{-72}\, kg * 3.486882257 * 10^{26}\, {m \over s} = m_0\, c_0$
$\displaystyle m_0 = {p \over c_0} = {p \over c} = 2.719 * 10^{-54}\, kg$
or, using photon rest mass from CR:
$\displaystyle m_0 = 2.119 * 10^{-54}\, kg$
This mass is in agreement with photon mass obtained from recent experiments.

To confirm validity of the result one can calculate this velocity differently. Introducing the term
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 ^{10}C electron = 70 * 10^{-12} m

r_{s} = R_{U0} = spin radius of the outermost ^{10}C electron = 3.834298096 * 10^{-16} m
In order for Q1.2 to be satisfied, masses of orbital and spin momenta must be different. With orbital mass equal to standard electron mass, spin mass **m**_{img} is:
$\displaystyle m_{img} = 1.66303410 * 10^{-25}\, kg = 9.99817551 *\, ^{10}C\, \text{nucleus mass}$
$\displaystyle m_{img} \approx 10 *\, ^{10}C\, \text{nucleus mass} \approx 93.3\, GeV/c^2$
Note that the increase in electron spin mass **m**_{img} is proportional to the increase of nucleus mass. In both, mass component of the spin momentum was increased at the expense of
other components, as with electro-magnetic coupling the em energy was converting to neutral gravitational energy.
^{10}C nucleus mass confirms 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 is a scaled Bose-Einstein condensate of multiple atoms.
Note that the mass is equal to predicted W boson mass in some Electroweak models.
From the calculated mass one can now obtain real part of Neptune's total mass:
$\displaystyle {m_{re} \over m_{img}} = {m_{{re}_1} \over m_{{img}_1}} \approx {m_{{re}_1} \over M_{U_1}}$
$\displaystyle m_{{re}_1} = {M_e \over m_{img}} M_{U_1} = 5.60974244 * 10^{20}\, kg$
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 radius of the gravitational maximum is at the inner core boundary with gravity equal to Sun surface gravity (274 m/s^{2}), charge radius of Earth must be at a
radius where gravity of the maximum 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 mass = 5.9723 * 10^{24} kg

G = G_{0} = standard gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10^{-11} m^{3}/kgs^{2}
Using Q1.5, one can now calculate 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 * 10^{9} m
This real mass will be further validated later. However, obtained charge radius is, as it will be shown later, the induced charge radius, rather than the primary or primordial charge radius.
Calculating **m**_{img} for other planets shows weak signals that all may be consistent with condensates of standard particles, as shown in Table 2.

*unusual* pairing (as in case of Neptune), unknown particle (having extremely short lifetimes on standard
scale, unstable outside of atom), etc.
Multiples of atomic nuclei have also not been taken into account, which may be the most likely candidates, given the strong agreement of quantization of
outermost particle mass with ^{10}C nuclei and the fact that, in a condensed state, an atomic nuclei is a viable equivalent of a particle (quantum of energy).

Two results for the velocity are in good agreement. Small difference can be attributed to uncertainty in vacuum energy density - a value of 9.79 * 10r

r

Note also that, from this, it is possible to derive the rest mass and rest charge radii of a free electron. Assuming radius inflation proportional to mass inflation, rest mass radius of a free
electron is:
$\displaystyle r_{s_e} = {r_s \over r_a} r_s = {{r_s}^2 \over r_a} = 2.100 * 10^{-21}\, m$
Its rest charge radius should then be:
$\displaystyle r_{c_e} = \sqrt{2} r_{s_e} = 2.970 * 10^{-21}\, m$
Obviously the charge of the electron has to be spinning faster than light:
$\displaystyle v = {1 \over {2 m r_{c_e}}} \hbar$
For m = 9.10938356 * 10^{-31} kg (which may seem wrong due to separate mass radius, however, if free electron is not naked, acquired real mass can be the charge mass shielding the mass
of the maximum), this gives v = 9.745 * 10^{15} m/s.
This speed is the speed limit for particles in electron's space and it suggests that acquired real mass is of U_{-1} scale or lower, making the spin momentum of the electron effectively
the rotation of space, relative to standard scale.

The fact that imaginary mass is quantized by G = G

planet | equivalent standard m_{img} (GeV/c^{2}) | particle |
---|---|---|

Saturn | 12.58 | 10 * charm quark, or 2 * charmed B meson |

Jupiter | 5.69 | ADM (asymmetric dark matter) particle ? |

Uranus | 57.87 | 10 * ADM ? |

Mars | 34.36 | ? |

Earth | 12 | ? |

Venus | 9.14 | ? |

Mercury | 12.13 | ? |

Table 2: Calculated m_{img} and standard particle candidates

There are no obvious candidates for terrestrial planets, and excluding Saturn and Neptune, even the candidates for outer planets may be questionable.
However, there are various reasons for this - mass oscillation/excitation,
Note that properties of space change inside the atom, this includes **ε**_{0} and, consequently, **ℏ** constant. Thus, velocities calculated using QM are generally
not real (this velocity would produce a 1/3 ℏ orbital angular momentum in QM).
That properties of space change within the atom is obvious through the varying speed of light between different materials. Relative dielectric and magnetic constants should be interpreted as
evidence for this - photon can get absorbed and re-emitted in the atom, but what causes the delay?
If electrons have different energies on different orbits but have equal rest mass, energy must be stored in local space, varying with distance. If spin of the electron changes,
energy is stored in its own space. All of these spaces are quantized, but using the same constants for all of them will generally not produce results matching reality. It may provide
good and consistent results when measuring effects outside of the atom in consistent external space, but it gives a wrong image of its internal equilibrium structure.

From this one can also obtain the scaled speed of light:
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 the transition from charged two-dimensional ring to three-dimensional sphere, equatorial spin momentum has been fragmenting and [due to spin decoupling] spreading to (forming) polar regions.
Latitude variable rotation may have been initially established as the product of conservation of momentum in such redistribution of mass, even if it now may be sustained differently.
Beside the long lived energy level changes, short lived (temporary) inflation/deflation of gravitational maximums will occur with the absorption/emission of [properly scaled] gravitational
waves, which may be electrically polarized (electro-magnetic).
In case of dipole waves, absorption will induce separation of charges and collapse of a spherical form of the maximum into a two-dimensional ring form.

Such disturbances will generally occur at regular intervals, with periods generally increasing proportionally to the scale of the system and the scale of disturbance. On
the scale of stellar systems, common minimum periods are on the order of millions of years.
Changes in energy of the Solar System cannot be exempt from general oscillation and remain uniform over its lifetime.
For the Solar System, I hypothesize the existence of 3 periods (the arguments for which will be provided later, in this article, and in follow-up articles) for the first three orders
of general oscillation:

Large scale events are always preceded and superseded by smaller scale events so accelerated evolution may proceed for years on smaller scales before the actual disruption on larger
scale occurs.
One may now attempt to calculate how much such disturbances last on the large (cataclysmic) scale.
With no change in energy level, orbital areal velocity of bodies, per Kepler's 2nd law, must remain constant and there should be no change in constitutional mass either.
With a temporary collapse of a gravitational maximum, escape velocity is extremely reduced and orbiting neutral real mass will be increasing orbital radii (although solid mass will
generally preserve volume due to smaller scale electro-magnetic and neutral gravitational forces).
In order for this to be a temporary disturbance (no loss of entanglement), collapse must not exceed a specific time period - orbital period of the constituting mass.
Approximating gravitational maximum as a point maximum (linear ejection of mass from center) and assuming Sun's constitutional mass barycenter at the [inner] core radius at the time of
collapse of the surface maximum, maximal allowed ejection distance - 4.25 * 10
^{9}years. - 25.7 - 25.92 * 10
^{6}years, - 1.512 * 10
^{6}years,

r

Note 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 maximum (quantization).

In the context of CR, evolution of systems is not a steady continuous process over all time, but a process with cyclic strong (cataclysmic) changes and a slow (weak) continuous evolution
through the cycle.
In one of the follow-up articles, the collapse period of 7 days will be later correlated with Earth's evolution, showing that primordial theology [no matter how distorted and misinterpreted
over the years] is based on true events and facts.

As I came to realize this I went outside, in despair still burdened by the thought. It was 2 past midnight, I lied on concrete, still entangled with a summer day.. Looking upon the heavens, once
again for signs of confirmation I was not expecting to find - "a comet would suffice", I've told my self inside. Not a minute away, there it was, a comet passing right in that patch of
the sky I've been absorbing with the eyes.
Enlightened by the dark, a thought emerged from my self.. Up until recent times my life was watched like a movie scripted by the dice thrown by chance, but now, now I did not believe in things
anymore, I simply knew..
This life ain't a fairytale based on true events, but reality based on a fairytale...

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)?
If the problem of gas is ignored because it is considered as constituent mass of the star, why are stars themselves not considered as constituent part of galaxies? And why would all constituent
mass be exempt from the orbital law in the first place?

In CR, gravitational force of bodies with a distinct gravitational well may be largely provided by the gravitational maximum(s) so [ordinary] matter content (real mass) may be low.
Thus, a potential equivalent
All bodies with a distinct gravitational well have a dark matter source (gravitational maximum), however, the addition (acquisition) of smaller scale matter (real mass) will shield the
existence of the maximum, 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 maximums, in which case, the outermost (surface) maximum will shield the existence of deeper maximums.
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
should not change with age. The attraction remains, but its nature changes - from being mostly in its looks (real mass) to being mostly in its spirituality (dark matter), as in any living being.
Luminosity is thus, 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.

The solution for terrestrial bodies lies in the loss of entanglement between space and matter orbitals due to interaction (collision) with other bodies, during formation of the body of matter.
Due to interaction of the atmosphere with a solid body beneath (or its origin), neither the gases of the atmosphere (or trapped particles from outer space interacting with the atmosphere) may o
bey the orbital law.
This suggests that even below a gas cloud rotating around a distinct maximum at non-Keplerian velocity there should be a solid core, at least in case of a neutral gas, however, angular
component of velocity may be converted to radial and then to temperature.
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.

