The Solar System

Nature and Mechanics

Note that an ¹⁰C isotope is unstable on standard (U₀) scale, with a half-life of ~19.3 seconds. Its apparent relative stability on U₁ scale (from our perspective) is mainly a result of time dilation associated with increase in scale, different nature of dominant forces, but also due to properly scaled relativistic energy. The U_n scales here represent discrete vertical energy levels and are defined in CR. U₀ corresponds to the scale of standard atoms, U₁ is the scale of planetary systems, while U_-1 is the scale that is orders of magnitude smaller than U₀ and represents the scale of particles (gravitons) forming space associated with U₁ particles. Particles of U_-1 scale are unobservable by us and may be considered virtual, however, they can be involved in the production of detectable particles (such as standard photons). A different scale generally corresponds to different rest mass of particles, but also to different localization radii.

Obviously, one should be familiar with the tenets of CR in order to fully understand this paper. Some terms used in the paper are described in greater detail in CR, but may lack description here. Apart from the "graviton", some other terms used may be defined differently in CR than they are conventionally defined. Although some of this should be intuitively clear, the reader is advised to consult CR for definitions of these terms (e.g., gravitational maxima, gravitons, vertical energy levels) in order to avoid confusion.

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

Note that, in CR, elementary particles are not absolutely elementary, reference frames will exist where existence of constituent particles is apparent and real, although such reference frames may be inaccessible to the observer.

Note that, per the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions, S₂ has to be on a different local orbital. Note also that, in reality, there generally exists a difference between the spin momentum of mass and the spin momentum of charge (the source of magnetic moment). E.g., neutral mass and charge can be localized on different orbitals. This difference is reflected in the g-factor, the term used in calculation of the magnetic moment. Magnetic moment is proportional to the spin momentum but it has a different unit (involving other terms, apart from the dimensionless g-factor).

Naturally, electrons and positrons here should be considered as relative electrons and positrons - not only has charge been exchanged for gravity, the associated gravitons may have settled in different mass eigenstates at the time of inflation, including tau and muon states. While certain properties should be conserved, the mechanism of charge-mass exchange also allows for fractional charge exchanges in transformational events (e.g., transformation of an electron into a down quark). In general, thus, outer planets may represent vertically excited negative charges, while inner planets represent vertically excited positive charges - or vice versa (in case of anti-matter counterparts). Relativity in positrons here may even be generally greater - they may typically represent quarks (but may also represent a physical interpretation of electron holes, which are usually considered as quasiparticles). It should also be possible for any of these to be paired with neutral fermions (e.g., neutrinos). All these possibilities will be explored later.

Here, 1e or 2e should not be interpreted as states holding 1×e or 2×e charges, respectively (where e is equal to the amount of charge of an electron) - the states may hold particles with fractional charges (e.g., quarks). When it comes to regions (orbitals) dominated by charged particles (positrons/electrons), the configuration 1e should be interpreted as a state holding 1 charged particle (whatever its charge), while 2e should be interpreted as a state holding a pair of charged particles (whatever their charges are). However, charged particles can also be paired with neutral particles (e.g., neutrinos) - at least occasionally, if not regularly. If neutral particles are localized, they may fill local energy levels (associated with the orbiting particle, not the nucleus). In case of regions dominated by neutral particles (neutrinos/anti-neutrinos), the configuration 1e should be interpreted as a state holding 1 neutral particle, while 2e should be interpreted as a state holding 2 neutral particles.

In case of the Solar System, inner dwarfs (anti-neutrinos) or their remnants (discarded real mass) here are: Vesta, Ceres, Pallas, Hygiea (assumed to correspond to the number of neutrons in ¹⁰C). Possible primary neutrinos (outer dwarfs) are: Orcus, Pluto, Salacia, Haumea, Quaoar, Makemake (corresponding to the number of protons in ¹⁰C). Note that, in equilibrium, there should be 6 primary neutrinos present, however, some could be grouped together in 2e states, just like in case of planets (6 dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt may not all be primary neutrinos then, and some could be dead remnants - representing possible neutrino energy levels). Note that, if positive charges are interpreted as electron holes, [anti-]neutrinos in between positive and negative charges could be interpreted as insulating barrier layers commonly present in Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs) of excitons (electron-hole pairs). In that case, for each pair, a distinct neutrino (barrier) should exist. This is indeed the case in the Solar System - in between 4 inner planets and 4 outer planets, there are 4 dwarf planets (or remnants). Now, the Solar System may represent a large scale Bose-Einstein condensate or its relative equivalent, but that does not imply that this condensate has been created by some large scale intelligence (it cannot be ruled out though). Such electron-hole combinations with barriers (relative event horizons) are probably common in atoms, note just in ultra-cooled atoms. Note that the high alignment (two-dimensionality) of orbitals also goes in favour of a BEC of excitons.

