scientific article Mario Ljubičić (Amenoum)108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatia (amenoum.org)mljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com solar system, complete relativity, nature, mechanics, carbon life homo.β,homo.beta,homo.omega,homo.ω 2022 https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202105.0488.v6 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits

The Solar System
Nature and mechanics

Abstract Origin, mechanics and properties of the Solar System are analysed in the framework of the Complete Relativity theory (by the same author). According to Complete Relativity, everything is relative. Any apparent absolutism (notably invariance to scale of dimensional constants, absolute elementariness, invariance to time) is an illusion stemming from limits imposed by [or on] polarized observers that will inevitably lead to misinterpretation of phenomena (another illusion) occurring on non-directly observable scales or even observable but distant scales in space or time.
If everything is relative, reference frames will exist where particles are planets and where planets are living beings. Earth is, therefore, analysed here in more detail, both as a particle and, as a living evolving being (of, hypothesized, extremely introverted intelligence). The analysis confirms the postulates and hypotheses of the theory (ie. existence of discrete vertical energy levels) with a significant degree of confidence. During the analysis, some new hypotheses have emerged. These are discussed and confirmed with various degrees of confidence. To increase confidence or refute some hypotheses, experimental verification is necessary. Main conclusions that stem from my research and are further confirmed in this paper are:
Introduction Here I hypothesize that the Solar System is a large scale 10C atom (10-Carbon isotope) and provide evidence for the equivalence of large (U1) scale systems with standard (U0) scale systems through the analysis of the Solar System in the context of Complete Relativity (CR).
Note that 10C isotope is unstable on standard scale, with a half-life of ~19.3 seconds. Its apparent stability on U1 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 maxima from standard scale atoms, likely in the events of annihilation at event horizons (gravitational maxima) 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 10B (decay product of 10C and 10Be) at U1 scale, the Solar System must also be cycling between 10C and 10Be (10B 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 analysed, primarily the implications on definition and understanding of life. Constants Here are the commonly used constants in the article. The values of planetary constants are taken from NASA Planetary Fact Sheet.
DescriptionConstantValue
Neptune mass on scale 1MU1const('self.mass.electrons.neptune.1', true, 1, -1, true)
Neptune equivalent mass on scale 0MU0( 9.10938356 * 10-31 kg / const('self.energy.electron', true, 1, -1, true) ) * ( const('self.energy.electron', true, 1, -1, true) - const('ionization.carbon.neptune', true, 1, -1, true) ) = 9.109182827 * 10-31 kg
Neptune orbital velocityvU1const('orbital.velocity.electrons.neptune.1', true, 1, -1, true)
Neptune spin velocitysU1const('self.velocity.electrons.neptune.1', true, 1, -1, true)
Neptune radius on scale 1RU1const('self.radius.electrons.neptune.1', true, 1, -1, true)
Neptune equivalent radius on scale 0RU0( const('self.radius.electrons.neptune.1', true, 1, -1, true) / const('orbital.radius.electrons.neptune.1', true, 1, -1, true) ) * 70 * 10-12 m = 3.834298096 * 10-16 m
Solar System charge radius = Neptune orbital radiusrU1const('orbital.radius.electrons.neptune.1', true, 1, -1, true)
Sun massM1.988500 * 1030 kg
Sun radiusR695735 km = 695735000 m
Earth mass5.9723 * 1024 kg
Carbon-12 atom mass1.992646547 * 10-23 g = 1.992646547 * 10-26 kg
Carbon-12 charge radius = Carbon-10 charge radiusrU070 pm = 70 * 10-12 m
Carbon-10 nucleus charge radius2.708 * 10-15 m
Carbon-10 nucleus mass10.016853 u = 1.663337576 * 10-26 kg
Standard speed of lightc = c02.99792458 * 108 m/s
Standard electron massMe9.10938356 * 10-31 kg
Table 1: Commonly used constants
Definitions Here are the definitions of terms and expressions that may be used here. Note that these may be different than standard or common definitions in everyday use. Some terms in use in this paper have been defined in CR and reader should be familiar with these (and CR in general) if the aim is to understand this paper properly. Elementary charge Elementary particles, relative to a universe of a particular scale, are generally polarized. Physical interpretation (manifestation) of polarization is dependable on environment, but any elementary particle can be interpreted as a more or less evolved graviton (as defined in CR).
Note that, in CR, elementary particles are not absolutely elementary, reference frames will exist where existence of constituent particles is apparent.
In case its electro-magnetic component is dominant, the particle is electrically charged and represents a relative electric monopole. However, electric component generally consists of 2 quanta of identical charge (dominant) and 1 quantum of opposite (anti) charge, which are strongly entangled (there are no absolute monopoles). Spin momentum of charge is quantized, by a relative constant () - a quantum of momentum. Suppose the value of each spin momentum is equal to 1/2 in value, and spins of two dominant charges are perpendicular to each other (having a [fixed] phase difference of π/2 degrees). Two dominant charges now have a total magnetic spin momentum: $\displaystyle S_1 = \sqrt{{\biggl({1 \over 2} \hbar\biggr)}^2 + {\biggl({1 \over 2} \hbar\biggr)}^2} = {\sqrt{2} \over 2} \hbar = {1 \over \sqrt{2}} \hbar$
Charge spin momentum
Fig. 1: Spin momentum
Total spin momentum of the particle is thus: $\displaystyle \vec S = \vec S_1 + \vec S_2$ If the S2 (anti) charge momentum is perpendicular to S1, the value of total spin momentum is: $\displaystyle S = \sqrt{{\biggl({1 \over \sqrt{2}} \hbar\biggr)}^2 + {\biggl({1 \over 2} \hbar\biggr)}^2} = \sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} \hbar = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} \hbar$ Due to fixed π/2 phase and equal value, influence of components of S1 on the orientation [of the momentum projection] cancel (the two components are fermions in the same quantum energy level, so their projections cannot both be oriented in the same direction), and the orientation of the projection of the momentum S on the axis of quantization will depend solely on the orientation of momentum S2.
Note that S2 is at a different energy level.
With the applied magnetic field, projection of the momentum on the magnetic axis (ie. z) will thus be oriented either up or down: $\displaystyle S_z = \pm {1 \over 2} \hbar$ This is a typical spin momentum of standard charges such as electrons and protons.