If that gas is in the form of plasma (as in the case of Sun), it is more likely to be entangled with the charge component of a maximum (general force), which then should be the source of its
non-Keplerian motion.
The neutral gravitational equivalent of electro-magnetic influence on gas on the equator of the Sun can be calculated:
$\displaystyle v = v_e = \sqrt{GM_2 \over r} = 1969.239615\, {m \over s}$
v_{e} = equatorial velocity of the Sun surface
which gives for the mass of the hypothetical neutral maximum:
$\displaystyle M_2 = 4.042341 * 10^{25}\, kg$
If the electro-magnetic component of the maximum would be exchanged for neutral gravitational component, the equatorial matter could remain entangled with such maximum.
The observed angular velocity could be interpreted as the evidence of spin change during the transition between vertical energy levels and transformation of electro-magnetic potential
for 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, increasing gravity must be radially compressing orbitals, increasing density of real mass. If the compression is not isotropic and
the mass is spiraling 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 around the center which will balance the neutral gravitational force at equilibrium.
Angular velocity of matter around stars is thus generally proportional to a difference between neutral and electro-magnetic potential and, in magnitude, inversely proportional to
temperature/density of real mass.

However, the stability of a gravitational maximum is proportional to its mass and inversely proportional to gravitational stress.
That gravitational stress affects the number of sunspots have already been shown, and
here I hypothesize that a sunspot pair is the result of a collapse of a quantum of a neutral gravitational surface maximum into a pair of [electrically] oppositely charged and relatively unstable
spin maximums.
Note that the orbital radius of a sunspot pair is equal to the radius of the maximum before collapse.
Gravitational wells of planets, dwarf planets and major moons have been formed in the same way as sunspots.
Note also that the size of sunspots ranges from the size of a moon to the size of the biggest planet (Jupiter).

A neutral component of the naked gravitational maximum is dark matter, Fig. 8: Rotational velocities of the Sun

On the left, Fig. 8 shows the rotational velocities of the Sun based on rotation frequencies from two independent studies, one for the core (r < 0.2R
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.

Evidently, velocity curve of the Sun is similar to a typical velocity curve of a spiral galaxy - in both cases there is an initial sharp increase in velocity in the core, followed
by a decline, with each next increase in velocity being less steep than the previous one. Note that latitude dependent differential rotation may also be common at specific places in galaxies too.
If the spin momentum of the Sun is effectively immune to [large scale] collisions (even if the core would be solid, everything approaching the Sun is vaporized before reaching the surface), the
only disturbance of Keplerian orbits must come from incomplete conversion of electro-magnetic potential and increase of temperature.
Assuming that orbital velocity is decreasing (from Keplerian velocity) proportionally to electro-magnetic potential, as hypothesized, orbital velocity of plasma should keep increasing
with radius until it becomes equal to Keplerian velocity, beyond which point there should be no accumulation of charge and the radial component of the solar wind should dominate.
Using approximation of the velocity/radius dependence based on the velocity curve of the Sun (up to 130000 km from surface), and equalizing with orbital law:
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, even without rigid rotation, the discontinuity should occur at the point where velocity becomes equal to Keplerian velocity, otherwise, higher velocity would indicate dark
matter presence - another maximum.
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 U_{1}.^{10}C atom (Solar System).

If the same is applied to the core of the Sun, the velocity at 0.2 R
Radius independent Keplerian velocities, like those at the outskirts of galaxies, are the effect of stretched space between maximums.
With shorter distance between maximums, minimum is more localized and changes in velocity are sharper.
Apparently, such stretching occurs in the Sun too.
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 Sun looses all outer mass with the collapse of the outer maximum, with leftover mass roughly equal to initial core mass the Solar System becomes geocentric.

This stretching of space is evident on Fig. 9 in the sharp increase of velocity from 0.286 R to 0.2 r. To conserve momentum, this increase in velocities in the inner half had to decrease
velocities in the outer half of the Sun, up to 1.18686 RFig. 9: Rotational velocities of the Sun and near corona

Note that slower polar convective rotation could be the result of loss of shielding of the core maximum [charge] due to conversion of potential of the surface maximum (convergence from spherical
to ring form).
Due to zero gravity at ≈0.2R and gravitational attraction of the surface maximum, 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, the orbitals of particles at the discontinuity must be highly unstable and it should be the area of
lowest [real mass] density.
However, gravitational stress can cause the collapse of the surface maximum. If that stress is low (insufficient for full collapse), the maximum will be fragmenting and collapsing into quanta
of smaller charged maximum 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 [quark] pairs may exist between the core and surface, it is also possible that gravitational stress is adding energy to such entanglement and inflating maximums of
such pairs (creating wormholes).
In that case space is stretched from the cure 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 be the location of sunspot creation (inflation) at surface. Note that, once the orbital entanglement is lost, being charged, the sunspots
will drift along the magnetic field lines.

The specific core discontinuity radius is the result of equilibrium between the outer gravitational force and induced vacuum force (forces cancel near the discontinuity).
The core gravitational maximum of the Sun might be the effect of vacuum, but, likely, all gravitational maximums are the result of vacuum induction and quantization.
In example, similar to inner Solar planets, the stars of a particular arm of a spiral galaxy could be the result of vacuum collapse into smaller quanta (maximums).
One might 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 maximums.
The stretching of space between galaxies must result in creation of dark matter filaments between them. Intergalactic and galactic dark matter is thus likely created by dark energy, which is
nothing else but a gravitational force of a large scale maximum well [of dark matter], expanding vacuum, just like it happens in the Sun.
Due to discretization of stable energy [levels], with enough energy applied into vacuum creation, the inflation will result in [relatively] permanent maximums 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 the 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 annihilating pair, rather the *underlying* space, making the product of inflation highly dependent on
the point of interaction.
*anomaly* in annihilation of particle/anti-particle pairs of equal scale.
Note that a gravitational maximum must have a radius - a point maximum would imply infinite gravity and no possibility for containment of smaller maximums.

Somewhere around the discontinuity, conditions may even be suitable for standard life. Note that the radius of the core is almost 22 times Earth radius, if density is not isotropic, smaller bodies
might be orbiting inside.
It may be more appropriate to state that, rather than being stretched in between, space is compressed at maximums. Similar to the 1st law, one could then construct another law:
Space remains at constant density unless acted upon by gravitational force.

Thus, even if it may appear that, once deformed, no force is necessary to act on bodies in space to accelerate their radial motion relative to the sources of gravity, force (energy) is necessary to maintain such state of space. As everything must conform to general oscillation, some force is always present, with relative magnitude and distance it is acting upon. The speed of motion (radiation) will depend on density of space and, if gravitational force is limited, there will be a speed limit on motion. However, constancy of density is relative and even density is relative to the scale of the 1st order*observer*, or, more precisely, the strength of its entanglement with such space.
Absolute, and absolutely invariant limits are impossible.

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 maximums of different scale (in fact, one
of the particles could even be deflating).
Thus, a possibility exists that even a proton and electron particles are the result of an Thus, even if it may appear that, once deformed, no force is necessary to act on bodies in space to accelerate their radial motion relative to the sources of gravity, force (energy) is necessary to maintain such state of space. As everything must conform to general oscillation, some force is always present, with relative magnitude and distance it is acting upon. The speed of motion (radiation) will depend on density of space and, if gravitational force is limited, there will be a speed limit on motion. However, constancy of density is relative and even density is relative to the scale of the 1st order

Considering the momentum of the Solar System barycenter, density should not be isotropic.

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

Gravitational maximums (event horizons) are sphere surfaces with a specific radius. If one expects real mass to be similar between the planets, difference between the planets must be in
radii of these maximums.
Thus, surface gravity should be a quantized parameter, inversely proportional to real mass capacity of the gravitational well. For outer planets, radius of the maximum is hypothesized to be
equal to what is currently defined as the surface radius (1 bar pressure level).
When quantized, orbital angular momentum satisfies the following equation:
n | planet | orbital velocity v (m/s) | orbital radius r (10^{6} km) | total mass M (10^{24} kg) | required total mass (10^{24} kg) | calc. gravity g (m/s^{2}) | gravity (m/s^{2}) | acc. (m/s^{2}) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

5 | Neptune | 102.413 | 11.15 | 11.15 | 11.00 | |||

5 | Uranus | 127.976 | 8.92 | 8.87 | 8.69 | |||

3 | Saturn | 108.084 | 10.565 | 10.44 | 8.96 | |||

1 | Jupiter | 49.168 | 23.225 | 24.79 | 23.12 |

Table 3: Calculated gravity for outer planets

In Table 3, required total mass is the total mass (gravitational energy) required to satisfy the quantization by standard QM (showing how far it can be from reality) based on
obtained n | planet (mirror) | orbital velocity v (m/s) | orbital radius r (10^{6} km) | total mass (10^{24} kg) | required total mass (10^{24} kg) | calc. gravity g (m/s^{2}) | gravity (m/s^{2}) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

5 | Mercury (Neptune) | 0.33011 | 3.70 | 3.70 | |||

3 | Venus (Uranus) | 0.14335 | 8.52 | 8.87 | |||

3 | Earth (Saturn) | 0.12193 | 10.02 | 9.798 | |||

10 | Mars (Jupiter) | 0.33006 | 3.70 | 3.71 |

Table 4: Calculated gravity for inner planets

In Table 4, showing calculated surface gravity for inner planets, required total mass is the total mass based on
Small discrepancies in gravity stem mainly from the oscillation of surface gravity. Note, for example, with rotation taken into account (g_{N} = 11.0 m/s^{2}) the 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 maximum in rotation period.
For terrestrial planets surface gravity is defined unrelated to pressure, as gravity at ground (sea) level. 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 the 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 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 (ie. 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.