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

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

Additional masses may also be bound to the system, however, orbitals of these should probably lie beyond the primary components, unless these are smaller homogeneous/undifferentiated masses not coupled to large scale gravitons (such as smaller asteroids and comets).

The values of constants used here are values listed in chapter \chr_constants.

Note that the value used for the ¹⁰C charge radius in equations above is the covalent radius. Using covalent radius produces much better results than using van der Waals radius, suggesting that the Solar System was inflated as a binary system. This should not be surprising, considering that 85% of stars exist in binary systems or systems with three or more stars, and about half of all Sun-like stars are binaries. Evidence suggests that all stars form initially as binaries, and evidence exists suggesting that the Sun indeed likely had a binary companion at the time of formation. However, van der Waals radius doesn't imply larger orbital radii, only wider probability distribution for non-localized outermost electrons. The outermost electron in a non-bound atom can still be localized to the radius equal to the covalent radius.

If the energy is stored mostly in the Sun, this would imply non-homogeneous storage of kinetic energy as gravitational potential - proportional to the scale of the large scale gravitons. However, it is also possible that this energy was accumulated before the birth of planets. Most likely, this energy was accumulated with the inflation of the seed gravitons. Due to condensation at the point of inflation, gravitons were grouped, probably into 3 main groups, one representing the superposition of nucleons, other neutrinos and the third electrons. In each of these groups 6% of additional energy was accumulated. However, with the decoherence of gravitons, the added kinetic energy was not redistributed, it rather remained attached to the largest graviton in the group. Thus, the energy added to the nuclear group remains in the Sun, while the energy added to the electrons should be concentrated in Jupiter (this will indeed be shown to be the case - assuming that the Jupiter is interpreted as a tau electron, 6% of its energy is kinetic). Of course, the Sun loses energy over time but lost mass is assumed to be on the order of 10²⁷ kg, significantly lower than hypothesized relativistic energy, so this was not taken into account. 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. Interestingly, the available dust and gas in the interstellar medium of the Milky Way also represents 6% of the total mass of the galaxy. As noted in CR, this correspondence may not be a coincidence. Self-similarity is common in nature. Thus, it is possible that only 6% of the Sun mass is real mass (standard matter). If the rest of the mass in the Sun (which should be in the form of large scale and small scale dark matter) is not being annihilated and converted into standard matter, the available fusion fuel will be limited to these 6%. This is explored more later.

At first, it might seem that this calculation cannot be valid since both velocities are relative to CMB and v_p should not be included in calculation. However, the obtained c₁ is confirmed later. This puts certain constraints on the Sun's evolution, suggesting that the Sun's graviton (or, superposition of large scale gravitons) was, with initial inflation, accelerated to 628+368 km/s (996 km/s) in the same direction as the local galactic group (possibly the velocity of the Milky Way was equal to the velocity of the local galactic group at the time), then decelerated to 368 km/s, however, not losing the acquired energy (it is yet to lose it on U₁ scale). This energy conservation becomes plausible with hypothesized duality of energy transition taken into account - on one scale transition is quantized, on the other continuous. Here the energy of the graviton is quantized and requires certain time to collapse to lower energy level. Indeed, the Sun is continuously losing energy in the form of electro-magnetic radiation, but the spent fusion fuel remains inside and may be expelled all at once in a bigger amount (this quantization of [the loss of] kinetic energy is confirmed later, where it is shown that the calculated kinetic energy is exactly equal to the energy of a single excited large scale neutron). Note that the spent fusion fuel so far is on the order of the acquired kinetic energy (this is calculated in the chapter \chr_quant_sun_en_rep). Associating this fusion fuel with the acquired energy and the Sun's large scale graviton, it would be reasonable to assume that its collapse [to a lower level] would occur once fuel spent in fusion becomes equal to the acquired relativistic mass (ΔM) - when all of this mass will be expelled. This is further correlated with the hypothesized cycling of the Solar System (chapter \chr_the_cycles). However, alternatives exist for the proposed kinetic mechanism. Another possibility is that the accumulated energy corresponds to the current speed (368 km/s), but the mass of Neptune has been decreased instead, from 1.08 × 10²⁶ kg to 1.02 × 10²⁶ kg (current mass). The actual solution may be a superposition of the two. Assuming that the initial Neptune mass was 1.05 × 10²⁶ kg (not a randomly chosen value, it is the average of the two but also, as shown later, the rest mass the Neptune should have had assuming it is a muon electron equivalent), the acquired kinetic energy becomes 7.124 × 10²⁸ kg. To obtain the same c₁, a velocity v of 777.250 km/s is needed. Interestingly, assuming part of this velocity is equal to the current Milky Way's velocity relative to the CMB (552.2±5.5 km/s) or to the escape velocity at Sun's position (550.9^+32.4/-22.1 km/s), the other part becomes equal to 225.1±5.5 or 226.4^+32.4/-22.1 km/s, respectively, suggesting it is equal to the Sun's average orbital velocity (230±3 km/s adopted, 228±2 km/s mean weighted) in Milky Way. In this case then, the accumulated energy may not be the energy relative to the CMB (or at least not completely), rather energy acquired from local space (associated with Sagittarius A*). The most plausible scenario here probably involves the Sun's graviton inflating from a region closer to the galaxy centre, reaching maximum velocity of 777.250 km/s (or 996 km/s, depending on interpretation), slowing down due to attractive central force and converting the momentum to the angular orbital momentum in the process.