Fig. 1 a) shows charge in collapsed ground state (particle) with acquired real mass m, charge radii r1, r2 and radius of imaginary mass rM. It's momentum is quantized by , electric charge by e and gravitational force by mg. The space of such particle may be characterized by ε (electric permittivity) and μ (magnetic permeability), or pressure and density.
Charge wave
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, free charge. Total momentum is the sum of individual momenta and equal to original momentum of the particle.
Charge wave forces
Fig. 3: Charge wave forces
Fig. 3 a) shows one interpretation of strength of forces of a wave with distance from centre (black = gravitational force, blue and red = electric force). Now each component (maximum) of a wave, starting from outer ones, can be excited independently, can change spin, merge with adjacent maxima and form moon charges. This allows the charge to interact (interfere) with itself. However, if components are strongly entangled, entanglement will be conserved and upon interaction will collapse (localize) into corpuscular form. Fig. 3 b) shows how the space of the same particle can be modified by interaction with another particle - essentially, the electric force has been exchanged for gravitational force. Such interaction may also collapse the wave into a particle with moon charges, where the number of moons depends on the equilibrium point of interaction (difference in energy of interacting particles). Note that it is possible for the effect to be strongly localized - local space may be modified to attenuate one force and strengthen the other, while particles outside that space may not feel such [degree of] change. Equilibrium and nature of forces Equilibrium state of 3 components of charge is maintained through rotation. Due to rotation of local space, general force is a centripetal force and in stable orbitals equal to centrifugal force. In case of a completely neutral (gravitational) force: $\displaystyle {mv^2 \over r} = {G Mm \over r^2}$ This is established when angular velocity of the orbiting body and angular velocity of space (effective graviton, or gravitational field tube) become equal: $\displaystyle v = v_s = \sqrt{GM \over r}$ If the body increases velocity (v > vs), centrifugal force becomes greater than gravitational force and now acts as a fictitious repulsive force. For v < vs, gravitational force is higher than centrifugal force, and the body feels attractive force. Nature (polarization) of the force can thus be changed with a change in radii (expansion/collapse) of gravitational maxima. This allows for electro-magnetic force to be a fictitious force - a result of radii change of gravitational maxima due to absorption and emission of energy.
Note that electric 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, the sole change in radii 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. Thus, electric polarization of a graviton will, as hypothesized in CR, require deformation, creation of a bipolar structure. Nature and strength of force thus become dependent on correlation (entanglement) between particles. A neutral graviton effectively curves space, proportionally to its scale and isotropically in ideal (completely neutral) case. However, with electric polarization, isotropic large scale curvature decreases and becomes quantized (fragmented) into smaller scale curvatures concentrated in [magnetic field] lines (small scale tubes). Such particle will not strongly gravitationally attract particles of the same scale, but it will strongly interact with particles in the same configuration (having magnetic field tubes of the same scale). If this interaction is widening the tubes (increasing energy) of entanglement, the particles will be attracted, otherwise repelled.
Even if orbital changes are not electro-magnetic in nature, such changes imply radial polarization of reference frames, thus a reference frame can be polarized even if its mass is purely gravitational, and this will be reflected in a relativistic (ω) factor. However, there are no absolutely pure gravitational reference frames and changes in stable orbits may generally happen with the exchange of gravitational for electro-magnetic potential. In that case, gravitational polarization becomes electric polarization. Primary atom radius Generally, radius of the atom is equal to the radius of its outermost electron orbit. However, other particles can be bound to atomic nuclei. Here, I hypothesize that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are standardly bound to nuclei, generally occupying separate energy levels but may also be bound to other particles (ie. forming an electron/neutrino pair). Primary radius of the atom is then equal to the orbital radius of its outermost primary component. At minimum, it is equal to the general (outermost electron orbit) radius of the atom. However, at equilibrium - with all primary neutrinos present, it may be over twice that radius. MAU MAU or Mars relative Astronomical Unit is a unit of distance. 1 MAU is equal to the distance of the outermost positive charge from the atom nucleus. On U1 scale 10C atom equivalent, 1 MAU is equal to the distance of Mars from the Sun. Weak nuclear decay Weak nuclear decay transforms a neutron into a proton or vice versa. If these are parts of an atom, this is nuclear transmutation - transformation of one atom of an element into an atom of another element. With scale invariance of gravitational fields, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos can be, like electrons, bound to atomic nuclei (and, as other fermions, grouped into pairs). In equilibrium, the number of bound electron (e) neutrinos and electron anti-neutrinos within the [primary] radius of the atom correspond to the number of protons and neutrons, respectively. These are, together with nuclei and electrons, primary components of the atom. Decay process involves annihilation of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Small update in β- decay. β- decay Transformation of a neutron to a proton, with emission of excess energy: $\displaystyle n \to p^+ + \Delta E$ Here, bound non-primary e neutrino and bound primary e anti-neutrino annihilate to produce, depending on energy, either an electron/positron (e-/e+) pair, or up/anti-up quark pair: $\displaystyle e_v + \overline{v}_e \to (e^- + e^+)\, ||\, (u^+ + u^-) \tag{1}$ In case of electron/positron production, positron further partially annihilates with the down quark (here, both are composite particles), producing neutrino/anti-neutrino pair and up quark: $\displaystyle e^+ + d^- \to u^+ + v_e + \overline{v}_e \tag{2}$ Neutrino bounds to the atom [as a primary component], while anti-neutrino and electron are ejected in a spin paired state (boson), before separating again: $\displaystyle e^- + \overline{v}_e \to W^- \to e^- + \overline{v}_e \tag{3}$ In case of up/anti-up quark production in the first step, the up quark is absorbed, while anti-up quark pairs with the down quark before ejection: $\displaystyle u^- + d^- \to W^- \to u^- + d^-$
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- decay is the effective transformation of a down quark to up quark of the atom nucleus.
Note that rest mass of a W boson is over 80 times that of a neutron and orders of magnitude higher 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 the 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 amount of deviation, thus, making 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, in fact, a 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, a process of conversion of a polarized component of general force into a neutral (gravitational) component - effectively, 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 component can be absolutely zero for any particle). Thus, although W boson is theoretically charged, and charge is conserved between 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 conservation of energy would be violated. Probability of beta decay is then proportional to conservation of charge in created W boson. Time-energy uncertainty is an interpretation of massive bosons based on the assumption of absolute charge conservation (it seems as an ad hoc solution where conservation of one physical phenomena - energy in this case, is discarded to conserve certain beliefs, and, as such leads to further alienation of small scale mechanics from intuitive and physical large scale mechanics). However, stability of particles must be relative - in extreme conditions, a massive (uncharged or weakly charged) W boson can be stable (ie. in Bose-Einstein states of atoms). Destabilization of systems (including beta decay) is likely generally sourced in spatial/temporal asymmetry in exchange between neutral (gravitational) and polarized (electric) potential.
β+ decay Transformation of a proton to a neutron, with emission of excess energy: $\displaystyle p^+ \to n + \Delta E$ Here, bound primary e neutrino and bound non-primary e anti-neutrino annihilate to produce either an electron/positron (e-/e+) pair, or down/anti-down quark pair: $\displaystyle e_v + \overline{v}_e \to (e^- + e^+)\, ||\, (d^+ + d^-) \tag{1}$ In case of electron/positron production, electron further partially annihilates with the up quark (here, both are composite particles), producing neutrino/anti-neutrino pair and a down quark: $\displaystyle e^- + u^+ \to d^- + v_e + \overline{v}_e \tag{2}$ The anti-neutrino bounds to the atom [as a primary component], while neutrino and positron are ejected in a spin paired state (boson), before separating again: $\displaystyle e^+ + v_e \to W^+ \to e^+ + v_e \tag{3}$ In case of down/anti-down quark production in the first step, the down quark is absorbed, while anti-down quark pairs with the up quark before ejection: $\displaystyle u^+ + d^+ \to W^+ \to u^+ + d^+$ Note that, in this case, to conserve equilibrium conditions, one of bound non-primary e anti-neutrinos must reduce its orbit to become a primary component.
β+ decay is the effective transformation of an up quark to down quark of the atom nucleus. Inverse β decay Transformation of a proton to a neutron by electron anti-neutrino scattering. Generally, this interaction will occur when the atom is not in equilibrium, more specifically - the number of bound e neutrinos is lower than the number of protons. $\displaystyle \overline{v}_e + p^+ \to e^+ + n$ In this process, e anti-neutrino annihilates with a bound non-primary e neutrino, initiating a β+ decay with electron/positron product: $\displaystyle e_v + \overline{v}_e \to e^- + e^+ \tag{1}$ $\displaystyle e^- + u^+ \to d^- + v_e + \overline{v}_e \tag{2}$ However, since the number of bound primary e neutrinos was initially lower than the number of protons, now even the created neutrino is bound (as a non-primary component) rather than ejected with a positron: $\displaystyle e^+ \to e^+ \tag{3}$ Electron capture Transformation of a proton to a neutron by electron capture. $\displaystyle p^+ + e^- \to v_e + n$ Bound electrons induce the creation of positrons from the atom nucleus, filling its outer energy levels. In low energy conditions this may not be possible and one of the innermost electrons may be captured to fill the vacant level. However, the electron in this level is highly unstable, it is attracted to the outer proton core where it partially annihilates with the up quark, proceeding further as β+ decay: $\displaystyle e^- + u^+ \to d^- + v_e + \overline{v}_e \tag{1}$ The anti-neutrino bounds to the atom as a primary component, while neutrino gets ejected. Like in case of inverse β decay, there is no W boson creation as no positrons were created: $\displaystyle v_e \to v_e \tag{2}$
Initial structure hypothesis In planetary systems, outer (gas) planets are [groups of] electrons, while inner (terrestrial) planets are [groups of] positrons whose gravitational maxima have been extracted from the system nucleus to balance the electrons.
Electrons and positrons here should be considered as relative electrons and positrons - they might be in different mass eigenstates. In general, outer planets may be vertically excited negative charges, while inner planets are vertically excited positive charges - or vice versa, in case of anti-matter counterparts. Some could even be paired with neutral fermions (ie. neutrinos).
A planet can be in 1e or 2e configuration, while the star is a superposition of nuclei partons (quarks). Inner and outer dwarf planets in a planetary system are bound anti-neutrinos and neutrinos, respectively.
Solar System components
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 10C atom configuration, in transition to 10Be through β+ decay.
Carbon energy levels
Fig. 5: a) stable 12C energy levels b) current Solar System (10C) energy levels
Fig. 5 a) shows the configuration of a 12C atom (stable on standard scale, unstable on U1), on the left is the configuration of positrons, on the right is the configuration of electrons. Fig. 5 b) shows the possible configuration of a 10C atom (unstable on standard scale, relatively stable on U1 scale).
Note that splitting of s levels on the left side should be attributed to lack of neutrons, as they provide 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. Note also that, while Pauli exclusion principle generally prevents coupling of fermions with equal spin orientation, such coupling may become effectively possible with exchange of electro-magnetic potential for gravitational potential. It could be interpreted as the result of relative decay of magnetic momentum coupled with separation of constituent quanta into different energy levels of the particle itself.
General deduction of quantum structure Here is an example how the element and exact isotope species can be determined from the number and types of planets.
TOI-178 system components
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: Since the intersection of the two groups contains only one solution (4), the TOI-178 system must be a Beryllium atom. If the number of terrestrial planets corresponds to number of neutrons, this must be a 6Be isotope. This can be confirmed by comparing the mass of the TOI-178 system [star] with the mass of the Sun. Assuming that the Solar System is 10C (or 10Be), the determined mass of TOI-178 (0.647+0.035/-0.032 M) agrees well with the hypothesis. However, the measured mass is still somewhat larger than expected - reasons for this will be discussed later.
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/densities 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 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, 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).
Quantum nature Solar System appears to be a Carbon-10 atom in the current state. Due to extreme conditions some of its components are at the lowest energy level - multiple nucleons have condensed into a single nucleus, orbitals are two dimensional (collapsed from spherical cloud structure), highly aligned (same plane), and momentum carriers are (scaled) point like structures. Scale invariance of physical laws requires that non-dimensional ratios - those of radii, masses and velocities (energies in general) in two systems of the same species (carbon in this case) but of different scale are equal. Radius of the outermost electron of 10C can then be obtained from Neptune spin and orbital radius: $\begin{aligned}{\text { Neptune spin radius } \over \text { Neptune orbital radius }} &= { \text { 10C outermost electron spin radius } \over \text { 10C outermost electron orbital radius }} \\ &= { R_{U_1} \over r_{U_1} } = { R_{U_0} \over r_{U_0} }\end{aligned}$ This gives electron radius RU0 = 3.834298096 * 10-16 m. Note that radii of particles inside the atom can be different than outside of atom. Generally, radii are affected by kinetic energy and oscillate with mass. Sun core radius from 10C nucleus radius and outermost electron radius: $ {\text { 10C nucleus charge radius } \over \text { 10C outermost electron spin radius }} = { \text { Sun core radius } \over \text { Neptune spin radius }}$ The above gives Sun core radius of 173894.6069 km, or 1/4 of the apparent Sun radius, in agreement with experimentally obtained values of Sun core size. More precisely, this is the Sun outer core [discontinuity] radius and also [approximately] U1 classical electron radius.
The values of constants used here are values listed in chapter Constants.
Proton radius approximation: ${\text{Sun radius} \over \text{Solar System charge radius}} = {P \over N} {\text{10 * proton radius} \over \text{Carbon-10 charge radius}}$ The factor P/N = 6/4 = 3/2 is the ratio of protons to neutrons in Carbon-10 atom, factor 10 is the number of nucleons (P+N). The above gives 0.722296 * 10-15 m = 0.722296 fm for the proton radius, close to experimentally obtained value of 0.8414(19) fm (2018 CODATA). Same result can be obtained by using spin radii: ${\text{Sun radius} \over \text{Neptune spin radius}} = {P \over N} {\text{10 * proton radius} \over \text{10C outermost electron spin radius}}$ A precise value can be obtained by taking into account the influence of quarks instead of P/N (this will be elaborated later): ${\text{Sun radius} \over \text{Solar System charge radius}} \biggl [{\bigl ({2 \over 3}\bigr )^2 + {1 \over 3}}\biggr ] = {\text{10 * proton radius} \over \text{Carbon-10 charge radius}}$ which gives 0.8426785306 fm, a value in agreement with the CODATA value. Radius of a proton cannot be absolutely constant, due to hypothesized entanglement between vertical scales, it should probably be shrinking as the Solar System expands during weak evolution of the current state (6p4n). Comparing masses: $ {\text { Sun mass } \over \text { Neptune mass }} \approx { \text { 10C nucleus mass } \over \text { 10C outermost electron mass }} \tag{Q1.1}$ This gives: $\displaystyle 19416.48033 \approx 18260.0087$ The above shows mass ratios agree not only to the order of magnitude but are actually very close in value. The excess energy is: $\begin{aligned}\Delta M &= \text{Sun mass} - {\text{10C nucleus mass} \over \text{10C outermost electron mass}} \text{Neptune mass} \\ &= 1.18437729 * 10^{29}\, kg \approx 6\%\, \text{Sun mass}\end{aligned}$ and it must be the locally accumulated relativistic energy of the Solar System (discrepancy arises due to non-invariant reference frames in the mass measurement - the mass of a standard 10C atom is measured from an external frame, while the mass of the Solar System is derived from within the system and improperly treated as rest mass). Although the Solar System is at rest relative to us, relativistic energy (deviation from rest velocity) of the system relative to underlying space is always locally real and must be stored somewhere within the system. The likely capacitor is local space (imaginary mass) and apparently the energy is stored in the form of gravitational energy.
If the energy is stored mostly in Sun's gravitational maximum, this would imply non-homogeneous storage of kinetic energy as gravitational potential - likely proportional to the scale of a maximum. However, it is also possible that energy was accumulated before the birth of planets. Most likely, this energy was accumulated with nucleus inflation during the conversion of electro-magnetic potential to gravitational. Of course, the Sun has lost some energy over time but lost mass is on the order of 1027 kg, significantly lower than hypothesized relativistic energy. There are other possibilities for excess mass acquisition, however, acquisition of mass on the order of 1029 kg is, after inflation, probably unlikely, especially considering distances and motion of bodies in the galaxy.
From this one can calculate the scaled speed of light for the U1 scale (c1): $\displaystyle M = M_\odot - \Delta M = 1.870062271 * 10^{30}\, kg$ $\displaystyle v = v_s + v_p $ $\displaystyle M_\odot = {M \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}$ $\displaystyle c_1 = {v \over \sqrt{1 - {M^2 \over {M_\odot}^2}}}$ If v is interpreted as the cumulative velocity against the CMB (Constant Microwave Background) radiation, a sum of secondary velocity vs (velocity of the Solar System against CMB) and primary velocity vp (equal to velocity of the local galactic group against CMB), for vs = 368 km/s and vp = 628 km/s, one gets: $\displaystyle c_1 = 2.93 * 10^6\, m/s$ Obtained c1 is equal to one of possible values calculated in CR, but will also be confirmed here later in a different calculation. Updated chapters Quantum nature and Relation of G variation to Sun's discontinuities.
At first, it may seem that this calculation cannot be valid since both velocities are relative to CMB and vp should not be included in calculation. However, the obtained c1 is confirmed later in other calculations. This puts certain constraints on Sun's evolution, implying that Sun's gravitational maximum was, after initial inflation, accelerated to 628+368 km/s (additionally inflating) in the same direction as the local galactic group, then decelerated to 368 km/s, however, not loosing the acquired energy (it is yet to loose it). This is a plausible explanation if energy of the maximum is quantized and requires certain time to collapse to lower energy level. Indeed, if one assumes that fusion in the Sun started with the moment of deceleration when its speed became equal to 368 km/s and assuming at that point real mass (fusion fuel) was equal to the mass of the [surface] gravitational maximum it would be reasonable to assume that collapse would occur once energy transformed with fusion becomes equal to acquired relativistic mass (ΔM). Since this mass has not yet been depleted, the collapse has not occurred yet, but, according to my calculations (see chapter Quantization of the Sun: Energy replenishment), this moment should be near. The other possibility is that accumulated energy does correspond to current speed (368 km/s), but the mass of Neptune has been decreased instead, from 1.08 * 1026 kg to 1.02 * 1026 kg (current mass). Explanations for this may include mass oscillation, moon creation and conversion of gravitational potential to electro-magnetic potential, however, I consider this less likely, especially comparing the rates of energy absorption and emission between the Sun and Neptune.
Comparing masses of systems of different scales requires proper relativistic treatment. Apart from the speed of light being different between the scales, a proper reference frame must be chosen. In case of comparison of U1 scale system (such as the Solar System) with an U0 system (such as a 10C atom) a proper reference frame is the CMB (Constant Microwave Background) radiation rest frame. Proper equation is thus (for v1 = v0 = v): $\displaystyle {\text { Sun mass } \over \text { Neptune mass }} \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}} = { \text { 10C nucleus mass } \over \text { 10C outermost electron mass }} \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_0}^2}}$ v = v = cumulative speed relative to CMB = 996 km/s
c1 = speed of light on U1 scale = 2.93 * 106 m/s
c0 = c = speed of light on U0 scale = 2.99792458 * 108 m/s
Note that CMB radiation is of U-1 scale. Note also that maximum speed (cn) depends on pressure and density of space and it is generally not equal to the standard speed of light. Here thus, even though the term speed of light may be used, c1 should be understood as maximum speed of U1 particles (stars) in local space. Within the galaxy, speed limit for orbiting bodies is generally defined by the gravitational maximum (event horizon) of the well - stars orbiting galactic centres with semi-major Keplerian velocities larger than c1 might exist in other galaxies.
One can now attempt to resolve the excess mass of TOI-178 (6Be) system. Assuming its velocity [relative to CMB] is 77.22 km/s larger than Sun's velocity, its mass should be: $\begin{aligned}\displaystyle M_{TOI-178} = {M_{Be-6} \over M_{C-10}} M {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}} &= 1.207764563 * 10^{30}\, kg \\ &= 0.607\, M_{\odot} = 0.646\, M\end{aligned}$ MBe-6 = rest mass of 6Be atom = 6.0197 u
MC-10 = rest mass of 10C atom = 10.016853 u
M = rest mass of the Sun (relative to CMB) = 1.870062271 * 1030 kg
v = cumulative speed of TOI-178 relative to CMB = 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 * 1030 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: $\displaystyle M_{TOI-178} = {M_{Be-6} \over M_{C-10}} {M \over \sqrt{1 - {(v_{\odot}+v_r)^2 \over {c_1}^2}}} {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}$ vr = 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 are always physical, but not always on the same scale and not always in the same space - ie. some may be physical on small scale (mental) in space of the observer, some on a large scale in space of the observable, or vice versa. 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: $\displaystyle {\left({1 \over \sqrt{1 - {(v_{\odot}+v_r)^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}\right)}^{-1} = \sqrt{1 - {(v_{\odot}+v_r)^2 \over {c_1}^2}}$ Note also that TOI-178 is the only system I have analysed beyond the Solar System. The reason that an effectively randomly (non-consciously by my self) chosen system fits the hypothesis goes strongly in its favour. All planetary systems close to the Solar System, and probably all systems in the Milky Way, should conform to the same speed limit. However, I find that analysing all these is beyond the scope of this paper. Hopefully, other researchers will do these analyses eventually.
EH operator validation
The following is an attempt to validate the EH operator defined in CR. However, this is completely unnecessary for validation of main CR postulates and hypotheses. Masses between discrete vertical energy levels have already been calculated in CR. This is simply an attempt at alternative calculation of these masses.
If the carbon atom at appropriate density/pressure is the Solar System equivalent, carbon photon is the carbon atom of lower scale (vertical energy level). One can thus calculate the [average] mass of photons or photon scale particles, ie. electron half-photon: $ {\text { Neptune mass } \over \text { 10C outermost electron mass }} = { \text { 10C outermost electron mass } \over \text { e half-photon mass }}$ $ {\text { e half-photon mass } } = { (\text { 10C outermost electron mass })^2 \over \text { Neptune mass }} = { 8.102214736 * 10^{-87} \text{ } kg }$ However, obtained half-photon mass above assumes linear progression of discrete states of scale invariance (vertical symmetry, distance in scale from U0 to both U1 and U-1 is equal), which is against the postulates of CR - although this can be the mass of a half-photon in another time (another cycle state).
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 have been calculated already in CR (yielding 9.10938356 * 10-73 kg for the half-photon mass, 1.663337576 * 10-68 kg for the half-graviton mass), but the values can also be obtained using EH operator. Using EH factor 6/4 on the orders of magnitude of mass distances: $\displaystyle log_{10}\biggl ({M_{U_1} \over M_e}\biggr ) = EH_{6 / 4}\biggl [log_{10}\biggl ({M_e \over M_n}\biggr ), log_{10}\biggl ({m_{U_1} \over M_n}\biggr )\biggr ]$ gives Mn = 3.910613743 * 10-68 kg for the mass of graviton in current cycle state, and mU1 = 6.06011796 * 1019 kg for the mass of Neptune in current cycle state. Neptune mass is obviously not in agreement with current Neptune mass (unless one considers scaling of the gravitational constant G), however, if this is interpreted as initial real mass component of total mass than it may be correct (see next chapter, where real mass component of Neptune is calculated to be approximately on the order of 1020).
Here, Mp = Mn / mU1 = 6.453032383 * 10-88 kg could be interpreted as the mass of carbon half-photon in inverse cycle state.
Mass of a half-photon can now be obtained from Mn: $\displaystyle M_p = {M_e \over {^{10}C\text{ atom mass}}} M_n \approx M_n * 10^{-5}$ Note that, in current state the ratio of magnitude distances from electron to graviton and from electron to U1 electron (Neptune) is: $\displaystyle log_{10}\biggl ({M_e \over M_n}\biggr ) {\Biggl [log_{10}\biggl ({M_{U_1} \over M_e}\biggr )\Biggr ]}^{-1} = {4 \over 6} {5 \over 5} = {2 \over 3}$ So, for the inverse state (4p6n): $\displaystyle log_{10}\biggl ({M_e \over M_n}\biggr ) {\Biggl [log_{10}\biggl ({M_{U_1} \over M_e}\biggr )\Biggr ]}^{-1} = {6 \over 4} {3 \over 7} = {9 \over 14}$ $\displaystyle log_{10}\biggl ({M_{U_1} \over M_e}\biggr ) = EH_{4 / 6}\biggl [log_{10}\biggl ({M_e \over M_n}\biggr ), log_{10}\biggl ({m_{U_1} \over M_n}\biggr )\biggr ]$ Respecting conditions for the EH inverse, the following values are obtained: mass Me = 3.910613743 * 10-68 kg of [10C outermost] electron equivalent in U-1.4p6n (= Mn in U0.6p4n), MU1 = 9.10938356 * 10-31 kg for the mass of Neptune equivalent in U-1.4p6n (= Me in U0.6p4n), Mn = 3.719162593 * 10-92 kg for the mass of graviton in U-1.4p6n, mU1 = 4.18129939 * 10-36 kg for the mass of Neptune in U-1.4p6n (= me in U0.6p4n).
Note that here, mass of the photon is obtained from: $\displaystyle M_p = {{^{10}C\text{ atom mass}} \over M_e} M_n = 6.791044478 * 10^{-88}\, kg$ suggesting inverted roles of photon and graviton.
Outermost angular momenta and c1 confirmation With the conservation of angular momentum between the Solar System equivalent at U0 scale (10C atom at equivalent density/pressure) and the Solar System, one may attempt to calculate angular velocity of the outermost electron in the 10C atom: $L = m v r = {v \over r} m r^2$ $M_{U_1} \text{ } v_{U_1} \text{ } r_{U_1} = M_{U_0} \text{ } v_{U_0} \text{ } r_{U_0}$ $v_{U_0} = { { M_{U_1} \text{ } v_{U_1} \text{ } r_{U_1} } \over { M_{U_0} \text{ } r_{U_0} } } = 3.920242676 * 10^{82} \text{ } {m \over s}$ The above gives the outermost electron velocity in case of conversion of both mass and orbital radius into angular velocity, for a point energy in constant vacuum density. However, mass MU0 must have been relativistic before the speed limit was reached (vertical energy level changed) and it became the rest mass MU1. Thus, in order to get the orbital velocity just before the [vertical] energy level change, rest mass on one scale must be equalized with relativistic mass on another (MU1 = MU0): $v_{U_0} = { { v_{U_1} \text{ } r_{U_1} } \over { r_{U_0} } } = 3.486882257 * 10^{26} \text{ } {m \over s}$ With real mass not participating in inflation (maxima inflate naked), this velocity is the velocity of space, making it potentially valid even in the context of General Relativity (GR). Using conservation of energy, one can now obtain the velocity of the outermost electron in standard non-excited 10C atom: $E_{-1} = E_0$ $\rho_{vac} * V_{U_0} * {v_{U_0}}^2 = M_{U_0} * v^2$ $\rho_{vac} = \text{mean vacuum energy density} = 9.9 * 10^{-27} \text{ } {kg \over m^3}$
$\rho_{vac} * {4 \over 3} \pi [(r_{U_0} + R_{U_0})^3 - (r_{U_0} - R_{U_0})^3] * {v_{U_0}}^2 = M_{U_0} * v^2$ $5.684969447 * 10^{-8} = M_{U_0} * v^2$
$\rho_{vac} * {4 \over 3} \pi ({R_{U_0}})^3 * {v_{U_0}}^2 = M_{U_0} * v^2$ $2.842208873 * 10^{-19} = M_{U_0} * v^2$ Small update in Outermost angular momenta and c1 confirmation.
Note that non-relativistic mass is used on both sides. Even though the relativistic c constant is different between the two masses (scales), the v/c ratio is equal between the scales, thus, the Lorentz factor on the left is equal to the one on the right and they cancel out.
This gives v = 5.585837356 * 105 m/s, for the velocity of the outermost electron of a standard 10C atom [in Solar System equivalent state]. Photon rest mass agrees with experiments.
Note that the product of density and volume on the left (2.337660431 * 10-72 kg) should be close to the mass of a standard photon (coupled half-photons), 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 = c0 = 2.99792458 * 108 m/s: $\displaystyle p = m v = m v_{\scriptsize{U_0}} = 2.337660431 * 10^{-72}\, kg * 3.486882257 * 10^{26}\, {m \over s} = m_0\, c_0$ $\displaystyle m_0 = {p \over c_0} = {p \over c} = 2.719 * 10^{-54}\, kg$ or, using photon rest mass 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 total velocity (vtot) as the sum of electron's spin and angular velocity. Per CR postulates, every spin momentum must be an orbital momentum. If one assumes that, once captured by the atom, the outermost electron self-orbital (spin) momentum becomes the nucleus-orbital momentum, in ground state (with quantum number l = 0) thus, total momentum of the electron is: $m r^2 \omega_{tot} = {1 \over 2} \hbar$ $\displaystyle v_{tot} = { r \omega_{tot} } = {1 \over 2} { \hbar \over {m r} }$ Using m = MU0 ≈ Me and r = rU0, this gives vtot = 8.269308487 * 105 m/s. This momentum in the atom is further divided between orbital and spin momentum. With the ratio of velocities equal to Neptune spin/orbital velocity, one obtains electron orbital velocity: $\displaystyle v = v_{\scriptscriptstyle U_0} = { v_{tot} \over { 1 + { s_{U_1} \over v_{U_1} } } } = 5.5550351679 * 10^5 \text{ } {m \over s}$
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: $\displaystyle m_{img} = M_e {r_a \over r_s} \tag{Q1.5}$ Me = standard electron mass = 9.10938356 * 10-31 kg
ra = rU0 = orbital radius of the outermost 10C electron = 70 * 10-12 m
rs = RU0 = spin radius of the outermost 10C 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 mimg 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 mimg 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.
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 * 1015 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 10C 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 [initial] real component of Neptune's total mass: $\displaystyle {m_{re} \over m_{img}} = {m_{{re}_1} \over m_{{img}_1}} \approx {m_{{re}_1} \over M_{U_1}}$ $\displaystyle m_{{re}_1} \approx {M_e \over m_{img}} M_{U_1} = 5.60974244 * 10^{20}\, kg$ In the above, it was assumed that charge radius is equal to mass spin radius (rs) 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/s2), 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 * 1024 kg
G = G0 = standard gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2
Using Q1.5, one can now calculate initial real mass component of the Earth: $\displaystyle m_{re} = {r_c \over r_a} m_{img} \approx {r_c \over r_a} M \approx 6.81 * 10^{19}\, kg \tag{Q1.7}$ ra = Earth's orbital radius = 149.6 * 109 m This real mass will be further validated later. However, obtained charge radius is, as it will be shown later, induced charge radius, rather than the primary or primordial charge radius. Calculating mimg for other planets shows weak signals that all may be consistent with condensates of standard particles, as shown in Table 2.
planetequivalent standard mimg (GeV/c2)particle
Saturn12.5810 * charm quark, or 2 * charmed B meson
Jupiter5.69ADM (asymmetric dark matter) particle ?
Uranus57.8710 * ADM ?
Mars34.36?
Earth12?
Venus9.14?
Mercury12.13?
Table 2: Calculated mimg 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, 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 10C 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 * 10-27 kg/m3 would yield the correct value.
From this one can also obtain the scaled speed of light: $\displaystyle { v_{\scriptscriptstyle U_0} \over c_0 } = { v_{\scriptscriptstyle U_1} \over c_1 }$ $\displaystyle c_1 = { v_{\scriptscriptstyle U_1} \over v_{\scriptscriptstyle U_0} } c_0 = 2.930445979 * 10^6 {m \over s}$ The result is in agreement with c1 previously obtained from relativistic energy of the Solar System (2.93 * 106 m/s). Added chapter The extent of validity of c1. The extent of validity of c1 The speed c1 (2.93 * 106 m/s) has been calculated as the relevant quantization constant and speed limit for particles of Sun's scale in local space. But what is the extent of that space? Any private space should be associated with a specific gravitational maximum. The Sun should be orbiting this maximum. Therefore, it's centre should be the galactic centre, while its radius can be inferred from motion of stars - stars orbiting close to this maximum should orbit at average velocities close to c1.
Note that, according to CR, all velocities are average values of oscillation. Therefore, in eccentric orbitals, stars can exceed c1 at periapsis - this is not forbidden, but the average (semi-major) velocity should not. There are two interpretations of this - either the orbit (shape) of the maximum itself is eccentric or the star is in [properly scaled] thermal motion relative to the maximum - oscillating perpendicularly to maximum's surface (the gravitational maximum generally has a torus shape).
According to measurements, stars with such velocities are concentrated at the galactic centre, near the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*). It appears that there are no stars in Milky Way orbiting at velocities ≥ c1. In example, as of August 2019, the fastest star orbiting Sgr A* is S62. For the enclosed mass M of 4.15 * 106 M⊙, its Keplerian orbital velocity at determined semi-major (r = 740.067 AU = 1.10714 * 1014 m) is: $\displaystyle v = \sqrt{GM \over r} = 2.23 * 10^6\, {m \over s}$ G = standard gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2
As of 2020, S4711 is the star with fastest semi-major velocity: 2.44 * 106 m/s, still under 2.93 * 106 m/s.
This is a strong evidence for c1 being the maximum velocity for all stars in Milky Way. The radius of the associated gravitational maximum should thus be the radius of the event horizon for these stars. For mass M of 4.15 * 106 M⊙, this radius (semi-major) is: $\displaystyle r = {GM \over {c_1}^2} = 6.41541 * 10^{13}\, m = 428.838\, AU$
Plausible locations for gravitational maxima of galactic space are radii of maximal velocities of stars in a galaxy. However, if angular velocity of stars is much lower than the expected velocity of the maximum, any such extreme is unlikely the location of the gravitational maximum. However, these stars could be fossils of the body of matter previously bound to a gravitational maximum - which has collapsed. Since collapse must include a reversal of momentum, the spiral galaxies could be the result of collapse through discrete energy levels. Consider the rotational profile of the Milky Way galaxy in Fig. 7 (right). Assume that the gravitational maximum was initially located at ≈13.33 kpc, at which point the stars at that location had 10 times higher angular velocities, when the maximum started collapsing:
  1. the reversal of momentum slowed down the stars at the location 10 times,
  2. another reversal occured at ≈7.33 kpc restoring the velocity of the maximum, accelerating and igniting local stars,
  3. another collapse, slowing down the stars 10 times,
  4. restoration at ≈1.33 kpc, acceleration then reversal and deceleration of stars 10 times,
  5. ... possible intermediate levels ...
  6. restoration at 428.838 AU, stars accelerated.
The above assumes inflation/deflation is simultaneous with a change in radii. This may not be true. It is also unlikely for velocity to remain constant over all [scales of] radii. Thus, the initial velocity of the gravitational maximum might have been 10 times lower than c1, it only increased 10 times once the radius decreased to smaller scale (< 1 kpc). Note that constant velocity across different radii [with non-changing gravitational constant] implies angular momentum was not conserved (some quanta have radiated away or perhaps collapsed to smaller spin momenta - forming future stars, etc.).
The primary question then is - is the gravitational maximum currently located at 428.838 AU? And is there a standard supermassive black hole at all in the centre of the Milky Way [or any other galaxy]? The profile of the Milky Way galaxy suggests that velocity of the maximum remains constant with collapse (the GM product and radius change equally) at least to some extent, while speed of stars around 428.838 AU suggests the gravitational maximum is still there. After all, assuming the maximum has collapsed to the radius of a hypothesized supermassive black hole (≈0.1 AU radius), the Sun and other stars should conform to the speed limit of c = c0 = 2.99792458 * 108 m/s, not 2.93 * 106 m/s. In any case, the gravitational maximum at 428.838 AU appears to be the black hole for stars and similar large scale objects of the Milky Way. This does not rule out the existence of standard black holes (event horizons for standard particles) in the centre but, if they do exist, their individual masses should be much smaller than 106 M⊙.
Explaining galactic structure The collapsing spin-alternating gravitational maximum can explain extremes in angular velocities of a galaxy and bright (ignited) regions. It can also explain the young counter-rotating disk(s) of massive stars close to galactic centre. Not only that, it can explain the structure of a galaxy, assuming it is a large scale quantum system: As the maximum is spiralling between states it is affecting momenta of gravitational maxima of smaller scale (ie. those forming stars and planets). The number of spiral arms is then proportional either to age of the galaxy, or to the number of oscillating gravitational maxima. The oscillation of this large scale energy should affect [and thus imply oscillation of] smaller scale energy (possibly explaining at least one order of general oscillation of stars, as hypothesized in chapter Initial setup and regular disturbances). Initial setup and regular disturbances Solar System is the product of inflation (likely through annihilation) of smaller scale particles or/and deflation [through annihilation] of larger scale particles. Suppose that at the moment of annihilation the carbon atom was briefly ionized and its mass and charge were condensed into the core when it started inflating. With the electrons inflating along, eventually, the charge would separate from mass again. The energy provided for transition between adjacent energy levels is generally higher than required, thus, the flattened carbon atom likely expanded to multiple times its current radii, then compressed to current size, trading charge area for neutral gravitational volume. The atom nucleus in the process expanded up to the main asteroid belt, then compressed, leaving behind orbiting gravitons which collapsed to form terrestrial planets. The collapses were recorded in the Sun, forming discontinuities.
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 maxima 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 evidence for which will be provided later, in this article, and in follow-up articles) for the first three orders of general oscillation:
  1. 4.25 * 109 years.
  2. 25.7 - 25.92 * 106 years,
  3. 1.512 * 106 years,
These are cycles of existence of the Solar System and its bodies. Only the 1st order cycle may result in large scale horizontal energy level changes, but all these disturbances are sourced in gravitational stresses and have a strong effect on the evolution of the system (and all life within) - it is temporarily accelerated at the end of each cycle.
1st order period should be interpreted as lifespan of the Solar System as a whole. At time of death, gravitational maxima of the Sun [and likely all planets] collapse exchanging spin momenta for galactic angular momenta. Eventually, this system may couple with real mass and inflate again into the same species (carbon in this case). It may even couple with the same mass, in which case the collapse may be interpreted as temporary loss of consciousness. It may also inflate or deflate through annihilation or fusion with another system, and then start evolving as new life form of another generation or new species, acquiring real mass in vicinity. In any case, life and death are synchronized, and, for these species death is likely not the same as death on our scale. Discarded real mass may be fully reused by another soul in these species - with no temporary and/or spatially large decay and recycling involved.
2nd order period should be interpreted as the lifespan of Sun's core and Jupiter, and possibly all outer planets. Based on current evidence, these collapses should be temporary regardless of nature (death or loss of consciousness). Naturally, these collapses will cause orbital disturbances, and are likely to induce bombardment of terrestrial planets with asteroids. These should thus be correlated with large extinctions on these planets.
1st order period should be interpreted as the lifespan of Earth and possibly all inner (terrestrial) planets (at least in the order of magnitude). Based on evidence, this collapse too is temporary. Collapse of Earth's maximum will be synchronized with accelerated evolution of life on its surface. There is evidence for accelerated human evolution 1.4 - 1.6 Ma. Thus, another such event (effective time compression) should be happening at this time. All of these periods are time averaged, deviations will exist, but larger periods should be relatively quantized by smaller periods. Ongoing extinction on Earth may be correlated with the end of a 3rd order period, however, everything suggests this is also the end of a 2nd order period. And, considering the age of Earth and the Solar System, we are likely at the end of a 1st order period too. Thus, major cataclysmic changes should be imminent, although, there is some possibility that 1st order period will end with the end of an additional 2nd order period, some 26 million years later. Note that currently accepted age of Earth and the Solar System, based on uniform evolution and decay rates of elements, must be wrong. Decay rates of elements cannot be constant over all time, they must change, either directly with changes in pressure and density of space, or effectively - ie. with cosmic ray bombardment. Thus, they should temporarily change (accelerate) with the end of a period of any order - proportionally to order period and acceleration in evolution.
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 centre) and assuming Sun's constitutional mass barycentre at the [inner] core radius at the time of collapse of the Sun's core maximum, maximal allowed ejection distance r at the time the gravitational well is fully restored is: $\displaystyle r = {{2 \pi r_c} \over 2} = \pi r_c \approx 0.63 R_{\odot}$ R = Sun radius = 695700 km
rc = inner core radius = 1/5 R = 139140 km
Maximum time between the collapse and full restoration of the well is then: $\displaystyle t_c = {{2 \pi r_c} \over v_c} = {1 \over f_c} = 608272.5061 \text{ s} \approx 7 \text{ days}$ where fc (1644 nHz) is the rotation frequency of the Solar core.
Note that there is a discontinuity in the seismic profile of the Sun at 0.63R. This is where Sun's angular velocity starts differentiating with latitude (it rotates as a solid from 0.63R down to the core). Note also the following: $\begin{aligned}\displaystyle { 1 \over v_c } * 10^{12} = { 1 \over 2 \pi r_c f_c } * 10^{12} &= { 1 \over { 2 \pi * 0.2 * 695700 * 1644 * 10^{-9} } } * 10^9 \\ &= 695771 \text{ } km \approx R_{\odot}\end{aligned}$ suggesting that this should be satisifed: $\displaystyle v_c * R_{\odot} = 1 * 10^{12}\, {m^2 \over s}$ or, in terms of areal velocity of the core: $\displaystyle v_a = { 1 \over 2 } v_c r_c = {{{R_{\odot}}^2 \pi} \over {5^2 t_c}} = 1 * 10^{11}\, {m^2 \over s}$ A hint of deeper entanglement between the Solar core and surface 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] was likely based on true events and scientific 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 any more, I simply knew.. This life ain't a fairytale based on true events, but reality based on a fairytale...
Effects of mass and gravitational stresses on Keplerian motion Orbits of bodies in gravitationally bound systems should obey the following equation (orbital law): $\displaystyle v^2 = {GM \over r}$ G = gravitational constant where v and r are orbital (Keplerian) velocity and radius, respectively, while M is the mass contained within the radius r. In planetary systems, most of the mass M is contained within the star, while in galaxies, it is mostly in central supermassive black holes. However, in both systems, there are orbits at which the equation is apparently not satisfied - v is either higher or lower than expected for detected mass M. In galaxies, it is assumed that the discrepancy is caused by exotic gravitational mass - dark matter. In planetary systems, spin of bodies does not obey the equation, but this is largely ignored (not considered as discrepancy), possibly due to current understanding of gravity and accepted theories on formation of planetary systems.
It is however, a legitimate question - why should a gravitationally bound mass in a galaxy obey the orbital law, while clouds of gas orbiting near the surface of a star should not (if most of M is below the surface)? Of course, the source of anomaly can be conversion to thermal (radial) motion but can it fully explain the deviation and how is the conversion linked to it?
In CR, gravitational force of bodies with a distinct gravitational well may be largely provided by the gravitational maxima so [ordinary] matter content (real mass) may be low. Thus, a potential equivalent dark matter problem may exist in stars, planets, dwarf planets and larger moons (asteroids and comets are composites of smaller scale wells [held together in most part by electro-magnetic force] so their spin momentum should not be Keplerian, even if their orbit around a body with a distinct maximum should). Small update in Effects of mass and gravitational stresses on Keplerian motion.
All bodies with a distinct gravitational well have a dark matter source (gravitational maximum), however, the addition (acquisition) of smaller scale matter (real mass), in one interpretation, shields 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.
In another interpretation, total mass is increasing with acquisition of real mass, however, the well still has finite coupling capacity equal to img mass, although the well can become over-capacitated. In CR, it was established that velocity is Keplerian at full capacity, faster in under-capacitated wells, lower in over-capacitated wells.
A body may also have multiple maxima, in which case, the outermost (surface) maximum may shield existence of deeper maxima. The shielding effect is not limited to the neutral gravitational component of general force, electro-magnetic component may be shielded as well. Thus, if there is no exchange of neutral gravitational potential for electro-magnetic potential, and if there are no changes in kinetic energy, despite the loss of matter, the gravity of a star, in case of shielding interpretation, should not change its average value with age (it should still oscillate). The attraction remains, but its nature changes - from being mostly in its looks (real mass) to being mostly in its mentality (dark matter), as in any living being. Luminosity is 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 (if there is no fuel replenishment). However, even if real mass may not be correlated with total gravity at all times, these should get synchronized periodically. The reason why they are not synchronized at all times may simply be a difference in scale - since energy changes are discrete, burning of real mass (small scale mass) will appear continuous, while on large scale, where energy quanta are orders of magnitude larger, change in mass (gravity) may require millions or billions of years. It is thus possible that the Sun does not have much fuel (real mass) left at this point, its gravity is rather in dark matter associated with the maximum that is yet to collapse. It is then likely that a collapse is synchronized with depletion of fusion fuel.
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: $\displaystyle v = v_e = {2 \pi r \over T} = \sqrt{GM_2 \over r} = 2066.95\, {m \over s}$ ve = equatorial velocity of the Sun surface
G = gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2
r = equatorial radius of the Sun = 695500 km
T = rotation period at equator = 24.47 days
which gives for the mass of the hypothetical neutral maximum: $\displaystyle M_2 = 4.45215 * 10^{25}\, kg$ 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, [assuming real mass is acquired not inflated] increasing gravity must be radially compressing orbitals, increasing density of real mass. If the compression is not isotropic and the mass is 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 centre 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, stability of a gravitational maximum is proportional to its mass and inversely proportional to gravitational stress. That gravitational stress affects the number of sunspots has 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 smaller (spin) maxima.
Note that 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 similar way as sunspots. Note also that size of sunspots ranges from the size of a moon to the size of the biggest planet (Jupiter).
A neutral component of a naked gravitational maximum is gravitational energy that may be referred to as dark matter, visible matter is real mass attracted to the gravitational well of such maximum. The velocity curves of the Sun and the Milky Way galaxy likely have the same solution - in the form of gravitational maxima and relativity of their nature due to exchange between polarized and non-polarized potentials of general force.
Internal rotation of the SunVelocity curves for spiral galaxies
Fig. 7: left) internal rotation of the Sun, right) rotation of spiral galaxies
Rotation frequencies of the Sun (from the core up) and rotational velocities of several spiral galaxies are shown on Fig. 7.
Sun rotational velocities
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) and other from the core up (black dots are interpolated values, red dots show velocities at 30° latitude). On the right, Fig. 8 shows the complete velocity curve (with interpolated connection between two curves) and dispersion of velocities (shaded area) due to differential rotation in the convective zone.
Note that interpolated values do not represent the current state, rather initial state at the core when the discontinuity had more pronounced thickness. In the current state, discontinuity is extremely compressed and velocities increase sharply at 0.2R⊙. This will be elaborated below.
What is obvious from the figures is that Sun rotates like a composition of two solid or rigid bodies (diverging only in the polar regions of the convective zone), consistent with condensation of U1 down and up quarks (energy levels) into two ground states (+1s/-1s).
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: $\displaystyle v = {2533.61175 \over {1.18686 - 0.1}} \left({r \over R_{\odot}} - 0.1\right) = \sqrt{GM_{\odot} \over r} \tag{S1.1}$ one obtains the orbit of such discontinuity: $\displaystyle r = 32.8\, R_{\odot} = 22.826 * 10^6\, km \approx 33\, R_{\odot}$ First results from the Parker solar probe indicate a significant rotational velocity of the solar wind around 40 R, peaking at the closest approach. The results indeed indicate a high probability of a maximum velocity around 33 R in case a rigid rotation of the solar wind is maintained up to that point.
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 near the point where velocity becomes Keplerian, 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 U1.10C atom (Solar System).
If the same is applied to the core of the Sun, the velocity at 0.2 R should be equal to Keplerian velocity. Here, however, this velocity is the sum of Keplerian velocity of the surface maximum and a core maximum. For a surface maximum at R: $v = s \sqrt{GM \over 0.2R_{\odot}} + s_{\odot} \sqrt{{GM_{\odot} \over {R_{\odot}}^2} {{(0.2R_{\odot})}^2 \over {R_{\odot}}^2} 0.2R_{\odot}} = s \sqrt{GM \over 0.2R_{\odot}} + s_{\odot} \sqrt{GM_{\odot} {{(0.2R_{\odot})}^3 \over {R_{\odot}}^4} }$ s, s ∈ {-1, 1} where M is the mass of the core maximum, s is the spin polarization of gravity of the core maximum and s is the spin polarization of gravity of the surface maximum. Equalizing this velocity with measured velocity at the core discontinuity: $\displaystyle v = 2 \pi * 0.2 R_{\odot} * f = 2 \pi * 0.2 R_{\odot} * 1644 * 10^{-9} = 1437.2545\, {m \over s}$ and setting spin polarization positive for counter-clockwise rotation [of the surface maximum], gives s = -1 and gravitational mass of the core roughly 3/2 the Jupiter mass: $\displaystyle M = 2.951797 * 10^{27}\, kg$ which gives mean core density of: $\displaystyle \rho = 261.602486\, {kg \over m^3}$ implying the primary gravitational mass of the Sun is above the core. Difference in mass between the core and outer layers is roughly equal to the mass difference between inner and outer planets. For the ratios to be equal, core mass must be 3 times higher, which indicates that space has been stretched (compressed, relative to core) from 0.286 R (1.43 * 0.2 R) to 0.2 R. Modifying the equation for Keplerian velocity accordingly would give the initial mass (8.90211033 * 1027 kg): $\begin{aligned}v &= s \sqrt{{GM \over 0.2R_{\odot}}{1.43 \over 1.43}} + s_{\odot} \sqrt{GM_{\odot} {{(1.43*0.2R_{\odot})}^3 \over {R_{\odot}}^4} } \\ &= s \sqrt{GM \over 0.2R_{\odot}} + s_{\odot} \sqrt{GM_{\odot} {{(0.286R_{\odot})}^3 \over {R_{\odot}}^4} }\end{aligned}$
Radius independent Keplerian velocities, like those at the outskirts of galaxies, are the effect of stretched space between maxima. With shorter distance between maxima, minimum is more localized and changes in velocity are sharper. Apparently, such stretching occurs in the Sun too, which is not surprising, considering established (and predicted in CR) self-similarity of universes. Note that the equation S1.1 is defined by the straight line passing through 0.1 R and 1.18686 R, so if one assumes that, without space stretching, the defining points would be 0.0 R and 1.0 R, 0.286 R is the sum of translation of both points in radial direction due to stretching. Note also that, if the Sun 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 R.
Sun and near corona rotational velocities
Fig. 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).
Gravity between the two maxima must be cancelled near 0.2 R. Therefore, any particle escaping the core will overcome escape velocity at the surface of the Sun (if not slowed down by other particles). The same is true for the other direction. Thus, orbitals of particles at the discontinuity must be highly unstable and it should be the area of lowest [real mass] density. However, gravitational stress can induce 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 maxima 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 maxima 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 (maxima). 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 maxima. The stretching of space between galaxies would result in creation of dark matter filaments between them. Intergalactic and galactic dark matter was thus likely created with inflation of space. Due to discretization of stable energy [levels], with enough energy applied to vacuum creation, the inflation will result in [relatively] permanent maxima of larger scale. Vacuum inflation may be most likely in annihilation events, due to high symmetry and energy localization. However, stretching of space between strongly entangled particles can also result in permanently inflated particles (as in quark/anti-quark pairs). If inflated particles are always of equal species to the original particles, evidently the [private] space of such particles is composed of the same particles but of lower scale. In case of annihilation, the stretched (inflated) space might not be the space of annihilating pair, rather the underlying space, making the product of inflation highly dependent on the point of interaction.
It may be more appropriate to state that, rather than being stretched in between, space is compressed at maxima. 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 maxima 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 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 maxima.
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.
Considering the momentum of the Solar System barycentre, density should not be isotropic.
Added chapter Symmetry between inner and outer planets. Small update in Quantization of momentum. Symmetry between inner and outer planets Obviously, inner planets differ from outer planets in terms of energy, size and composition, but the hypothesis of equivalence with (or inflation from) atomic constituents also requires certain symmetry between the two groups of planets - it is predicted that they are oppositely charged and should be spin entangled (or at least were initially). The orientation of planetary magnetic fields goes in favour of the hypothesis - in one group of planets magnetic north is aligned with spin momentum vector, in other it is anti-aligned. Not only that, 3rd inner planet (Venus) relative to the main asteroid belt (event horizon) and 3rd outer planet (Uranus) from the belt seem to have inverted spins relative to other planets in the group. The fact that inversion occurs in the same place within the group (3rd planet relative to the asteroid belt) is further strengthening the hypothesis. But, as it will be shown later, symmetry, relative to the asteroid belt, exists elsewhere too. Quantization of momentum Previous works based on Titius-Bode law have shown that planetary orbits are quantized: $r = a e^{2\lambda n}$ More recently it has been shown that distances and orbital periods are consistent with quantized scaling (stable orbits are in harmonic resonances), rather than logarithmic spacing - from the Sun reference frame.
However, proper reference frame in this case is not the Sun, rather the asteroid belt.
If orbital radii are quantized, orbital (Keplerian) velocities are quantized. Here, it will be shown that angular momentum is quantized (from a proper reference frame), as well as surface gravity.
If QM cannot describe the Solar System as an atom, it is QM that should be revised, not reality.
Orbital and spin angular momenta are correlated.
Note that spin radius cannot be 0 in CR. Every spin radius is thus orbital radius and if orbital radii are generally quantized, spin radii [and associated Keplerian velocities] should be too.
Gravitational maxima (event horizons) are, in an ideal case (no electro-magnetic polarization), sphere surfaces with a well defined radius. Mass spin radius and velocity of a body (particle) are radius and velocity of its gravitational maximum. Surface gravity of a planet depends on real mass content (defining surface radius) of the well and mass of the maximum. Assuming ratio of used capacity to full capacity for real mass between the planets is roughly the same and assuming ratio of mass of a gravitational maximum to [the square of] its radius is equal between particles on the same energy level, surface gravities of planets will be correlated. If velocities and radii are quantized, and if momentum is quantized, gravitational mass must be quantized too. If gravitational mass and radius of a maximum are quantized, its surface gravity must be quantized. For outer planets, radius of the maximum is here 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 in Bohr interpretation: $m v r = n \hbar$ where is a constant, n is a positive integer number and m, v, r are components of orbital angular momentum - mass, velocity and radius, respectively. Using total mass of the planet for m will not reveal quantization. In example, using Neptune's mass of 1.02413 * 1026 kg and setting n to 5: $m v r = {5 \hbar} = 2.499714508 * 10^{42} \text{ } Js$ one obtains the scaled (Planck's) constant for outer planets: $\hbar = \hbar_{m_2} = 4.999429016 * 10^{41} \approx 5 * 10^{41} \text{ } Js$ While the result is certainly interesting, the same will not produce quantized momenta for other planets (it needs to be scaled). The mass which should produce quantized angular momenta is, as previously established (equation Q1.4), real part of total mass. However, if surface gravity is correlated with spin momentum, it must be correlated with orbital momentum too, and one may obtain the following equation for surface gravity: $\displaystyle g = {{v r} \over {n \hbar}} M_{\scriptscriptstyle N} g_{\scriptscriptstyle N}$ where is equal to the obtained above, MN and gN are Neptune's mass and surface gravity, respectively.
nplanetorbital velocity v (m/s)orbital radius r (106 km)total mass M (1024 kg)required total mass (1024 kg)calc. gravity g (m/s2)gravity (m/s2)acc. (m/s2)
5Neptuneconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.neptune.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.neptune.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.electrons.neptune.1', false, 1e24, 3)102.41311.1511.1511.00
5Uranusconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.uranus.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.uranus.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.electrons.uranus.1', false, 1e24, 3)127.9768.928.878.69
3Saturnconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.saturn.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.saturn.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.electrons.saturn.1', false, 1e24, 3)108.08410.56510.448.96
1Jupiterconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.jupiter.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.jupiter.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.electrons.jupiter.1', false, 1e24, 3)49.16823.22524.7923.12
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 relative to Neptune, calc. gravity is calculated surface gravity, while acc. is the surface acceleration taking rotation into account. Protons and electrons are parts of two different universes (as difference in scale suggests), so one should use a different constant for terrestrial planets (proton partons). The angular momentum of Mercury (m = M = const('self.mass.positrons.mercury.1', true, 1, -1, true)): $m v r = {5 \hbar} = 9.053654959 * 10^{38} \text{ } Js$ gives the scaled constant for inner planets: $\hbar = \hbar_{m_1} = 1.810730992 * 10^{38} \text{ } Js$ Surface gravity for inner planets, using obtained , Mercury mass MM and gravity gM: $\displaystyle g = {{v r} \over {n \hbar}} M_{\scriptscriptstyle M} g_{\scriptscriptstyle M}$
nplanet (mirror)orbital velocity v (m/s)orbital radius r (106 km)total mass (1024 kg)required total mass (1024 kg)calc. gravity g (m/s2)gravity (m/s2)
5Mercury (Neptune)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.mercury.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mercury.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.positrons.mercury.1', false, 1e24, 3)0.330113.703.70
3Venus (Uranus)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.venus.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.venus.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.positrons.venus.1', false, 1e24, 3)0.143358.528.87
3Earth (Saturn)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.earth.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.earth.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.positrons.earth.1', false, 1e24, 3)0.1219310.029.798
10Mars (Jupiter)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.mars.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mars.1', false, 100*10e6)const('self.mass.positrons.mars.1', false, 1e24, 3)0.330063.703.71
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 relative to Mercury, while the mirror is an outer planet candidate for [magnetic] spin entanglement. Quantization can also be shown without using mass (directly), through the volumetric space-time momentum (gravitational momentum): $\displaystyle g v r = n h \text{ } [{m^3 \over s^3}]$ With h obtained from above, substituting mass with gravity, the equation for gravity becomes: $\displaystyle g = {{v r} \over {n h}} {g_{\scriptscriptstyle 0}}^2 \text{ },$ where g0 is the gravity of Neptune, or, in case of terrestrial planets, the gravity of Mercury, and it yields the same results. While the second equation will yield the correct results for gravity, the equation gvr = nh will not, showing the inverse coupling of gravity to momentum: $\displaystyle { 1 \over g } v r = n h \text{ } [{m s}]$ This gives, for outer planets: $h = h_{g_2} = 4.378148126 * 10^{14} \text{ } ms, $ for inner planets: $h = h_{g_1} = 1.482496 * 10^{14} \text{ } ms$ Now, one can couple mass with gravity: $\displaystyle mvr = n\hbar_m,\, { 1 \over g } vr = nh_g,\, \hbar_{mg} = { \hbar_m \over h_g }$ $\displaystyle g = { vr \over nh_g } = { n\hbar_m \over m } { 1 \over nh_g } = { 1 \over m } { \hbar_m \over h_g }$ $\displaystyle g = { \hbar_{mg} \over m }, $ and obtain relation to Sun's gravity: $\displaystyle r = { n\hbar_m \over mv} = { g nh_g \over v }$ $\displaystyle r^2 = n^2 \hbar_m h_g { g \over mv^2 }$ $\displaystyle { m r \over g } { 4\pi^2 r^3 \over T^2 }= n^2 \hbar_m h_g \, [kg\,m^3]$ $\displaystyle { m r^3 } { g_{\scriptscriptstyle S} \over g } = n^2 \hbar_m h_g \, [kg\,m^3] \to v^2 = r g_{\scriptscriptstyle S} $ $\displaystyle m^2 r^3 g_{\scriptscriptstyle S} = n^2 {\hbar_m}^2 \, [{{kg^2\,m^4} \over s^2 }] $ where gS is the gravity of Sun at orbital radius r. For outer planets: $\displaystyle \hbar_{mg} = \hbar_{{mg}_2} = 1.14190495 * 10^{27}\, {J \over m} = 1.14190495 * 10^{27}\, N$ For inner planets: $\displaystyle \hbar_{mg} = \hbar_{{mg}_1} = 1.221407 * 10^{24}\, N$ The above obtained mg constants are based on total mass, for relative real mass, the quantum of gravitational force (mg) may be treated as invariant between inner and outer planets (with properly defined surface gravity g): $\displaystyle \hbar_{mg} = 6.968267285 * 10^{20}\, N$
Small deviation in gravity stems mainly from oscillation of surface gravity. Note, for example, with rotation taken into account (gN = 11.0 m/s2) calculated gravity for Saturn would match exactly the measured value of 10.44 (which is the value without rotation!). On the other hand, the gravity of Jupiter with rotation closely matches the calculated value (without rotation). This confirms that the definition of surface relative to fixed pressure (1 bar in this case) is appropriate for outer planets but should oscillate (cycle) between planets to take into account fossilization of a previous maximum in rotation period. Correlation with rotation is expected, as conversion between electro-magnetic and gravitational potential affects both gravity and rotation of mass. For terrestrial planets surface gravity is defined unrelated to pressure, as gravity at ground (sea) level. The calculated value matches Venus gravity at the transition zone between mesosphere and thermosphere. For Earth, the value matches the transition zone between upper and lower mantle, or, if one calculates with constant mass, it is, just like in case of Venus, the value of height of the mesosphere/thermosphere transition zone, but negative (below surface). So, here too, the cyclic nature of surface gravity (and fossilization) is evident. The constants h (ℏ) and G (gravitational constant) are scale dependent, but they also must oscillate. The above results could thus be interpreted as due to oscillation of energy of space (as h/G directly depend on it). This oscillation may be, for the electron, confined to the atom, at least at non-condensing temperatures. Another interpretation for the excitations of G is the absorption of large scale external gravitational waves, however, these cannot explain the confinement of the oscillation to atoms. In any case, when comparing small scale atoms with large scale atoms (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.
If surface gravity and spin radius are both quantized, then mass of the maximum must be quantized too: $\displaystyle g = {GM \over {r_s}^2}$ $\displaystyle M = {g \over G} {r_s}^2$ g = gravity of the maximum
M = mass of the maximum
rs = radius of the maximum
and, with all three components quantized (m, v, r), the orbital angular momentum would now be quantized if mass would be the same for all inner/outer planets.
Indeed, looking at required total mass in Table 3, the sole required mass that doesn't match others well is that of Jupiter. But that can easily be solved, if one assumes that energy level n is 2 instead of 1. It is similar for inner planets, setting n = 6 for Venus and n = 9 for Earth, yields good results. Note that, in both cases, n is decreasing with a decrease in distance from the Sun.
However, masses between planets are not the same. But solution for that exists and it must be in vertical energy (mass) oscillation of particles between generations. The fact that similar planets (Venus/Earth, Uranus/Neptune) share the energy level (n) fits well with the quantum hypothesis. The relative high excitation of Mars (n = 10) and no excitation of Jupiter (n = 1) indicates the system is in 6p4n state. Note that the following should be satisfied (with oscillations in superposition): $\displaystyle {N \over P} {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = { m_p \over m_e } \text{ ,}$ where mp, me are masses of standard proton and electron, respectively. The factor N/P is the ratio of neutrons to protons in the Solar System. Some examples of planetary configurations for various states is shown in Table 5.
basestateN/Psurface gravity/orbital distance examples
Carbon6p4n4/6 = 2/3Mercury 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)
Boron5p5n5/5 = 1Mercury 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)
Beryllium4p6n6/4 = 3/2Venus/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 proton and electron mass with planetary mass and configuration.
As all constants, constant masses of standard protons and electrons are a superposition of oscillation. As with the constant, the oscillation can be detected on large scale. On standard (U0) scale, proton to electron mass ratio is: $\displaystyle { m_p \over m_e } = 1836.15267343(11)$ On U1 scale: $\displaystyle {N \over P} {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = 1840.66694172611441$ $\displaystyle \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = 1826.09096003909666$ From these, the value of superposition might be obtainable using the EH operator, 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: The transition from 5p5n to 4p6n state likely includes: Proper quantization in QM If one wants to compare the Solar System with a room temperature equivalent of a carbon atom in the context of QM, one must reduce the effects of exchange of em potential with neutral gravitational potential due to condensation and lepton oscillation. In that case, real mass component of the total initial momentum (Q1.3, Q1.4), which is equal (relatively, but difference is negligible) between bound electrons, is the correct mass to be used in comparison. Total initial momentum is the angular momentum, it is quantized and for all electrons in ground state should be equal to: $\displaystyle m_{re}\, v_{tot}\, r_a = {1 \over 2} \hbar$ However, generally, total momentum is the sum of orbital and spin components. Each quantum sub-shell may contain up to 2 electrons. If these are in condensed (bosonic) form, their momenta are strongly coupled, they will behave as a single body, and the proper equation for the magnitude of total angular momentum per sub-shell is: $\displaystyle m_{re}\, v_{tot}\, r_a = \sqrt{l \left(l + 1\right)} \hbar + s \hbar \tag{Q2.1}$ $\displaystyle v_{tot} = v_a + v_s = v_a + {{2 \pi R_s} \over T_s}$ Rs = spin radius
Ts = spin rotation period
where s is the total [magnetic] spin of electrons in a sub-shell.
Generally, two fermionic particles have to have anti-aligned spin (ie. -1/2 and +1/2) to occupy the same sub-shell, however, with the exchange of electro-magnetic potential for gravitational potential the fermionic nature is converting to boson nature and some spin components can be annihilated. The annihilation of spin can be confined to single axis (in other directions, electro-magnetic magnitude is exchanged for gravitational), thus it is possible for a sub-shell to have 0 total spin even if it is occupied by a single particle (1e). It is also possible for total spin to be equal to 1 in 2e states, but this may indicate that conversion started when 2 particles were separated (had the same magnetic spin). Therefore, here spin momentum magnitude s can have the following values: 0, ±1, ±1/2.
Since the value of mre here is constant, its value is irrelevant to prove QM equivalent quantization. For the sake of argument, let it be equal to 7 * 1019 kg. Since Jupiter has to be in 2e configuration (even if Solar System would not be the carbon [equivalent] atom), it is appropriate to derive from its momentum. Assuming n = 1 (as expected) for Jupiter, l must be equal to 0, with s equal to 1, the is: $\displaystyle \hbar = m_{re}\, v_{tot}\, r_a = 1.382 * 10^{36}\, Js$ Derived values of l and s (and obtained using these values) for all the outer planets are shown in Table 6.
nconf.lsplanetorbital vel. va (m/s)orbital radius ra (106 km)spin vel. vs (m/s)spin radius Rs (km)spin rot. period Ts (h)calc. ℏ (Js)
51e11/2Neptuneconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.neptune.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.neptune.1', false, 100*10e6)2668const('self.radius.electrons.neptune.1', false, 1e3)16.111.3310 * 1036
51e10Uranusconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.uranus.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.uranus.1', false, 100*10e6)2568const('self.radius.electrons.uranus.1', false, 1e3)17.241.3319 * 1036
32e10Saturnconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.saturn.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.saturn.1', false, 100*10e6)9538const('self.radius.electrons.saturn.1', false, 1e3)10.6561.3636 * 1036
12e01Jupiterconst('orbital.velocity.electrons.jupiter.1', false)const('orbital.radius.electrons.jupiter.1', false, 100*10e6)12293const('self.radius.electrons.jupiter.1', false, 1e3)9.92501.3817 * 1036
Table 6: Obtained values for l, s and for outer planets
The obtained value of for Uranus shows remarkable agreement with Neptune. The values for Saturn and Jupiter still agree well with Neptune's (up to the second decimal), but increase in value with increase in spin radius is obvious. Likely reason for this is oscillation of spin velocity (radius) as noticed previously in quantization of gravitational momentum. Note that this is equivalent to oscillation, if one is to conserve discrete quantum numbers. However, the orbital radius oscillates too. Note that orbital velocity is almost equal to spin velocity for planets in 2e configuration (Jupiter and Saturn). Setting orbital velocity equal to equatorial spin velocity and decreasing spin velocity proportionally yields much better results for Jupiter: $\displaystyle \hbar = m_{re}\, r_a\, v_{tot} = m_{re}\, r_a\, \left({v_e \over v_a} v_a + {v_e \over v_a} v_s\right) = 1.33 * 10^{36}\, Js$ ve = 12571 m/s and, similarly, for Saturn: $\displaystyle \hbar = m_{re}\, r_a\, v_{tot} {1 \over \sqrt{2}} = m_{re}\, r_a\, \left({v_a \over v_e} v_a + {v_a \over v_e} v_s\right) {1 \over \sqrt{2}} = 1.3372 * 10^{36}\, Js$ ve = 9871 m/s
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 Rs (which is primordial): $\displaystyle v_s = {{2 \pi R_s} \over T_s} = \sqrt{GM \over R_s}$ G = G0 = standard gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2 One possible configuration is shown in Table 7 (with l and s of Earth/Mercury mirroring Saturn/Jupiter, Venus/Mars mirroring Uranus/Neptune, and spin velocity of Mercury set to its perihelion velocity).
nconf.lsplanettotal mass (1024 kg)orbital vel. va (m/s)orbital radius ra (106 km)spin vel. vs (m/s)spin radius Rs (m)calc. ℏ (Js)
101e11/2Marsconst('self.mass.positrons.mars.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.mars.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mars.1', false, 100*10e6)27650560444.3107 * 1035
32e10Earthconst('self.mass.positrons.earth.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.earth.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.earth.1', false, 100*10e6)284354929714.3107 * 1035
31e10Venusconst('self.mass.positrons.venus.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.venus.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.venus.1', false, 100*10e6)454621571954.3107 * 1035
52e01Mercuryconst('self.mass.positrons.mercury.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.velocity.positrons.mercury.1', false)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mercury.1', false, 100*10e6)5898063334.3107 * 1035
Table 7: Possible configuration of inner planets
Note that roughly the same for Earth can be obtained by setting l to 1, s to -1/2, and spin velocity equal to Keplerian velocity at surface.
Note that spin radius Rs should correspond to a detectable discontinuity. By these results, this may be the inner inner core boundary or a dipole offset.
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 (non-localized) maximum to a spin maximum: $\displaystyle m_{re}\, v_s\, r_a = m_{img}\, v_s\, r_s \tag{Q2.2}$ With mre equal to 7 * 1019 kg and with the assumption that ra is, for all terrestrial planets, equal to current orbital radius, spin radius is: $\displaystyle r_s = {m_{re} \over M} r_a$
nconf.planettotal mass M (1024 kg)orbital radius ra (106 km)spin radius rs (m)
101eMarsconst('self.mass.positrons.mars.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mars.1', false, 100*10e6)24851090
32eEarthconst('self.mass.positrons.earth.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.radius.positrons.earth.1', false, 100*10e6)1753428
31eVenusconst('self.mass.positrons.venus.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.radius.positrons.venus.1', false, 100*10e6)1556019
52eMercuryconst('self.mass.positrons.mercury.1', false, 1e24, 3)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mercury.1', false, 100*10e6)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 ra or there were additional collapses.
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 * 1019 kg gives the orbit of Deimos). I believe current moons of Mars are remains of larger moons the gravitational maxima of which have collapsed into Mars in the process of planetary neurogenesis (hypothesis which will be presented later), thus, it is possible the original orbit was equal to obtained spin radius. Collapse of moons in this process is simultaneous with the recession of a planet's magnetic field. Moons with a distinct gravitational maximum are thus entangled with the magnetic dipole of the planet. Small update in Proper quantization in QM chapter. 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 maxima are oscillating between 10C and 10Be configuration, even with a change in scale [of a maximum], Mars must periodically exist in 2e configuration (acquiring one of Earth's maxima, while Earth acquires Venus' maximum). Even if lifetime of a 10Be 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 (or at least part of it) becomes habitable for a short period of time with the end of each cycle, not only when these are synchronized with the end of a major (1st order) cycle. In any case, as 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 maxima 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.
Quantization of radii and gravity From: $\displaystyle {1 \over g} v r = n h_g$ and: $\displaystyle v^2 = r g_s = r {GM_{\odot} \over r^2} = { GM_{\odot} \over r}$ follows: $\displaystyle r = n^2 {g^2 {h_g}^2 \over GM_{\odot}} = n^2 {{G M^2 {h_g}^2} \over {{r_s}^4 M_{\odot}}} \tag{Q2.3}$ While, from Q2.1 and Q2.2, orbital radius is: $\displaystyle r = {1 \over {m_{re} v_{tot}}} \left(\sqrt{l \left(l + 1\right)} + s\right) \hbar = {1 \over {m_{re} \left(\sqrt{GM_{\odot} \over r} + \sqrt{G k M_{\odot} \over r}\right)}} \left(\sqrt{l \left(l + 1\right)} + s\right) \hbar$ $\displaystyle r = {1 \over {{m_{re}}^2 GM_{\odot}\left(1 + \sqrt{k}\right)^2}} {\left(\sqrt{l \left(l + 1\right)} + s\right)}^2 {\hbar}^2 \tag{Q2.4}$ For outer planets: $\displaystyle \hbar = g_0\, h_g\, m_{re} = 1.3310 * 10^{36}\, Js \tag{Q2.5}$ Here, square root of k is another quantum momentum magnitude [sum], shown in Table 9.
nconfigurationlsplanet√k
51e11/2Neptune${1 \over 2}$
51e10Uranus$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} - {1 \over 2} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} - {1 \over 2}$
32e10Saturn$1$
12e01Jupiter$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2}$
Table 9: Obtained k momentum for outer planets
From Q2.3 and Q2.4 follows that surface gravity is quantized: $\displaystyle g = {1 \over n} {{\left(\sqrt{l \left(l + 1\right)} + s\right)} \over {\left(1 + \sqrt{k}\right)}} g_0$ where g0, equal to 43.43 m/s2, is the quantum of gravity. From Q2.3 and with total mass equal to: $\displaystyle M = m_{img} = m_{re} {r_a \over r_s} = m_{re} {r \over r_s}$ follows that spin radius rs is quantized too: $\displaystyle {r_s}^6 = n^2 r {{G {m_{re}}^2 {h_g}^2} \over M_{\odot}}$ Combined with Q2.4 and Q2.5: $\displaystyle {r_s}^3 = n {{\left(\sqrt{l \left(l + 1\right)} + s\right)} \over {\left(1 + \sqrt{k}\right)}} {{\hbar}^2 \over {g_0 m_{re} M_{\odot}}}$ $\displaystyle r_s = {\left[ n {{\left(\sqrt{l \left(l + 1\right)} + s\right)} \over {\left(1 + \sqrt{k}\right)}} {{g_0 m_{re} {h_g}^2} \over {M_{\odot}}} \right]}^{1 \over 3}$
Note that the constant on the right is, for mre = 7 * 1019 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 U1 scale (2.93 * 106 m/s). For Neptune this gives spin (charge) radius equal to half of the current surface radius - as expected, like in case of Earth, real charge radius should be half of the mass radius of the maximum (for Earth, mass radius of the maximum is the inner core radius). Note that dipole offset for Neptune is roughly half the radius, consistent with the result. For mre equal to 5.6 * 1020 kg, one gets the mass radius of the maximum (surface radius). The result is similar for Uranus. Note that the equation might not give accurate current spin radius for Jupiter and Saturn. Reason for this may be that the initial assumption of current radius being equal to collapse radius (ra = r) is not valid, however, more likely explanation is oscillation of mass (and therefore, spin radius) - even if the Solar System is carbon-like, its negative and positive charge components are not necessarily all electrons and positrons. Inflation of mass can be asymmetric due to lepton oscillation. However, the result for Jupiter gives radius exactly two times the dipole offset of Saturn in surface radius relative units (2 x 0.03778 R = 0.07557 R), but roughly 2/3 the actual dipole offset of Jupiter (0.119 R). The value is also equal to dipole offset of Earth (0.076 R). On the other hand, the result for Saturn gives radius 0.146 R (4 x 0.0365 R), closer to dipole offset of Jupiter. Again, these results suggest the cause for discrepancy is oscillation.
For inner planets, the constants are different: $\displaystyle h_g = {h_g}_1 = 1.482496 * 10^{14}\, ms$ $\displaystyle \hbar = g_0\, h_g\, m_{re} = 4.5069360896 * 10^{35}\, Js$ and possible quantization parameters, along with the calculated spin radius, are shown in Table 10.
nconf.lsplanet√kspin radius (m)
101e11/2Mars$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} + {1 \over 2} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} + {1 \over 2}$6477988
32e10Earth$1$4146215
31e10Venus$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} + {1 \over 2} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} + {1 \over 2}$3920325
52e01Mercury$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} + {1 \over 2} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} + {1 \over 2}$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 hg constant as it is based on gravity at surface radius, which, for inner planets, is not defined as the radius of a gravitational maximum. However, correlation with dipole offsets is still present. Calculated spin radius of Earth/Mercury is almost exactly 10 times the experimentally obtained dipole offset of Mercury (414.7 km). If the assumption of charge radius being 10 times lower than calculated spin radius for terrestrial planets is valid, somewhat larger current offset for Earth (484.7 km from centre) must be the result of oscillation (superposition) and faster rotation.
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 hg constant for charge radius calculation of inner planets: $\displaystyle h_g = {h_g}_1 = {{v r} \over {g n}} = 5.419815085 * 10^{12}\, ms$ v = Earth's orbital velocity = 29780 m/s
r = Earth's orbital radius = 149.6 * 109 m
g = gravity of the maximum = 274 m/s2
n = 3
Results obtained using this constant are shown in Table 11.
nconf.lsplanet√kspin radius (m)
101e11/2Mars$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} + {1 \over 2} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} + {1 \over 2}$713566
32e10Earth$1$456716
31e10Venus$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} + {1 \over 2} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} + {1 \over 2}$431833
52e01Mercury$\sqrt{{1 \over 2}\left({1 \over 2} + 1\right)} + {1 \over 2} = {\sqrt{3} \over 2} + {1 \over 2}$456136
Table 11: Possible quantization parameters and spin radii for inner planets, with corrected hg
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 maxima (484.7 km). The agreement of 414.7 km maximum with the dipole offset of Mercury suggests that either: Possibly, this is the effect of conservation of momentum, where spin of the primary charge is reduced at the expense of core rotation. Lepton oscillation model In the previous chapter it was hypothesized that the discrepancy between the QM model of the atom and the Solar System can be resolved by lepton oscillation. This can be solely mass oscillation, which requires external energy, or the oscillation of general force flavor which does not require external energy as mass is inflated with the exchange of polarized (electro-magnetic) potential with a neutral gravitational potential (it does need stimulation though, most likely by resonance - synchronization). However, while general force flavor has certainly been changed to [dominantly] neutral with a change in vertical energy level, difference in mass between the outer planets is too large compared to a difference in electro-magnetic energy to be explained by general force oscillation alone. If the Solar System has been inflated, as hypothesized, from a smaller scale atom, then likely there was enough energy for a superposition of electron mass eigenstates. Taking into account that these electrons are also neutralized, superposition becomes even more likely (charged leptons repel) due to lower energy requirements.
With oscillation and inflation taken into account, the fact that planets of the Solar System have different masses goes in favour of it being the atom, rather than against it.
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 [of electron scale particles] 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 constants, oscillation in the energy of space is predicted by CR. With no oscillation, in the Solar System, the inner planets would all be in positron equivalent states, while outer planets would be scaled electrons.
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 (1ve main dwarf planet) or a neutrino pair (2ve 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.
The creation Applying neutralization and lepton oscillation to the model of inflation (vertical energy level change), one can now reconstruct the history of the Solar System development. With inflation, the [absolute] distance between particles is increasing. Assuming the system started in polarized state, neutralization will be decreasing [relative] distance between equally charged particles.
Note 1: The only reason for neutralization during inflation may be a difference in [relative] external magnetic field strengths between the two scales, with larger scale system being under influence of much weaker magnetic fields.