The fact that similar planets (base | state | N/P | surface gravity/orbital distance examples |
---|---|---|---|

Carbon | 6p4n | 4/6 = 2/3 | Mercury 3.7 (0.25 MAU, n=5), Venus 8.87 (0.5 MAU, n=3), Earth 9.798 (0.66 MAU, n=3), Mars 3.71 (1 MAU, n=10) |

Boron | 5p5n | 5/5 = 1 | Mercury B 3.32 (0.2 MAU, n=5), Venus/Earth A 5.25 (0.5 MAU, n=5), Earth B/Mars 6.43 (0.75 MAU, n=5) |

Beryllium | 4p6n | 6/4 = 3/2 | Venus/Earth A 1.85 (0.25 MAU orbit, n=10), Earth B/Mars 37.1 (1 MAU, n=1) |

Table 5: Examples of discrete surface gravity and orbital distance for inner planets

This shows direct entanglement of standard
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 (U_{0}) scale, proton to electron mass ratio is:
$\displaystyle { m_p \over m_e } = 1836.15267343(11)$
On U_{1} 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, ie. using 12/4 for the 1st order approximation:
$\displaystyle EH_{12/4}(, \lambda) + \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = { m_p \over m_e } = 1836.182024284$
$\displaystyle \lambda = {N \over P} {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} - \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = \Biggl ({h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}} + {N \over P} - 1 \Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}}$

The transition from 6p4n to 5p5n state likely includes:
- collapsing (vertical) scale of gravitational maximums,
- loss of one outer gravitational maximum (death of Neptune electron), dead matter remains,
- Mars' gravitational maximum fusing with one of Earth's gravitational maximums,
- fusion of Venus' gravitational maximum with remaining Earth's gravitational maximum,
- Mercury loosing one gravitational maximum,
- small possibility of life changing base to boron,
- formation of a new dwarf planet in the main asteroid belt,
- space between planets expanding (Solar System expanding),
- Solar System increasing orbital momentum (velocity), decreasing spin momentum,
- spin momentum of planets increasing.

- scale collapse stop,
- loss of one outer gravitational maximum (Uranus e), dead matter remains,
- significant increase of Mars' gravity,
- death of Mercury, dead matter remains,
- significant increase of Venus' real mass, decreasing surface gravity,
- no complex surface life on Earth,
- formation of a new dwarf planet in the main asteroid belt,
- further expansion of space between planetary orbits,
- further increase of orbital momentum (velocity), decreasing spin momentum,
- further increase of planetary spins.

T

Note that spin momentum components [of electrons] non-parallel to the axis of quantization are annihilated. Spin momentum magnitude **s** can thus have the following values: 0, ±1, ±1/2.

Since the value of n | conf. | l | s | planet | orbital vel. v_{a} (m/s) | orbital radius r_{a} (10^{6} km) | spin vel. v_{s} (m/s) | spin radius R_{s} (km) | spin rot. period T_{s} (h) | calc. ℏ (Js) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

5 | 1e | 1 | 1/2 | Neptune | 2668 | 16.11 | 1.3310 * 10^{36} | |||

5 | 1e | 1 | 0 | Uranus | 2568 | 17.24 | 1.3319 * 10^{36} | |||

3 | 2e | 1 | 0 | Saturn | 9538 | 10.656 | 1.3636 * 10^{36} | |||

1 | 2e | 0 | 1 | Jupiter | 12293 | 9.9250 | 1.3817 * 10^{36} |

Table 6: Obtained values for **l**, **s** and **ℏ** for outer planets

The obtained value of
These results show that constants in QM are the result of superposition of oscillating values.

One may attempt to do the same with positive charges (terrestrial planets), however, here, determination of spin radius is more challenging and spin rotation period is not primordial.
Instead of using matter velocity, better results should be obtainable using space (Keplerian) velocity at Rn | conf. | l | s | planet | total mass (10^{24} kg) | orbital vel. v_{a} (m/s) | orbital radius r_{a} (10^{6} km) | spin vel. v_{s} (m/s) | spin radius R_{s} (m) | calc. ℏ (Js) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

10 | 1e | 1 | 1/2 | Mars | 27650 | 56044 | 4.3107 * 10^{35} | |||

3 | 2e | 1 | 0 | Earth | 28435 | 492971 | 4.3107 * 10^{35} | |||

3 | 1e | 1 | 0 | Venus | 45462 | 157195 | 4.3107 * 10^{35} | |||

5 | 2e | 0 | 1 | Mercury | 58980 | 6333 | 4.3107 * 10^{35} |

Table 7: Possible configuration of inner planets

Note that roughly the same
Note that, if primordial v_{s} was Keplerian, 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 maximum.

However, proper spin radius equivalent to the spin radius of outer planets can be calculated.
From Q1.2 - Q1.5 follows that current mass of a planet is a result of conservation of momentum (and velocity) during collapse of the orbital (n | conf. | planet | total mass M (10^{24} kg) | orbital radius r_{a} (10^{6} km) | spin radius r_{s} (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

10 | 1e | Mars | 24851090 | ||

3 | 2e | Earth | 1753428 | ||

3 | 1e | Venus | 1556019 | ||

5 | 2e | Mercury | 12283939 |

Table 8: Calculated spin radius for inner planets

Here, spin radius should correspond to charge radius. However, obtained radii for Mercury and Mars are much larger then their current surface radii, indicating that either the collapse did not
occur at r
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 (ground state) 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 around 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 * 10^{19} kg gives the orbit of Deimos).
I believe current moons of Mars are remains of larger moons the gravitational maximums 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 the magnetic field. Moons with a distinct gravitational maximum are thus entangled with the magnetic dipole of the
planet. Considering orbital period of Deimos is 30h, only a couple of hours larger than the rotation period of Mars, the original Moon might have even had a direct role in the production of
Mars' magnetic field.
If the obtained spin radius is the ground state radius, the excited radius [for terrestrial planets] is likely 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 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.
If Solar System maximums are oscillating between ^{10}C and ^{10}Be configuration, even with a change in scale [of a maximum], Mars must periodically exist
in 2e configuration (acquiring one of Earth's maximums, while Earth acquires Venus' maximum).
Even if lifetime of a ^{10}Be configuration may be short, created temperature difference in the core should be sustainable over longer periods of time if the collapse of 2e configuration
*induces* splitting of a 1e maximum into 2 quanta.
Since both Mars and Venus appear to have been habitable on surface some time ago, both must have been in such configuration. The switch 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 3rd (1.512 My) order cycles.
There is a high possibility that Mars' surface becomes *habitable* for short period of time with each end of these cycles, not only when they are synchronized with the end of the
major (1st order) cycle.
In any case, as I am convinced the Solar System is at the end of a major cycle, I believe the magnetic field of Mars will be restored within a decade or a couple of decades at most, and, once it is
stabilized, should persist for millions of years.
If 1e configuration can split into a 2e equivalent, two maximums of 2e configuration can certainly fuse into a 1e equivalent maximum. 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.

n | configuration | l | s | planet | √k |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

5 | 1e | 1 | 1/2 | Neptune | |

5 | 1e | 1 | 0 | Uranus | |

3 | 2e | 1 | 0 | Saturn | |

1 | 2e | 0 | 1 | Jupiter |

Table 9: Obtained **k** momentum for outer planets

From Q2.3 and Q2.4 follows that surface gravity is quantized:
Note that the constant on the right is, for **m**_{re} = 7 * 10^{19} kg, equal to:
$\displaystyle {{g_0 m_{re} {h_g}^2} \over {M_{\odot}}} = 2.93050621 * 10^{20}\, m^3$
apparently an integer multiple of the speed of light on U_{1} scale (2.93 * 10^{6} 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**_{re} equal to 5.6 * 10^{20} 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 therefor, 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 discrepancy is oscillation.

For inner planets, the constants are different:
n | conf. | l | s | planet | √k | spin radius (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

10 | 1e | 1 | 1/2 | Mars | 6477988 | |

3 | 2e | 1 | 0 | Earth | 4146215 | |

3 | 1e | 1 | 0 | Venus | 3920325 | |

5 | 2e | 0 | 1 | Mercury | 4140950 |

Table 10: Possible quantization parameters and spin radii for inner planets

Note that the above parameters for Mars' orbital radius give a perihelion rather than a semi-major axis, suggesting that it (and generally, planets with large eccentricity) may be in a
superposition of two quantum states.
Results for spin radius are obviously wrong, most likely reason for this is the bad
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.

Using the radius of a gravitational maximum for Earth (1206115 m), one obtains the proper r = Earth's orbital radius = 149.6 * 10

g = gravity of the maximum = 274 m/s

n = 3

n | conf. | l | s | planet | √k | spin radius (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

10 | 1e | 1 | 1/2 | Mars | 713566 | |

3 | 2e | 1 | 0 | Earth | 456716 | |

3 | 1e | 1 | 0 | Venus | 431833 | |

5 | 2e | 0 | 1 | Mercury | 456136 |

Table 11: Possible quantization parameters and spin radii for inner planets, with corrected **h**_{g}

These are now much closer to dipole offsets. Difference should be attributed to oscillation.
Models of the dipole location of Earth indeed show oscillation, in the last 10000 years it has oscillated
from a maximum of 414.7 km (equal to a dipole offset of Mercury) in the western hemisphere to a maximum of 554.7 km in the eastern hemisphere.
Dipole offset in current models is thus a superposition (arithmetic mean) of these two maximums (484.7 km).
The agreement of 414.7 km maximum with the dipole offset of Mercury suggests that either:
- the influence of rotation on the offset is negligible,
- rotation stops once the maximum is reached,
- induced currents are created at the expense of primary charge, effectively transferring the charge radius from inner core to outer core.

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

However, the excess energy left after the vertical energy level increase (inflation) might not be the only source of superposition. Most energy in the vertical energy level change is spent on
inflation - not flavor oscillation, so even without inflation, the flavor oscillation energy can be provided by the nucleus or absorption of properly scaled gravitational waves.
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 flavor may instead be predetermined with oscillation of particles inside the atom. In fact, lepton
oscillation might be confined to atoms if discharge of outermost particles is synchronized with their mass flavor being in ground (lowest energy) state in a 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.