2025.11.27

The velocity of the Solar System relative to CMB has been inferred from the measured large-scale CMB dipole, however, recent alternative measurements have revealed a significant tension (under the assumption of validity of the Cosmological Principle - large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe), where the velocity of the Solar System relative to CMB has been found to be 3.67±0.49 times bigger than the CMB-inferred value. With the most recent CMB-inferred value being 369.82±0.11 km/s, this value is centred about 1357.24 km/s. This is much closer to the value of v (~996 km/s) required to produce the c₁ of 2.93 × 10⁶ m/s. Interestingly, subtracting the CMB-inferred value from the new value, one obtains 987.42±181.5 km/s. It is, thus, possible again to obtain the c₁ of ~2.93 × 10⁶ m/s. However, one must now explain the subtraction (instead of addition). The most appealing explanation is bias in measurements, a bias that is in value equal to the CMB-inferred velocity. If this bias is real then the complex kinematic pathways for the accumulated kinetic energy are not required - the velocity v would simply be equal to the current Solar System velocity (implying that all kinetic energy was acquired during acceleration from zero to that value). Here, the most likely source for the bias is the assumption of the validity of the Cosmological Principle. Alternative explanation is that the amount of velocity equal to the CMB-inferred value did not contribute to the locally real kinetic energy. This is possible, for example, if that part of the total velocity is a result of momentum conservation coupled with mass ejection.

2025.12.20

Is there a more convincing solution? Yes! A solution that gives the rest mass of Jupiter exactly equal to the scaled tau particle rest mass implies that img and real parts of the kinetic energy mass are equal (see chapter \chr_the_six_per_diff_in_cr), where Jupiter has lost one part and kept the other. Assuming the same is true for the Sun, the equation produces the proper value of c₁ using the recently obtained velocity of 1357.24 km/s: $\displaystyle c_1 = {v \over \sqrt{1 - {M^2 \over {\left(M_\odot + \Delta M\right)}^2}}} = {v \over \sqrt{1 - {{\left(0.94M_{\odot}\right)}^2 \over {\left(1.06 M_\odot \right)}^2}}} = 2.93 \times 10^6\, m/s$ v = velocity of the Solar System against CMB = 1357.24 km/s
M = obtained Sun rest mass = 1.870062271 × 10³⁰ kg ≈ 0.94 M_⊙
ΔM ≈ 0.06 M_⊙ This is the most elegant solution, not requiring any complex or questionable kinematics. Thus, since the formation, the Sun has lost the amount of energy equal to ΔM (6% of its current total mass). Its velocity has either remained the same (implying linear momentum was not conserved) - as suggested by the recent measurement, or has decreased by the amount equal to the CMB-inferred value (conserving momentum).

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 could be 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 (the hypothesized scale of space forming particles of U₁ systems). Note also that the maximum speed (c_n) depends on pressure and density of space and it is generally not equal to the standard speed of light. Here thus, even though the term speed of light may be used, c₁ should be understood as maximum speed of U₁ scale information, including U₁ particles (e.g., living stars) in the observable universe.