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

Note 3: Only naked [gravitational] maxima are inflated, real mass is acquired during and after inflation from existing mass (asteroid) fields. These fields are generally created with deflation of other maxima in nova like explosions. Deaths (deflations) and births (inflations) of a particular scale are relatively synchronized.
Based on wave-like appliance of energy, the inflation may have proceeded in this order:
  1. Nucleus started inflating.
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. 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 energies of planets, lepton oscillation and the [attempt of] energy balancing is obvious. Assuming that scaled mass of a standard electron (0.511 MeV/c2) is equal to 0.511 * 1024 kg, scaled muon (105.658 MeV/c2) is 105.658 * 1024 kg, while scaled tau particle (1776.86 MeV/c2) has a mass of 1776.86 * 1024 kg, rough correlation with masses of Mercury/Mars, Neptune/Uranus and Jupiter is obvious. The tau/muon/electron mass ratios are present within the inner and outer planets: ${{\text{Venus} + \text{Earth}} \over \text{Mars}} \approx {{\text{Venus} + \text{Earth}} \over {2 \text{Mercury}}} \approx {\text{tau} \over \text{muon}}$ ${\text{Neptune} \over \text{Earth}} \approx {\text{Uranus} \over \text{Venus}} \approx {\text{Jupiter} \over \text{Neptune}} \approx {\text{tau} \over \text{muon}}$ ${\text{Outer planets} \over \text{Inner planets}} \approx {{\text{Uranus} + \text{Neptune}} \over {\text{Mercury embryo} + \text{Mars}}} \approx {\text{muon} \over \text{electron}}$ but also in relation to the Sun: ${\text{Sun} \over \text{Saturn}} \approx {\text{tau} \over \text{electron}}$ which suggests that the whole system is in superposition of particles of different generations.
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 * 1024 kg for the Mercury embryo (1e+). Comparing Venus (1e+) and Earth (2e+), the addition of another maximum doesn't impact the total mass significantly (as most energy comes from neutralization which is, at least roughly, invariant to number of particles occupying the state). If 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.
planetrelativistic mass M [1024 kg] (v)rest mass M0 candidates [1024 kg] (cEH)particle candidates (MeV/c2)
Mercury0.330 (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)
Venus4.868 (35.0 km/s)5.67 (17.905 km/s = Ceres orbit),
5.545 (16.76 km/s = Hygiea orbit)
anti-down quark (≈4.8)
Earth5.972 (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)
anti-down quark (≈4.8)
Mars0.642 (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)
Jupiter1898.19 (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), anti-charm quark (≈1275)
Saturn568.34 (9.7 km/s)491.4 (-19.34 km/s = -Vesta orbit),
477.7 (-17.905 km/s = -Ceres orbit)
K- meson (493.7)
Uranus86.813 (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)
Neptune102.413 (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 factor (Omega factor): $\displaystyle M_0 = M {\Biggl[{1 - {\left({v^2 \over {c_n}^2}\right)}^s}\Biggr]}^{-{1 \over 2}q}$ $\displaystyle q = sgn(c_n) = {c_n \over {\left| c_n \right|}}$ $\displaystyle s = sgn({c_n}^2 - v^2) = {{{c_n}^2 - v^2} \over {\left| {c_n}^2 - v^2\right|}}$ cn <> 0
q = sidereal polarization of the reference frame
s = polarization of mass relative to the reference frame
where cn = cEH is the rest velocity of the reference frame (event horizon [fossil]).
Note 1: The correlation suggests that inflation energy for these planets came individually from specific particles, with roughly equal kinetic energy. This is consistent with the hypothesized matter/anti-matter atom pair annihilation - with colliding positron/electron pairs producing the particles inflated into planets. Such annihilation would likely occur within the gravitational maximum (event horizon) discontinuity, sending created matter and anti-matter in opposite directions, perpendicular to the maximum. The central galactic black holes and dark matter maxima in inner/outer layers of galaxies are likely remnants of such maxima.