With no absolute constants allowed and implied oscillation of relative
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 excitation of Neptune must be equal to the [scaled] 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.
The oscillation can thus explain the difference in masses between the planets, but the oscillation itself should be quantized.

- Nucleus started inflating.
- Jupiter 2e configuration started inflating. Even though 2e may have been separated initially, large energy of this configuration enabled the fusion of 2 electrons. With the inflation
of Jupiter, 2e positron configuration was inflating. However, this configuration did not have enough energy for fusion and the positrons were left separated enough to
form Mars (1e
^{+}) and Vulcan (1e^{+}, Mercury embryo). - Saturn 2e configuration started inflating. This one had less energy that Jupiter 2e, but still enough for fusion, while the positrons again, did not - however, the energy was bigger than in
the first positron pair, resulting in the creation of Venus (1e
^{+}) and Gaia (1e^{+}, Earth embryo). - Another 2e configuration started inflating. This one had even less energy than Saturn 2e, and, this time, not enough for fusion, so 2e separated
into Uranus (1e) and Neptune (1e). A [relatively] simultaneous 2e
^{+}inflation resulted in fusion of 1e^{+}with Vulcan, creating Mercury, and fusion of the other 1e^{+}with Gaia, creating Earth.

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.

Comparing the energies of the planets, the lepton oscillation and the [attempt of] energy balancing is obvious.
Assuming that scaled mass of a standard electron (0.511 MeV/c
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 [embryo] 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 * 10^{24} 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 the Mercury embryo mass was 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).

In Table 12, standard particle candidates are shown for each planet. Rest masses are relative to the possible event horizon of creation, specified in parentheses. Note that original rest
mass may be bigger or smaller than relativistic mass, depending on the conditions in the annihilation (creation) event.
Most likely particle candidates are marked green.
planet | relativistic mass M [10^{24} kg] (v) | rest mass M_{0} candidates [10^{24} kg] (c_{EH}) | particle candidates (MeV/c^{2}) |
---|---|---|---|

Mercury | 0.330 (47.4 km/s) | 0.361 (19.34 km/s = Vesta orbit), 0.353 (16.76 km/s = Hygiea orbit), 0.383 (24.1 km/s = Mars orbit), 0.489 (35 km/s = Venus orbit) | ? (0.198), positron (0.511) |

Venus | 4.868 (35.0 km/s) | 5.67 (17.905 km/s = Ceres orbit), 5.545 (16.76 km/s = Hygiea orbit) | down anti-quark (≈4.8) |

Earth | 5.972 (29.8 km/s) | 7.47 (17.905 km/s = Ceres orbit), 7.47 (17.89 km/s = Pallas orbit), 4.77 (-17.905 km/s = -Ceres orbit) | down anti-quark (≈4.8) |

Mars | 0.642 (24.1 km/s) | 1.076 (19.34 km/s = Vesta orbit), 0.383 (-19.34 km/s = -Vesta orbit), 0.461 (-16.76 km/s = -Hygiea orbit), 0.539 (-13.1 km/s = -Jupiter orbit) | positron (0.511) |

Jupiter | 1898.19 (13.1 km/s) | 1396 (-19.34 km/s = -Vesta orbit), 1293 (-17.905 km/s = -Ceres orbit), 1824 (-47.4 km/s = -Mercury orbit) | D^{-} meson (1869), tau (1776.86), charm anti-quark (≈1275) |

Saturn | 568.34 (9.7 km/s) | 491.4 (-19.34 km/s = -Vesta orbit), 477.7 (-17.905 km/s = -Ceres orbit) | K^{-} meson (493.7) |

Uranus | 86.813 (6.8 km/s) | 80.285 (-17.89 km/s = -Pallas orbit), 94.982 (16.76 km/s = Hygiea orbit) | muon (105.658), strange quark (≈95) |

Neptune | 102.413 (5.43 km/s) | 96.5 (-16.76 km/s = -Hygiea orbit) | muon (105.658), strange quark (≈95) |

Table 12: Standard particle candidates for planets (green = most likely)

Rest mass in Table 12 was calculated using proper relativistic Lorentz factor (Omega factor):
q = mass charge of the reference frame

s = spin charge of the reference frame

planet | configuration | particle species (charge) | total charge |
---|---|---|---|

Mercury | 2e | positron (1 e^{+}) | 2 e^{+} |

Venus | 1e | down anti-quark (1/3 e^{+}) | 1/3 e^{+} |

Earth | 2e | down anti-quark (1/3 e^{+}) | 2/3 e^{+} |

Mars | 1e | positron (1 e^{+}) | 1 e^{+} |

Jupiter | 2e | charm anti-quark (2/3 e^{-}) | 4/3 e^{-} |

Saturn | 2e | K^{-} meson (1 e^{-}) | 2 e^{-} |

Uranus | 1e | strange quark (1/3 e^{-}) | 1/3 e^{-} |

Neptune | 1e | strange quark (1/3 e^{-}) | 1/3 e^{-} |

Table 13: Standard particle candidates for planets, with listed electric charges

The configuration gives total 4e
Consider the case of elementary hydrogen (^{1}H).
If 1e+ charge (ie. 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
maximum 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 maximums 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.

Note that, with charge extracted, proton core too becomes neutral.
It appears that [outer event horizons of] proton cores favor giving energy to electrons, while neutrons favor positrons (correlated with spin anti-alignment). Asymmetry in neutralization
energy between bound positrons and electrons is thus caused in mass difference between protons and neutrons (note that magnetic fields of outer planets are much less subdued than those
of inner planets).
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, gas 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 maximums into spin momenta and acquisition of real mass.
Spin coupling, in case of carbon, indicates that, as a whole system, ^{12}C is more stable than ^{13}C, while ^{13}C nucleus is, due to equal number of protons and
neutrons, more stable than ^{12}C nucleus.

With an excess of protons, too much energy on the outer side can cause the ejection of bound positrons and neutrinos, converting protons to neutrons.
With an excess of neutrons, too much energy on the inner side can be enough to fuse bound positrons with the nucleus [core], converting neutrons to protons.
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.

Equalizing centripetal force with electro-magnetic force:
r = orbital radius

R = radius of the planet (spin radius)

- all planets are entangled,
- past/future state of
**g**/R_{0}_{0}is fossilized/memorized in rotation period, - planets can be entangled with a past/future state of
**g**/R_{0}_{0}, - gravitational
*constant*G of a gravitational well depends on its own place in a larger gravitational well.

With obvious equivalence of standard quantum systems and planetary systems it would be ludicrous to insist on non-intuitive concepts of quantum mechanics and absolute constants in
relativity, especially, when no non-intuitive and non-changing phenomena have ever been directly observed in reality - all are based on [non-intuitive] assumptions of existing theories.
If one is to unify forces of nature in a simple and elegant way, one should, once again, imitate nature - implementing scale invariance of these
forces, momentum/energy equivalence and relativity of everything, including that equivalence.

Current value of the standard gravitational R = planet radius

v

v

c

c

Velocities c_{1.1} and c_{1.2} have been calculated in the *Quantization of the Sun* chapter.

For a mean G of 6.673899 * 10Fig. 10: Oscillation of the gravitational constant

Fig. 10 shows yearly oscillation (blue) superimposed on the 5.9y oscillation from previous analysis (black). Red crosses are previously measured values of G, plotted with uncertainties.
Yearly oscillation is obviously a better fit, but when linked to orbits of the Earth around the Sun (orbital data taken from NASA Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System) a
phase shift of ≈0.6167y (golden ratio?) is required to match Fig. 10 (without the shift the correlation is less convincing with all measurements taken into account).
Fig. 11: Oscillation of the gravitational constant

Interestingly, as shown on Fig. 11, with the influence of the Sun removed, leaving only planetary gravitational interactions, best fit requires no phase shift.
The 5.9y 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 (which is in 1e configuration) is entangled with 1e of
Jupiter, the Earth (2e configuration) should be entangled with the other 1e of Jupiter and 1e 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.

K

M = total mass

r = orbital radius

N = shell number

s = number of particles in a sub-shell

p = state of quantization

n = shell energy level

Δ

N | n | planet | M (kg) | r (10^{6} km) | s | p | Δ_{φ} (°) | neutral R (km) | current R (km) | R (km) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

2 | 5 | Neptune | 1 | 2 | 36.7084 | 24764 | 24764 | |||

2 | 5 | Uranus | 1 | 1 | 233.1506 | 25703 | 25559 | |||

2 | 3 | Saturn | 2 | 1 | 0.2 | 60806 | 60268 | |||

1 | 1 | Jupiter | 2 | 1 | 109.422 | 68848 | 71492 | |||

2 | 5 | Mercury | 2 | 2 | 172.3047 | 2555.7 | 2439.7 | |||

2 | 3 | Venus | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6051.8 | 6051.8 | |||

2 | 3 | Earth | 2 | 1 | 90.3135 | 6284.72 | 6378.14 | |||

1 | 10 | Mars | 1 | 2 | -91.9957 | 3394.1 | 3396.2 |

Table 14: Calculated neutral and current radii

Note the quantization of planet | standardized Δ_{φ} (°) | entanglement |
---|---|---|

Neptune | (5 * 36) % 360 = 180 | Venus |

Uranus | (5 * 234) % 360 = 90 | Mars |

Saturn | (5 * 0) % 360 = 0 | Mercury |

Jupiter | (5 * 108) % 360 = 180 | Venus |

Table 15: Correlation of outer and inner planets

Here, Neptune/Venus, Uranus/Mars and Saturn/Mercury entanglement should not be surprising due to matching configurations - 1e/1e, 1e/1e and 2e/2e.
The entanglement of Jupiter with Venus instead of Earth might be the consequence of Fig. 12: Sun partitioning in: a) 6p4n state b) 4p6n state (R = radius in 6p4n state)

As shown on Fig. 12, without 6 +e charges, the Sun is a sum neutron consisting of 6 layers, 4 layers containing pairs of negative [down equivalent] quarks
and 2 layers (inner and outer core) containing pairs of positive [up equivalent] quarks. Due to condensation, this is the equivalent of a single neutron so 8 negative
quarks can be grouped into a single sub-shell as 2 negative quarks, while 4 positive quarks can be grouped into another sub-shell as a single positive quark (8/4 = 2/1).
Thus, the parameter Fig. 14: Magnetic field of Jupiter

Fig. 15: Uranus' magnetic field model

With an 58.6° tilt of the dipole from rotational axis and no inclination, the offset = Fig. 16: Neptune's magnetic field model

With an 46.9° tilt of the dipole from rotational axis, with no inclination, the offset is equal to 0.12193 R.
With an inclination of 63.2716°, the offset = M = total gravitational mass of Earth = 5.9723 * 10

ℏ = ℏ

n | layer | radius (m) | gravity (m/s^{2}) |
---|---|---|---|

1 | img surface | 6371000 | 9.82 |

1 | img surface perihelion | 6357000 | 9.86 |

1 | real surface | 6307105 | 10.02 |

1 | outer core | 3282185 | 37 |

1 | transition zone (induced charge) | 1705704 | 137 |

1 | inner core = r_{c} | 1206115 | 274 |

1 | transition zone | 852852 | 137 |

2? | inner inner core | 603058 | 274? |

Table 16: Gravity of Earth

Below
Proper interpretation of lava solidification is coagulation of blood.