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. The chapter is not relevant for the understanding of matter in any other chapter and, unless the reader is specifically interested in the EH operator, may be skipped.

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

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

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

Particles are inflated to larger scale generally through annihilation of particles of smaller scale. In this case, these should be U_-1.electrons/positrons (half-photons). The product of density and volume on the left of the equation (2.337660431 × 10^-72 kg) should then represent a mass roughly equal to photon rest mass, localized to the outermost electron radius in ¹⁰C in the Solar System equivalent state. Indeed, it is roughly equal to the previously calculated photon rest mass in CR (1.821876712 × 10^-72 kg). Using momentum conservation, one can now calculate this mass relative to the standard (conventionally presumed absolute) reference frame, where its speed is limited to c = c₀ = 2.99792458 × 10⁸ m/s: $\displaystyle p = m v = m v_{\scriptsize{U_0}} = 2.337660431 \times 10^{-72}\, kg \times 3.486882257 \times 10^{26}\, {m \over s} = m_0\, c_0$ $\displaystyle m_0 = {p \over c_0} = {p \over c} = 2.719 \times 10^{-54}\, kg$ or, using photon rest mass obtained in CR: $\displaystyle m_0 = 2.119 \times 10^{-54}\, kg$ This mass is in agreement with localized photon mass obtained from recent experiments, and should be interpreted as photon rest mass localized to U₀ scale. It should then be noted that, while the obtained mass (≈2.34 × 10^-72 kg) is realistic as rest mass, the velocity v_U0 may be not, in which case it should be limited by the standard information speed limit (c). In that case, the term on the left must be relativistic. The relativistic energy is then equal to: $\displaystyle {m \over {\sqrt{1 - {{v_{U_0}}^2 \over {c_0}^2}}}} {v_{U_0}}^2 = \rho_{vac} \times {4 \over 3} \pi ({R_{U_0}})^3 {1 \over {\sqrt{1 - {{v_{U_0}}^2 \over {c_0}^2}}}} {v_{U_0}}^2 = 2.842208873 \times 10^{-19}\, J$ With c₀ = c, v_U0 ≈ c. However, CR postulates higher speed limits on smaller scales so the actual speed may be indeed as high as previously calculated (and obtained photon mass in the standard reference frame - through momentum conservation, which is equal to the experimentally obtained localized photon mass, is strong evidence for this). But this is not necessarily incompatible with GR. The speed would be valid in GR assuming it is achieved with the transformation of most of the energy into a warp bubble. Assume now the inverse scenatio, deflation of the standard electron to the U_-1 scale. Initially, the bubble wall thickness would be relatively infinitesimal. With produced acceleration, the wall is expanding and the process stops once the wall thickness reaches ≈ 3.8 × 10^-16 m and its energy density becomes equal to vacuum energy density (initially, the density is lower = negative). What's left is a region of effectively flat space orbiting at the speed of ≈3.5 × 10²⁶ m/s. After all, the energy of standard (U₀) particles is sufficient to create a warp bubble of that size - assuming spherically symmetric bubble with a radius equal to the upper limit for standard electron's radius (1 × 10^-22 m), integrating the Alcubierre stress-energy tensor, keeping only leading-order scaling with bubble radius and wall thickness, one obtains: $\displaystyle M_{bubble} \sim {c^2 \over G} R^2 \sigma = 5.12 \times 10^{-33}\, kg$ c = standard speed of light = 2.99792458 × 10⁸ m/s
G = standard gravitational constant = 6.674 × 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2
R = radius of the bubble = 1 × 10^-22 m
σ = thickness of the bubble wall = 3.8 × 10^-16 m which is even smaller than the rest mass of the standard electron. With initial velocity of ≈5.6 × 10⁵ m/s, and momentum conserved during transformation, the end velocity becomes ≈3.5 × 10²⁶ m. Thus, while CR predicts that speed limits on smaller scales exceed the standard speed of light, this prediction is not necessarily incompatible with GR, although running couplings - also predicted by CR, may be required to preserve the classical momentum conservation. And as already shown, there's good reason to believe that momentum is classically conserved.