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

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

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

Note 5: Correlation of the Solar System with standard scale particle generations, reveals the existence of new particles in the standard model of physics (which, obviously, should be scale invariant), for example, if one interprets Saturn as K-, the Sun/Saturn mass equivalence with tau/electron reveals 2 additional standard particles: ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small K^- = 1717.751\, GeV = 1.72\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small K^- = 102.143\, GeV$ or, with the assumption of new energy splitting, a completely new generation (based on Sun's relativistic mass): ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 3477.228 * 571.864\, MeV = 1988.500\, GeV = 1.9885\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 206.768 * 571.864 = 118.243\, GeV$ or, with Sun's proper rest mass: ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 3477.228 * 537.552\, MeV = 1869.190\, GeV = 1.8692\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 206.768 * 537.552 = 111.149\, GeV$ One of these may have been discovered already.
Evidently, using most likely particle candidates on the hypothesized particle configuration, the electric charges are in balance, as shown in Table 13.
planetconfigurationparticle species (charge)total charge
Mercury2epositron (1 e+)2 e+
Venus1eanti-down quark (1/3 e+)1/3 e+
Earth2eanti-down quark (1/3 e+)2/3 e+
Mars1epositron (1 e+)1 e+
Jupiter2eanti-charm quark (2/3 e-)4/3 e-
Saturn2eK- meson (1 e-)2 e-
Uranus1estrange quark (1/3 e-)1/3 e-
Neptune1estrange quark (1/3 e-)1/3 e-
Table 13: Standard particle candidates for planets, with listed electric charges
The configuration gives total 4e+ charge for inner planets and 4e- for outer planets. The fact that charge configuration agrees well with the hypothesis of 6 particles on each side (Carbon configuration) but the mass for the same particle species agrees well with 4 total particles on each side (Beryllium configuration) indicates that the original hypothesis of 10C/10Be oscillation is correct. The fact that the sum of charges on each sides is equal to 4, further confirms the hypothesis. Thus, the Solar System may be interpreted as a hybrid, a superposition of 2 large scale atoms, 10C and 10Be. Is this hybridization unique to the inflation through annihilation of smaller scale atoms, or this is a normal state even in atoms of standard scale? In CR, of course, the process is scale invariant and cannot be unique to one scale only, even if one cannot set up a proper reference frame to observe it. The stability of atoms is achieved through neutral energy provided by neutral cores. It is thus likely that all atoms are oscillating between polarized and non-polarized states.
Consider the case of elementary hydrogen (1H). 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 maxima are neutral they will increase masses of particles, decreasing charges (albeit in asymmetric manner relative to event horizon). This may be negligible but a probability exists the absorption will trigger charge [scale] collapse and mass [scale] inflation inverting the dominant nature of general force (em/gravity exchange) between the particles.
Note that, with charge extracted, proton core too becomes neutral. It appears that [outer event horizons of] proton cores favour giving energy to electrons, while neutrons favour 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 maxima into spin momenta and acquisition of real mass. Spin coupling, in case of carbon, indicates that, as a whole system, 12C is more stable than 13C, while 13C nucleus is, due to equal number of protons and neutrons, more stable than 12C 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. Evaluation of invariance Correlation between planetary masses and standard particles revealed in the previous chapter is remarkable, not only because ratios of particle masses are equal on both scales, but numeric values seem to be equal between kilograms on one scale and electron volts on another - differing only in the order of magnitude. This reveals interesting relation between electric charge and speed of light: $\displaystyle eV = m {c^2 \over e}$ $\displaystyle m = eV K$ $\displaystyle e = c^2 K$ where K on the solar system (U1) scale is 1 * 1018 Cs2/m2. Since planetary mass is derived from GM product, integer value of K must be the consequence of dependence of the gravitational constant G on the speed of light c. Both values, gravitational constant G and c, have been determined from standard scale (U0) experiments, thus: $\displaystyle G = G_0$ $\displaystyle c = c_0$ Mass M of the planet is then determined through gravitational interaction between two bodies, equalizing centripetal force with gravitational force: $\displaystyle {mv^2 \over r} = {GMm \over r^2}$ $\displaystyle v^2 = {GM \over r}$ $\displaystyle M = {{v^2 r} \over G}$ $\displaystyle {{v^2 r} \over G_0} {1 \over K} = m_0 {{c_0}^2 \over e_0}$ $\displaystyle {{v^2 r} \over G_0} {{c_1}^2 \over e_1} = m_0 {{c_0}^2 \over e_0}$ where r is the distance [from centre] to the orbiting body [centre], and v is its orbital velocity, and, in case of planets, also the fossil of the rest velocity of the gravitational field line (orbital maximum) before the collapse into a spin (satellite) maximum.
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: $\displaystyle {mv^2 \over r} = {1 \over 4\pi{\epsilon}_0} {e^2 \over r^2} = {{{\mu}_0 c^2} \over 4\pi} {e^2 \over r^2} = 1 * 10^{-7} c^2 {e^2 \over r^2}$ $\displaystyle m = 1 * 10^{-7} {c^2 \over v^2} {e^2 \over r}$ Now equalizing M (gravitational mass) and m (charge mass): $\displaystyle M = m$ $\displaystyle {{v^2 r} \over G} = 1 * 10^{-7} {c^2 \over v^2} {e^2 \over r}$ $\displaystyle G = 1 * 10^7 {1 \over {c^2 {e_0}^2}} {v_0}^4 {r_0}^2$ ℏ constant weakness Obvious dependency on the order of mass magnitude makes a weak "constant", but at the same time explains why planetary orbits appear discrete while the orbits of small satellites seem unlimited. Obviously all masses m > 0 must have a quantized momentum. G relativity and equivalence with gravity If gravity is quantized and total mass M derived from gravity does not reveal quantization of angular momentum, apart from scale dependence (oscillation), alternative interpretation is a variable gravitational constant G. It is then a property of a gravitational well (maximum) and it depends on its scale. Orbital angular momentum: $\displaystyle M v r = n \hbar$ multiplied with (surface) gravity is: $\displaystyle g M v r = g n \hbar$ $\displaystyle g = {vr \over n\hbar} g M$ Fixing g on the right side (ie. M = mass of Neptune, g0 = gravity of Neptune), multiplying with R2/R2: $\displaystyle g = {{v r} \over {n \hbar}} g_0 M {R^2 \over R^2}$ Fixing R in the numerator (ie. R0 = radius of Neptune) and equalizing with Newton gravity: $\displaystyle g = {{v r} \over {n \hbar}} g_0 {R_0}^2 {M \over R^2} = {{G M} \over R^2}$ Gravitational constant is: $\displaystyle G = {{v r} \over {n \hbar}} g_0 {R_0}^2$ v = orbital velocity
r = orbital radius
R = radius of the planet (spin radius)
Here, v, r and n are variable. One might then consider a relatively strong constant, but g0 and R0 are weak. It has been shown that g0 alternates between two values (one taking rotation into account and one without it). The following can be concluded: Note that G of a planetary gravitational well is here derived form its orbital momentum in a larger well, rather than its spin momentum. Planets are orbiting stars, but their bodies are also orbiting their souls. Mantle of a planet can be interpreted as a moon to its core, just like a moon can be interpreted as a collapsed gravitational maximum (event horizon) of a planet. In that system, mantle/moon is the planet and a planetary core is the star. In case the planet is not fully developed (has active moons - in case of inner planets, or doesn't have active moons - in case of outer planets), mantle layers are asteroid belts and moons are the planets charged oppositely to the outer core of the planet. Thus, there are gravitational constants relative to that system (note that every spin momentum is orbital momentum - even though the surface and the centre are entangled, propagation of changes is not instant = there are no absolute point particles). Current value of the standard gravitational constant (6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2) was commonly measured on Earth's surface and is relative to an absolute reference frame. In interpretations where G is not scale invariant, proper G for gravitational maxima of inner planets can be obtained from surface gravity and real mass (m): $\displaystyle g = {\hbar_{mg} \over m} = {GM \over R^2} \tag{G1.1}$ Assuming speed of matter (real mass) is significantly lower than the Keplerian speed of the maximum (generally valid for matter of solid bodies): $\displaystyle m = {{2 {\pi}^2 {r_s}^3} \over {G{T_{re}}^2}} \tag{G1.2}$ m = real mass of the body relative to [the scale of] its gravitational maximum
rs = radius of the gravitational maximum
Tre = weighted average period of rotation of real mass
R = surface radius
from (G1.1) and (G1.2) follows: $\displaystyle \hbar_{mg} {G{T_{re}}^2 \over {2 {\pi}^2 {r_s}^3}} = {GM \over R^2}$ $\displaystyle M = \hbar_{mg} {{{T_{re}}^2 R^2} \over {2 {\pi}^2 {r_s}^3}}$ with M calculated, one can now obtain G through (G1.1): $\displaystyle G = {{g R^2} \over M} = {1 \over \hbar_{mg}} {{g 2 {\pi}^2 {r_s}^3} \over {T_{re}}^2} = {1 \over \hbar_{mg}} {{g {v_{re}}^2 r_s} \over 2}$ Note that this can also be written as: $\displaystyle G = {1 \over 2} {{v_{re} r_s} \over \hbar_{mg}} g {{2 \pi r_s} \over T_{re}}$ $\displaystyle G = {{v_{re} r_s} \over \hbar_{m}} \hbar_g g {{\pi r_s} \over T_{re}} = {{v_{re} r_s} \over \hbar_{m}} {{v R} \over {n g}} g {{\pi r_s} \over T_{re}}$ $\displaystyle G = {{v_{re} r_s} \over \hbar_{m}} {{\pi R^2} \over {T n}} {{2 \pi r_s} \over T_{re}} = {{v_{re} r_s} \over {n \hbar_{m}}} {{2 {\pi}^2 r_s} \over {T T_{re}}} R^2$ substituting middle term for g0: $\displaystyle g_0 = {{2 {\pi}^2 r_s} \over {T T_{re}}}$ $\displaystyle G = {{v_{re} r_s} \over {n \hbar_{m}}} g_0 R^2$ vre = matter (real mass) rotation speed at the gravitational maximum rs This relation is now equivalent to the obtained relation for G from orbital momenta. Note that for Earth, where rs = 1206115 m (≈ inner core radius) and T = Tre = 24h = 86400 s: $\displaystyle g_0 = 0.00319\, {m \over s^2}$ which would match exactly the gravity of the inner core [maximum] with mass M equal to previously calculated real mass of Earth (m = 6.95 * 1019 kg): $\displaystyle g_0 = {Gm \over {r_s}^2} = 0.00319\, {m \over s^2}$ With rs and mass remaining constant, increase of g0 must be the result of increase in gravitational constant G. The current value of the gravitational constant G for Earth's maximum (with g0 = 274 m/s2): $\displaystyle G = {{g_0 {r_s}^2} \over m} = 5.731534632 * 10^{-6}\, {m^3 \over kgs^2} $ Gravitational constant should not differ much between terrestrial planets. Therefore, solid real mass of these planets should have roughly equal period of rotation (Tm) to Earth's rotation period if the ratio of filled capacity to total capacity of the well is equal. Note that real mass relative to gravitational maximum can also be calculated from equations given in CR: $\displaystyle M = {m_{re} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img}$ with: $\displaystyle M \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}} \approx m_{img}$ real mass is: $\displaystyle m = m_{re} = \left(1 - \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}} \right) m_{img} = 6.95 * 10^{19}\, kg$ cs = Keplerian angular velocity of the gravitational maximum = 18178.98 m/s
mimg = M = 5.9723 * 1024 kg
From the perspective of a maximum, obtained real mass is the mass of all acquired matter (from our perspective, real mass = M = 5.9723 * 1024) kg). From our perspective, real mass relative to the maximum should probably be interpreted as a quantum of mass that would trigger maximum (graviton) collapse/expansion to another orbital energy level, or ionization of the system. The slower the rotation of real mass of a terrestrial planet compared to Keplerian velocity of the maximum, the less energy is needed for the transition. The increasing relative retrograde motion of real mass can thus be interpreted as induction of pressure on the graviton.
Note that the mirroring hypothesis implies that ionization of an atom of standard matter includes ejection of negative charge outside of atom radius, while the corresponding (entangled, or mirrored) positive charge [orbit] collapses to nucleus.
Added chapter Correlation with extinctions. Correlation with extinctions As found previously in CR and here, changes in local (spin) energy level of a maximum (or graviton, in general) will fossilize the level as a discontinuity in the celestial body. For Earth, the required quantum of energy (relativistic mass) for orbital energy level change (ionization) has been calculated in the previous chapter to be equal to 6.95 * 1019 kg.
Typical orbital excitation energy for standard Carbon electron at the scaled distance of Saturn (<70 * 10-12 m) is ≈50 eV. The same amount of energy should be required to change the energy level of mirrored positive charge (scaled Earth). From this, one can calculate roughly how much energy is needed for orbital excitation of Earth's graviton: $\displaystyle M_x = {E_p \over E_e} M = 5.84 * 10^{20}\, kg$ Ep = 50 eV
Ee = 0.511 MeV
M = 5.9723 * 1024 kg
The obtained value is 1 order of magnitude bigger than calculated previously. The reason for discrepancy is likely mass (vertical) oscillation. Assuming Earth is in a state of an anti-down quark equivalent (this will be confirmed later), the energy Ee in calculation should be roughly 10 times bigger. Assuming anti-down quark mass of 4.8 MeV/c2, the energy needed becomes: $\displaystyle M_x = 6.22 * 10^{19}\, kg$ This is now much closer to previously calculated 6.95 * 1019 kg. The Earth should, however, by hypotheses in this paper, be a composition equivalent to coupling of two anti-down quarks. This does not change excitation energy significantly, it is rather split into two levels. These levels are 64.5 eV and 47.9 eV for standard Carbon, and the excitation energy that would match the previously calculated value should be the superposition of these two. Indeed, taking superposition into account, excitation energy becomes: $\displaystyle M_x = {1 \over 2} {{{E_p}_1 + {E_p}_2} \over E_e} M = 6.99 * 10^{19}\, kg$ Ep1 = 64.5 eV
Ep2 = 47.9 eV
Ee = 4.8 MeV
The energy now agrees well with previously obtained value. Small difference is expectable due to oscillations of smaller scale.
This is a very interesting number considering asteroid impacts are correlated with major massive extinctions. In example, estimates for the mass of the impactor responsible for the Chicxulub crater range from 1.0 * 1015 kg to 4.6 * 1017 kg. To trigger a change in orbital energy level, required locally relativistic velocity of such impactor, assuming its rest mass is equal to 4 * 1017 kg, is: $\displaystyle v = \sqrt{\left( 1 - {m^2 \over {m_{re}}^2} \right) {c_s}^2} = 18.17828\, {km \over s}$ m = impactor mass = 4 * 1017 kg
mre = required relativistic mass = 6.95 * 1019 kg
cs = Keplerian angular velocity of the maximum = 18178.98 m/s