Veins are tubes filled with oil.
Complex life and network of interconnected diversity is not limited to surface, which should be understood not only as epidermis but a breeding ground for cultivation of precursor neuron
cells and proteins of a planet.
Even though the most expressed organ of this organism is a layered brain, it has to have other organ equivalents necessary for the function of that brain.
The core of a planet has a role of the heart, providing energy necessary to pump the blood all around the planet.
Geyser eruptions provide one way to probe the heart rate.
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], with high precision and not disturbing the
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.

For Earth heart rate = my rest heart rate = 76 bpm:
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.

With such number of heart beats (between incarnations), the Earth would belong to, not only mammalian species, but homo species.
The 3rd order cycle of the Solar System (1.512 * 10
Spherical form is, thus, 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.

Note that the ratio of sums of elements of **n**_{2} and **n**_{1} is:
$\displaystyle {\sum{n_2} \over \sum{n_1}} = {14 \over 21} = {2 \over 3} = {N \over P}$

The event horizon velocity (from n | Planet | i | j | v_{S} (km/s) | v_{T} km/s (entanglement) | σ_{T} (current value) | v_{EH0} (entanglement) km/s | σ_{EH0} (neutron correction) | v_{EH} (entanglement) km/s |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

4 | Mercury | 2 | -1 | 47.36 | 5.47 (Neptune) | -2^{2} * 10^{-2} = -0.04 | 12.033 (Jupiter) | +4.73 | 16.77 (Hygiea) |

3 | Venus | 1 | 0 | 35.02 | 6.78 (Uranus) | +2^{1} * 10^{-2} = +0.02 | 16.63 (Hygiea) | +1.275 | 17.9 (Ceres) |

2 | Earth | 0 | 1 | 29.78 | 9.66 (Saturn) | +2^{1} * 10^{-2} = +0.02 | 19.55 (Vesta) | -1.66 | 17.88 (Pallas) |

1 | Mars | -1 | 2 | 24.07 | 13.08 (Jupiter) | -2^{1} * 10^{-2} = -0.02 | 24.07 (Mars) | -4.73 | 19.34 (Vesta) |

Table 17: Orbital velocities of time and event horizon dimensions

Table 17 shows space velocities for inner planets and calculated velocities of time and event horizon dimensions along with their correlation with bodies of the Solar System.
Evidently, the speed of time dimension decreases as the speed of space increases (as predicted by GR) and orbits are quantized and entangled (as predicted by CR):
Note that the value of T_{x}^{4}, 5.2 * 10^{24} is roughly the value of the total gravitational mass of Earth (M = 5.9723 * 10^{24}).

The result can be further verified by the previously established (in CR) equation for real mass:
One might argue that it is impossible for Earth to have such low mass, as there is ~10^{18} kg in surface oceans alone, ~10^{22} kg in the crust, ~10^{23} 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 (U_{0}) scale G_{0} (6.674 * 10^{-11} m^{3}/kgs^{2}).
Proper relativistic (effective) mass of Earth on U_{1} scale is relative to G_{1} (5.731534632 * 10^{-6} m^{3}/kgs^{2}).
Proper 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 18.
Note, however, that obtained mass can also be interpreted as current imaginary mass, rather than real mass (in that case, real
mass = 5.9723 * 10^{24} kg - 7 * 10^{19} kg ≈ 5.9723 * 10^{24} kg) - as the gravitational well of a maximum acquires mass, this mass is shielding (replacing) the
gravity of the maximum, so the obtained mass represents the remaining capacity for real mass (current img part of total gravitational mass), rather than current real mass.

**m**_{E}(1) is the proper relativistic mass of Earth calculated with 2nd order T_{x}, **m**_{E}(2) is the proper 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 its [past] event horizon (inner core maximum).
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.
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 U_{0} half-life (^{10}Be_{0}), this entanglement cannot be lost completely and some time compression at the end of 1.512 My cycles can also be expected.
While the periods of 2nd and 3rd order represent the half-life of Earth's gravitational maximum quanta, these do not represent the lifespan of Earth.
At the end of these cycles, the major maximum only temporarily collapses (partially, in time and space), proportionally to the cycle period. If the maximum is interpreted as a soul, which I
consider the correct interpretation, such collapse is a temporary loss of consciousness.
I have previously hypothesized that the Solar System is the product of annihilation and inflation of ^{10}C and ^{10}Be atoms of smaller scale, thus, the entanglement with
^{10}C 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 ^{10}C.
Note that Earth is in 2e configuration, and 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).
Also note that the initial real mass of Earth (2.93676 * 10^{19} kg) is roughly half of **m**_{E}(1) and should correspond to 1e configuration.
If **m**_{E}(4) and **m**_{E}(5) are correlated with Earth's inner core and Sun 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 G_{0} [roughly] equal to 2.222 * 10^{-5} m^{3}/kgs^{2}, **m**_{E}(5) becomes equal to the mass of
the Sun, while for G_{0} [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 inner core mass (assuming that mass is 1.1 * 10^{23} kg).
Interestingly, for T_{x} equal to the 1st order period (4.25 Gy), the result of equation M1.1, rounded to 2 decimals, is equal to speed of *light* on U_{1} scale
(2.93 * 10^{6} m/s) multiplied by 10^{17}.
Note also that the ratio between G_{1}(7) and G_{1}(1) is roughly equal to ratio between G_{1}(1) and G_{0}(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 therefor to scale (period) of general oscillation.
If G_{0}(1) would, as hypothesized previously, *belong* to U_{0} scale, G1(1) should be associated with U_{1} scale and G1(7) with U_{2} 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 * 10^{9} years).

n | G_{1} [m^{3}/kgs^{2}] | G_{0} [m^{3}/kgs^{2}] | T_{x} | m_{E}(n) [kg] |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 5.731534632 * 10^{-6} | 6.674 * 10^{-11} | 25.82 My | 6.9543 * 10^{19} |

2 | 6.674 * 10^{-11} | 6.674 * 10^{-11} | 1.512 My | 7.0244 * 10^{19} |

3 | 6.674 * 10^{-11} | 6.674 * 10^{-11} | 25.82 My | 5.9723 * 10^{24} |

4 | 6.674 * 10^{-11} | 5.731534632 * 10^{-6} | 1.512 My | 7.1816 * 10^{22} |

5 | 6.674 * 10^{-11} | 5.731534632 * 10^{-6} | 25.82 My | 5.1290 * 10^{29} |

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 * 10^{24} |

Table 18: Relative Earth mass

Here, - increasing rate of volcanism and earthquakes,
- burning of fossil-fuel reserves,
- gyrification of brain tissue (mantle layers),
- asteroid impacts,
- extreme weathering,
- sea level changes (melting of all polar ice).

Fig. 17: Layers of Earth's brain, superimposed on seismic velocities

Formed layers of Earth's brain are shown on Fig. 17. It is evident that layer year [mya] | a) CO_{2} [ppm] | b) CO_{2} [ppm] | c) CO_{2} [ppm] | d) CO_{2} [ppm] | e) CO_{2} [ppm] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

444 | 3800 | 200 | 2000 | 3800 | 2000 |

370 | 1000 | 2000 | 1000 | 1800 | 1200 |

252 | 800 | 900 | 800 | 800 | 800 |

201 | 1800 | 1800 | 1800 | 1800 | 600 |

66 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 300 | 500 |

0 | 450 | 700 | 750 | 800 | 450 |

Table 19: CO_{2} impact trigger models

Fig. 19: CO_{2} models a) and b) (blue dots = major extinction events, red = minor extinction events, on b) grey = icehouse periods, white = greenhouse periods)

Models are constructed in such a way to simulate oscillation of markers and compression of the amplitude with time, but they are also quantized - each marker is a multiple of 50 ppm COmodel | CO_{2} [ppm] | year of impact | associated impactor (diameter) | impactor closest approaches | 2nd order impactor (diameter) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

a), e) | 450 | 2029 | 99942 Apophis (≈375 m) | 2029, 2065 | |

b) | 700 | 2066 | 99942 Apophis (≈375 m) | 2029, 2065 | |

c) | 750 | 2071 | 1866 Sisyphus (≈7 km) | 2071 | 2000 SG_{344} (37 m) |

d) | 800 | 2075 | 162173 Ryugu (≈1 km) | 2076 |

Table 20: Calculated dates for CO_{2} impact trigger models

Table 20 shows calculated dates and probable impactors (possible 2nd order impacts are low energy impacts).
Evidently, for all of these simple oscillatory models, there are clear candidates among extinction causing asteroids in NEO (near Earth orbit).
A realistic time frame for asteroid impacts, for a COyear | calculated [10^{6} years] | sample | measured [10^{6} 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 |

† these values are discarded by scientific community, citing potential systematic errors

(based on the presumption of absolute constancy of decay rates).

year | calculated [10^{6} years] | sample | measured [10^{6} 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 22: Calculation and measurements of ^{10}Be half-life

where - the Earth itself gives a signal (ie. through anthropogenic CO
_{2}increase) that it is ready for next evolution step, acidification achieved through positive feedback, - asteroid impacts trigger, or
*coincide*with, the gravitational well (incl. magnetic field) collapse and ocean (CSF) sink, sterilizing surface by UV/gamma radiation (no magnetic field), - cometary impacts deliver new water/life.