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

Note that, according to CR, all velocities are average values of oscillation. Therefore, in eccentric orbitals, stars can exceed c₁ at periapsis - this is not forbidden, but it should involve decoupling of the U₁ graviton from the star's real mass (speed limit for the leftover real mass is equal to the standard speed of light c), even if temporary and partial. This destabilization, however, may result in loss of some real mass - which could then accrete about the central supermassive black hole. On the other hand, depending on local conditions and frequency of recoupling, the lost mass could be negligible, and this periodic recoupling of gravitons with real mass could provide long-term stability to these objects and their orbits. Indeed, studies have found that the objects and the orbits near the Sagittarius A* are unexpectedly stable. With a sufficiently high resolution one may even be able to detect the predicted pulsation of these objects (they should expand/deform with the decoupling and contract with recoupling).

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

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

The primary question then is - is the gravitational maximum currently located at 428.838 AU? And is there a standard supermassive black hole (SBH) at all in the centre of the Milky Way [or any other galaxy]? In other words, is every supermassive black hole simply a graviton of larger scale, with an escape velocity greater than the speed of standard light? In that interpretation, the profile of the Milky Way galaxy suggests that the velocity of a maximum changes with a change in energy level roughly by 10ⁿ (where n is an integer). Thus, wherever the speed of stars is close to 2.9 × 10ⁿ m/s, large scale gravitons may still be there. However, assuming the maximum had collapsed to the radius of the theorized supermassive black hole (≈0.1 AU radius), shouldn't the large scale gravitons of the Sun and other living stars conform, just like their coupled real mass, to the speed limit of c = c₀ = 2.99792458 × 10⁸ m/s, not 2.93 × 10⁶ m/s? No. If the graviton is rotating faster than c₁ (2.93 × 10⁶ m/s), it is on a different vertical energy level (scale) and it is not entangled with large scale gravitons of the stars in such way (scale) that its rotation represents the speed limit for these gravitons. After all, the gravitational maximum at 428.838 AU does appear to be a black hole for living stars and other large scale objects of the Milky Way. One can now ask why did the change in the vertical energy level occur? Well, probably because once the rotation reached (or was close to) speed c₁, the graviton collapsed to the current size of the supermassive black hole - allowing the spin velocity to increase. This can be interpreted as localization - where the spin momentum decoupled from the orbital momentum. Note that, even if the SBH is rotating much faster than c₁, it is probably still orbiting galactic centre at c₁.

Alternatively, [some] discontinuities may have been present even before inflation. How to explain latitude variable rotation of the Sun and gas giants? No special explanation seems required since the outer layers of these bodies are not solid, however, this may involve multiple gravitational maxima, corresponding to the different values of the m_l quantum number in QM spherical harmonics. Note that the periods between major magnetic reversals are correlated with the amount of differential rotation. The reversals could be correlated with the inversion of spin at the gravitational maxima.

In case of dipole waves, absorption will induce separation of charges and [at least] a partial collapse of the spherical form of the graviton into a two-dimensional ring-like form. However, absorption of large scale waves is not the only way of induction of temporary disturbances. Collision of bodies with larger asteroids may also be correlated with graviton excitation.

Note that there is a discontinuity in the seismic profile of the Sun at 0.63R_⊙. This is where the Sun's angular velocity starts differentiating with latitude (it rotates as a solid from 0.63R_⊙ down to the core). Note also that multiplication of the velocity inverse with the areal velocity having an integer value of 10¹², yields a value [almost?] equal to the current radius of the Sun: $\begin{aligned}\displaystyle { 1 \over v_c } \times 10^{12} = { 1 \over 2 \pi r_c f_c } \times 10^{12} &= { 1 \over { 2 \pi \times 0.2 \times 695700 \times 1644 \times 10^{-9} } } \times 10^9 \\ &= 695771 \text{ } km \approx R_{\odot}\end{aligned}$ suggesting that this should be satisifed: $\displaystyle v_c \times R_{\odot} = 1 \times 10^{12}\, {m^2 \over s}$ or, in terms of the areal velocity of the core: $\displaystyle v_a = { 1 \over 2 } v_c r_c = {{{R_{\odot}}^2 \pi} \over {5^2 t_c}} = 1 \times 10^{11}\, {m^2 \over s}$ A hint of deeper entanglement between the Solar core and the surface (or rest) radius, also suggesting radii quantization (rest radius being exactly 5 times the core radius) which should not be surprising if these radii represent energy levels of large scale (U₁) gravitons. A value of R_⊙ which would produce a result equal to the input radius, in the first equation above, is 695735496 m. Should this value be interpreted as the real Sun's rest radius? If so, assuming the Sun's outer graviton collapses once the Sun expands to this radius, with the rate of expansion of 2.35 cm per year and assuming the current radius is ~695700 km, there would be about 1.5 million years left until next collapse (although expansion is probably accelerated near the end of the cycle). In any case, assuming 1st order periods of 4.25 - 4.5 billion years, a rate of expansion significantly greater than about 1 cm per year would be suggesting end of the cycle is near. This estimate of time to collapse is based on the assumption that fusion fuel in the Sun represents 6% of total mass (as calculated in a later chapter, it takes 4.25 - 4.5 billion years for the Sun to spend that much fuel). Once this fuel is spent, the graviton has to collapse, and since the Sun is expanding as it is burning fuel, time to collapse may be inferred from the radius. However, it is questionable whether the limiting radius is the one obtained above. The most recent study, for example, estimates the Sun radius at 695780±160 km, so the radius may already be larger.