Interestingly, this is within the range of typical velocities of Earth's orbit crossing asteroids (12.6 - 40.7 km/s) and comets (16 - 73 km/s). In fact, it seems quite likely that the Chicxulub impactor had the required energy to trigger the change. However, this approach is flawed - apparently, most asteroids and comets would have enough energy to trigger the change regardless of rest mass. If asteroids and comets have accumulated relativistic energy, it must be the energy relative to Solar System space, not Earth's space. Assuming the speed limit is the Keplerian velocity of the Sun's maximum: $\displaystyle c_s = \sqrt{GM_{\odot} \over R_{\odot}} = 436.751\, {km \over s}$ G = 6.674 * 10-11 m3kg-1s-2
M = 1.988500 * 1030 kg
R = 695735 km
required impact velocity becomes: $\displaystyle v = 436.744\, {km \over s}$ This is the average velocity of the solar wind.
It should not be surprising that average velocity of the solar wind matches the Keplerian velocity of the Sun's maximum if the angular Keplerian momentum is converted to radial electro-magnetic momentum.
Now this raises a couple of interesting questions:
  1. is it possible for a coronal mass ejection (CME) to accelerate the asteroid or a comet to required impact velocity?,
  2. does CME itself represents accumulated relativistic energy in this case (ie. through implantation), at least in part?,
  3. is a rocky/icy impactor even required - perhaps the CME itself can produce the crater?
  4. is mass the sole requirement for energy level changes?
The 3rd seems unlikely, especially if there is no temporary collapse of Earth's magnetic field. However, magnetic field reversals could be coupled with strong CME's, and research shows that CME's can produce significant land erosion and ejecta with no protective magnetic field present. Geology can probably rule out this possibility due to a difference in end products between different impacts. The CME would certainly accelerate an asteroid on its path away from the Sun. If massive impacts are correlated with energy level changes of large scale gravitons, it is possible that it is not solely the amount of energy that matters, but what kind of energy too - electro-magnetic or gravitational? On standard scale the electro-magnetic energy of photons is the dominant energy triggering energy level changes, on the scale of planets, dominant energy should be gravitational. However, both energies should be involved as electro-magnetic energy is not absolutely absent, it's certainly not negligible in case of Earth. On the other hand, one type of energy can be converted to the other at time of impact. Energy level changes of Earth's graviton mass radius and charge radius might not be well synchronized relative to standard scale. Thus, collapse of the magnetic field (collapse of charge energy level) could precede the inflation of a graviton mass radius. Evidence suggests there may have been multiple impactors at different locations at the time of the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary formation. A potential impact crater significantly larger than Chicxulub formed at the same time has been identified, suggesting significantly bigger impact energy. However, the Earth is still active (alive) - Earth's maximum (graviton) is likely still present within Earth. If there was no ionization, were there local (spin) energy level changes? Assuming energy requirement scales with orbital radii, the required energy for local changes can be calculated: $\displaystyle M_{x-1} = {R \over r} M_x = 5.6 * 10^{14}\, kg$ R = rx-1 = Earth's graviton radius = 1206115 m
r = Earth's orbital radius = 149.6 * 109 m
Mx = 6.95 * 1019 kg
The Chicxulub impactor apparently had the required energy for such changes. If similar energies are involved in all major massive extinctions, discontinuities within the Earth should be correlated with major extinctions. This is indeed confirmed in another chapter. There are potential impactors of similar size crossing Earth's orbit, ie. 1866 Sisyphus. However, there are multiple energy levels and energy difference between some could be lower than calculated Mx-1. As changes in energy levels are correlated with Earth's formation and evolution, the energy requirements are probably generally decreasing with time. Note that energy levels have orders. So far two orders have been calculated, but the 3rd order too could have a significant impact on the planet, assuming equal scaling: $\displaystyle M_{x-2} = {r_{x-2} \over R} M_{x-1} = {R \over r} M_{x-1} = {R^2 \over r^2} M_x = 4.51 * 10^9\, kg$ Apparently, we are currently experiencing a major massive extinction on Earth. If these are relatively synchronized with impacts, perhaps one should not be surprised if the 99942 Apophis asteroid (with estimated mass of 4 * 1010 kg) is accelerated and deflected toward Earth at its close approach in 2029.
Given the fact that universes are self-similar, why assume that evolution of a planet is not similarly scripted as is the embryonic development of a human being? Feeling of free will does not imply one has free will. In CR, everything is relative. Therefore, even anthropogenic triggers of global changes should be entangled with code execution at some level.
It might not be the CME that is coupled with such impactors, rather a large scale graviton ejected from the Sun. This could make coupling much easier. If the graviton is ejected as a wave and has energy similar to, or compatible with, that of the asteroid, it will likely collapse and couple with the asteroid at the encounter. The graviton will impart momentum on the asteroid, affecting its orbit.
Note that this orbital deflection does not have to be synchronized with the impact, it could occur years before. The coupling itself could be hard to observe. Travelling (inflating) as a wave the graviton may be unnoticeable (it can be interpreted as inflating sphere surface made of diluted dark matter), although it's emission might be synchronized with CME. What will happen at time of coupling with the asteroid depends on energy ratios. In any case, the shape, spin and orbital momentum of the body can all be affected. If graviton collapse is isotropic from the asteroid reference frame and perpendicular to its orbital velocity the effect on the asteroid orbit will be small. However the total mass is likely to double, affecting gravitational acceleration. The collapse cannot be absolutely perpendicular (the angle depends on wave frequency, distance from the source and amount of mass dragging with collapse) and the two effects combined could affect the orbit enough to put the body on a collision course with Earth. Note that, at time of impact, the graviton should decouple from the asteroid and either couple with some mantle layer and/or stimulate energy level change of the existing graviton already coupled with Earth.
It cannot be excluded that the Moon too has a role in these events. Moon graviton collapse followed by wave-like inflation, asteroid coupling and Earth absorption is an alternative interpretation. It is possible that one (ie. the Moon) is involved in electro-magnetic energy level changes, other (ie. the Sun) in gravitational. Evidence for a constant change of G If G is variable, it should generally increase at the expense of the Coulomb constant, although changes in space cannot be instant and some phase shift at distance will exist. In a bound configuration such as a Solar System, change in G of local space will be reflected in changes of orbital momentum. Taking mass and distance into account, major influence on G on Earth is the interaction with the Sun (multiple orders of magnitude larger than the Moon and planets). The G constant should thus oscillate, with the 1st order sinusoidal oscillation due to Earth's elliptical orbit of the Sun. In the 6p4n configuration of the Solar System, the existence of a perihelion and aphelion in the Earth's orbit should be reflected in two discontinuities of the Sun, at 2/3 R and 1/2 R.
This is based on the hypothesis of initial inflation where discontinuities in the Sun represent fossils of initial radii of gravitons of terrestrial planets. The Earth, due to 2e configuration, must be entangled with two discontinuities, which also represent local energy levels.
With a change in distance from the Sun, spin velocity of Earth's maximum is changing relative to the rest frame of the two discontinuities - it's radius is expanding and contracting, directly affecting the local G constant. Mean change of G due to perihelion is thus: ${\Delta G}_p = {1 \over 2} \Biggl( {\sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_{1.1}}^2}} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_p}^2 \over {c_{1.1}}^2}}} + {\sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_{1.2}}^2}} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_p}^2 \over {c_{1.2}}^2}}} \Biggr) = 1.0002446$ Change of G due to aphelion: ${\Delta G}_a = {1 \over 2} \Biggl( {\sqrt{1 - {{v_a}^2 \over {c_{1.1}}^2}} \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_{1.1}}^2}}} + {\sqrt{1 - {{v_a}^2 \over {c_{1.2}}^2}} \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_{1.2}}^2}}} \Biggr) = 1.0002354$ Giving the total: $\Delta G = {1 \over 2} ({\Delta G}_p + {\Delta G}_a) = 1.00024$ v = orbital velocity of Earth at semi-major axis = 29784.485 m/s
vp = orbital velocity of Earth at perihelion = 30037.537 m/s
va = orbital velocity of Earth at aphelion = 29538.694 m/s
c1.2 = space (Keplerian) angular velocity of the 1/2 R Sun discontinuity = 151.266563 * 103 m/s
c1.1 = space (Keplerian) angular velocity of the 2/3 R Sun discontinuity = 230.556106 * 103 m/s
Velocities c1.1 and c1.2 have been calculated in the Quantization of the Sun chapter.
For a mean G of 6.673899 * 10-11 m3/kgs2 and ΔG = 1.00024, the amplitude of oscillation is 1.60173576 * 10-14 m3/kgs2. Measurements of G on Earth indeed show sinusoidal oscillation, although in previous analysis it has been correlated with the 5.9y (5.899±0.062 y) period oscillation component of Earth's length of day (LOD). However, calculated amplitude of yearly oscillation (1.60173576 * 10-14 m3/kgs2) agrees very well with the amplitude obtained from measurements (1.619±0.103 * 10-14 m3/kgs2).
G oscillation
Fig. 10: Oscillation of the gravitational constant
Fig. 10 shows yearly oscillation (blue) superimposed on the 5.9 y 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 ≈0.6167 y (golden ratio?) is required to match Fig. 10 (without the shift the correlation is less convincing with all measurements taken into account).
G oscillation
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 5.9 y period oscillation in LOD is equal to a solar orbit in 2:1 resonance with Jupiter and a 5:1 resonance with Saturn. If Mars (assumed to be in 1e configuration) is entangled with 1e of Jupiter, the Earth (2e configuration) may be entangled with the remaining 1e of Jupiter and 1e of Saturn, instead of being entangled with 2e of Saturn. The resonant orbital (outer edge of the main asteroid belt) must be the event horizon (which should currently be in a collapsed form - similar to larger horizons collapsed into dwarf planets) of such entanglements. This is (or rather, a memory of - due to neutralization of EM force) a magnetic spin entanglement between particles (notice the anti-alignment of magnetic fields between Earth and Jupiter/Saturn), and thus should have a signature in geomagnetic field.
Quantization of surface radii Here are, somewhat empirically determined, equations for quantization of surface radii in the Solar System - may not be generally applicable to planetary systems. Neutral equatorial radius for outer planets: $\displaystyle \large{ R = {K_2 \over r^2}\, M\, {1 \over 2^{(2-p)}}\, \, {\Biggl [ {\biggl ({1 \over 10^1}\biggr )}^{(4-N)}\, 3^{(3-p)}\, \color{green}{1 \over n^{(p-1)}} \Biggr ]}^{(s-1)} }$ Neutral equatorial radius for inner planets: $\displaystyle \large{ R = {r^2 \over K_1}\, {1 \over M}\, \color{green}{n^{(1-p)}}\, 2^{(N-1)}\, {\Biggl [\, 2^{(4-n)}\, {1 \over 3^{(1-p)}} \Biggr ]}^{(s-1)} }$ Since both r and M (gravity) are quantized, it follows that R is quantized too by the K constant - other factors (n, p, s, N) are integers. The above may be understood as the invariant component of the radius during the cycle. Current radius includes a small correction due to oscillation in electric polarization (charge), value of which evolves weakly during the cycle state. Current equatorial radius for outer planets: $\displaystyle \large{ R = {K_2 \over r^2}\, M\, {1 \over 2^{(2-p)}}\, {1 \over 10^1}\, {\biggl ({3^2 \over 10^1}\biggr )}^{(2 - K_{\varphi})}\, K_{\varphi}\, {\Biggl [ \color{green}{1 \over n^{(p-1)}} \Biggr ]}^{(s-1)} }$ $\displaystyle \large{ K_{\varphi} = 10^{-\Bigl [\sin{\bigl (180^{\circ} - \Delta_{\varphi}\bigr )}^{(p \bmod 2)} \cos{\bigl (180^{\circ} - \Delta_{\varphi}\bigr )}^{(1 - p \bmod 2)}\Bigr ]} }$ $\displaystyle \large{ \Delta_{\varphi} = \varphi_0 - \varphi_1 }$ Current equatorial radius for inner planets: $\displaystyle \large{ R = {r^2 \over K_1}\, {1 \over M}\, \color{green}{n^{(1-p)}}\, (2 + K_{\varphi}) {\Biggl [\, 2^{(2-p)}\, 10^0\, {\biggl ({10^0 \over 3^2}\biggr )}^{-K_{\varphi}} \Biggr ]}^{(s-1)} }$ $\displaystyle \large{ K_{\varphi} = 10^0\, \cos{\bigl (180^{\circ} - \Delta_{\varphi}\bigr )}^{(p \bmod 2)} \sin{\bigl (180^{\circ} - \Delta_{\varphi}\bigr )}^{(1 - p \bmod 2)}}$ $\displaystyle \large{ \Delta_{\varphi} = \varphi_0 - \varphi_1 }$ K2 = 4885811.341 m3/kg
K1 = 2.385039177 * 10-9 m/kg
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
Δφ = angle between spin momenta of a particle pair occupying the shell (in case of a single particle - induced pair by splitting of a maximum)
Calculated radii for the state 6p4n are shown in Table 14.
NnplanetM (kg)r (106 km)spΔφ (°)neutral R (km)current R (km)R (km)
25Neptuneconst('self.mass.electrons.neptune.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.electrons.neptune.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)1236.70842476424764const('self.radius.equatorial.electrons.neptune.1', 0, 1000, -1, 1)
25Uranusconst('self.mass.electrons.uranus.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.electrons.uranus.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)11233.15062570325559const('self.radius.equatorial.electrons.uranus.1', 0, 1000, -1, 1)
23Saturnconst('self.mass.electrons.saturn.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.electrons.saturn.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)210.26080660268const('self.radius.equatorial.electrons.saturn.1', 0, 1000, -1, 1)
11Jupiterconst('self.mass.electrons.jupiter.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.electrons.jupiter.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)21109.4226884871492const('self.radius.equatorial.electrons.jupiter.1', 0, 1000, -1, 1)
25Mercuryconst('self.mass.positrons.mercury.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mercury.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)22172.30472555.72439.7const('self.radius.equatorial.positrons.mercury.1', 0, 1000, -1, 1)
23Venusconst('self.mass.positrons.venus.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.positrons.venus.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)1006051.86051.8const('self.radius.equatorial.positrons.venus.1', 0, 1000, -1, 1)
23Earthconst('self.mass.positrons.earth.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.positrons.earth.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)2190.31356284.726378.14const('self.radius.equatorial.positrons.earth.1', 0, 1000, 2, 1)
110Marsconst('self.mass.positrons.mars.1', 0, 1, -1, 1)const('orbital.radius.positrons.mars.1', 0, 1000e6, 2, 1)12-91.99573394.13396.2const('self.radius.equatorial.positrons.mars.1', 0, 1000, -1, 1)
Table 14: Calculated neutral and current radii
Note the quantization of Δφ. For inner planets, it is quantized by 90° (any deviation may be due to higher order oscillation). For outer planets, the quantum is reduced to 1/5 of this value, 18°, suggesting, perhaps that the equation for outer planets should be modified, or, instability in entanglement. Thus, to obtain 90° quantization, one only needs to multiply Δφ (quantized by 18°) with 5, revealing how it is entangled (assuming anti-alignment) with one of the inner planets, as shown in Table 15.
planetstandardized Δφ (°)entanglement
Neptune(5 * 36) % 360 = 180Venus
Uranus(5 * 234) % 360 = 90Mars
Saturn(5 * 0) % 360 = 0Mercury
Jupiter(5 * 108) % 360 = 180Venus
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 10C instability, or a phase shift in entanglement. Radius of the Sun and its correlation with proton radius Original composition of the Sun is 6 protons + 4 neutrons. However, 6 positrons worth of charge (inner planets) have been removed to balance the electrons (outer planets). This makes the Sun neutral: $\displaystyle 6 * (-{1 \over 3}e + 2 * {2 \over 3}e) + 4 * (2 * -{1 \over 3}e + {2 \over 3}e) - 6e = 0$ The Sun still consists of both positive and negative charges but their spin effects on radius cancel out. The radius is thus: $\displaystyle R = R_2 + R_1$ $\displaystyle \large{ R_2 = {K_2 \over {r_2}^2}\, M_2\, {1 \over 2^{(2-p_2)}}\, \, {\Biggl [ {\biggl ({1 \over 10^1}\biggr )}^{(4-N_2)}\, 3^{(3-p_2)}\, \color{green}{1 \over {n_2}^{(p_2-1)}} \Biggr ]}^{(s_2-1)} }$ $\displaystyle \large{ R_1 = {{r_1}^2 \over K_1}\, {1 \over M_1}\, \color{green}{{n_1}^{(1-p_1)}}\, 2^{(N_1-1)}\, {\Biggl [\, 2^{(4-n_1)}\, {1 \over 3^{(1-p_1)}} \Biggr ]}^{(s_1-1)} }$ where R2 is the sum radius of negative quarks and R1 is the sum radius of positive quarks.
6p4n Sun4p6n Sun
Fig. 12: Sun partitioning in: a) 6p4n state b) 4p6n state (R = radius in 6p4n state)
As shown in 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 s2 = 2, while s1 = 1. The energy of these two sub-shells must be equal, so M2 = M1 = M. For equal impact on radii, this must be satisfied: $\displaystyle {K_2 \over {r_2}^2}\, M_2 = {{r_1}^2 \over K_1}\, {1 \over M_1}$ Since M2 = M1 = M: $\displaystyle {K_2 \over {r_2}^2}\, M = {{r_1}^2 \over K_1}\, {1 \over M} = \sqrt{K_2 \over K_1}\, {r_1 \over r_2}$ $\displaystyle \large{ R = \sqrt{K_2 \over K_1}\, {r_1 \over r_2}\, \, \Biggl [ {1 \over 2^{(2-p_2)}}\, {\biggl ({1 \over 10^1}\biggr )}^{(4-N_2)}\, 3^{(3-p_2)}\, \color{green}{1 \over {n_2}^{(p_2-1)}}\, + \color{green}{{n_1}^{(1-p_1)}}\, 2^{(N_1-1)} \Biggr ] }$ Here p1 corresponds to number of major (strong) gluons, p2 to weak gluons, N continues increasing from Mercury (2) so N1 = 3 and N2 = 4: $\displaystyle p_2 = 2,\,\, N_2 = 4,\,\, n_2 = 3^2 = 9$ $\displaystyle p_1 = 3,\,\, N_1 = 3,\,\, n_1 = 3$ Sun radius then becomes: $\displaystyle \large{ R = \sqrt{K_2 \over K_1}\, {r_1 \over r_2}\, \, \Biggl [ {1 \over 3} + {\biggl ({2 \over 3}\biggr )}^2 \Biggr ] }$ Here, ratio r1/r2 is equal to the ratio of orbital radii of the outermost electron (Neptune) and the outermost positron (Mars). This gives R = 694271.2405 km. Radius of the sum U1 scale proton can be obtained by raising the quark factors of R to the power of 2. This is due to the fact that the removal of a negative down quark reduces the negative radius 9 (32) times, while the addition of a positive up quark reduces the positive radius 3/2 times. Distance between charges increases (due to greater difference between them) so total radius is decreased by the sum of these factors. $\displaystyle \large{ {R_p}_1 = \sqrt{K_2 \over K_1}\, {r_1 \over r_2}\, \, \Biggl [ {1 \over 3} + {\biggl ({2 \over 3}\biggr )}^2 \Biggr ]\, \Biggl [ {\biggl ({1 \over 3}\biggr )}^2 + {2 \over 3} \Biggr ] = \sqrt{K_2 \over K_1}\, {r_1 \over r_2}\, \, {\Biggl [ {1 \over 3} + {\biggl ({2 \over 3}\biggr )}^2 \Biggr ]}^2 }$ Radius of a standard proton (U0 scale) can now be obtained through this equation: $\displaystyle {{R_p}_1 \over r_1} = {{N * R_p} \over {r_{U_0}}} $ Where r1 is the Solar System charge radius (Neptune's orbit), N is the number of nucleons in the Solar System, Rp is the standard proton radius and rU0 is the standard Carbon-10 (Carbon-12) charge radius. Using Sun radius R obtained above, this gives: $\displaystyle R_p = {R_p}_0 = {1 \over 10} {R \over r_1} \Biggl [ {\biggl ({1 \over 3}\biggr )}^2 + {2 \over 3} \Biggr ]\, {r_U}_0 = 0.840905616 * 10^{-15}\, m$ Δφ validation Dominant magnetic field in outer planets may be generated by positive charge, while in inner planets by negative. In any case, Δφ may also correspond to angle between magnetic dipoles. Mercury Δφ obtained for Mercury corresponds to ↓↑ spin configuration. This is generally consistent with a low strength magnetic field. However, current low strength of Mercury's magnetic field should not be attributed to such configuration as the primal source is subdued. Venus Δφ for Venus suggests extremely strong primal magnetic field. Earth Earth's magnetic dipole is not axial, revealing a primal quadrupole configuration, as expected with 2e configuration. Considering the movement of north and south dip poles and attributing it to imminent collapse, in the primal configuration two major (inner and outer) dipoles may very well be separated by 90°, equal to calculated Δφ. This configuration may have been fossilized in the inner core anisotropy, as shown on Fig. 13.
Earth inner core alignment
Fig. 13: Equatorial anisotropy of the Earth's inner core
Mars Obtained Δφ shows primal dipole configuration of Mars is mirroring the Earth's. The configuration may be verified once the magnetic field is restored. Jupiter Δφ (109°) corresponds to ↑→ configuration, and is consistent with observation, as shown on Fig. 14.
Jupiter's magnetic field
Fig. 14: Magnetic field of Jupiter
Saturn Saturn's dipole field is aligned with the rotation axis and highly axisymmetric, while quadrupole and higher components are significantly weaker. This is consistent with ↑↑ configuration suggested by Δφ (0°). Uranus Dipole centre is significantly offset from the centre of the planet. Assuming primal core-dipole entanglement, Δφ may be interpreted as the angle between the equator and dipole rotated by such angle that the [shortest] distance from dipole centre to equator (x) is equal to distance from planet surface to the intersection of the rotated axis and axis translated to centre, as shown on Fig. 15.
Uranus' magnetic field
Fig. 15: Uranus' magnetic field model
With an 58.6° tilt of the dipole from rotational axis and no inclination, the offset = x = 0.38192 R. With an inclination of the dipole from rotational axis equal to 1.82°, the offset is equal to 0.353 R, in agreement with NASA/GSFC-O3 model. Neptune Similar to Uranus, the dipole is significantly offset from the centre. Using the same method as in case of Uranus, one obtains the dipole shown on Fig. 16.
Neptune's magnetic field
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 = y = 0.485 R (x = 0.244967695 R), equal to NASA/GSFC-O8 model offset. Chapters Earth, as a particle and Earth, as a living organ(ism) revised. Earth, as a particle Orbits of planetary gravitational maxima and their capacities are quantized. It would be intuitive to expect that gravity within the planet follows the same pattern. For positive bodies (terrestrial planets), gravity should generally increase with depth, down to the inner gravitational maximum, which may have the radius of the inner core at full capacity. For Earth, gravity of this maximum is hypothesized to be equal to the surface maximum of the Sun - 274 m/s2. For a naked maximum, gravity down to the maximum: $\displaystyle gvr = n h$ $\displaystyle gr^2 = n\, T {h \over 2\pi}$ $\displaystyle gr^2 = n\, T\, \hbar,$ $\displaystyle g = n\, T { \hbar \over r^2 },$ where T is the rotation period at radius r. In equilibrium, T at surface for a solid body is: $\displaystyle T = T_0, $ while real radius of the planet is: $\displaystyle R = R_0$ If nT is const.: $\displaystyle g = { \hbar_{mg} \over m } { R^2 \over r^2 }$ For Earth: $\displaystyle T = 24\, h = 86400\, s$ $\displaystyle R_0 = const. = 6307105\, m$ Down to the inner core radius rc: $\displaystyle n = n_s = 1$ $\displaystyle g = 86400 { \hbar \over r^2 } = { GM \over r^2 }$ G = gravitational constant = 6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2
M = total gravitational mass of Earth = 5.9723 * 1024 kg
ℏ = ℏ1 = 4.613325255 * 109 m3/s3
ndiscontinuityradius (m)gravity (m/s2)
1crust surface63710009.82
1crust surface perihelion63570009.86
1real surface630710510.02
1outer core328218537
1transition zone (induced charge)1705704137
1g. maximum = inner core radius = rc1206115274
1transition zone852852137
2?inner inner core603058274?
Table 16: Gravity of [naked] Earth
Below rc (1206115 m) gravity becomes: $\displaystyle g = n^2 {1 \over T} { 1 \over \hbar_2 }\, r^2$ At rc (event horizon): $\displaystyle n\, T { \hbar_1 \over r^2 } = n^2 { 1 \over T } { {1 \over \hbar_2}\, r^2 },\, \to { \hbar_2 = 6.144878706 * 10^4\, ms}$ At the event horizon gravity is independent of period and radius: $\displaystyle g = \sqrt{\hbar_1 \over \hbar_2}$ Below rc the space-time gradient inverts and gravity is decreasing until it reaches minimum, afterwards increasing again to next maximum, continuing the oscillation.
Note that, although used here, correlating rotation periods of real mass with gravity may not be generally appropriate.
Gravity with acquired matter A gravitational maximum (soul) will effectively curve space around it. In case of shielding interpretation, acquired matter will not affect the overall curvature of that space as long as gravity of the maximum is greater than gravity of acquired matter. However, clumping or condensation of matter (non-homogeneous system) can produce measurable effects. In, addition, core maximum may split into multiple maxima (which may even further collapse to form orbiting spin momenta).
Note that, in that case, gravity at core discontinuity is not equal to [primordial] 274 m/s2, rather quantized into multiple maxima of lower gravity at different radii. However, even in that case the gravity of the core (or major) graviton is probably higher.
Regardless of interpretation (shielding or no shielding), during Earth's development and evolution, the graviton has likely been oscillating between different energy levels, accumulating mass at different radii from the centre, leaving behind discontinuities.
Each layer of the mantle is then a relatively independent body, just as terrestrial planets orbiting the Sun are independent bodies. This is a consequence of enforcement of self-similarity. It should thus not be surprising that primordial Earth's core gravity is (or was) equal to Sun's surface gravity - the Earth is relatively mirroring the Solar System nucleus (up to Mars).
Distribution of gravity inside Earth is thus likely wavelike, being cancelled at least at some discontinuities, albeit with overall increasing density toward the core. This enables Earth's mantle to have layers where pressures and temperatures are suitable for complex life. Chapter Earth, as a living organ(ism) revised. Earth, as a living organ(ism) Earth is definitely showing signs of a self-regulated living organism on surface, at least between major extinctions. But even disruptions of that self-regulation can be explained either as a part of embryonic development process or presence of a disease (or both simultaneously). While it may be hard to identify the equivalent of genetic coding in such a large scale organism, it shouldn't be discarded as a possibility due to lack of imagination, especially because there's sound logic behind its existence.
Definition of life in CR allows for development of life with no dominant genetic code in the body. In extremely introverted forms of life development of constitutional biome is not driven by physical genetic code (DNA or DNA equivalent), it is rather driven by mental genetic code (or - it is mirroring execution of such code through soul-body entanglement).
In all living beings known to man, life is not limited to outer skin surface - in fact, life there is generally least diverse and complex. Higher diversity and complexity on skin surface is generally limited to short periods during embryonic development. The fact that no complex life has been detected on any other planet goes in favour of this hypothesis. Existing models of Earth's interior are mainly based on assumptions on planetary formation that do not involve soul/body coupling and which are certainly not backed by abundant and solid evidence. They are also based on data from seismic profiling which has limited resolution and is prone to interpretation bias. Bias exists in definition of life itself in modern science - apparently there is no solid consensus on required constitution of a living being. But even if there would be one, in current climate, it would hardly allow for Earth to be alive. However, assuming extroversion and introversion of life can go to extremes, then everything would have to be alive, only differing in the ratio of mental to physical interaction (or amount of life in these domains or dimensions of reality). With CR, relativity of life is implied - amount of life should depend on a reference frame, so Earth too should be alive. The entire Solar System is then also an individual organism, and, relative to that system, Sun and planets are the organs. Obeying the principle of self-similarity, each living organ has an active core, replicating the role of the Sun in the Solar System to localized space-time. These are, obviously, all extremely introverted organisms. For that reason, creatures of extroverted nature accustomed to absolutism may not recognize them as living beings, however, lack of complexity in physical momenta is simply replaced with complexity in mental momenta - which is reflected in momenta of smaller scale life-forms (or quanta of consciousness) residing inside their bodies. One of these life-forms are humans, who are, relative to Earth, likely its [precursor] neural proteins. Rough internal structure Earth is an extremely introverted life-form. As such, it has no need for limbs and complexity in organ structure, albeit smaller components of these structures can be complex. Most expressed organ of this organism is the brain, organized into layers with, likely, minimal gyrification.
Gyrification of tissue may be present in standard complex life only due to presence of organs required for extroverted interaction (eyes, nose, ears, mouth, body from the neck down).
Even so, it has to have other organs [or organ equivalents] necessary for the function of that brain. Most likely blood arteries are underground tubes, with blood being the flowing magma and water (nutrients).
Proper interpretation of lava solidification is thus coagulation of blood.
Its veins are underground tubes filled with oil (pressurized dead carbon matter).
Note that, unlike human blood, Earth's arteries do not carry dissolved oxygen while veins do not carry dissolved carbon dioxide (at least not in high concentrations near surface). Rather, they carry bound oxygen and carbon, which are then used as fuel to produce molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide where needed. It is possible, however, that within the mantle, arteries and veins do carry significant amounts of dissolved gases.
Complex life and networks of interconnected diversity are not limited to surface (epidermis). In fact, surface is likely just a breeding ground for cultivation of precursor neuron cells and proteins of a planet. Most complex life is thus resident within mantle layers where it is protected and not so vulnerable to external influence. The core of a planet has a role of the heart and geyser eruptions provide one way to probe the heart rate. Age, lifespan and 3rd order period The lifetime of Earth is quantized and can be calculated through its frequency of existence. $\displaystyle \Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = n {1 \over f_x} = n\, T_x$ For n = 2840, and determined Tx of the 3rd order general oscillation of the Solar System equal to 1.512 * 106 years: $\displaystyle \Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = n T_x = 4.29408 * 10^9 years$ But this should not be interpreted as lifespan of Earth, rather lifespan of the Solar System. Earth's lifespan is obtained with n = 1. It is thus equal to Tx.
Lifetime and lifespan are different for bodies on U1 scale, such as planets. This is because, with expiration of lifespan, the body is generally reused by another soul (gravitational maximum). Lifetime (age) for planets will thus be generally larger than lifespan. Lifetime may be interpreted as the age of the body, while lifespan is the average lifespan of the soul in a particular system.
There are at least 3 ways to calculate the 3rd order period of existence cycle Tx [and thus, Earth's lifespan], all giving the same result: Decay rate of 10C at U1 scale Current Solar System state may be 10C, however it is also entangled with 10Be. Half-lives of elements are inverted relative to the shared decay product between adjacent vertical scales and, in this case, fossilized as the 3rd order period of oscillation of the Solar System. Thus, the 3rd order period of the U1 10C is equal to the half-life of 10Be at U0 scale. Several measurements of 10Be half-life have been performed. In example, in 1987. it was measured to be 1.51±0.06 * 106 years. In 2009. it was measured to be 1.388±0.018 * 106 years. Even though half-life of U0 elements should be consistent during the existence cycle of U1, it changes during the transition between cycles - Tx should be understood as the mean value. For that reason, I do not consider the value from 2009. as the average value through the lifetime of the Solar System. It will be shown later that this value is 1.512 * 106 years. This is the 3rd order period of the existence cycle of the Solar System, and consequently, Earth. Heart rate The average heart rate of Earth can be calculated from the global average period between geyser eruptions: $\displaystyle {\left\langle T_g \right\rangle}_{\scriptscriptstyle T} = 6.6\, hours$
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 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, , 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: $\displaystyle \text{1 Earth scale minute} = 76 * 6.6 = 495\, hours = 20.625\, days$ Given the number of heartbeats EH3/3(1 * 109, 4 * 109) = 2 * 109 and scale invariance of heartbeats, the period is: $\displaystyle T_x = { 2 * 10^9 } * 6.6 = 1.32 * 10^{10} h = 1.51 * 10^6\, years$
This number of heartbeats with a heart rate of 76 bpm corresponds to a human lifespan of 50 years. This, I consider as the global average human lifespan over the course of evolution on Earth's surface (or at least, during the last 1.512 million years).
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 * 106 years) can thus be interpreted as evidence of evolutionary entanglement - a man is in its path of evolution between the standard scale carbon atom and the Solar System (large scale carbon atom). To species accustomed to the concept of birth and extroverted nature it might appear that Earth never fully develops. This is most certainly not the case - life past the embryonic form to us always results in change of environment, but this is only due to inadequacy of current environment to ensure the continuity of progressive evolution, one which includes growth of the physical form. Once extroverted intelligence evolves into, relatively more energy efficient, introverted intelligence, there is no need for physical growth or reason for most of conventional physical organs.
Spherical form may thus be interpreted as a pinnacle of evolution, rather than an undeveloped form of life, even though it externally manifests itself as a mere particle, or, a piece of rock. If a man should regard any cosmic phenomena as a deity, it should certainly be Earth, as it would be the one closest to us. A god with whom we are strongly entangled and thus evolutionary depend on. A god who can take and give, and thus be real.
Speed of time Space-time may be represented by two dimensions, one positively polarized (space), one negative (time), relative to a neutral one (event horizon in between). These 3 dimensions are spatially separated and quantized, but they are entangled and may orbit the same body, such that orbital velocity of the event horizon is: $\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle EH} = (v_{\scriptscriptstyle S} - v_{\scriptscriptstyle T}) * C, $ where vS and vT are orbital velocities of space and time dimensions, respectively. 3rd order space for Earth is 1-dimensional - the Earth is an inflated quantum of space/time orbiting the Sun. Dimensions of [3rd order] space and time of Earth have been further separated during inflation, but they remain entangled. Assuming that space dimension is [at] Earth's orbital radius, the time dimension should be somewhere in the higher orbit. Time dimension velocity is quantized by vS: $\begin{aligned}\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle T}(n) = \bigl\{\style{color:green}{(n+j)+(n-i)} \pm [(n+j)*(n-i)]^{-1}\bigr\}^{-i} \\ * \bigl\{\style{color:green}{(n+j)} \pm [(n+j)*(n-i)^2]^{-1}\bigr\}^{-j} * v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n)\end{aligned}$ $\displaystyle n, i, j \in \mathbb{Z}$ $\displaystyle i = n - C_1\,,\,\, j = C_2 - n\,,\,\, i + j = C_2 - C_1$ $\displaystyle C_1, C_2 \in \mathbb{N}$ The values in square brackets, depending on the sign, give maximum and minimum values of vT during the cycle state. The average (mean) vT: $\displaystyle {v_{\scriptscriptstyle T}(n)}_{AVG} = \bigl[(n+j)+(n-i)\bigr]^{-i} * \bigl[(n+j)\bigr]^{-j} * v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n) = \bigl(2n+j-i\bigr)^{-i} * \bigl(n+j\bigr)^{-j} * v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n)$ $\displaystyle {v_{\scriptscriptstyle T}(n)}_{AVG} = \bigl(C_1 + C_2\bigr)^{C_1-n} * \bigl(C_2\bigr)^{n-C_2} * v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n)$ For inner planets, in state 6p4n: $\displaystyle C_1 = 2\,,\,\, C_2 = 3$ $\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle T}(n) = [5 + (3*2)^{-1}]^{-i} * [3 + (3*4)^{-1}]^{-j} * v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n) = (5 + 6^{-1})^{-i} * (3 + 12^{-1})^{-j} * v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n)$ $\displaystyle i = n - 2\,,\,\, j = 3 - n\,,\,\, i + j = 1$ $\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle T}(n) \approx {1 \over v_n} * v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n)\,,\,\, v_n = {v_{n-1}+2^{n-2}}\,,\,\, v_0 = \biggl({2 \over 3}\biggr)^{-1} = \biggl({N \over P}\biggr)^{-1}$ Solar System may also be observed as a hydrogen-like atom, where space, time and event horizon dimensions have been split into 4 component vectors (levels). The event horizon velocity (derived from vS and vT), given the orbital energy level vectors for inner (n1), outer (n2) planets and the oscillatory vector k: $\displaystyle \boldsymbol n_1 = \begin{bmatrix} 5 \\ 3 \\ 3 \\ 10 \end{bmatrix}\,,\,\, \boldsymbol n_2 = \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 3 \\ 5 \\ 5 \end{bmatrix}\,,\,\, \boldsymbol k = \begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 3^1 \\ 3^2 \\ 5^2 \end{bmatrix}$ $\displaystyle \boldsymbol v_{\scriptscriptstyle EH} = (\boldsymbol v_{\scriptscriptstyle S} - \boldsymbol v_{\scriptscriptstyle T}) * \biggl({{\boldsymbol n_1 + \boldsymbol k \oplus \boldsymbol n_2} \over 10^1} + {\boldsymbol k \over 10^2}\biggr), $ where ⊕ is the sign operator: $\displaystyle \boldsymbol a \oplus \boldsymbol b = \begin{bmatrix} -1^{a_1+1}*b_1 \\ -1^{a_2+1}*b_2 \\ -1^{a_3+1}*b_3 \\ -1^{a_4+1}*b_4 \end{bmatrix}$
Note that the ratio of sums of elements of n2 and n1 is: $\displaystyle {\sum{n_2} \over \sum{n_1}} = {14 \over 21} = {2 \over 3} = {N \over P}$
The event horizon velocity (from vS only): $\displaystyle v_{{\scriptscriptstyle EH}_0}(n) = { r_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n) \over r_{Mars} } v_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n) = {1 \over r_{Mars}} \sqrt{GM * r_{\scriptscriptstyle S}(n)}$ $\displaystyle c_{\scriptscriptstyle EH} = 1\, {km \over s}$ $\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle EH}(n) = v_{{\scriptscriptstyle EH}_0}(n) + \bigl(-1\bigr)^{\Large{(\delta_{jn,2})}} \biggl[1+2^{\Large{(1-\delta_{j,i+1})}} - \bigl(ij+1\bigr) 3^{\Large{(-2^{\delta_{j,i+1}}){1 \over 2}}}\biggr] c_{\scriptscriptstyle EH}, $ where δa,b is the Kronecker delta function.
nPlanetijvS (km/s)vT km/s (entanglement)σT (current value)vEH0 (entanglement) km/sσEH0 (neutron correction)vEH (entanglement) km/s
4Mercury2-147.365.47 (Neptune)-22 * 10-2 = -0.0412.033 (Jupiter)+4.7316.77 (Hygiea)
3Venus1035.026.78 (Uranus)+21 * 10-2 = +0.0216.63 (Hygiea)+1.27517.9 (Ceres)
2Earth0129.789.66 (Saturn)+21 * 10-2 = +0.0219.55 (Vesta)-1.6617.88 (Pallas)
1Mars-1224.0713.08 (Jupiter)-21 * 10-2 = -0.0224.07 (Mars)-4.7319.34 (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 and orbits are quantized and entangled (as predicted by CR): $\displaystyle { v_{\scriptscriptstyle S} \over v_{\scriptscriptstyle T} } = \sqrt{r_{\scriptscriptstyle T} \over r_{\scriptscriptstyle S}} \approx (C_1 + C_2)^{n-C_1} * C_2^{C_2-n}$ Orbital velocity of Earth's space is 29.78 km/s. Average velocity of the event horizon for Earth is 2/3 of this velocity, while the average velocity of time dimension is 1/3 of this velocity: $\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle{EH}_{AVG}} = {2 \over 3} 29.78 = 19.85333'\, km/s$ $\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle{T}_{AVG}} = c_{t_1} = {1 \over 3} 29.78 = 9.92666'\, km/s$ Orbital radius of the time dimension is the space dimension of Saturn - Earth's time dimension is entangled with the space dimension of Saturn (time dimension of Saturn is entangled with Earth space dimension). Average event horizon is entangled with the current orbit of Vesta, the dwarf planet. Deviation of vTAVG from current Saturn orbit is equal to deviation of vEHAVG from current Vesta: $\displaystyle v_{\scriptscriptstyle{Vesta}} = { v_{\scriptscriptstyle{Saturn}} \over v_{\scriptscriptstyle{T}_{AVG}} } * v_{\scriptscriptstyle{EH}_{AVG}} = 3 * { 9.68 \over 29.78 } * { 2 \over 3 } 29.78 = 9.68 * 2 = 19.36\, km/s$ Speed of time for human bodies (ct0) is equal to standard speed of light c, given the average life expectancy of 50 years (2*109 heartbeats with 76 bpm heart rate), the 3rd order period of Earth's existence cycle is: $\displaystyle T_x = { c_{t_0} \over c_{t_1} } * 50\, years = 3 * { {2.99792458 * 10^8} \over {29.78 * 10^3} } * 50\, years = 1.51 * 10^6\, years$ Body mass If Earth is a living organism, predicting real mass of Earth in the same way as it is done with other organisms should give the result of the same order of magnitude (it likely won't be of equal value as Earth is evolving, gaining and loosing mass in the process). Assuming that Earth is a mammal (or evolved from mammal), given the 3rd order existence half-life (period) Tx of 1.512 * 106 years, mass can be calculated from empirical relationship between mass and lifespan of mammalian species. $\displaystyle \biggl({m_{\scriptscriptstyle E} \over m}\biggr)^{1 \over 4} * T_{x_M} = T_x$ Given human adult mass m of 84 kg and lifespan TxM of 50 years, mass of earth mE is: $\displaystyle m_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = m \biggl({T_x \over T_{x_M}}\biggr)^4$ $\displaystyle m_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = 7 * 10^{19} kg$ Not equal to total mass of Earth, but a very interesting result. It is equal to previously calculated Earth mass using non-invariant G, and also a quantum of energy required for orbital excitation of Earth's graviton.
Note that the value of Tx4, 5.2 * 1024 is roughly the value of the total gravitational mass of Earth (M = 5.9723 * 1024).
The same mass is obtained using the CR equation for real mass: $\displaystyle m_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = m_{re} = \left(1 - \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}\right) m_{img}$ where $\displaystyle v_{re} = {2 \pi r_{re} \over T_{re}} = {2 \pi r_s \over T_{re}}$ $\displaystyle c_s = \sqrt{Gm_{img} \over r_s} \approx \sqrt{GM \over r_s}$ Using Tre = 23.9*60*60 = 86040 s, G = G0 = 6.673899 * 10-11 m3/kgs2, rs = 1206115 m, mimg ≈ M = 5.9723 * 1024 kg: $\displaystyle m_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = 7 * 10^{19}\, kg$
The result suggest the equation relating mass and lifespan is incomplete. Earth's mass is apparently bigger. There is ~1018 kg in surface oceans alone, ~1022 kg in the crust, ~1023 kg in the inner core and more in the mantle (based on density inferred from seismic profiles), however, these values are relative to the gravitational constant of the standard (U0) scale G0 (6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2). As stated before, proper relativistic (effective) mass of Earth on U1 scale is relative to G1 (5.731534632 * 10-6 m3/kgs2). Proper, relativistic, equation for relationship between mass and lifespan is thus: $\displaystyle G_1 m_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = G_0 m \biggl({T_x \over T_{x_M}}\biggr)^4 \tag{M1.1}$ Various results can now be obtained, depending on the value of variables, as shown in Table 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 * 1024 kg - 7 * 1019 kg ≈ 5.9723 * 1024 kg).
nG1 [m3/kgs2]G0 [m3/kgs2]TxmE(n) [kg]
15.731534632 * 10-66.674 * 10-1125.82 My6.9543 * 1019
26.674 * 10-116.674 * 10-111.512 My7.0244 * 1019
36.674 * 10-116.674 * 10-1125.82 My5.9723 * 1024
46.674 * 10-115.731534632 * 10-61.512 My7.1816 * 1022
56.674 * 10-115.731534632 * 10-625.82 My5.1290 * 1029
66.674 * 10-116.674 * 10-1119.3 s1.8802 * 10-30
74.9000394 * 10-26.674 * 10-114.25 Gy5.9723 * 1024
Table 18: Relative Earth mass
Here, mE(1) is the proper relativistic mass of Earth calculated with 2nd order Tx, mE(2) is the proper relativistic mass calculated using 3rd order Tx. Third mass, mE(3), is the mass of Earth relative to standard scale (mE0) calculated using 2nd order Tx. Masses mE(4) and mE(5) could be considered as inverse (or anti) masses of Earth relative to its [past] event horizon (inner core maximum). Note that mE(4) is [roughly?] equal to 2/3 of the mass of the Earth's inner core, while mE(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 U0 half-life (10Be0), this entanglement cannot be lost completely and some time compression at the end of 1.512 My cycles can also be expected. 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, major maximum, effectively, only temporarily collapses (partially, in time and space), proportionally to the cycle period. If the maximum is interpreted as a soul, which I am convinced is the correct interpretation, such collapse is, effectively, a temporary loss of consciousness. I have previously hypothesized that the Solar System is a product of annihilation and inflation of 10C and 10Be atoms of smaller scale, thus, entanglement with 10C can also be expected, although the collapse and the induced time (evolution) compression should be negligible due to short half-life (19.3 s) of 10C. Note that Earth is in 2e configuration, and with Tx of 19.3 s, mass of Earth [mE(6)] becomes roughly equal to the mass of 2 standard electrons (or positrons). If mE(4) and mE(5) are correlated with Earth's inner core and Sun mass, the data suggests asymmetry between mass and inverse mass, growing with period Tx. The solution is the inflation of Tx and/or G. With G0 [roughly] equal to 2.222 * 10-5 m3/kgs2, mE(5) becomes equal to the mass of the Sun, while for G0 [roughly] equal to 1.9561 * 10-5, mE(4) becomes equal to to the proper relativistic mass of the Sun. The same can be obtained with Tx equal to 36.23 My and 2.06 My, respectively. With a period of 555619.11 years, mE(4) becomes equal to inner core mass (assuming that mass is 1.1 * 1023 kg). Interestingly, for Tx 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 U1 scale (2.93 * 106 m/s) multiplied by 1017. Note also that the ratio between G1(7) and G1(1) is roughly equal to ratio between G1(1) and G0(1) divided by 10: $\displaystyle G_1(7) \approx {1 \over 10} {G_1(1) \over G_0(1)} G_1(1)$ which is consistent with association of different G's to different vertical energy levels and therefore to scale (period) of general oscillation. If G0(1) would, as hypothesized previously, belong to U0 scale, G1(1) should be associated with U1 scale and G1(7) with U2 scale. If one assumes that: $\displaystyle G_1(7) = {1 \over 10} {G_1(1) \over G_0(1)} G_1(1)$ one obtains a Tx of the 1st order of 4.254788 Gy (4.254788 * 109 years).
Chapter Future development revised. Future development, neurogenesis Here I hypothesize that cultivation of life on the surface of a planet is a cultivation of precursor neuron cells and proteins (relative to the planet) which are, at the point of differentiation transferred to planet's [brain] mantle layers. Similar to accelerated (time compressed) evolution during human embryo-genesis, I hypothesize that effective time compression occurs during planetary evolution too - with the end of each cycle of general oscillation of the Solar System (Earth) and with amount of compression being inversely proportional to cycle order. The points of differentiation and migration in neurogenesis are major mass extinction events (although limited transfer might occur in smaller extinctions too), which are thus only relative extinctions - life is not completely extinct, it undergoes rapid evolution and migrates away to mantle where it continues evolution. I hypothesize that Earth's brain has, like human brain, 6 major layers, and that complete formation of these layers requires 6 major mass extinctions during Phanerozoic. At this point, there is no doubt that we are amidst an major extinction event, a 6th one. Being part of neurogenesis, extinction events must be programmed at some level and, at least roughly, periodic. Extinction events have relative triggers. While in the past these may have been impactors and volcanism, current extinction seems to have an anthropogenic trigger. Thus, one might conclude that current extinction is not part of neurogenesis, rather a part of unlimited cancer growth. However, tumors in humans are known to induce neurogenesis (it is one mechanism enabling migration - metastasis). I find the induction questionable though - humans are not consciously triggering neurogenesis on Earth, it is thus more plausible for neurogenesis to be a reaction of the immune system to inhibit cancer growth. Extinctions coupled with neurogenesis go in favour of such hypothesis. In case of cancer in humans though, and at least during adult neurogenesis in humans, the immune system seems to fail to cure or exterminate the cancerous cells in most cases (in case of humans who are cancerous themselves for Earth, I believe). The immune system of Earth though, should be more advanced, and I believe cancerous homo.beta will be subdued.
Homo.beta refers to species of humans currently inhabiting the Earth's surface, self-proclaimed homo sapiens. For various reasons, I consider the title homo sapiens premature for this species, so I have reserved it for an evolved form of human.
Judging by past major extinctions, and correlating with human neurogenesis, these events should be expected with the advancement of planetary neurogenesis: Migration of cells and proteins from surface to mantle layers requires tunnels connecting these regions. Most likely, these tunnels exist on specific places and are recreated or reopened at time of migration. A likely place for such tunnel opening on surface is the south pole, but may exist on north pole of a planet too.
One fact going in favour of this hypothesis is that during all previous major extinctions there were periods when poles were free from ice. Although, one could argue that, during Phanerozoic, world was more often without polar ice caps, than with.
Cells and proteins are transferred with the flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) - a salty ocean. In humans, CSF has a pH of 7.33, and, since pH is scale invariant the pH of Earth's CSF should be roughly equal. The current acidification of Earth's oceans will, therefore, probably continue until pH drops to this value, when migration should follow. Afterwards, new surface water may be delivered by asteroid impacts, but it is also possible that some or most of it returns from the mantle. Based on correlation with atmospheric CO2, climate models predict the hypothesized pH minimum in year 2300 AD for an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of 1900 ppmv (all fossil-fuel sources burned).
Note that the pH minimum (7.33 as hypothesized), associated with CSF, must have been reached before on Earth during mass extinction events. The research confirms this, ie. for Permo-Triassic. The cited work shows a [relatively] rapid drop in pH to a minimum, followed by rapid increase and slow progress toward stabilization. Two models were developed for CO2/pH concentration (low- and high- CO2, with a difference in pH minimum between the two being less than 0.2), in high-CO2 model, the pH minimum is ~7.35, very close to predicted 7.33 minimum. The work, however, favours the low-CO2 model, so it cannot be excluded that Earth's CSF pH is somewhat higher (less acidic) than human. In any case, the existence of a pH minimum and it's value strongly support the theory of neurogenesis.
A precursor of 6 mantle layers has likely been created in events during Precambrian era, while population with neuron cells and final formation is occurring in Phanerozoic. There have been 5 major extinctions in Phanerozoic, thus the next event should populate top layers and complete the formation of the final layer (I):
Earth brain structure
Fig. 17: Layers of Earth's brain, superimposed on seismic velocities
Formed layers of Earth's brain are shown on Fig. 17. Comparing with other layers, it seems evident that layer I is yet to be completed - green line shows possible seismic velocities after formation. Energy from the Sun provides incubation energy used for the maintenance of the Earth's surface ecosystem and weak evolution, but additional energy is needed for the formation of brain layers of homo.omega.
Here, homo.omega is a species of life Earth belongs to.
This energy is delivered through asteroid (could be interpreted as food) and possibly cometary (water/organic compounds) impacts. Year 2300 AD for the event is very conservative though, as it is based on linear extrapolation, does not include rising water temperatures and reaction of the biosphere. Acidification of water at these events must be, in large part, driven by injections of gases through oceanic ridges and vents which would introduce significant departure from linear correlation of pH with atmospheric CO2. Mathematical analysis of past extinctions also suggests sooner triggering of 6th major extinction event, by the year 2100.
CO2-O2 relation climate history
Fig. 18: The history of atmospheric CO2 concentration
From Fig. 18 and more recent models, it is evident that CO2 concentration has a decreasing trend (expected due to increased energy from the Sun = less greenhouse gases needed to maintain the temperature). Everything in nature oscillates (and fluctuates) so this decrease in amplitude should not be linear either, however some periodicity in extinctions must be present. Statistically significant periodicity of extinctions (at least in the last 250 million years) has been noted before - 26, and more recently, 27 million years between extinctions. In any case, due to differences in extinction strength, multiple harmonics (or energy splitting of a single oscillator) are possible. Using available data, one can construct models for atmospheric CO2 concentration synchronized with the oceanic pH minimum of a particular major extinction, as shown in Table 19.
year [mya]a) CO2 [ppm]b) CO2 [ppm]c) CO2 [ppm]d) CO2 [ppm]e) CO2 [ppm]
4443800200200038002000
37010002000100018001200
252800900800800800
2011800180018001800600
66250250250300500
0450700750800450
Table 19: CO2 pH minimum marker models
CO2 models
Fig. 19: CO2 pH minimum marker 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 CO2 markers and compression of the amplitude with time, but they are also quantized - each marker is a multiple of 50 ppm CO2 quantum. Some of the models are shown on Fig. 19, blue dots are major extinction events, red triangles are minor extinction events (the curve does not necessarily follow actual CO2 levels between the extinctions, it is only used to illustrate oscillation of markers). From these models, grouping of extinctions (suggesting oscillation of frequency) becomes more apparent. Major extinctions can be grouped into pairs separated by 126.5 (±8.5) million years, while paired extinctions are separated by roughly half that distance - 62.5 (±11.5) million years. Minor extinctions (420, 305, 145 and 34 mya) may be grouped in the same way - pairs separated by 160 million years, 113 (±2) million years separation of paired extinctions. Model a) is the product of energy level splitting of a single oscillator, while b) is the product of 2 harmonic oscillators - one high energy (major) and one low energy (minor). Points on the curve should not be interpreted as maximum atmospheric CO2 levels across the boundary, simply the points of migration or pH minimums. While these particular models may be speculative, all Phanerozoic CO2 models show decreasing CO2 over time (this should be more evident when comparing boundaries of major extinction events) and recent research shows that maximum atmospheric CO2 across the K-Pg boundary (last major extinction) was ~875 ppm. Thus, the maximum atmospheric CO2 concentration during current extinction should be lower than 875 ppm, probably not higher than 800 ppm and likely lower than 800 ppm (suggesting that a larger part of acidification will not be sourced in atmospheric CO2).
CO2 levels through history
Fig. 20: Recent history of CO2 concentration
Recent history of CO2 concentration is shown on Fig. 20. Assuming that CO2 has been, during that history, correlated with rate of evolution, one can extrapolate the relation for accelerated evolution of the current extinction.
Development and evolution of organisms is generally strongly correlated with temperature. It should not be surprising then that increasing CO2 (which is synchronized with increasing temperature) is correlated with the increase in rate of evolution on Earth's surface.
Extrapolating from Fig. 20, from year 1850 onward: $\displaystyle {CO}_2 = 300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x\, \text{ppmv} \tag{C1.1}$ $\displaystyle x = {{T - 1905} \over {10 * 55}} = {{T - 1905} \over 550}$ which, for the concentration of 800 ppmv gives year T = 2075.
Note that the equation roughly corresponds to IPCC RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) scenario. Both predict equal CO2 for year 2100, however, RCP8.5 predicts 800 ppm to be reached sooner - in year 2066. RCP8.5 is considered a worst-case scenario and, at this point, still may be considered unlikely. However, while replacement of coal with other energy sources may affect human CO2 emissions, it is not reducing human impact on nature, which is not proportional to CO2 emissions, rather to energy (resources) consumption, which is growing as usual. If the point of no return is passed, human emissions are completely irrelevant and positive feedback mechanisms will produce climate consistent with the RCP8.5 scenario. Humanity may be slowly abandoning the business of CO2 emissions, but, as proper cancer, it has not abandoned the unsustainable infinite growth policy. Climate is a part of an eco-system, it evolves with the eco-system, and one cannot expect that disruption of eco-systems won't impact climate. Mass extinctions are always synchronized with climate disruptions.
While humans may eventually reduce their CO2 emissions significantly, the rate of evolution should keep accelerating according to equation and, regardless of atmospheric CO2 (which may still be increasing even with 0 human emissions), the required pH minimum will eventually be reached. Asteroid impacts, previously correlated with Earth's graviton energy level changes, should start before the migration, increasing in frequency and energy afterwards. Although required energy for changes may be lower than in previous major extinctions, it should still be significant. Assuming interval between impacts is quantized proportionally to a 50 ppm quantum of CO2, given the C1.1 equation, one can calculate years of impact correlated with possible impactors, as shown in Table 20.
modelCO2 [ppm]year of impactassociated impactor (diameter)impactor closest approaches2nd order impactor (diameter)
a), e)450202999942 Apophis (≈375 m)2029, 2065
b)700206699942 Apophis (≈375 m)2029, 2065
c)75020711866 Sisyphus (≈7 km)2058, 20712000 SG344 (37 m)
d)8002075162173 Ryugu (≈1 km)2076
Table 20: Calculated impact dates and possible impactors (2nd order = lower energy)
Evidently, there are good candidates among extinction causing asteroids in NEO (near Earth orbit) for calculated dates. Fission of extinction pulses is possible (multiple impacts, ie. one in 2029 and other in 2066) and may be interpreted as splitting of energy levels (breaking of Apophis - homo induced?), which has probably happened in previous extinctions.
Note 1: According to current models based on Newtonian or GR mechanics, none of these asteroids is on a collision course with Earth in near future. However, these models do not predict periodic existence/extinction pulses coupling with a collapse and inflation of gravitational maxima. As argued before (see chapter 11.1), there are good reasons to believe that courses of asteroids are altered at times of extinctions. If these impacts are genetically coded at some level, as hypothesized, they should not be questionable, it is only the source and method of delivery that may be unknown prior to the event.
Note 2: Interestingly, there was an impact event on Earth at the time when 400 ppm CO2 was reached (Chelyabinsk meteor, ≈ 20 m diameter, 2013.), agreeing with hypothesized 50 ppm quantization and suggesting that, not only are intervals between impacts quantized, but that impacts could be expected with every 50 ppm of CO2 increase. However, if the events are generally correlated with the average ppm value given by the C1.1 equation, which gives year 2015 for 400 ppm, the 400 pm in year 2013 should be understood as deviation due to inherent uncertainty. Assuming probability of correlation of these events with CO2 significantly increases once CO2 rises above background levels, the first event should have occurred at 300 ppm - the beginning of industrial revolution. Indeed, one such event has [almost?] occurred at 300 ppm - Tunguska, 1908. The equation gives year 1992 for 350 ppm. No meteors of comparable impact energy were recorded in or around 1992., probably eliminating significant direct impacts on land area. If such event did occur, it has likely occurred over the ocean (or island), triggering large waves and possibly earthquakes. Interestingly, an 7.2+ magnitude earthquake and tsunami wave did occur offshore in Nicaragua - in 1992. This earthquake is notable for tsunami wave being unusually large (9.9 m high) for the strength of the earthquake (belonging to a group of rare tsunami earthquakes). I do not believe, however, that the impact caused the earthquake. This was likely the effect of synchronization of events (synchronicity) - the tsunami was caused by the earthquake but it was amplified by the impact. The Earth is a living being and it would not be surprising it reacts to incoming bolides and impactors (just like humans do) to some degree. I have witnessed such synchronization myself - on 2019.03.07 I have observed a larger meteor burning up in the atmosphere exactly at the time of earthquake in Hungary, it's trajectory was toward the epicentre. It is even possible that Earth reacts to every possible impactor, although the reaction may be proportional to impactor energy and thus usually negligible. Also interesting about the Nicaragua event is that it occurred at the time of my birthday (September 1st, local time) producing an obvious signal for me. I interpret this as a confirmation that the meteor was involved in this event, although I am aware many could have a problem with such interpretation. At the point of writing of this paper, such sign[al]s are still considered meaningless by modern science (they are treated as mere coincidence). However, with CR the phenomena becomes not only real, but a [relatively] special form of synchronization and a driver of evolution with exponentially increasing significance near the end of an existence cycle. Thus, if one doesn't believe in signals of synchronicity (I didn't before I started experiencing them) I suggest one to study all my work, particularly the work referenced above. I must admit, however, that my interpretation of the signal could be wrong. Note that Nicaragua, Chelyabinsk and Tunguska impact sites on the world map can be connected with a straight line - a correlation suggesting that next impact may also occur somewhere along this line (even the Chicxulub, Yucatan crater is close). Although there were no sightings of large meteors over land, a smaller magnitude impact was recorded on land area in 1992 - the Peekskill meteorite. It was recorded one month after the Nicaragua event and is notable for hitting a car in urban area (possibly a fragment of a larger body that fell elsewhere?). Also interesting, and symbolic, is the fact that the last visit of the Halley's comet to the inner Solar System occurred at the time when 350 ppm CO2 was first reached - in 1986., and the next time it will be close to Earth is 2061. - exactly at 650 ppm (calculated using the C1.1 equation). It is currently hypothesized that Tunguska event was caused by a large body which eventually escaped Earth's atmosphere - it can thus be interpreted as a warning. Given the fact that neither the Chelyabinsk nor hypothesized Nicaragua meteor did not directly impact land, it appears these too were warnings. However, I do not interpret these as warnings, I believe one purpose of the atmosphere is to disintegrate incoming bodies to protect life during weak evolution. Thus, much larger bodies and impacts should be expected only as events synchronized with strong evolution. These recent events may thus be interpreted as signals of things to come. After these 3 misses, I believe next will be impacts. Note that Newton calculated year 2060 as [the beginning of] the end of surface world, although he revised this year later to 2016 by the suggestion of others. His final decision to revise the year was, however, based on a signal. As he was doing calculations, large earthquake occurred which he later interpreted as a signal that the year 2060 is wrong. This earthquake was a signal, but he misinterpreted its meaning - large and frequent earthquakes are to be expected at the end. The year 2016 is not there without a meaning for me though, it is the year of my soul rebirth (change of energy level) occurring at the age of 35 of the incarnation.
Note 3: Interestingly, at time of the Chelyabinsk event, Apophis asteroid was in close approach. Considering that the composition of Chelyabinsk meteor seems to match the composition of Apophis surface (LL chondrite) a probability exists that the meteor broke off of Apophis and is thus a part of impactor energy splitting.
Note 4: All above confirms that the initially chosen 50 ppm quantum was good. I cannot attribute this to blind luck. The coherence of signals with my thoughts has been only growing ever since I've started experiencing them. Even prior to the models, based on intuition, I have felt years 2029 and 2066 as probable impact dates, and I wasn't even aware of Apophis at the time. For me, the outcome of models and equations is often a confirmation of a signal rather than the other way around. However, I will rarely mention signals [or use them as evidence] in my works, as I believe most of people do not sense or recognize them yet and even I could still misinterpret the signal. That is one of the reasons I use common logic, equations and models to explain, analyse and predict phenomena. This, I consider necessary to fine-tune the coherence and signal interpretation.
Note 5: The equation C1.1 is one variant of a universal equation for a pulse of strong evolution. That 800 ppm as the CO2 marker maximum was a good prediction can be confirmed with another variant (inverse) of the equation, one correlated with half-lives of elements: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2C_1 - {C_1 \over CO_2(T_1)} * CO_2 = 2C_1 - {C_1 \over CO_2(T_1)} * 300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x \tag{C1.2}$ $\displaystyle x = {{T - 1905} \over {10 * 55}} = {{T - 1905} \over 550}$ where C1 = T1/2(T1) is the half-life of the element measured at time T1. The equation gives half-life of 0 at, or near, T = 2075, which is the year when CO2(T) is equal to 800 ppm. Just like in case of CO2 I do not expect for half-lives to follow the equation continuously (ie. half-life might appear constant and then get reduced significantly in an instant). Generally, changes in decay rates should require sudden changes in properties of space. One exception to this, in the Solar System, might be the half-life of 10Be, due to vertical entanglement with the U1 system. Solar System (scale U1) cycles through 10(C-B-Be) and I would expect a continuous precursor enrichment in 10B at a lower scale (U0) before the state change of U1. For 10Be, incorporating the value from the most recent measurements (T1 = 2010, T1/2(2010) = 1.387 * 106 y), the half-life equation is: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2 * 1.387 * 10^6 - {{1.387 * 10^6} \over 385.915461731} * 300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x$ and it gives values in good agreement with previous measurements, as shown in Table 21.
yearcalculated [106 years]samplemeasured [106 years]
19471.6651.7 ±0.4 * †
1947 (2)1.6651.6 ±0.2 * †
19721.6081.5 ±0.3
19751.5971.48 ±0.15
19861.550NIST-43251.34 ±0.07
19871.545ORNL-MASTER1.51 ±0.06 †
19931.513NIST-43251.53 ±5% (1.53 ±0.07) †
1993 (2)1.513ICN1.48 ±5% (1.48 ±0.06) †
20071.413ICN1.36 ±0.07
20101.3871.388 ±0.018
2010 (2)1.3871.386 ±0.016
Table 21: Calculation and measurements of 10Be half-life
* the value is not the initially published value, but the result of reanalysis/correction in 1972.,
† these values are discarded by scientific community, citing potential systematic errors
(based on the presumption of absolute constancy of decay rates).