Note that a collapse of Moon's gravitational maximum is expected, remains of the Moon are thus the most likely source of eventual impacts of cometary nature (dust/water/ice).

This is evident on Mars - layers below the surface are fully formed (full of life), magnetic field receded leaving the surface sterilized. Delivered water froze
and is now covered with dust. Thus, one can only expect to find residual and resilient bacteria within the crust of Mars.
Similar happened on Venus except water evaporated due to high surface temperature.
Nothing in nature is linear (although this approximation may be suitable during stages of weak evolution) and in these extreme events one can expect significant departures from linear
relationships (in multiple orders of magnitude) between phenomena.
Since these events are coupled with gravitational stresses of the Solar System one can expect temporary but significant increase in alpha and neutrino radiation (radiation flux induced by
temporary collapse of a gravitational well - strongly affecting half-lives of isotopes).
Note that all decay types are affected equally since changes are caused by time dilation due to scale change.
Also note that these changes are synchronized with orbital decays in the Solar System - which, like the decay rates, are accelerated during the pulse but return to *normal* after the pulse.
Due to universal synchronization and restoration of previous equilibrium states it is hard to detect such pulses - in fact, astronomical and geological observations will not reveal any deviation
from constancy of decay rates.
Thus, with such nature of cataclysmic changes, the principle of uniformitarianism will inevitably seem, but cannot be, valid.
Note also that most of the emitted radiation will be lost to space for the same reason - temporary collapse of gravitational/electro-magnetic well, thus solving the problem
of missing radiogenic Helium. Due to conservation of momentum, significant loss of heavier atmospheric particles is not expected due to well loss, but can occur during the short exposure to
solar wind.

The assumption of constant decay rates will not only produce incorrect ages but can result in misplacement of events on a geological timescale. Thus, inconsistencies in certain geological records
can serve as indirect evidence to disruptions in decay rates.
Fig. 21: Neutrino pulse due to decay rate increase

Consider the neutrino pulse on Fig. 21 - under the assumption of constant decay rates, 3 different fossil records A, B, C may give following results:
- assuming non-isotropic space-time perturbation, such that fossil record A decay is not affected by the event at t
_{B}, the event at t_{B}(associated with fossil record B) might appear to have happened before the event at t_{A}(associated with fossil record A) - in case decay rates of both A and B are affected, the distance of t
_{A}and t_{B}to t_{C}will be increased (time interval expansion)

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

Number of 3rd order cycles of existence since Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event (66 mya):
Source code:

energy level | extinction events [mya] | extinction events (t_{i}), age corrected [mya] |
---|---|---|

5 | 66*, 201.3*, 252.2*, 365, 445 | 61.986, 190.208, 238.316, 345.385, 421.148 |

4 | 37.8*, 145*, 260^{a}, 305^{b}, 420^{c} | 36.206, 136.774, 245.993, 288.3, 397.519 |

3 | 11.6*, 93.9*, 182.7*, 230^{d}, 270, 424^{e}, 428^{f}, 488^{g}, 502 | 11.402, 88.465, 172.88, 217.463, 255.844, 401.469, 404.42, 461.48, 475.257 |

2 | 117^{h}, 168.3* | 111.194, 159.702 |

Fig. 22: Extinctions (left), spectral analysis (right)

On the left, Fig. 22 shows extinctions plotted against the obtained periodicity (dashed gray line), solid colored circles are extinction events with corrected ages, empty circles are
extinctions with non-corrected ages. On the right, Fig. 22 shows the result of circular spectral analysis.
energy level | extinction events [mya] | extinction events (t_{i}), age corrected [mya] |
---|---|---|

5 | 66, 201.4, 251.9, 372.2, 445.2 | 61.986, 190.308, 238.041, 352.461, 421.348 |

4 | 37.8, 145, 259.8, 306.7, 419.2 | 36.206, 136.774, 245.793, 289.975, 396.744 |

3 | 11.6, 93.9, 183.7, 228.5, 272.3, 423, 427.4, 485.4, 500.5 | 11.402, 88.465, 173.88, 215.987, 257.12, 400.469, 403.82, 458.929, 473.782 |

2 | 113.1, 168.3 | 107.344, 159.702 |

Table 24: Extinction events dataset 2, source: Gradstein2016

Maximal R reveals a period P = 26 My, with a phase of 8.617 My.
Fig. 23: Extinctions (left), spectral analysis (right)

Extinctions and the result of spectral analysis are shown in Fig. 23.
energy level | extinction events [mya] | extinction events (t_{i}), age corrected [mya] |
---|---|---|

5 | 66, 201.4, 251.9, 372.2, 445.2 | 61.986, 190.308, 238.041, 352.461, 421.348 |

4 | 37.8, 145, 259.8, 306.7, 419.2, 514 | 36.206, 136.774, 245.793, 289.975, 396.744, 486.084 |

3 | 11.6, 93.9, 183.7, 228.5, 272.3, 423, 427.4, 485.4, 500.5, 541 | 11.402, 88.465, 173.88, 215.987, 257.12, 400.469, 403.82, 458.929, 473.782, 511.664 |

2 | 113.1, 168.3, 330.9 | 107.344, 159.702, 312.804 |

1 | 295, 346.7, 393.3, 467.3 | 279.448, 328.357, 372.239, 442.101 |

Table 25: Extinction events dataset 3, source: Gradstein2016

Fig. 24: Extinctions

Here, for R = 0.413, obtained P = 22.493 My, phase 15.603 My.
energy level | extinction events [mya] | extinction events (t_{i}), age corrected [mya] |
---|---|---|

5 | 66, 201.4, (251.9+259.8)/2 = 255.9, 372.2, 445.2 | 61.986, 190.308, 241.967, 352.461, 421.348 |

4 | 37.8, 145, 306.7, (419.2+423)/2 = 421.1, (514+541)/2 = 527.5 | 36.206, 136.774, 289.975, 398.619, 499.361 |

3 | 11.6, 93.9, (183.7+168.3)/2 = 176, 228.5, (272.3+295)/2 = 283.7, 427.4, (485.4+467.3)/2 = 476.4, 500.5 | 11.402, 88.465, 166.304, 215.987, 268.346, 403.82, 451.053, 473.782 |

2 | 113.1, (330.9+346.7)/2 = 339 | 107.344, 320.78 |

1 | 393.3 | 372.239 |

Table 26: Extinction events dataset 4

Fig. 25: Extinctions (left), spectral analysis (right)

The R peaks at 0.807, corresponding to P = 25.89 My, very close to one obtained from dataset 1. Phase is 9.55 My.
energy level | extinction events [mya] | extinction events (t_{i}), age corrected [mya] |
---|---|---|

5 | (61.6+66)/2 = 63.8, (199.4+201.4)/2 = 200.4, (251.9+259.8)/2 = 255.9, (372.2+382.7)/2 = 377.5, (443.8+445.2)/2 = 444.5 | 60.81, 189.333, 241.967, 356.687, 420.648 |

4 | (33.9+38)/2 = 36, (139.4+145)/2 = 142.2, (306.7+314.6)/2 = 310.7, (419.2+423)/2 = 421.1, (514+541)/2 = 527.5 | 34.431, 134.998, 293.926, 398.619, 499.361 |

3 | (11.6+13.8)/2 = 12.7, (89.8+93.9)/2 = 91.9, (183.7+168.3)/2 = 176, (228.5+237)/2 = 232.8, (272.3+295)/2 = 283.7, (427.4+430.5)/2 = 429, (485.4+467.3)/2 = 476.4, (497+500.5)/2 = 498.8 | 12.502, 86.49, 166.304, 220.213, 268.346, 405.395, 451.053, 472.107 |

2 | (113.1+126.3)/2 = 119.7, (330.9+346.7)/2 = 339 | 112.87, 320.58 |

1 | (387.7+393.3)/2 = 390.5 | 369.489 |

Table 27: Extinction events dataset 5

Fig. 26: Dataset 5, spectral analysis

The R peaks at 0.75, corresponding to P = 25.84 My. Phase for this P is 9.78 My, however, here another peak at 12.875 My (R = 0.61) reveals a likely harmonic.
energy level | extinction events [mya] | extinction events (t_{i}), age corrected [mya] |
---|---|---|

5 | 66, 201.3, 252.2, 365, 445 | 61.986, 190.208, 238.316, 345.385, 421.148 |

4 | 37.8, 145, 260, 305, 420 | 36.206, 136.774, 245.993, 288.3, 397.519 |

Table 28: Extinction events dataset 6

This dataset gives highest R maximum (0.837), a period P = 25.74 My, with a phase of 9.689 My.
Note that such delay of extinction may have some benefits due to more evolved precursor neurons at time of differentiation, although with the cost of increased probability of cancer
development.

Thus, imminent major extinction as calculated using models based on C1.1 equation should not be surprising.
Fig. 27: Correlation of major extinctions (left) with Earth's mantle layers (right)

This correlation is shown on Fig. 27 - time between major extinction events of Phanerozoic is roughly proportional to thickness of a corresponding mantle layer.
Such correlation should not be surprising - all lifeforms grow in layers.