Due to this time compression, the currently accepted age of Earth and the Solar System of ≈ 4.54 billion years should not be correct (at least not if units of time are considered to be fixed). The real age is later calculated here to be about 4.25 billion years. This value suggests that the system is at the end of a 1st order cycle, however, even if the value is correct, the stated values for cycle periods should be understood as averages. The length of a 1st order cycle may vary by up to a couple of hundreds of millions of years from the average.

Note that it has been recently discovered that Saturn's rings are much younger than previously thought. The age reported is ≤100-400 million years, with 10-100 million years being most likely, as already suggested by others. Due to proposed orbital disturbances, the age of rings is likely to correlate with the length of the 2nd order cycle. In that case, assuming they are recreated with each cycle, the rings should be 26 million years old at most (± a few million years). This is probably also the age of hypothesized Earth's rings during Ordovician. Interestingly, cosmic-ray exposure ages of chondrites (86% of all meteorites) are less than 50 million years. Exposure ages of achondrites, in example, cluster between 20 and 30 million years. This too certainly could be correlated with the hypothesized 2nd order cycle. Note that typical origin of achondrites are differentiated bodies (planets, moons and dwarf planets) which, unlike small asteroids, should have a distinct large scale graviton coupled to real mass. Thus, ejection, reformation or breakup of achondrites (resetting exposure) could be synchronized with collapses of gravitons of these bodies with the end of a 2nd order cycle, while additional collisions and orbital disturbances could be sourced in the collapse of Jupiter's graviton(s). Gravitons can aid both creation and destruction of rings. A delocalized graviton can capture a nearby body and ensure it collides with a planet. Suppose an asteroid's trajectory crosses the radius of a delocalized graviton. If the graviton energy is higher than the energy of the asteroid it may cause a breakup of the asteroid which would then result in the formation of rings about the graviton radius. Subsequent graviton collapse (localization towards the planet centre) will destabilize the rings and cause bombardment of the planet with the debris. If, on the other hand, the energy of the graviton is lower, it may partially localize towards the asteroid before it localizes to the planet's body mass. This could also send, or nudge, the asteroid towards the collision course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that even if pressure from high temperature (kinetic energy) is balancing gravitational force, the thermodynamics (within the gas cloud) cannot break the orbital entanglement (inertia) of the gas cloud as a whole, so the atmosphere is usually orbiting or spinning, even if it doesn't follow the orbital law.