All measurements agree well with calculated values, except for 1986 - if there were no flaws in measurement, this may be attributed to deviation due to cycling (similar to yearly fluctuation of CO2). Note, however, that measurement 1993 was done on the same SRM (Standard Reference Material) sample and discrepancy suggests one of these measurements is wrong. If indeed the half-life of 10Be is decreasing as hypothesized, modern science has been effectively doing cherry-picking here - discarding results which do not agree well, or are in discrepancy, with latest measurements. Given the current precision of measurements, a new measurement at this point in time which would agree with the calculation would be in discrepancy with measurements from 2010. and would thus confirm the hypothesis of continuous decrease of 10Be half-life prior to the extinction event. Note that this effect on decay rates is temporary and significant only at the end of a cycle of general oscillation up to the 3rd order. Note also that decay rates may not be changing directly (affecting half-life) rather effectively (CR requires effective oscillation in particle decay, but these changes will not always be reflected in half-life of the element) - ie. through spallation reactions.
Note 6: In the previous note it was assumed that half-life decreases fast and the equation allows it to eventually drop to zero (although, the compression of time implies that this state lasts 0 time - thus, effectively, half-life never becomes 0). Another possibility, although unlikely, is that half-life cannot ever reach zero, even for 0 time. In that case, the equation might have this form: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = C_1 * CO_2(T_1) * {1 \over CO_2} = C_1 * CO_2(T_1) * \Biggl[300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x\Biggr]^{-1}$ This yields, for T1 = 1987 (C1 = 1.512 * 106 y, CO2(T1) = 341.83707500861), results in Table 22.
yearcalculated [106 years]samplemeasured [106 years]
19471.676 ±0.0441.7 ±0.4 * †
1947 (2)1.676 ±0.0441.6 ±0.2 * †
19721.593 ±0.0441.5 ±0.3
19751.579 ±0.0441.48 ±0.15
19861.518 ±0.044NIST-43251.34 ±0.07
19871.512 ±0.044ORNL-MASTER1.51 ±0.06 †
19931.473 ±0.044NIST-43251.53 ±5% (1.53 ±0.07) †
1993 (2)1.473 ±0.044ICN1.48 ±5% (1.48 ±0.06) †
20071.365 ±0.044ICN1.36 ±0.07
20101.339 ±0.0441.388 ±0.018
2010 (2)1.339 ±0.0441.386 ±0.016
Table 22: Calculation and measurements of 10Be half-life
where error margin in calculation is the scaled variation of CO2 (10 ppm).
Such pulses might not only be plausible but necessary - first pulse would include asteroid impact(s) (possibly triggering additional ocean acidification and formation of the layer in the mantle), the other would provide new water/life, either by comets or asteroids. A third pulse in between might also be needed to trigger the (now acidified - CSF) ocean sink and, relatively, sterilize the surface (as noted before, all this is probably synchronized with magnetic field collapse, allowing surface sterilization by UV/gamma radiation). It might seem that new water this time is not needed - as formation of mantle layers should be complete with this extinction (corresponding to Carbon nature of the Solar System) there is no need for cultivation of new progenitor cells on surface. However, it probably does happen as it would provide additional radiation protection and provide support for whatever life remains on, or near, surface.
Note that, if this is the last embryonic neurogenesis event of Earth, a collapse of Moon's gravitational maximum probably should be expected. Remains of the Moon could then be the source of eventual impacts of cometary nature (dust/water/ice).
This is evident on Mars - as layers below the surface formed, 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 relations (by 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 associated with a large scale graviton - strongly affecting half-lives of isotopes). Update/revision in chapter Future development, neurogenesis.
One interpretation of changes in decay rates could be [inverse] time dilation due to scale change of gravitational maxima, but what are the mechanics? If this collapse is synchronized with the collapse of the magnetic field, increased incidence of cosmic rays will increase decays of elements but this is limited to surface and should not be interpreted as real, rather effective and limited, change in decay rates. However, a mechanism for real changes does exist. Gravitational maximum of Earth must be entangled with static graviton neutrinos that form its space. Spin/scale change of a gravitational maximum will thus be synchronized with spin/scale changes of these neutrinos. In equilibrium, when the gravitational well is full, these neutrinos are [most of the time] bound to standard atoms contained in [or bound to] the gravitational well of the maximum. Obviously, disturbance of these neutrinos (decoupling from atoms) will destabilize the atoms (ie. causing annihilation of positive and negative charge) and induce decays. Also note that these changes are synchronized with orbital changes of large scale maxima in the Solar System - which, like the decay rates, are accelerated during the pulse but return to normal after the pulse. Due to dependence of density of graviton neutrinos to distance from gravity source (density generally inversely proportional to distance squared), it is possible that even orbital changes in eccentric planetary orbitals are synchronized with changes in decay rates, with some phase shift (in that case, graviton neutrinos directly affected are the static graviton neutrinos of the Sun's space). However, there is no spin/scale inversion in this case and there will likely exist a threshold eccentricity required to produce significant effects (this can be experimentally verified with satellites in eccentric orbit). In fact, this may have been detected already, and can also be correlated with oscillation of fundamental constants, such as G (as presented already). Due to universal synchronization and restoration of previous equilibrium states it is hard to detect strong pulses. In fact, astronomical and geological observations, generally, will not reveal any deviation from constancy of decay rates. However, probably all records of cataclysmic changes should be interpreted as fossils of this elementary destabilization. Thus, with such nature of changes (rapid excursions), the principle of uniformitarianism will inevitably seem, but cannot be, valid. Note also that most of 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 absolutely 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.
Neutrino pulse
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: Neutrino flux can also be decreased indicating shortening (rather than expansion) of time intervals, although in this context the increase of the flux is expected. Due to accumulation, duration of fossilized events would apparently increase with time so older events would seem longer in duration compared to more recent events. This is exactly the case with current fossil evidence of past carbon cycle disruptions. In such case, the current rate of CO2 injection is not different from those in previous major extinctions (the fact that it is anthropogenic makes no difference).
If one assumes that the average period between extinctions is equal to the 2nd order oscillation period of the Solar System, in case of ideal synchronization, it is quantized by the 3rd order period of existence (Tx = 1.512 * 106 years). In such case, assuming the period must be roughly 26 or 27 million years, the proper period is: $\displaystyle T_d = \left\lfloor {26 * 10^6 \over 1.512 * 10^6} \right\rfloor 1.512 * 10^6 = \left\lfloor {27 * 10^6 \over 1.512 * 10^6} \right\rfloor 1.512 * 10^6 = 25.704 * 10^6\, years$ This is in agreement with previously determined periodicity of impact cratering (25.8±0.6 * 106 years). One can now assume that the CO2 injection within the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary (66.5 - 65.5 mya) is equal to current injection (currently dominantly anthropogenic) and that increase of decay rate (effective compression of time, causing boundary to be significantly overestimated in duration) is induced within the boundary - with the start of boundary corresponding to tA and end to tC on Fig. 21. Assuming the CO2 increased from 780 ppmv to 1440 ppmv (ΔCO2 = 660 ppmv) in period 66.5 mya - 65.5 mya (Δti = 1 million years), compression of time Δtc with each major extinction is: $\displaystyle \Delta t_c = \Delta t_i - \Delta t_{ai} = 1 * 10^6 - 234 = 999766\, years$ where Δtai is the period of 660 ppmv of anthropogenic CO2 increase since year 1850 (assuming this is the start of the new boundary), calculated using (C1.1).
Such compression of time is easily achievable using C1.2. In example, for 10Be: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2 * 1.512 * 10^6 - {{1.512 * 10^6} \over 341.83707500861} * 300 * {\biggl ({6 \over 5} * 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x$ Half-life of 10Be decreasing by the above equation, reaches required time compression in year 2065, on day 66 of the year.

Source code:

getage.php
+


However, year 1850 as the start of the boundary is not convincing and recent research shows CO2 injection of ~250 ppm, not 660 ppm, within the K-Pg boundary, though this does not affect compression (Δtc) significantly (it makes it larger for a couple of decades at most). Most likely start of a new boundary (end of Holocene) is year 2065 or 2066, which, with an increase of 250 ppm, gives year 2084 as the end, the same as in the previous assumption (1850 + 234 = 2084).
Number of 3rd order cycles of existence since Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event (66 mya): $\displaystyle n = \left\lfloor {t_{\scriptscriptstyle {KPg}} \over T_x} \right\rfloor = \left\lfloor {66 * 10^6 \over 1.512 * 10^6} \right\rfloor = 43$
Gravitational collapses during strong evolution pulses with a period of Tx years (3rd order period) may last only Δtnx = 19.3 seconds, but collapses during stronger evolution pulses occurring with a period of Td years (2nd order) last longer (possibly 7 days). With each extinction, gravitational collapse of the Sun releases the pressure from condensed energy beyond the surface event horizon and the Sun effectively starts expanding. The expansion reaches the orbit of Mars before the gravitational well is restored, so, assuming expansion at the speed of light, time of increased decay radiation is: $\displaystyle \Delta t_{n_d} = {r_{\scriptscriptstyle M} \over c} = {227.92 * 10^9 \over 2.99792458 * 10^8} = 760.259\, s = 12.671\, m$ where rM is the distance of Mars to Sun. Now one can calculate time compression with each cycle (pulse) of existence Δtcx and each extinction Δtcd: $\displaystyle \Delta t_c = \Delta t_{c_d} + \Delta t_{c_x}$ $\displaystyle {\Delta t_{c_d} \over \Delta t_{c_x}} = {\Delta t_{n_d} \over \Delta t_{n_x}}$ $\displaystyle \Delta t_{c_x} = \Delta t_c {1 \over {{\Delta t_{n_d} \over \Delta t_{n_x}} + 1}} = 24751.794\, years$ $\displaystyle \Delta t_{c_d} = \Delta t_c - \Delta t_{c_x} = 975014.206\, years$ Age of Earth is thus overestimated by: $\displaystyle \sigma_{T_{\scriptscriptstyle E}} = \left\lfloor {\Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle {E_{img}}} \over T_d} \right\rfloor \Delta t_{c_d} + \left\lfloor {\Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle {E_{img}}} \over T_x} \right\rfloor \Delta t_{c_x} = 245907386\, years$ giving the real age of Earth: $\displaystyle \Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle E} = \Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle {E_{img}}} - \sigma_{T_{\scriptscriptstyle E}} = 4.29409 \pm 0.05 * 10^9\, years$ where ΔTEimg = 4.54±0.05 * 109 years. If one assumes that Td is the equivalent of 1 day of human embryo development, Earth is at the week 25 (GW25) of gestation period (right at the beginning, in case of corrected age). The GW25 marks the end of embryonic neurogenesis in humans and thus agrees with the hypothesis of final major extinction. The current carbon cycle disruption (6th major extinction) will thus not span thousands (~10000) of years as predicted by the assumption of constant decay, but at most 234 years - starting from year 1850 (10000 years of already passed Holocene extinction may be regarded as a precursor to the major event starting at year 1850). $\displaystyle 1850 + 234 = 2084$ Note that this year corresponds to 950 ppm, as predicted by (C1.1).
Outer gravitational maximum of the Sun collapses on average every 1.512 million years. At that point the Sun is in a state of a white dwarf for 19.3 seconds before the well is restored. This is a part of a normal 10(C-B-Be) oscillation cycle of a single atom in a low density environment. A similar mechanism must be behind the longer lasting collapse happening on average every 25.704 million years. This, however, may be the exchange of gravitational maxima (gluons) between multiple atoms. The other atom must cycle through states in a similar way - different atoms at each end of the chain, one with short lifetime, other with a long lifetime, and a shared decay product in between, which, at U0 has an extremely long (stable) half-life. The long lifetime (half-life) at one end of this chain should be 25.704 * 106 years. However, most recent measurement of 10Be half-life yielded 1.388±0.018 myr so one might assume that the measured half-life of this element too will be lower. The half-life to look for is thus: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} \approx {{1.388 \pm 0.018} \over 1.512} * 25.704 * 10^6 = 23.596 \pm 0.018 * 10^6\, y$ The half-life closest to this value is the one of 236U (Uranium), which, according to measurement from 1980., has a half-life of 23.42±0.03 * 106 years. The decay product of 236U is 232Th (Thorium) so this isotope is in the middle of the chain. Assuming horizontal conservation of half-life ratios, a total (short) half-life at the other end of the chain should be: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = { 19.3 \over 1.512} 25.704 = 328.1\, s$ A plausible cycle is thus (236U-?)-232Th-(232Ac-232Ra). In any case the mass of this system is 23.6 Solar masses which means it oscillates between an O class star and an inactive state in the form of a neutron star or a black hole. The source of such systems is the energetic disc concentrated around a galactic gluon (dark matter ring) in the galactic midplane through which Solar System passes roughly every 30 million years. However, a direct interaction between such system and Solar is unlikely. A more plausible interaction is that of a Solar System and an alpha particle emitted during 236U decay. The alpha particle at U0 is stable so it's half-life at U1 is ≈0, therefore it oscillates in a 4(H-He-Li) cycle. Assuming gluon speed equal to c, distance from the Sun to alpha gluon at the point of gluon exchange must be equal to 1 MAU (effective range of the strong force): $\displaystyle c\, \Delta t_{n_d} = 2.99792458 * 10^8\, *\, 760.259 = 227.92 * 10^9\, m$ The interaction causes orbital perturbations in the Solar System and may be a plausible source for predicted asteroid bombardment.
Sea level changes Neurogenesis requires transfer of differentiated progenitor cells to subterranean world, into designated mantle layers. Therefore, a passageway must exist somewhere, connecting the surface with underground tunnels leading to such places - unless one is created when needed, which I find unlikely. Scaling the largest neuron cells to Earth size, such passageway must have a radius of at least ≈ 250 meters to allow sequential cell transfer. However, parallel transfer of multiple cells is certainly more plausible - a radius on the order of 104 m. Thus, the only location where this could remain hidden (protected) and isolated when unused is Antarctica. Ice melting is required to expose this location but likely also to rise the sea level in order to pick up the proteins and cells on land area. Rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases is unlikely to produce adequate rise in temperature required to melt all ice in the predicted short time-frame. Thus, different mechanisms should be responsible to induce significant breaking and melting of ice sheets. In addition to greenhouse gases, volcanism/geothermal sources are likely. Melting can also be accelerated by asteroids, but also by alien species from the deep. Analysis of past extinctions Here, past extinctions are analysed for periodicity, with incorporated corrections by previously calculated time compression due to pulses of decay rate changes. Periodicity is obtained using circular spectral analysis of a couple of datasets, which all give similar results. Data is grouped into energy levels corresponding to the extinction magnitude (5 - major extinctions, 4 - minor extinctions, 3 - other extinctions, 2 and 1 - potential extinctions). The method In the circular model of periodicity a time line is wrapped around a circle, the circumference of which represents a trial period. For each occurrence, a unit vector from the origin is calculated. If periodic, the series will tend to form a cluster at one point on the circumference when the correct trial period is used. Here, angular location relative to 0° (present) gives the phase (t0). Ages of individual events (ti) are transformed to angles (ai, bi) for each trial period P: $\displaystyle a_i = \sin{\biggl({{2 \pi} \over P} t_i\biggr)}$ $\displaystyle b_i = \cos{\biggl({{2 \pi} \over P} t_i\biggr)}$ $\displaystyle S = {1 \over N} \sum_{i=1}^N a_i$ $\displaystyle C = {1 \over N} \sum_{i=1}^N b_i$ $\displaystyle R = \sqrt{S^2 + C^2}$ where R is a mean vector magnitude (normalized measure of goodness of fit). The phase shift (t0) is calculated as follows: $\displaystyle t_0 = {P \over {2 \pi}}\tan^{-1}\biggl({S \over C}\biggr)\qquad (\text{for }C \gt 0)$ $\displaystyle t_0 = {P \over 2} + {P \over {2 \pi}}\tan^{-1}\biggl({S \over C}\biggr)\qquad (\text{for }C \lt 0)$ Dataset 1
energy levelextinction events [mya]extinction events (ti), age corrected [mya]
566*, 201.3*, 252.2*, 365, 44561.986, 190.208, 238.316, 345.385, 421.148
437.8*, 145*, 260a, 305b, 420c36.206, 136.774, 245.993, 288.3, 397.519
311.6*, 93.9*, 182.7*, 230d, 270, 424e, 428f, 488g, 50211.402, 88.465, 172.88, 217.463, 255.844, 401.469, 404.42, 461.48, 475.257
2117h, 168.3*111.194, 159.702
Table 23: Extinction events dataset 1, sources: *, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Extinction events in dataset 1, grouped into energy levels and calculated corrected ages for these events, respectively, are shown in Table 23. Maximal R was obtained for a period P = 25.92 My (million years), with a phase of 9.355 My.
Fig. 22: Extinctions (left), spectral analysis (right)
On the left, Fig. 22 shows extinctions plotted against the obtained periodicity (dashed grey 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. Dataset 2 Here, a larger dataset from a single source was used.
energy levelextinction events [mya]extinction events (ti), age corrected [mya]
566, 201.4, 251.9, 372.2, 445.261.986, 190.308, 238.041, 352.461, 421.348
437.8, 145, 259.8, 306.7, 419.236.206, 136.774, 245.793, 289.975, 396.744
311.6, 93.9, 183.7, 228.5, 272.3, 423, 427.4, 485.4, 500.511.402, 88.465, 173.88, 215.987, 257.12, 400.469, 403.82, 458.929, 473.782
2113.1, 168.3107.344, 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. Dataset 3 Previous datasets do not take into account possible splitting of energy levels. Here, an even larger dataset is presented which shows possible energy splitting and how this, when not accounted for, causes lower confidence in calculated P.
energy levelextinction events [mya]extinction events (ti), age corrected [mya]
566, 201.4, 251.9, 372.2, 445.261.986, 190.308, 238.041, 352.461, 421.348
437.8, 145, 259.8, 306.7, 419.2, 51436.206, 136.774, 245.793, 289.975, 396.744, 486.084
311.6, 93.9, 183.7, 228.5, 272.3, 423, 427.4, 485.4, 500.5, 54111.402, 88.465, 173.88, 215.987, 257.12, 400.469, 403.82, 458.929, 473.782, 511.664
2113.1, 168.3, 330.9107.344, 159.702, 312.804
1295, 346.7, 393.3, 467.3279.448, 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. Dataset 4 Here I hypothesize that deviations from P are the result of energy splitting into smaller events which when grouped properly would fit on P intervals. The dataset is the same as dataset 3, except the hypothesized splittings (circled extinction pairs on Fig. 24) have been grouped into a single event, simply by using arithmetic mean age of the pair.
energy levelextinction events [mya]extinction events (ti), age corrected [mya]
566, 201.4, (251.9+259.8)/2 = 255.9, 372.2, 445.261.986, 190.308, 241.967, 352.461, 421.348
437.8, 145, 306.7, (419.2+423)/2 = 421.1, (514+541)/2 = 527.536.206, 136.774, 289.975, 398.619, 499.361
311.6, 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, 500.511.402, 88.465, 166.304, 215.987, 268.346, 403.82, 451.053, 473.782
2113.1, (330.9+346.7)/2 = 339107.344, 320.78
1393.3372.239
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. Dataset 5 Here dataset 4 is modified with the assumption that splitting occurs in all events, thus, in addition to previously grouped events, the remaining non-grouped events have been grouped with adjacent boundaries.
energy levelextinction events [mya]extinction events (ti), 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 = 444.560.81, 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 = 527.534.431, 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 = 498.812.502, 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 = 339112.87, 320.58
1(387.7+393.3)/2 = 390.5369.489
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. Dataset 6 Here, dataset contains only highest energy (major and minor) extinctions, from dataset 1.
energy levelextinction events [mya]extinction events (ti), age corrected [mya]
566, 201.3, 252.2, 365, 44561.986, 190.208, 238.316, 345.385, 421.148
437.8, 145, 260, 305, 42036.206, 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. Chapter Analysis of past extinctions updated. Confidence Note that equal weight was assumed for all extinctions in a particular dataset. Different weights can affect the confidence in the result (less if they are all harmonics). But even with that taken into account, there is high confidence in P ≈ 25.74 My - 25.89 My. The result with highest confidence (25.74 My) is also the closest to calculated ideal quantization by the 3rd order period (1.512 * 106 My) - 25.704 My, further increasing confidence in such periodicity. Note that the burning cycle of the Sun's core is calculated (in the "Quantization of the Sun" chapter#) to be equal to 25.746608 My, confirming the signal. Neurogenesis in standard lifeforms on Earth during embryonic development does imply certain periodicity in the formation of brain layers and neuron migration. High energy impact cratering and extinctions (migrations) in planetary neurogenesis should be no exception. In fact, with such periodicity and the last high energy extinction 37.8 My in the past, next one is overdue, roughly by the phase shift.
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. Also note that neurogenesis implies correlation of many processes. Therefore, calculated periodicity should not be limited to mass extinctions, rather present in plethora of other phenomena affecting the planet - volcanism, magnetic reversals, seafloor spreading, orogenic events, etc. Indeed, such periodicities has been found in previous analyses.
Thus, imminent major extinction as calculated using models based on C1.1 equation should not be surprising.
Small update in Correlation with mantle layers. Correlation with mantle layers Grouping and correlation of extinction events with the formation of brain [mantle] layers also indicates that another major mass extinction should be near, at least in geological terms.
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 proportional to thickness of a corresponding mantle layer.
Such correlation should not be surprising - all lifeforms grow in layers. But it also confirms the previous hypothesis that asteroid impacts are correlated with discontinuities (changes in energy levels) in Earth.
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: $\displaystyle T_n(i) = {T(i) \over \sum\limits_{j=1}^N T_j}$ $\displaystyle D_n(i) = {D(i) \over \sum\limits_{j=1}^N D_j}$ Results are shown in Table 29. Here, corrected extinction ages are used, although non-corrected ages would yield similar results.
iPeriod of weak evolution T [My]Normalized period of weak evolution TnCorresponding mantle layer thickness D [km]Normalized layer thickness Dn
5421.348 - 352.461 = 68.8870.163780b - 660b = 1200.176
4352.461 - 238.041 = 114.420.272660b - 520b = 1400.206
3238.041 - 190.308 = 47.7330.113520b - 410b = 1100.162
2190.308 - 61.986 = 128.3220.305410b - 220a = 1900.279
161.986 - 0 = 61.9860.147220a - 100b = 1200.176
Table 29: Comparison of weak evolution periods and mantle layers, sources: a, b
Correlation in absolute value varies between the pairs, but qualitatively, correlation is very good. At least some discrepancies could be explained by the fact that formation is not yet complete - ie. the boundary between layers 3 and 4 may change with the pending extinction. If layer 3 decrease would be equal to layer 4 increase (≈ 0.0575 in normalized value) and layer 1 decrease to layer 2 increase (≈ 0.0275 ≈ 0.0575 / 2), with a small decrease in layer 5 (0.013 ≈ 0.0275 / 2) coupled with equivalent increase in layer 6, normalized extinction and mantle boundaries would be almost equal.
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 exact location of boundaries is a matter of debate. They must have some thickness, 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, for layer 1, yield a normalized value exactly equal to the corresponding normalized period of weak evolution: $\displaystyle {{220 - 120} \over 680} = {100 \over 680} = 0.147$ Also, globally average velocities might not be the best choice for determination of layer discontinuities - ie. Lehmann discontinuity is at 220 km for tectonic North America, but 200 km for shield North America, while it may be absent beneath north Atlantic and other oceans.
No graviton can be completely neutral. If discontinuities are [large scale] gravitons, holes in these, proportional to polarization, are expected.
If one assumes that 200 km is a real boundary, while 220 km is a precursor boundary and will reduce to 200 km with complete formation, the correlation with extinctions for both layers, I and II, becomes remarkable: $\displaystyle {{200 - 100} \over 680} = {100 \over 680} = 0.147$ $\displaystyle {{410 - 200} \over 680} = {210 \over 680} = 0.309$ Some report the base of the upper mantle at 670 km rather than 660, this improves the correlation with layers 5 and 4: $\displaystyle {{780 - 670} \over 680} = {110 \over 680} = 0.162$ $\displaystyle {{670 - 520} \over 680} = {150 \over 680} = 0.221$ Now, the only problematic boundary is the one between layers 3 and 4 (at 520 km). Some do report this boundary at 500 km, which gives much better agreement: $\displaystyle {{670 - 500} \over 680} = {170 \over 680} = 0.25$ $\displaystyle {{500 - 410} \over 680} = {90 \over 680} = 0.132$ Note that extinction boundaries also have some thickness or uncertainties, notably first three, which may explain differences in reported discontinuity depths. The 3rd major extinction (Permian) is apparently split into two events (End-Capitanian and Permian-Triassic). Using End-Capitanian 245.793 Mya (259.8 Mya non-corrected) instead of Permian-Triassic 238.041 Mya (251.9 Mya non-corrected) as the date of Permian extinction gives results in remarkable agreement with the obtained layers 3 and 4 (with discontinuities at 410 km, 500 km and 670 km): $\displaystyle {{352.461 - 245.793} \over 421.348} = {106.668 \over 421.348} = 0.253$ $\displaystyle {{245.793 - 190.308} \over 421.348} = {55.485 \over 421.348} = 0.132$ Correlation of layer 6 and the corresponding period of weak evolution has not been determined due to unknown boundary. However, assuming the 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: $\displaystyle {T_6 \over T_5} = {D_6 \over D_5}$ $\displaystyle D_6 = {T_6 \over T_5} D_5 = {{511.664 - 421.348} \over {421.348 - 352.461}} 120 = 157\, km$ In that case, a discontinuity, if formed, should exist in Earth's mantle at a depth of 937 km (assuming boundary between layer 5 and 6 at 780 km). Apparently, this discontinuity has been detected (at 940 km). Supplement