This is, effectively, a conversion of time separated discontinuities into events separated in space.
To quantify the correlation, periods of weak evolution of mantle layers and thicknesses have been normalized:
i | Period of weak evolution T [My] | Normalized period of weak evolution T_{n} | Corresponding mantle layer thickness D [km] | Normalized layer thickness D_{n} |
---|---|---|---|---|

5 | 421.348 - 352.461 = 68.887 | 0.163 | 780^{b} - 660^{b} = 120 | 0.176 |

4 | 352.461 - 238.041 = 114.42 | 0.272 | 660^{b} - 520^{b} = 140 | 0.206 |

3 | 238.041 - 190.308 = 47.733 | 0.113 | 520^{b} - 410^{b} = 110 | 0.162 |

2 | 190.308 - 61.986 = 128.322 | 0.305 | 410^{b} - 220^{a} = 190 | 0.279 |

1 | 61.986 - 0 = 61.986 | 0.147 | 220^{a} - 100^{b} = 120 | 0.176 |

This suggests that extinction events are memorized, all layers change with every extinction but toward a specific predetermined pattern - exactly as expected with DNA encoded evolution of
living organisms.

Note that the exact boundaries are a matter of debate. They have some thickness (perhaps due to layer not being fully formed), so it may be more appropriate to equate layer thickness
with distance between discontinuities. If that would be a distance between lower discontinuities of two boundaries, it would, at least for layer 1, yield a normalized value exactly equal to the
corresponding normalized period of weak evolution (220 - 120 = 100 / 680 = 0.147).
Correlation of layer 6 and the corresponding period of weak evolution has not been determined due to unknown boundary.
However, assuming that extinction at the start of Phanerozoic (511.664 mya in corrected age, or 541 mya non-corrected) is correlated with the lower boundary of layer 6, one can calculate the
thickness of layer 6:
Here is the code used to calculate correct ages of extinction events, perform the analysis and generate images.

entanglement | r_{p} (km) | r (km) |
---|---|---|

Mercury | 100392 | |

Venus | 187591 | |

Earth | 259344 | |

Mars | 395118 |

Table 30: Allowed orbitals of the Moon

Evidently, the Moon is currently at the scaled Mars' orbit. Even the distance between perihelion and aphelion is scaled by equal orders of
magnitude - for Mars it is 42.61 * 10
Note that Earth is likely receding from the Sun at the scaled rate of Moon's recession from Earth.

M = 1.988500 * 10

c = standard speed of light = 2.99792458 * 10

G = 6.674 * 10

Planet | R_{1} | R_{2} | Schwarzschild radius r (10^{6} km) | current orbital radius (10^{6} km) | orbital radius (MAU) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Mars | R_{⊙} | 1/2 R_{⊙} | 228.52 | 227.92 | 1 |

Earth | 2/3 R_{⊙} | 1/2 R_{⊙} | 151.59 | 149.6 | 2/3 |

Venus | 2/3 R_{⊙} | 1/5 R_{⊙} | 107.00 | 108.21 | 1/2 |

Mercury | 2/5 R_{⊙} | 1/5 R_{⊙} | 57.81 | 57.91 | 1/4 |

Table 31: Correlation of orbital and Schwarzschild radii

Correlation of orbital and Schwarzschild radii is shown in Table 31, where R
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, ie. for Mercury:
$r^3 = {1 \over 2} \left\{{\left[{\left(\frac 25\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32} + {\left[{\left(\frac 14\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32}\right\}$
$r = 70.4 * 10^9\, m$

n | r/R | note | space velocity v (km/s)_{p} | space velocity v (km/s)_{s} | matter velocity v (m/s) | orbital radius r (km) | calculated gravity g (m/s_{p}^{2}) | calculated gravity g (m/s^{2}) | gravity g_{i} (v_{c}r product) m/s^{2} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 1 | Convective disc. | 436.602565 | 436.602565 | 1969.239615 | 695700 | 274 | 274 | 200 (1*10^{12}) |

1 | 3/4 | 4p6n disc. | 283.581685 | 286.551447 | 1508.068146 | 521775 | 154.125 | 157.37 | 150 (0.75 *10^{12}) |

1 | 2/3 | Radiative disc. | 234.100417 | 230.556106 | 1248 | 459162 | 119.3544 | 114.61 | 132 (0.66 * 10^{12}) |

1 | 1/2 | 4p6n disc. | 154.362317 | 151.266563 | 945.454545 | 347850 | 68.5 | 65.78 | 100 (0.5 * 10^{12}) |

1 | 2/5 | weak | 110.452683 | 108.233652 | 756.363636 | 278280 | 43.84 | 42.1 | 80 (0.4 * 10^{12}) |

1 | 1/4 | Outer core disc. | 54.575321 | 91.901023 | 1396 | 173925 | 17.125 | 48.56 | 50 (0.25 * 10^{12}) |

1 | 1/5 | Inner core disc. = r_{c} | 39.050921 | 74.602949 | 1437.401179 | 139140 | 10.96 | 40 | 40 (0.2 * 10^{12}) |

Table 32: Gravitational profile of the primordial Sun

Note that multiplying any discontinuity radius with inner core velocity
I have previously hypothesized that the Sun has inflated to a much larger radius before being compressed to current one. In the exchange of components of angular momentum, radius might have
been exchanged for space (Keplerian) velocity, as shown in Table 33.

**v**_{s} and **v**_{p}. This gives much better results for the orbit of Mercury - 56.8 * 10^{6} 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 34.

* 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.

Difference between current surface gravity and discontinuity (r/R) | space velocity v_{s} | correlated radius (10^{6} 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 33: Possible initial radii of Sun's discontinuities and correlation with bodies

However, orbits may be correlated with arithmetic mean of discontinuity (r/R) | space velocity v_{s} (km/s) | correlated radius (10^{6} 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 34: Alternative initial radii of Sun's discontinuities

Fig. 28: Gravity of the Sun

Without the inner maximum, any free-falling real mass would be concentrated around the surface maximum. With inner maximums, concentration of real mass begins at the center.
However, as each inner maximum has lower capacity than its outer maximum, greatest density of real mass will not be at the center. Once inner maximum is at full capacity, as real mass
accumulates between the inner maximum and the outer maximum, its counteracting the gravity of the outer maximum.
In equilibrium thus, greatest density of real mass is not at the outer maximum, rather between the inner and outer maximum.
This is shown on Fig. 28. Here, dark matter gravity provided by [img] gravitational maximums is represented by solid black lines, while real gravity provided by real mass and its induced
(effective) maximum is represented by dashed black lines. In case of outer maximum, gray line represents gravity with no real mass acquired (naked maximum), while for inner maximum, it represents
the initial core maximum. Red dashed lines show linearly approximated density of real mass.
From Fig. 28 one can extrapolate discontinuity candidates (r/R
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).

In addition to these, there are other candidates, representing maximum deviation from these values - ie. discarding CMB relative kinetic energy, rest surface maximum is at 0.94 R
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 is being cyclically
replenished.

To determine how much fuel the Sun has left it is necessary to determine how much fuel it had at the beginning and the rate of fuel consumption.
Assuming fusion reaction 4H -> He (energy per reaction m

E

P = power output

N = fraction of mass used in fusion

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.

It has also been hypothesized that the ratio of core mass and surface mass should be correlated with the ratio of mass between inner and outer planets.
Assuming that at the beginning of the core feeding cycle, these ratios are equal, fuel mass is the R

R

dR

From this one can calculate the 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 most likely equal to 2/3 (equivalent with 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 mass from impactors.
Gravitational stress may even create wormholes through core/surface sunspots enabling direct consumption of impactor 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 changing 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.

Unlike the core, the outer part of the Sun is most likely powered by fusion.
However, it too must have constitutional mass and fuel mass fraction of real mass (excess mass).
Most likely, fuel mass is equal to the previously calculated kinetic energy (CMB relative) of the Sun. In that case, time to spend the fuel is:
The value is in agreement with the hypothesized 1st order cycle and it is likely equal to previously calculated real age of the Earth (4.29±0.05 * 10^{9} 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 * 10^{9} years (also in agreement with
more recent bTFR measurements), supporting the
cycling hypothesis (this would be the end of a 3rd cycle).
Gravitational stress of the 1st order must be order(s) of magnitude larger than that of the 2nd order.
Likely, at the end of such cycle, Sun briefly looses some momentum (relative to CMB) with the spin change of the outer maximum. It falls into a lower energy level, closer to the
galactic center. Afterwards, it starts expanding again consuming hydrogen fuel as it returns to the current state again.
Note that a 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 * 10^{9} 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 * 10^{9} 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.

Another interesting solution is obtained if the fuel amount is equal to real mass of the Sun calculated with the assumption of, across Solar System, invariant, real ℏ
This solution is not plausible as it requires continuous hydrogen uptake from interstellar medium. While charged protons and electrons are absorbed at Sun's poles and could be combined to
form hydrogen at the center (assuming the Sun is not ideally neutral and has gravitational holes at poles - at least periodically opened, although the charges could also be inefficiently
transfered 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 in the previous hypothesis (4.25 * 10^{9} years cycle). Once the spin momentum collapses into
a two-dimensional form, the Sun 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 might 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 (U_{0}) scale matter, as currently
interpreted (in which case they would be the fossil of the *healing* process).

The cells of all living species are regenerating on a periodic basis, for example,
Capacity for real mass below the Sun's surface may be full, but all mass orbiting the Sun may be considered as its real mass. However, it is obviously not fuel mass, rather constitutional or symbiotic mass. The 3rd order period of the Solar System cycle may be related to this mass through the mass barycenter of the system. I have previously calculated the neutral gravitational mass equivalent for the surface plasma at the equator which would make its angular velocity Keplerian. The source for this energy may be the motion of the barycenter. In any case, if one assumes that conversion between neutral and electro-magnetic component of the general force of the Sun is also periodic and that such energy replaces fusion reactions in equivalent way, the period of

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:
*easier* than in case of planets, as unlike the planets, the Sun does not have a solid [real] mantle to block the explosion (the mantle of the Sun are the terrestrial
planets, however, they are in 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 maximum is the collapse of a 3-dimensional spherical neutral form into 2-dimensional charged form. Since the surface maximum of the Sun is entangled with Mars' maximum, at
the time of collapse, two ring maximums are aligned and the ejection of *ash* is not isotropic, rather targeting Mars.
At that point, both the Sun and Mars have a significant (extreme) magnetic field generated by charged maximums so Mars would likely attract ferromagnetic/charged ejecta from the Sun.
The evidence for this is the Fe covered surface of Mars.
Note that the collapse involves the change of spin of the maximums. 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.