Note that the orbital radius of a sunspot pair should be equal to the radius of the maximum before collapse. Gravitational wells of planets, dwarf planets and major moons have likely been formed in the similar way to sunspots. In other words, if the Sun would be unstable (as it was during planetary formation) and contracting, the created sunspots would have a good probability to more permanently localize and form protoplanets. The radii where collapses occur should be the radii of discontinuities in the Sun (possibly limited to outer layers). Inner planets and dwarf planets have probably been created from the original Sun in this way, while outer planets may have been created, similarly, from the original Jupiter precursor (the moons of outer planets then could have been similarly created from the parent planet). The Sun itself has probably been created similarly, during the contraction of Milky Way's overmassive object(s) that collapsed into the supermassive black hole, as proposed already. The equivalent of sunspots bathing in Sun's plasma, in standard atomic nuclei, could also be the sea of quarks, popping in and out of existence (oscillating between vertical energy levels). Note also that the size of sunspots usually ranges from the size of a moon to the size of the biggest planet (Jupiter) in the Solar System, which I do not believe is a coincidence (they can get larger occasionally, which may be interpreted as superposition of multiple pairs). Graviton sizes are quantized, however, since gravitational (and electro-magnetic) wells can be under/over-capacitated this may not be so evident (slow and continuous oscillation and transition of real mass between energy levels can also, as noted before, mask the quantization). Entanglement exists between terrestrial planets and Sun's discontinuities, or, between terrestrial gravitons and Sun's gravitons. Stars and planets can effectively communicate. Regardless of the nature of this communication (conscious or unconscious), should solar flares and coronal mass ejections towards Earth or any planet be considered as intentional rather than coincidental? Due to entanglement, certain processes or events in the Sun could be relatively mirrored inside Earth. Should it be surprising then if a particular ejection from the Sun would be synchronized with magnetic excursion (temporary magnetic field collapse) on Earth? As noted before, causality can be very relative on this scale. Of course, solar ejecta is generally not desirable for the planet (that's one reason for the very existence of Earth's magnetic field) as it harms its surface life, but surely there are exceptions. In some cases one might want to harm or transform the surface life (explosion of diversity of life has been correlated previously with increased cosmic radiation due to significantly reduced magnetic field strength). Just like humans commonly fry cancer cells with radiation, humans themselves could be fried with solar radiation, as they might have been during the Laschamp excursion, which could be interpreted as a precursor of a larger excursion (or, immune system reaction), or even a warning. In that case, it is probably not the Neanderthals that were targeted rather polarized Cro-Magnons (who probably exterminated Neanderthals during the time, possibly in fights over shelters). If that interpretation is true, considering Laschamp excursion failed to exterminate the [then perhaps still potential] disease (corrupt humanity), could an increase in radiation dosage be expected in next excursion? Possibly, with probability for that increasing with increasing extinction of wild animals and destruction of the biosphere. If this is a major extinction, as everything suggests, major sterilization probably can be expected. But it is not only causality that is relative in existing conditions on large scale, multiple interpretations are commonly valid. These will be explored later. In any case, I find it likely that the Sun periodically showers terrestrial planets with energetic ejecta (in 4th order cycles) but whether this will be synchronized with a magnetic excursion on a particular planet depends on local conditions (e.g., presence of disease - in one interpretation). Thus, magnetic excursions may not generally show periodicity, rather only at times when sterilization is desirable. Apparently, we live in times when it is very much desirable, at least from the planet's perspective.

Note that interpolated values near 0.2 R_⊙ do not represent the current state, rather the initial state at the core when the discontinuity had more pronounced thickness. In the current state, discontinuity is extremely compressed and velocities increase sharply at 0.2 R_⊙ (this will be elaborated below). However, the initial state has been fossilized in the form of a rotation period maximum (angular frequency minimum) at 0.286 R_⊙, as visible in Fig. \fig7.

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 - fusion induced with the bombardment of solid (or solid-like) material with particles (e.g., high energy photons) produced in the radiative zone.

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

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

Note that the equation S1.1 is defined by the straight line passing through 0.1 R_⊙ and 1.18686 R_⊙, so if one assumes that, without space stretching, the defining points would be 0.0 R_⊙ and 1.0 R_⊙, 0.286 R_⊙ is the sum of translation of both points in radial direction due to stretching. Note also that, if the Sun loses all outer mass with the collapse of the outer graviton, with leftover mass roughly equal to the initial core mass, the Solar System becomes geocentric.

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

Note that the expansion of the outer maximum would act as dark energy for the gas about it - it would expand and cool. Furthermore, if the outer graviton collapses - decoupling from real mass, this would cause explosion of the plasma. At the same time, with the collapse/decoupling of the inner maximum, the accumulated real mass (in the radiative zone and below) would contract. If now the planetary systems are equivalents of atoms, expansion of the universe can be interpreted as large scale atomic gas expansion, expanding possibly in a large scale convection zone (it thus has a torus like shape) and at the same time orbiting a central contracting or already contracted mass - possibly even an U₂ scale black hole. However, considering the properly scaled density/pressure of this gas, the observable universe is more likely [a part of] an expanding graviton itself. The low large scale pressure outside the observable universe then can be correlated with dark energy as well.