Here is the code used to calculate correct ages of extinction events, perform the analysis and generate images.

getext.php
+


Quantization of Moon orbits If the gravity of Earth's [major] gravitational maximum is, as hypothesized, equal to surface gravity of the Sun, one would expect for orbitals of natural moons of Earth to be scaled orbitals of inner planets. Allowed orbitals are thus: $\displaystyle r = {r_p \over R_{\odot}} r_c$ where rc is the Earth's gravitational maximum radius (= inner core radius), R is the radius of the Sun and rp is the orbital radius of a corresponding planet. Using R = 695735 km, rc = 1206.115 km, one obtains orbitals shown in Table 30.
entanglementrp (km)r (km)
Mercuryconst('orbital.radius.positrons.mercury.1', 0, 1000)100392
Venusconst('orbital.radius.positrons.venus.1', 0, 1000)187591
Earthconst('orbital.radius.positrons.earth.1', 0, 1000)259344
Marsconst('orbital.radius.positrons.mars.1', 0, 1000)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 * 106 km, while for the Moon, the distance is 42.2 * 103 km. Small discrepancies should be attributed to oscillation and phase shift in synchronization.
Note that Earth is likely receding from the Sun at the scaled rate of Moon's recession from Earth.
Quantization of the Sun During inflation of the Sun, multiple gravitational maxima were inflating within. Collapse of these maxima as the Sun was deflating was fossilized in the Sun, in the form of discontinuities. As these maxima are now gravitational maxima of inner planets, entanglement exists between radii of discontinuities and planetary orbits. Some discontinuities are strong (permanent) while some are weak, evolve over time and may periodically disappear. Apparent discontinuities are those between the core, radiative and convective zone, surface discontinuity and the boundaries of tachocline. Regardless of the configuration (1e+ or 2e+), each inner planet formed with the collapse of two neutral spin anti-aligned maxima. Thus, each is entangled with 2 discontinuities in the Sun. Initial inflation of planetary maxima must have been faster than light to preserve invariance. If one assumes that all maxima initially had the mass of the Sun and energy density remained constant during inflation, with the collapse (energy level change) occurring once escape velocity was equal to the speed of light (in CR, discontinuities between energy levels are speed limits), orbital radii of planets become fossils of Schwarzschild radii: $\displaystyle r = {2Gm \over c^2} = {{2G \rho V} \over c^2} = {r^3 \over R^3} {2GM \over c^2}$ $\displaystyle r = \sqrt{R^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}}$ R = initial radius
M = 1.988500 * 1030 kg
c = standard speed of light = 2.99792458 * 108 m/s
G = 6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2
With equal escape velocity (pressure per surface quantum) between maxima (note that a smaller maximum is inside the other), radius of fusion of two maxima becomes the arithmetic mean of two radii: $\displaystyle r = {1 \over 2} \left(\sqrt{{R_1}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}} + \sqrt{{R_2}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}}\right)$ In that case, discontinuities entangled with planetary orbits are at 1/5 R, 2/5 R, 1/2 R, 2/3 R and 1 R.
PlanetR1R2Schwarzschild radius r (106 km)current orbital radius (106 km)orbital radius (MAU)
MarsR1/2 R228.52227.921
Earth2/3 R1/2 R151.59149.62/3
Venus2/3 R1/5 R107.00108.211/2
Mercury2/5 R1/5 R57.8157.911/4
Table 31: Correlation of orbital and Schwarzschild radii
Correlation of orbital and Schwarzschild radii is shown in Table 31, where R is the radius of the Sun (695700 km). Significant orbital eccentricity of Mercury and Mars also seems correlated with Sun's discontinuities. If Sun's core radius oscillates between 0.1 + 0.186 R = 0.286 R (hypothesized initial radius) and 1/5 R (current radius), with constant energy density between the two radii, time independent core radius [as superposition of two oscillatory states] is at 1/4 R. This is correlated with Mercury's orbit, as its distance from the Sun is at 1/4 MAU, while its perihelion is at 1/5 MAU. According to equation S1.1 describing rotational velocities of plasma, and the actual velocity curve, significant points are at 0.1 R, ≈1/2 R, 1 + 0.18686 R = 1.18686 R and 32.8 R (0.1 MAU, half of Mercury's perihelion). The aphelion of Mars is at 1 + 0.18686/2 MAU = 1.09343 MAU = 249.2 * 109 m.
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: $r^3 = {1 \over 2} \left\{{\left[{\left(\frac 25\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32} + {\left[{\left(\frac 14\, R_{\odot}\right)}^3 {c^2 \over 2GM}\right]}^{\frac 32}\right\}$ $r = 70.4 * 10^9\, m$
Layers of the Sun Internal gravity of the Sun depends on the location of maxima and acquired real mass. Distribution of mass, however, should not be complex unless there are collapsed large scale maxima inside. In any case, matter accumulated between two maxima should, in equilibrium, imitate a maximum and can thus be approximated as one (induced maximum). One way to obtain gravity of a primordial Sun is to derive it from rotation of real mass - assuming greater rotation with greater gravitational mass, down to the inner core radius rc, quantization is 1-dimensional (negative): $\displaystyle {1\over g} v r = n h_2 \tag{L1.1}$ Giving the scaled h constant: $h = h_2 = 5 * 10^9 \text{ } ms$ $n = 1$ Another way is to assume a completely naked Sun, in which case gravity from the surface down to the core is: $\displaystyle g = g_p = G M_{\odot} {r^2 \over {R_{\odot}}^4} = 274 {r^2 \over {R_{\odot}}^2} \tag{L1.2}$ Gravitational profile of the primordial Sun (not taking into account the gravity of inner core maximum) is given in Table 32. Here matter velocity (v) is extrapolated from measurements, while space (Keplerian) velocity (vs) is calculated from gravity: $v_s = \sqrt{g r}$ $v_p = \sqrt{g_p r}$
nr/Rnotespace velocity vp (km/s)space velocity vs (km/s)matter velocity v (m/s)orbital radius r (km)calculated gravity gp (m/s2)calculated gravity g (m/s2)gravity gi (vcr product) m/s2
11Convective disc.436.602565436.6025651969.239615695700274274200 (1*1012)
13/44p6n disc.283.581685286.5514471508.068146521775154.125157.37150 (0.75 *1012)
12/3Radiative disc.234.100417230.5561061248459162119.3544114.61132 (0.66 * 1012)
11/24p6n disc.154.362317151.266563945.45454534785068.565.78100 (0.5 * 1012)
12/5weak110.452683108.233652756.36363627828043.8442.180 (0.4 * 1012)
11/4Outer core disc.54.57532191.901023139617392517.12548.5650 (0.25 * 1012)
11/5Inner core disc. = rc39.05092174.6029491437.40117913914010.964040 (0.2 * 1012)
Table 32: Gravitational profile of the primordial Sun
Note that multiplying any discontinuity radius with inner core velocity vc gives values proportional to r/R ratio and gives integer gravity (gi) for inner core and all layers above.
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.
discontinuity (r/R)space velocity vscorrelated radius (106 km)possible body correlation
1436.6 km/s436.6end of the main asteroid belt
3/4286.6 km/s286.6beginning of the main asteroid belt
2/3230.6 km/s230.6orbit of Mars (semi-major)
1/2151.3 km/s151.3orbit of Earth (semi-major, aphelion)
2/5108.2 km/s108.2orbit of Venus (semi-major)
1/574.6 km/s74.6orbit 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 vs and vp. This gives much better results for the orbit of Mercury - 56.8 * 106 km, agreeing with semi-major, rather than aphelion. Another possibility is entanglement with vp instead of vs. 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.
discontinuity (r/R)space velocity vs (km/s)correlated radius (106 km)possible body correlation
1 - 3/4436.6 - 286.6150orbit of Earth (semi-major)
1 - 2/3436.6 - 230.6206orbit of Mars (perihelion)
3/4 - 2/3286.6 - 230.656orbit of Mercury (semi-major)
3/4 - 1/5286.6 - 39.1247.5orbit of Mars (aphelion)*
2/3 - 1/5230.6 - 74.6156orbit of Earth (aphelion)
2/5 - 1/5108.2 - 39.169.1orbit of Mercury (aphelion)*
1/2 - 2/5154.4 - 108.246.2orbit of Mercury (perihelion)*
Table 34: Alternative initial radii of Sun's discontinuities
* here, one of the velocities used in subtraction is vp, rather than vs Entanglement with vp suggests that Mercury and Mars were created before Venus and Earth, as hypothesized previously. Entanglement with both, vs and vp, seems to be the cause of orbital eccentricity.
Difference between current surface gravity and gi is roughly equal to the sum of surface gravities of inner and outer planets: $\displaystyle g - g_i = 274 - 200 = 74\, {m \over s^2}$ thus, some entanglement might exist there too. Below the gravitational minimum at inner core (rc), quantization is 3-dimensional (positive) and gravity should be increasing until the next maximum: $\displaystyle g = n^2\, T { \hbar_1 \over r^2 },$ $\displaystyle \hbar_1 = 1.273239545 * 10^{12}\, { m^3 \over s^3 }$ Current G model Unlike in space above the outer maximum, where gravity falls to zero effectively at infinity (due to next maximum being extremely far), below the maximum gravity falls to zero at finite distance due to compression of space. With no inner maxima, the single point of zero gravity would be at the centre, however, due to relativity, inner maxima must exist (each inner maximum must also be a relative outer maximum). If the radius of the outer maximum of the Sun is the surface radius, gravity should thus be decreasing below the surface to the point where it is cancelled by the [next] inner maximum.
Gravity profile of the Sun
Fig. 28: Gravity of the Sun
Without the inner maximum, any free-falling real mass would be concentrated around the surface maximum. With inner maxima, concentration of real mass begins at the centre. However, as each inner maximum has lower capacity than its outer maximum, greatest density of real mass will not be at the centre. 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 maxima 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, grey 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.
Note that Fig. 28 shows gravity in absolute values. Gravities of maxima cancel at multiple points inside the Sun. At these points, gravity is zero. Induced gravitational maximum should thus, in reality, have negative gravity relative to other maxima.
From Fig. 28 one can extrapolate discontinuity candidates (r/R): 0.0385 ≈ 2/5 * 1/10, 2/3 * 1/10 (initial core maximum), 1/5, 1/4, 0.286, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 1.
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 relativistic energy, rest surface maximum is at 0.94 R. Energy replenishment Primary energy source of the Sun is, most likely, fusion. Fuel for fusion must either be the real mass of the Sun (accumulated matter) or matter created through conversion of imaginary mass (dark gravitational potential) to real mass by some unknown mechanism. In case of such conversion it would take tens of billions of years to spend all fuel. However, this solution implies the Sun is eating itself and is highly unlikely. The Sun is thus, most likely, burning its real mass which was accumulated during inflation of its maxima (whether through inflation of smaller maxima or acquisition of matter by increasing vacuum pressure).
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 Er = 4.32 * 10-12 J) and power output P of 3.8 * 1026 J/s, time needed to spend all fusion fuel is: $\displaystyle \Delta t = {m \over m_p} * {E_r \over 4} * {1 \over P} * N$ m = available mass
mp = proton mass
Er = energy per reaction
P = power output
N = fraction of mass used in fusion
Since the Sun has two [major] maxima, fusion may be occurring at two places - in the core and above the core. Gravitational mass of the surface maximum is known to be 1.988500 * 1030 kg, while the gravitational mass of the core has been calculated here to be 2.951797 * 1027 kg. Assuming that the calculated mass is the mass of the maximum and therefore equal to the internal capacity for real mass, this capacity in equilibrium should be full and, due to mass loss (ie. through radiation), excess real mass must be constantly (cyclically) consumed as fuel.
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 excess mass in the outer core corresponding to the ratio. In case of thermonuclear fusion and with 2/3 of mass consumed, time needed for the core to spend all fuel is: $\displaystyle \Delta t = {m \over m_p} * {E_r \over 4} * {1 \over P} * N = {8.90211033 * 10^{27}\, kg \over 1.67265 * 10^{-27}\, kg} * {4.32 * 10^{-12}\, J \over 4} * {1 \over 3.8 * 10^{26}\, {J \over s}} * {2 \over 3}$ $\displaystyle \Delta t = 10084091956967735\, s = 319545591.5\, years$ where m = 8.90211033 * 1027 kg is the previously calculated initial mass of the core. Assuming that, at the start of consumption cycle, imaginary mass (gravitational maximum) grows to initial mass radius (0.286 R) and decreases with energy loss, time left (assuming constant rate of consumption) before the next feeding cycle is then: $\displaystyle t = \left(2.951797 * 10^{27} - {1 \over 3} 8.90211033 * 10^{27}\right) * {3 \over 2} {1 \over 8.90211033 * 10^{27}}\, \Delta t$ $\displaystyle t = -26461406017707\, s = -838511.4\, years$ Negative time may be interpreted as the next cycle being overdue (core spent all fuel 838k years ago and is currently burning constitutional mass), or, that more than 2/3 of mass must be consumed in fusion. In case 70% of mass may be spent: $\displaystyle \Delta t = 10588296554816122\, s = 335522871\, years$ $\displaystyle t = 1114734114271587\, s = 35323792.5\, years$ However, as stated already, thermonuclear fusion in the core is unlikely. In case there is no fusion in the core at all, ruling out standard chemical reactions and radioactivity, the remaining possibility is heat generation through gravitational (Kelvin–Helmholtz) contraction: $\displaystyle {dU_r \over dt} = {-3G{M_i}^2 \over 10{R_i}^2} {dR \over dt}$ Mi = initial core mass = 8.90211033 * 1027 kg
Ri = initial core radius = 0.286R = 198970200 m
assuming logarithmic relationship between mass and radius contraction, the contraction may be approximated from the rate of Jupiter contraction: $\displaystyle {dR \over dt} = {10^{M_i \over M_{\scriptscriptstyle J}} \over 3^{R_i \over R_{\scriptscriptstyle J}}} {dR_{\scriptscriptstyle J} \over dt} = -7.29401291 * 10^{-8}\, {m \over s}$ MJ = Jupiter mass = 1.89819 * 1027 kg
RJ = Jupiter radius = 71492000 m
dRJ/dt = rate of Jupiter contraction = -3.17 * 10-11 m/s
giving energy radiation of: $\displaystyle {dU_r \over dt} = 2.9233705 * 10^{21}\, {J \over s}$ and time to spend all fuel: $\displaystyle \Delta t = {3G(M_i - M)^2 \over 10R_i} {\left({dU_r \over dt}\right)}^{-1} = 1218751736351319\, s = 38619912\, years$ M = current core mass = 2.951797 * 1027 kg
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 relativistic energy (CMB relative) of the Sun. In that case, time to spend the fuel is: $\displaystyle \Delta t = {m \over m_p} * {E_r \over 4} * {1 \over P} * N = {1.18437729 * 10^{29}\, kg \over 1.67265 * 10^{-27}\, kg} * {4.32 * 10^{-12}\, J \over 4} * {1 \over 3.8 * 10^{26}\, {J \over s}} * {2 \over 3}$ $\displaystyle \Delta t = 4.25 * 10^9\, years$
The value is in agreement with the hypothesized 1st order cycle and it is likely equal to previously calculated real age of Earth (4.29±0.05 * 109 years), suggesting the Solar System is at the end of the 1st order cycle. Note that the calculated age is exactly 1/3 of the obtained age of the observable universe in one class of measurements (Lensedquasars/Near) - 12.75 * 109 years (also in agreement with more recent bTFR measurements), supporting the cycling hypothesis (this would be the end of 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 centre. 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 Tu = 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 Δtcx 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 Timg = 13.799 ± 0.021 * 109 years: $\displaystyle \sigma_{T_{img}} = \left\lfloor {T_{img} \over T_u } \right\rfloor \Bigl[ \Delta t_{c_u} + \bigl( \Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle {E_{img}}} - T_u \bigr) \Bigr] = 1.07872048512 \pm 0.05 * 10^9\, years$ where ΔTEimg (4.54±0.05 * 109 years) is the currently accepted age of Earth. This gives for the real age of the universe: $\displaystyle T = T_{img} - \sigma_{T_{img}} = 12.72027951488 \pm 0.071 * 10^9\, years$ resolving the discrepancy.
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 ℏmg constant: $\displaystyle m = {\hbar_{mg} \over g} = {{6.968267285 * 10^{20}\, N} \over {274\, m/s^2}} = 2.543163243 * 10^{18}\, kg$ For N = 2/3 (here, the other 1/3 would be the solar wind), time needed to spend this fuel is: $\displaystyle \Delta t = {m \over m_p} * {E_r \over 4} * {1 \over P} * N = {2.543163243 * 10^{18}\, kg \over 1.67265 * 10^{-27}\, kg} * {4.32 * 10^{-12}\, J \over 4} * {1 \over 3.8 * 10^{26}\, {J \over s}} * {2 \over 3}$ $\displaystyle \Delta t = {2 \over 3} * 4321249.297\, s = 33.3\, days$ For N = 1/2: $\displaystyle \Delta t = {1 \over 2} * 4321249.297\, s = 25\, days$
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 centre (assuming the Sun is not ideally neutral and has gravitational holes at poles - at least periodically opened, although the charges could also be inefficiently transferred inside as electric current), energy bandwidth is not sufficient to power the Sun. Interestingly, the solution (with N = 2/3) is close to the polar rotation period of the Sun (N = 1/2 gives equatorial period) where the uptake would happen. However, although unlikely in a stable state, this is likely the feeding method in the previous hypothesis (4.25 * 109 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 (U0) scale matter, as currently interpreted (in which case they would be the fossil of the healing process).
Jupiter gravity disturbances
The cells of all living species are regenerating on a periodic basis, for example, 1/3 of hippocampal neurons in humans and mice is exchanged during the lifetime, thus, the cellular regeneration in the Sun should not be surprising, whether it is food or constitutional mass.
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 barycentre 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 barycentre. 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 recharge is: $\displaystyle \Delta t = {m_{re} \over m_p} * {E_r \over 4} * {1 \over P} * N = {4.042341 * 10^{25}\, kg \over 1.67265 * 10^{-27}\, kg} * {4.32 * 10^{-12}\, J \over 4} * {1 \over 3.8 * 10^{26}\, {J \over s}} * {2 \over 3}$ $\displaystyle \Delta t = 45790644230537\, s = 1451018\, years$ and it is in good agreement with the hypothesized 3rd cycle period (a fraction of mass N = 0.6946847 would yield the hypothesized value - 1512000 years).
In comparison with living beings, one might notice a problem of exhausted fuel - what happens with the ash from fusion reactions (end products of fusion)? There are couple of solutions:
  1. the ash is ejected periodically,
  2. the ash forms the constitutional mass.
Time compression at the end of Solar System cycles implies gravitational stress of Solar System maxima. While the 2nd hypothesis might be plausible during initial formation of the Sun, at least at the end of one of the cycles some mass must be ejected out from the Sun. It certainly seems easier than in case of planets, as unlike the planets, the Sun does not have a solid [real] mantle to block the explosion (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 maxima 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 maxima 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 maxima. 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.
As a living organ[ism] Considering the energy output (metabolic rate) of P = 3.8 * 1026 W, the standard relation between metabolic rate and mass: $\displaystyle {P \over {0.0484259259 {day * W \over kcal}}} = 70 * M^{\alpha}$ gives 0.86 for the α exponent (M = total mass of the sun = 1988500 * 1024 kg). For a mammalian organ this would be between a kidney and a liver, suggesting an embryonic stem cell in the process of differentiation. Metabolism of Earth Transfer of energy in wild flora and fauna is generally balanced both horizontally and vertically. Vertical transfer of energy is a part of metabolism but changes in horizontal current affect the vertical transfer too (and vice versa). Humans dominate in both horizontal (surface to surface) and vertical (Sun - Earth interior) energy distribution and transformation, disrupting the harmonics of life. Horizontal effect is the increasing number of individuals at the cost of decreasing number and diversity of other species, while vertically it is the unsustainable exploitation of radiated and stored resources of the Sun/Earth ecosystem. Thus, one may interpret humans as the metabolism energy carrier particles, in a limited domain. With a human population N of 7.674 * 109, average mass m of 62 kg, and average lifetime Δt of 72.6 years (data for year 2019, except mass - 2012): $\displaystyle P = {{N * m * c^2} \over {\Delta t}} = {{7.674 * 10^9 * 62 * (2.99792458 * 10^8)^2} \over {72.6 * 365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60}} = 1.86644116 * 10^{19}\, W$ $\displaystyle {P \over {0.0484259259 {day * W \over kcal}}} = 70 * M^{\alpha} = 3.8542188 * 10^{20}\, {kcal \over day}$ where M is the mass of Earth (5.9723 * 1024 kg). This gives a value of 0.756 for α exponent, in agreement with Kleiber's law. However, in case of organ interpretation, the exponent suggests a superposition of a brain and a kidney.
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):
  1. increasing human lifetime (≈25 times) to 1813 years,
  2. reducing population (≈25 times) to 307243423,
  3. reducing mass (≈25 times),
  4. increasing Earth's mass ≈100 times (≈ mass of Saturn).
If humans are indeed precursor proteins of neuron proteins of Earth, as carriers of energy of its brain metabolism, I would expect the solution to be a weighted superposition of the above. However, if Earth has a heart equivalent (core), most likely it also has a kidney equivalent and the population might differentiate into proteins of varying function.
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.
Nature of human cells Dominance of lifeforms changes over time. At present time, homo species occupies and controls most of the surface of the planet. Human population is rising and thriving at the expense of other species. While the dominion of species may be related to precursor nature of vital organism components, its behavior can be corrupted, so cultivation of new proteins becomes evolution of disease rather of something integral for survival. While it is not questionable whether human species is a disease for the planet, it is questionable whether this is fatal or rather a normal part of evolution of healthy cells and proteins with self-correcting mechanisms. Dividing the total surface area of Earth (R = 6371 * 103 m) with the number of people, one gets the maximum size of the cell: $\displaystyle A = {{4\pi R^2} \over {7.7 * 10^9}} = 66242.13921\, m^2$ Radius of space per person is: $\displaystyle r = \sqrt{A \over \pi} = 145.2085665\, m$ If the radius of a human occupied cell of Earth is the mean free path r, the radius of a cell equivalent in human body of average diameter (height) h = 1.7 m is: $\displaystyle r_c = {r \over R} {h \over 2} = 19.373298 * 10^{-6}\, m = 19.373298\, \mu m$ If one calculates using landmass only (people don't naturally live on water): $\displaystyle A = {{1.4894 * 10^{14}\, m^2} \over {7.7 * 10^9}} = 19342.85714\, m^2$ $\displaystyle r = \sqrt{A \over \pi} = 78.46669775\, m$ $\displaystyle r_c = {r \over R} {h \over 2} = 10.46879502 * 10^{-6}\, m = 10.46879502\, \mu m$ Taking into account space used by wild flora and fauna: $\displaystyle r = {1 \over 2} \sqrt{A} = 69.53930029\, m$ $\displaystyle r_c = {r \over R} {h \over 2} = 9.277728025 * 10^{-6}\, m = 9.277728025\, \mu m$ This is in the range of a typical cancer cell. It is, of course, in the range of healthy cells too, but human cells are far from healthy. It might seem that the radius r (rc) changes with population, but this is not the case - if human space decreases, the space of wild flora and fauna increases and vice versa, thus it generally evolves weakly, remaining almost constant.
Homo.beta cell
Fig. 30: Homo.beta cell