- the ash is ejected periodically,
- the ash forms the constitutional mass.

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

In order for this superposition to differentiate into the brain, the exponent would have to reduce to 0.7.
There are several ways to achieve that (sorted by probability, from highest to lowest):
- increasing human lifetime (≈25 times) to 1813 years,
- reducing population (≈25 times) to 307243423,
- reducing mass (≈25 times),
- increasing Earth's mass ≈100 times (≈ mass of Saturn).

I, strive for neutrality - the equal, balanced usage of all parts of my universe. I am aware though, that this is an unreachable singularity, but it is the journey that makes one alive - for
without it there would be no senses, for a sense of reason, and a reason for existence.

Fig. 30: Homo.beta cell

Fig. 30 shows the unit of space on Earth's surface, circled space (

Fig. 31: Normal cells

Fig. 31 shows the normal (healthy) unit of space on Earth.

Fig. 32: Cancer cells

Fig. 32 shows the cancerous (current) unit of space on Earth.

Fig. 33: Dead space

Carbon footprint is not the issue. It is just a side-effect of the real issue - nature of the human footprint.

Cancer cell contains the individuals (proteins) and space affected by cancerous population, but one can even calculate the role of a human in the cancer cell:
- through treatment of diseases (including cancer) humanity is suppressing the immune system of Earth,
- forcing human life at all costs and treating death (as a disease) - instead of letting cells (and proteins - people/animals) die as programmed so they can regenerate,
- treating Earth and other life forms (and, generally, even people) as resources - instead of living in a sustainable symbiotic relationship,
- creating and living in centralized, stressful environments, promoting inequality in wealth and health,
- denying the truth.

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

The average cell cycle period of eukaryotic cell is T
Note that the constants C_{1} and C_{2} are the same as those determined in chapter "Earth, as a living organ[ism] - Age and 3rd order period - Speed of time".

Fig. 34: Stable isotopes of the Solar System in state 6p4n at **t** > 1495840 years

Fig. 34 shows all stable isotopes of the Solar System (

- for
**t**> 1495840 years (**t**≈**Δ**), the isotope lying on the curve with P/N ratio exactly equal to 2/3 is Pt-195 (Platinum, P = 78). The placement of other Platinum isotopes is symmetric relative to the curve,_{t} - for
**σ**= 0 (_{T}**t**= 3/5 Δ_{t}), the P_{2/3}isotope is Pb-205 (Lead, P = 82). At**t**= 3/5 Δ_{t}this was a stable isotope. 1/3 of other stable isotopes are above the curve, 2/3 below, - for
**t**= 4/5 Δ_{t}the P_{2/3}isotope is Hg-200 (Mercury, P = 80). 1/3 of other stable isotopes are above the curve, 2/3 below, - the ratio of horizontal to vertical distance between Lead-205 and Platinum-195 is (82 - 78) / (123 - 117) = 4/6 = 2/3,
- the ratio of horizontal to vertical distance between Lead-205 and Hg-200 is (80 - 78) / (120 - 117) = 2/3,
- at
**t**≈**Δ**, Tin (Sn, P = 50) has the highest number of stable isotopes (10). Tin isotope lying on the curve is Sn-116 (50 protons, 66 neutrons). 2/3 of other stable Tin isotopes is above the curve, 1/3 is below,_{t} - at
**t**≈**Δ**, the only elements without stable isotopes are Tc (Technetium, P = 43) and Pm (Promethium, P = 61). The isotopes lying on the curve are Tc-98 and Pm-146. Vertical distance from Sn-116 to Tc-98 is equal to horizontal distance from Sn-116 to Pm-146._{t}

Fig. 35: Calculated Hill sphere and measured radius for stable isotopes: a) data from 2008. b) data from 1964.

Fig. 35 shows experimentally obtained radius (

Fig. 36: Calculated Hill sphere (adjusted) and measured radius for stable isotopes: a) data from 2008. b) data from 1964.

Fig. 36 shows the experimentally obtained radius (

Fig. 37: Isotopes used in Fig. 36 calculation: a) data from 2008. b) data from 1964.

Fig. 37 shows the number of neutrons N used with each element to obtain Hill radius equal to charge radius. From above figures it is obvious that elements (atoms) are grouped into shells the same way as electrons are grouped in atoms.

n | shell (alt shell) | entanglement | elements | total elements = 2n^{2} |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | K | - | 1-2 (H - He) | 2 |

2 | L | Q | 3-10 (Li - Ne) | 8 |

2 | L (Q) | L | 11-18 (Na - Ar) | 8 |

3 | M | P | 19-36 (K - Kr) | 18 |

3 | M (P) | M | 37-54 (Rb - Xe) | 18 |

4 | N | O | 55-86 (Cs - Rn) | 32 |

4 | N (O) | N | 87-118 (Fr - Og) | 32 |

Table 35: Grouping of elements

Grouping is shown in Table 35. There are two possibilities - either the shells L, M and N are doubled or the grouping is reflected after the N shell, so shells O, P and Q contain the
same number of elements such as shells N, M and L, respectively. Note that in case of alternative (Og) grouping, no elements beyond Og are theoretically possible - otherwise another shell
would be present between He and Li.
Gravitational constant G is not dimensionless and therefor not invariant to vertical scale transformation.
On the standard atom scale Ur = r

c = 2.99792458 * 10

k

Q = electron charge = 1.60217733 * 10

M

M

Note that, with current arrangement, obtained **r** is actually negative. Positive **r** is obtained if M_{γ} and M_{n} exchange masses.
Graviton neutrino is bosonic (half-neutrino/anti half-neutrino pair = e-neutrino/anti e-neutrino pair) differing from photon only in charge/mass ratio, so the exchange is not impossible, rather
expectable.
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 thus has to oscillate over distance.
Taking into account error margins, obtained distance is equal to the radius of observable universe, assuming currently accepted [img] age (13.799 * 10^{9} years), constant speed of light and flat space:
$\displaystyle r = c \Delta t = 2.99792458 * 10^8 * 13.799 * 10^9 * 365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 1.305 * 10^{26}\, m$

The fact that obtained distance is equal to the radius of observable universe is not a coincidence.
For an inflation at the speed of light, distance in space is distance in time [*
Note that previously obtained real age of observable universe (12.75 * 10^{9} years) implies inflation was at times faster than current **c** which, for the same radius, implies
the **c** in flat space was also higher at these times.
In expanding vacuum - with decreasing density, speed of *light* must be proportional or inversely proportional to speed of inflation wherever the density of space is affected.

In the past the observable universe did expand, but geometry deformation was localized (quantized, gravitational wells being the quanta of vacuum) and expansion may have lasted only up to the point
of CMB emission (at this point the speed of Q = 1.60217733 * 10

M = 9.10938356 * 10

r = 70 * 10

M = 1.663337576 * 10

Gravitational *constant* G measured on the surface of the Earth (*surface* G) is relative to standard scale (U_{0}), a proper G for U_{1} scale must be different.

But what was the initial G of Earth's inner core?
According to above hypothesis, it should have been:
g = gravity of the maximum = 274 m/s

r

r

Fig. 38: Sun rotation rates

Above this discontinuity is the tachocline (transition region between the radiative and convective layer of the Sun), a major source of the Sun's magnetic dipole, analogous to the region
of charge above Earth's inner core.
The hypothesis of neurogenesis, assuming pending neurogenesis on Earth and completed neurogenesis on Mars and other terrestrial planets, explains why Earth is the only one with an active
surface magnetic dipole. The connection of tachocline with 0.63R discontinuity would suggest:
- it's position is not permanent and it moves between discontinuities, corresponding to the planet with ongoing neurogenesis,
- possible multiple active discontinuities and associated tachoclines in the past, initially at maximum, or
- current position is the place of birth of all planetary embryos (cores).

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).

Sun's GM product has increased 0.06% due to kinetic energy relative to CMB, so initial radius at 0.94R implies that surface radius changes proportionally:
This is analogous to the decrease of Bohr radius due to relativistic mass of the electron. Bohr radius:

Although GM changes proportionally to R, differential rotation can shift discontinuities. Effectively, for the polar regions of the Sun, change is proportional with R

planet | distance from the Sun r [10^{9} m] | r/r_{M} | initial r/r_{M} | 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 36: Shifting of planetary orbits

The Earth has thus moved from 0.63 - radii of gravitational maximums in the system change physically and proportionally to the change in momentum of the system,
- relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction are a direct consequence of physical changes of space in the system (atom),
- since used velocities are relative to CMB the radii must have been fossilized at the time of CMB emission.

- if increase in kinetic energy increases the energy of the system and units of measurements (quanta of
*observational*energy) then the initial state does not exist - what one considers the initial state of the system (and the current state of CMB) is the result of kinetic energy of the space associated with CMB - the Solar System can thus be the actual standard carbon atom inflated due to this kinetic energy, - but there is no reason for the carbon atom or any other particle to be something elementary, this goes to infinity.

Fig. 39: Mass and charge radius of charged bodies

Since gravitational potential is not isotropic, gravitational acceleration at any point is a vector sum of accelerations induced by vacuum quanta forming the ring:
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.
It is also assumed that gravity is provided by the gravitational maximums, rather than real mass [shielding the gravity of the maximums], however, effectively there is no difference for surface
gravity (real mass imitates the maximum).

With 2 particles in the same state, energy splits into two levels:
Fig. 40: Mass and charge radius of two charged bodies sharing a single state

In such state, two charges are deflected from the equator by this angle:
Since this distance is variable it explains the 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 body into new species.

So full of irony is life of man that it must have descended from iron in the iron balls of god.