Fig. 30 shows the unit of space on Earth's surface, circled space (red) is occupied by a human and domesticated flora and fauna, other (green) by wild flora and fauna.
Normal cells
Fig. 31: Normal cells

Fig. 31 shows the normal (healthy) unit of space on Earth. Red is a cell of homo.sapiens (Earth's neuron cell), black lines are spiritual connections (synapses).
Cancerous cells
Fig. 32: Cancer cells

Fig. 32 shows the cancerous (current) unit of space on Earth. Blue and red are polarized human (cancer) cells.
Death by cancer
Fig. 33: Dead space

Fig. 33 shows the outcome - death.
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: $\displaystyle \lambda = {h \over 2} {1 \over r} r_c = {h \over 2} {1 \over R} {h \over 2} = {h^2 \over 4R} = 1.134044891 * 10^{-7}\, m$ This is in the range of a TGF-β protein, a key player in cancer development. Confirmation of this comes from recent studies, revealing human nature of TGF-β: "And while it may be difficult to imagine a protein with two dramatically different faces, it may be even more difficult to contemplate cancer cells exhibiting traits, such as cunning and deception. But the research underway at the University of Basel, and collaborating laboratories, has revealed that TGF-β not only is a two-faced protein, it also is one that seems almost Machiavellian in its activities." Cancerous TGF-β suppresses the immune response and prevents old cells/proteins from dying (regenerating). Humanity is, at the time of this writing, expressing this cancerous behavior on many levels:
Earth's cells are not fuel cells, they are living cells.
The average cell cycle period of eukaryotic cell is T0 = 14.5 hours, scaled to Earth size, it is: $\displaystyle T_1 = \sqrt{T_0 * T_x} = 50\, years $ where Tx is the period of 3rd order existence cycle of Earth (1.512 * 106 years). The cycle of life and death An atom or a planetary system consists of relatively massive matter and relatively empty space of gravitational wells. The energy of this space is in its vacuum proportional to its spin momentum and characterized by electric and magnetic permeability of polarized quanta of certain scale. Gravitational wells (souls) are not intrinsically coupled with matter - otherwise, there would be no death. All souls thus oscillate between different bodies. This oscillation can be vertical (between different scales) or horizontal (between species of the same element, such as carbon), although even horizontal oscillation includes a temporary scale inflation/deflation between stable states. Species in horizontal oscillation have comparable lifetimes so gravitational collapse generally indicates a permanent decoupling of particular soul/matter pair (death). Primary (prevalent) oscillation type depends on pressure/temperature of the environment. Man's desire to extend his dying baffles all of common sense. Why would one not want to leave the ageing body and start anew? It seems, it is in nature of polarized to keep patching the patches of the ageing systems instead of letting things die and recycle in peaceful honour. It is alas, the fear of death, unjustly implanted into the seeds of man by man that makes him a zombie, sad and cancerous, even at times of abundant life. Chapter Inflation and dark energy revised. Inflation and dark energy According to CR, observable universe cannot be absolute - if it had a beginning it was a relative beginning and if it was inflated it was inflated from a relative, not absolute, singularity. The inflation thus did not proceed from a single point, rather inflation of galaxies should be regarded as inflation of spatially separated relative universes. Similar is true for planetary systems. This suggests that development of galaxies was relatively fast and implies there are no large differences between distant and near galaxies when relatively equal energies are involved in their creation (with the assumption of a stable state and weak evolution after initial inflation).
UPDATE 2022.08.18

Preliminary results of analyses of James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) data confirm this hypothesis.
If planetary systems are equivalents of standard atoms in a particular state (pressure/temperature), observable universe becomes a gas of extremely low density. Dark energy, if it exists, is thus simply the energy of gas expansion due to scaled pressure/temperature change. Such expansion cannot continue forever, and, after initial inflation, it is more likely to be decelerating, rather than accelerating. Galaxies are then simply large scale quantum vortices. Black holes and other gravitational wells of U1 scale can be understood as vacuum quanta, increasing in strength with inflation and causing contraction of constituent matter, with stretched space (at times of inflation of space, not expansion) between them creating (inflating) new gravitational wells (primal stars) between galaxies. This exponential growth of energy is what eventually ends inflation. The expansion of the universe has been questioned before and there are results consistent with a non-expanding, Euclidean universe regarding some phenomena previously considered to favour expanding universe, although none solve all the problems - ie. increasing redshift with distance or time dilation of distant events. Recent analyses suggest that the expansion of the observable universe is not accelerating and the redshift previously used as evidence for acceleration should be attributed to local "bulk flow" instead. If photons have rest mass on some scale, as CR implies, energy will be lost with distance (if not replenished periodically). If the mechanism for energy loss from distant galaxies is not scattering of light through interactions with standard (U0 scale) matter, the interactions must be involving smaller scales of photon energy components. These are causing changes in values of momentum relatively independent of wavelength, and without affecting direction significantly. Photons, having mass, must have a range - which then explains decreasing brightness with distance. However, even these interactions cannot explain time dilation, which apparently has been observed in Type Ia supernovae. Signatures of time dilation have also been found in gamma-ray bursts but with lower confidence. Most likely, the observable universe was still expanding at the time of emission of light from distant galaxies, however, current accelerating expansion is questionable. Observations also suggest that small scale effects on photon energy are oscillating with distance - consistent with hypothesized oscillation of photon mass, which, periodically results in acceleration rather than deceleration of photons. The oscillation must be correlated with properties of space. If there is no significant loss of energy, energy of the photon might be kept relatively constant through these interactions. Stability of elements Structure of U0 elements is entangled with the configuration of U1 universe. This also makes the stability of isotopes dependent on this configuration. The stability curve and decay rates of individual isotopes thus change strongly in transition from one cycle state to another, but also oscillate during state lifetime. Stable isotopes are concentrated along this curve: $\displaystyle N(P,t) = \Biggl\lfloor P * \biggl [1 + \biggl ({N_{max} \over P_{max}} - 1 \biggr ) * {P \over P_{max}} \biggr ] \style{color:green}{+ \sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle T}} \Biggr\rceil$ $\displaystyle \sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle T} = \biggl [-(C_1 * C_2) * \biggl ({C_2 \over C_1} - 1 \biggr ) + (C_2 - C_1) * {t \over \Delta_t} * (C_1 + C_2) \biggr ] * {P \over P_{max}}$ $\displaystyle \sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle T} = \biggl [(C_1 * C_2 - {C_2}^2) + ({C_2}^2 - {C_1}^2) * {t \over \Delta_t} \biggr ] * {P \over P_{max}}$ where N = N0 is the number of neutrons, P = P0 = Z is the number of protons of the isotope and Pmax is the maximum number of protons for a stable element (for the Solar and equivalent systems, Pmax = 82, corresponding to Pb - lead). σT is the small shift in value of N due to weak evolution through state lifetime (Δt). $\displaystyle {P_{max} \over N_{max}} = {N_1 \over P_1}$ $\displaystyle P_{P_{max} / N_{max}} = \biggl\lfloor EH_{N_1 / P_1}(P_s, N_{P_{max} / N_{max}}) \biggr\rceil$ where N1 is the number of neutrons and P1 the number of protons of the parent system - U1. Ps is the atomic number (number of protons) of the most stable element - element with maximum number of stable isotopes. PPmax/Nmax is the atomic number of the element lying on the N(P,t) curve with P/N ratio equal to Pmax/Nmax. For the Solar System, in state 6p4n: $\displaystyle \Delta_t = 1.51 * 10^6 \text{ years}$ $\displaystyle {P_{max} \over N_{max}} = {2 \over 3}$ $\displaystyle P_{2 / 3} = \biggl\lfloor EH_{4 / 6}(P_s, N_{2 / 3}) \biggr\rceil$ $\displaystyle C_1 = 2\,,\,\, C_2 = 3$
Note that the constants C1 and C2 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 (green) and the N(P,t) curve (black). Note the following: Electric gravity Electric force is a polarized component of the general force. Inside the atom, force field between negative and positive charges is neutralized and electro-magnetic potential may be exchanged with gravitational potential. Thus, a Hill sphere radius (rH) of an atom should be correlated with its charge radius. $\displaystyle r_{\scriptscriptstyle H} = R \sqrt[3]{m \over 3M}$ This gives, for Carbon-12 atom with nucleus mass m = 1.992646883 * 10-26 kg inside the gravity field of Earth at R = 6371 km (surface): $\displaystyle r_{\scriptscriptstyle H} = 66 * 10^{-12}\, m = 66\, pm$ This is in agreement with experimentally obtained radius of 70 pm (±5 pm). Calculation for other elements of the periodic table yields similar results. Note that Hill radius is different for different isotopes of the same element while experimentally obtained atomic radii are charge radii and thus independent of the number of neutrons (radius represents the orbit of the outermost electron). In example, for Carbon-14 the obtained value is 69.5 * 10-12 m, and even closer to 70 pm if one calculates using equatorial radius of Earth instead of mean volumetric (a possible indicator that the Solar System soul was a part of a 14(C-N-O) cycle in previous incarnation).
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 (green) and calculated Hill sphere at R = 6371 km (black) for all stable isotopes. Evidently, radii are not only correlated but values of covalent radii oscillate around the Hill radii, confirming the entanglement of U0 and U1. Comparing data from 1964. and 2008. shows a compression of radii and convergence to Hill radii - such changes are expected in CR (no constants) and these should be accelerating as the Solar System approaches the end of the current state (6p4n). In the intermediate state (5p5n) charges may be completely neutralized, and the radii of all elements may converge to Hill 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 (green) and calculated Hill sphere at R = 6371 km (black) for isotopes with neutron number adjusted to match the charge radius. In calculations above, atomic mass has been quantized by u = 1.66053907 * 10-27 kg (atomic mass constant) with integer number of protons P and neutrons N [m = (P + N) * u] so Hill radii are quantized too. The overlap of Hill radii with charge radii in Fig. 36 shows that charge radius is quantized too (there is a number of neutrons N for which the Hill radius will match the charge 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.
nshell (alt shell)entanglementelementstotal elements = 2n2
1K-1-2 (H - He)2
2LQ3-10 (Li - Ne)8
2L (Q)L11-18 (Na - Ar)8
3MP19-36 (K - Kr)18
3M (P)M37-54 (Rb - Xe)18
4NO55-86 (Cs - Rn)32
4N (O)N87-118 (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 therefore not invariant to vertical scale transformation. On the standard atom scale U0, gravitational constant for a completely neutralized general force can be derived from previously obtained orbital momentum of the Carbon-10 outermost electron: $\displaystyle {{m v^2} \over r} = G {{M m} \over r^2}$ $\displaystyle v^2 = G {M \over r}$ $\displaystyle M = {\text{Sun mass} \over \text{Neptune mass}} * m$ $\displaystyle G = G_0 = v^2 {r \over M} = 1.234879253 * 10^{27}\, {m^3 \over {kg s^2}}$ v = vU0 = 5.585837356 * 105 m/s
r = rU0 = 70 * 10-12 m
where m, v, r are components of the outermost electron orbital momentum (mass, velocity, radius). If one now, equalizes electric with gravitational force (for photon/graviton m > 0 - Yukawa, Proca): $\displaystyle \large{ k_0 Q^2 \biggl ({1 \over r^2} + {\mu_{\gamma} \over r}\biggr ) e^{(-\mu_{\gamma} r)} = G_0 m^2 \biggl ({1 \over r^2} + {\mu_n \over r}\biggr ) e^{(-\mu_n r)} }$ discarding μ / r factors due to being practically equal and equal to 0 on both sides (expecting large r): $\displaystyle \mu_n - \mu_{\gamma} = {1 \over r} \ln{\biggl ({{G_0\, m^2} \over {k_0\, Q^2}}\biggr )}$ $\displaystyle {{M_n c_n} \over \hbar_n} - {{M_{\gamma} c_{\gamma}} \over \hbar_{\gamma}} = {1 \over r} \ln{\biggl ({{G_0\, m} \over {k_0\, Q}}\biggr )}$ $\displaystyle {c_n \over \hbar_n} = {c_{\gamma} \over \hbar_{\gamma}} = {c \over \hbar}$ $\displaystyle M_n - M_{\gamma} = {\hbar \over c} {1 \over r} \ln{\biggl ({{G_0\, m^2} \over {k_0\, Q^2}}\biggr )}$ ℏ = reduced Planck's constant = 1.054573 * 10-34 Js
c = 2.99792458 * 108 m/s
k0 = Coulomb constant = 8.9875517873681764 * 109 Nm2/C2
Q = electron charge = 1.60217733 * 10-19 C
Mγ = photon mass
Mn = U0 graviton mass
Using previously obtained photon mass Mγ = 2 * 9.10938356 * 10-73 kg and carbon graviton mass Mn = 2 * 1.663337576 * 10-68 kg, this gives: $\displaystyle r = 1.3032821975 * 10^{26}\, m$ as the distance in space when two forces become equal.
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 * 109 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, for standard particles, distance in space is distance in time so this may be interpreted as the time when both forces (carrier masses) were equal, after which point one particle started loosing mass while the other was gaining mass. This is expected with the exchange of one potential for the other.
Note that previously obtained real age of observable universe (12.75 * 109 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 likely 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 light also became equal to c). The redshifts thus may be caused by lower scale (U-2) particles in intergalactic medium absorbing photon energies. Taking into account the scaled density of the observable universe (gas), evidently this is a discontinuity, and possibly a gravitational maximum between layers of, relatively, dense matter. If its angular velocity is equal to c, this is a black hole maximum (escape velocity = √2 c). Thus, light coming from large distances might be the light reflected off of the firewall, providing a window to the past of inner content. This explains the correlation of apparently spatially separated phenomena (galaxies) - these may not be images of different phenomena separated in space, but one separated in time.

Note that, if one fixes the gravitational constant G0 to $\displaystyle G_0 = 1.257920328 * 10^{27}\, {m^3 \over {kg s^2}}$ one obtains this: $\displaystyle {{G_0 m} \over {k_0 Q}} = K^{-1} {\mu_0}^{-1} = {\mu_0}^{-1}$ $\displaystyle c^2 = 4 \pi {{G_0 m} \over Q} K = 4 \pi {{G_0 m} \over Q}$ where μ0 is the vacuum permeability (magnetic) constant and K = 1 C/m. One can now obtain k and Q for the U1 scale (Solar System): $\displaystyle {{k_1 {Q_1}^2} \over {G_1 {m_1}^2}} = {{k_0 {Q_0}^2} \over {G_0 {m_0}^2}}$ $\displaystyle k_1 = {{k_0 {Q_0}^2} \over {G_0 {m_0}^2}} G_1 {{c_1}^4 \over {16 \pi^2 {G_1}^2}} {K_1}^{-2} = {{k_0 {Q_0}^2} \over {G_0 {m_0}^2}} {{c_1}^4 \over {16 \pi^2 G_1}}$ Using G1 = 6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2 and previously obtained c1 = 2.930445979 * 106 m/s: $\displaystyle k_1 = 3.95052951 * 10^{38}\, {Nm^2 \over C^2}$ $\displaystyle Q_1 = 10001.92779151\, C \approx 1 * 10^4\, C$ Ranges on U1 scale: $\displaystyle {M_\gamma}_1 - {M_n}_1 = {\hbar_1 \over c_1} {1 \over r} \ln{\biggl ({{G_1\, m_1} \over {k_1\, Q_1}}\biggr )}$ $\displaystyle \hbar_1 = {{h_m}_2 \over 2\pi} = 7.95683841 * 10^{40}\, Js$ Using m1 = 1.02413 * 1026 kg and previously obtained Mn1 = 1.663337576 * 10-26 kg, Mγ1 = 9.10938356 * 10-31 kg, the distance where two forces become equal, r = 1.0059686 * 1062 m ≈ 1 * 1062 m. Note that, if one fixes m1 to $\displaystyle m_1 = 0.99026311 * 10^{26}\, kg \approx 1 * 10^{26}\, kg$ one obtains this: $\displaystyle {{G_1\, m_1} \over {k_1\, Q_1}} = K_2\, M_p = M_p$ where Mp = 1.6726218977 * 10-27 kg is the mass of a standard proton. Range of U1 electric force: $\displaystyle {\lambda_{\gamma}}_1 = {\hbar_1 \over c_1} {1 \over {M_\gamma}_1} = 2.98069699 * 10^{64}\, m \approx 3 * 10^{64}\, m$ Range of U1 gravitational force: $\displaystyle {\lambda_n}_1 = {\hbar_1 \over c_1} {1 \over {M_n}_1} = {\hbar_1 \over {5 * 10^{-20}}} = 1.63239937 * 10^{60}\, m$ Here, unit m (meter) is unscaled, for a properly scaled metric the ranges are equal to ranges on U0 scale. Relation of G variation to Sun's discontinuities Equalizing the strength of electric and gravitational force between two free particles (positron and electron), disregarding small mass of carrier particles: $\displaystyle k_0 {Q^2 \over r^2} = G {M^2 \over r^2}$ $\displaystyle {1 \over 4\pi\varepsilon_0} Q^2 = G M^2$ yields the following value for the gravitational constant G: $\displaystyle G = {k_0 Q^2 \over M^2} = 2.78025476 * 10^{32}\, {m^3 \over kgs^2}$ k0 = 8.9875517873681764 * 109 Nm2/C2
Q = 1.60217733 * 10-19 C
M = 9.10938356 * 10-31 kg
In CR, gravitational constant G changes with scale. But it is also modified with neutralization of EM force, when k0 decreases, while G increases. This enables the gravitational force to be, at least in some cases, a prevailing force in the atom, rather than EM force. I have previously calculated G relative to a 10C atom nucleus mass obtained through current Sun mass, the constant G using rest mass of 10C nucleus is: $\displaystyle G_0 = v^2 {r \over M} = 1.29864745 * 10^{27}\, {m^3 \over kgs^2}$ v = 5.5550351679 * 105 m/s
r = 70 * 10-12 m
M = 1.663337576 * 10-26 kg
where m, v and r are components of the orbital angular momentum of the outermost electron. Calculated G (G0) is now only 5 orders of magnitude smaller than G required for gravity to be equal in strength to EM force between an electron and a positron. But instead of G increasing, one might assume that k0 decreases by 5 orders of magnitude, or more precisely by this amount: $\displaystyle \Delta k = {G \over G_0} = 2.140884935 * 10^5$ Thus, the increase of G (ΔG) of Earth's inner core maximum, after extraction, neutralization and collapse to current radii, is equal to Δk. I have previously calculated that this G has increased to 5.731534632 * 10-6 m3/kgs2, which is, relative to surface G (6.674 * 10-11 m3/kgs2), an increase of: $\displaystyle \Delta G = {5.731534632 * 10^{-6} \over 6.674 * 10^{-11}} = 8.58785531 * 10^4$ which is also the ratio between imaginary mass M (5.97 * 1024 kg) and real mass m (6.95 * 1019 kg) of Earth from some reference frames.
If gravitational constant G measured on the surface of the Earth (surface G) is relative to standard scale (U0), proper G for U1 scale must be different.
But what was the initial G of Earth's inner core? According to above hypothesis, it should have been: $\displaystyle G_i = {5.731534632 * 10^{-6} \over {\Delta k}} = 2.677180141 * 10^{-11}\, {m^3 \over kgs^2}$ If Earth's core has been extracted from the Sun, as hypothesized, one can get it's original radius using this constant: $\displaystyle r = \sqrt{{G_i M} \over g} = 440784499.323\, m \approx 440785\, km$ M = img mass of the Sun = 1.988500 * 1030 kg
g = gravity of the maximum = 274 m/s2
This agrees very well with the hypothesis of entanglement of discontinuities with inner planetary orbitals: $\displaystyle {r \over R} \approx {r_{\scriptscriptstyle E} \over r_{\scriptscriptstyle M}} \approx {2 \over 3}$ R = Sun radius = 695700 km
rE = Earth orbital = 149.6 * 106 km
rM = Mars orbital = 227.92 * 106 km
The discontinuity (r/R = 0.63) is evident through the profile of rotational velocities of the Sun:
Sun rotation rates
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:
  1. it's position is not permanent and it moves between discontinuities, corresponding to the planet with ongoing neurogenesis,
  2. possible multiple active discontinuities and associated tachoclines in the past, initially at maximum, or
  3. current position is the place of birth of all planetary embryos (cores).
The 2nd hypothesis here is most plausible - the tachocline is active as long as the magnetic dipole of the corresponding planet is active (the two phenomena are synchronized). However, if the tachocline is localized to 0.71R and distance between the tachocline and the discontinuity is scaled from Earth (distance between the charge radius and gravitational maximum), the associated discontinuity is at: $\displaystyle r = {1206115 \over 1705704} 0.71 R = 0.5 R \approx {1 \over \sqrt{2}} 0.71R$ which would be a discontinuity associated with Venus. In that case the tachocline is the location of a charge radius associated with a 0.5R gravitational maximum and, assuming equal g-factor, such charge radius should also be located at: $\displaystyle r = {1705704 \over 1206115} R = 983868.265\, km \approx \sqrt{2} R$ In this case though, the g-factor of a neutron might be more appropriate, yielding r = 1.111507303 * 106 km (and a mirror at 444533.257 km = 0.639R). Note that the 0.71R tachocline is 3/4 of 0.94R, which according to Fig. 38 seems to be another discontinuity or a fossilized initial Sun radius. Such fossil is also visible at 0.75R, which should be a discontinuity in 4p6n state. The 0.63R (2/3 of 0.94R) is also a fossil, as the current location associated with Earth is 0.66R.
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 relativistic energy relative to CMB, so initial radius at 0.94R implies that surface radius changes proportionally: $\displaystyle R = {R_0 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}$ for previously obtained c1 = 2.93 * 106 m/s and v = vs + vp = 996 km/s, gives R0 = 654271.142 km = 0.94 R.
Note 1:

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

Note 2:

Although GM changes proportionally to R, differential rotation can shift discontinuities. Effectively, for the polar regions of the Sun, change is proportional with R2: $\displaystyle R^2 = {{R_0}^2 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over {c_1}^2}}}$ This gives R0 = 0.97 R, and, according to Fig. 38, it is indeed the correct value for polar regions.
Note that the same discontinuity (0.97 R) can be obtained is one assumes that gravity of Sun's surface maximum is invariant to changes in energy levels (Earth's maximum at inner core radius does suggest this to be true, which also implies equal species of the maximum for these two, if one is characterized by its gravity). In that case, with the loss of accumulated CMB kinetic energy, radius of the Sun decreases to 0.97 R. If this discontinuity is correlated with the energy of real mass, and if decrease in radius has passed 0.97 R in all regions apart from high polar region, the collapse of the surface maximum to 0.97 R should be imminent. Note also that with the end of 1st order cycle, collapse to 0.97 R may be intermediary to larger collapse (up to core radius).
Note that, taking the shift of 0.03 R into account, 0.63 R discontinuity becomes 0.66 R. Note also that orbits of planets have been shifted equally, as shown in Table 36.
planetdistance from the Sun r [109 m]r/rMinitial r/rMshift
Mercury57.910.250.28-0.03
Venus108.210.470.5-0.03
Earth149.60.660.63+0.03
Mars227.9210.97+0.03
Table 36: Shifting of planetary orbits
The Earth has thus moved from 0.63 rM to 0.66 rM, while Venus moved equally but in opposite direction, from 0.5 to 0.47. Mars moved from 0.97 to 1 rM and Mercury too moved accordingly.
Gyro-magnetic ratio and its correlation with Earth/Moon The gyro-magnetic ratio of a particle is the ratio of its magnetic moment to its angular momentum: $\displaystyle \gamma = {\mu \over L}$ With the assumption that mass and charge have equal momentum: $\displaystyle \gamma = {\mu \over L} = {q \over 2m}$ where q, m are charge and mass of the particle, respectively. Measurements show that this is not valid for quantum particles such as electron. Thus, a dimensionless factor ge (g-factor) was introduced: $\displaystyle \gamma = {q \over 2m} g_e$ The factor has been attributed to quantum effects which do not exist in classical (intuitive) reality - point particles with intrinsic magnetic moment (no rotation). The notion of point particles having any properties is in itself problematic, let alone existence of different point particles with different properties. However, if such particles could exist, due to scale invariance, they would have to exist on bigger scales too. No such thing has ever been observed in reality - all magnetic fields are produced by moving charges of objects having a real radius. Thus, intrinsic magnetic momentum is not intuitive, but intrinsic rotation of charge (producing the momentum) at finite radius greater than 0 is. In CR there is also no intrinsic coupling of matter and gravity, and since charge field is a polarized gravitational field, the g-factor can be explained simply by a difference in distribution (or angular momenta) of gravitational mass and charge mass within the particle, preserving the intuitive concepts of reality. Complete relativity not only allows speeds faster than light (photon mass is scale dependent) but implies such speeds must exist at some scale, thus the required superluminal rotation of charge (implied at certain radii) in particles such as an electron is not an issue either. The absolute (invariant) speed limit is not a dimensionless constant and thus is counter-intuitive in scale invariant reality (relativity), but, in this case, the required speed would be valid even in the context of General Relativity (charge is at rest relative to rotating space) if it would incorporate scale invariant curvature of space. Magnetic moment µ and angular momentum L: $\displaystyle \mu = IA = {{q v_c} \over {2 \pi r_c}} \times \pi {r_c}^2$ $\displaystyle L = m v_m \times r_m$ where vc, rc are the charge orbital velocity and radius, respectively, and vm, rm are the mass orbital velocity and radius, respectively. The factor ge is thus: $\displaystyle g_e = {{v_c \times r_c} \over {v_m \times r_m}}$ Being dimensionless, it should be scale invariant relative to particle flavor. This means that the value of ge for electron and positron is equal to ge of Earth, as Earth is a large scale Dirac fermion equivalent (obviously not a point particle unless taken relatively), albeit in an environment where its fermionic nature is effectively annihilated. Just like the electron, Earth consists of intrinsic charge and mass and accumulated mass due to neutralization. The intrinsic energy is concentrated within the inner and outer core. Assuming charge radius is in the outer core where gravity equals gc = 137 m/s2 and gravitational mass radius is the inner core gravitational maximum gm (274 m/s2), with equal rotation period (and angle between v and r vectors): $\displaystyle g_e = {{v_c \times r_c} \over {v_m \times r_m}} = {{r_c}^2 \over {r_m}^2} = {g_m \over g_c} = 2$ Note that it was assumed that mass is not a solid body with radius rm but, like the charge, a particle or a stream of particles forming a ring at rm. This is a valid assumption since this mass is not real mass, but vacuum energy (imaginary mass) which, in case of charged naked maxima, forms a ring rather than sphere surface.
Mass and charge radius of charged bodies
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: $\displaystyle g = \sum_{k=1}^n \vec{g_k} = \sum {G_0 M_0 \over {\vec{dr}}^2}$ In case of equatorial and polar gravity vector components parallel to surface cancel out. Equatorial gravity is thus: $\displaystyle g = \sum_{k=1}^n {{G_0 M_0} \over {\biggl [R_e - r_m \cos{\bigl (k {2\pi \over n} \bigr )}\biggr ]}^2}$ where Re is the equatorial radius. Polar gravity: $\displaystyle g = \sum_{k=1}^n {{G_0 M_0} \over {R_p}^2} = n {{G_0 M_0} \over {R_p}^2}$ where Rp is the polar radius. Deriving G0M0 product with equatorial gravity fixed to 9.798 m/s2 and calculating polar gravity, for n >= 5, gives 9.34 m/s2. This is smaller than measured, so the Earth must be a composite of 2 positrons (or positron equivalents), as hypothesized.
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.
With 2 particles in the same state, energy splits into two levels:
Mass and charge radius of 2 charged bodies
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: $\displaystyle \Delta \varphi = \sin^{-1} {1 \over \sqrt{3}} = 35.2643896827547^{\circ}$ Charges are thus separated by 2*35.2643896827547° = 70.5287793655094° (two magnetic north poles on Jupiter are separated by this angle, confirming it's 2e configuration). Confirmation of this configuration of Earth comes from the state of the Moon (Luna) and non-alignment of Earth's north and south magnetic poles. Initial total obliquity of Luna relative to Earth's equator is 23.44° + 5.14° + 6.68° = 35.26°, equal to Δφ. The Moon orbits one of Earth's positrons and its obliquity shows that it is built around one of the collapsed gravitational maxima of this positron. One can thus expect this positron to have smaller contribution to gravity and charge of Earth. Further splitting of energy levels due to carbon configuration can also be expected, so number of quanta should be 6 in one positron and 5 in the other (1 is in the Moon). It appears that, in the collapse, 6.68° of Luna's obliquity to Earth's equator has been exchanged for obliquity to Luna's own orbital plane, this can be due to influence from another body, but, since the loss of one quantum causes asymmetry in charge distribution it is more likely that this is the exact amount by which the inner positron decreased its angle to Earth's equator. Thus, one can expect the orbital plane of this positron to be aligned with the orbital plane of the Moon. This can then be interpreted as redistribution of charges on the plane, rather than loss. The Moon is thus the reason why Earth still has a dipole magnetic field - with symmetric anti-aligned positron spins the magnetic dipole would be cancelled. Bigger moons and/or an increased number of moons (with distinct gravitational wells) of outer planets with stronger magnetic fields are thus no surprise and indicate core asymmetry if the spins are anti-aligned (note that a symmetric core does not indicate a planet has no moons, rather that it has the same number of them on each orbital plane). But rather than the extraction of the Moon core from Earth, in the current, progressive evolution a reverse scenario is more plausible. Even if the first positron was not fragmented from the beginning, massive extinctions that happened on Earth suggest the second one arrived quantum by quantum on a periodic basis. There were 5 massive extinctions and there are 5 quanta of the positron in the core, 1 in the Moon. As the mammal brain has 6 layers, with 6th layer sparsely populated, the theory of neurogenesis is strongly aligned with this hypothesis. Note that the sparse neuron cell population of the 6th layer now indicates an underdeveloped layer - the direct cause for this is the distance of the Moon.
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 a body into new species.
Paper revised/updated. Paper revised. Paper revised. Added chapter Conclusion. Conclusion The aim of this paper was to provide good evidence for Complete Relativity, which, I am convinced, it has succeeded in. Indeed, the analysis reveals plenty of correlation and equivalence between small scale and large scale systems that cannot be easily dismissed as coincidence. Strong correlation of Earth's mantle layers with major extinction events is a strong evidence for planetary neurogenesis. The existence of a discontinuity at 100 km depth even suggests that the formation of a mantle discontinuity precedes surface extinction. This shows that surface extinctions are programmed events, which, however, is not surprising for a neurogenesis of an evolving life-form (one would expect for a brain layer to be at least roughly formed before neurons migrate to that layer). Some questions remain, however, and there are predictions and hypotheses that require additional experiments and observation to be confirmed or refuted.

References


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