The idea of planets or moons, even habitable ones, inside the Sun is not that ludicrous as it may seem. Note that, in the hypothesis, Sun's inner core is a Jupiter-like planet and nuclear fusion in the Sun is occurring outside this region, probably at or near the bottom of the radiative zone - in case of thermonuclear fusion, and possibly also at its edge about 0.66 R_⊙ - in case of low energy nuclear reactions if these are occurring at this time. An insulating layer of vacuum about the inner core would prevent conduction and convection of heat between the inner core and outer layers, while a strong magnetic field generated by the core [or the core moon] can provide protection from energetic ions. This only leaves radiative transfer of energy between the core and the radiative zone as the potential problem but definitely not an unsolvable one (e.g., radiation can be reflected or attenuated, and any accumulated energy may be expelled with the ends of 2nd order cycles). The flow of energy between the inner core and outer layers must be balanced in such way that the equilibrium conditions allow for habitability. However, seismic profiling and inertia can put constraints on the vacuum volume (e.g., the torus-like layer of vacuum may be more ring-like than spherical) but this must take into account the presence of dark matter and the possibility that seismic waves may be bent about some structures (effectively acting like an invisibility cloak for sound waves). In any case, deduction of details of the interior by seismic profiling is very prone to interpretation bias, e.g., interpretation strongly depends on the ratio between dark matter (img mass) and real mass. Another problem is the inherently low resolution in profiling the core area (mostly due to reliance on g-modes of oscillation, for which unequivocal detection is very difficult). For all these reasons, habitable areas inside the stars, planets and other celestial bodies cannot be ruled out. In fact, there are many reasons to consider it likely that most life in the observable universe is concentrated in the interiors of celestial bodies, like it is in the case of life forms of standard scale. How did matter accumulate in the radiative zone, making the inner core less dense than conventionally assumed? This is of course, enabled by the presence of large scale gravitons during formation. Assuming the Sun's outer gravitational maximum was initially dominantly electro-magnetic (it should have been, as hypothesized already) it was in the form of a two-dimensional ring, with a strong magnetic field. The outer and inner maxima would be channelling charged particles into the equatorial region in between. Neutral particles would be concentrating in the centre, forming a core. In the end, majority of the mass (fusion fuel) would be concentrated between the inner core and the outer maximum, at which point the outer maximum would have exchanged most of its electro-magnetic potential of general force for gravitational (also becoming almost completely spherical) and in the process must have contracted from the original size.

However, proper reference frame in this context may not be the Sun, rather the neutral layer between inner and outer planets (the asteroid belt).

When all the analyses in this paper are considered it becomes obvious that the Solar System is a quantum system. If QM cannot describe it as such, it is QM that should be revised, not reality.

Note that for outer planets, surface gravity is defined as gravity at 1 bar pressure. For terrestrial planets surface gravity is defined unrelated to pressure, as gravity at ground (sea) level. In case of Venus, the calculated value matches the Venus' gravity at 123.5 km height, exactly equal to the transition zone between mesosphere and thermosphere. For Earth, the value matches the transition zone between upper and lower mantle, however, if one calculates radius using constant mass (5.972 × 10²⁴ kg), it is, similarly to Venus, separated from surface discontinuity roughly by the value of the height of the mesopause, but below surface - at 6307 km, which may also be correlated with the Gutenberg discontinuity. This too, can be interpreted as evidence in favour of cyclic nature of surface gravity, and fossilization of energy levels in discontinuities. 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).

As all constants, masses of standard protons and electrons should be interpreted as superposition of oscillation. As with the ℏ constant, the oscillation can be detected on large scale. On standard (U₀) scale, proton to electron mass ratio is: $\displaystyle { m_p \over m_e } = 1836.15267343(11)$ On U₁ scale, assuming the relation above is correct: $\displaystyle {N \over P} {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = 1840.66694172611441$ $\displaystyle \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = 1826.09096003909666$ From these, the value of superposition may be obtainable using the EH operator, e.g., using 12/4 as the 1st order perturbation: $\displaystyle EH_{12/4}(, \lambda) + \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = { m_p \over m_e } = 1836.182024284$ $\displaystyle \lambda = {N \over P} {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} - \Biggl (1 - {h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}}\Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}} = \Biggl ({h_{g_1} \over h_{g_2}} + {N \over P} - 1 \Biggr ) {\hbar_{m_2} \over \hbar_{m_1}}$ However, this mathematical exercise is very speculative and should not be taken seriously without deeper insight into underlying mechanics.

Note that out of 4 largest bodies in the main asteroid belt that are supposed to represent primary anti-neutrinos, only Ceres is classified as a dwarf planet and has the most energy to remain active (alive). Other three (Vesta, Pallas, Hygiea) are not in hydrostatic equilibrium and probably represent dead bodies of dwarf planets. In that case, where are the gravitons (naked anti-neutrinos) that were coupled with these bodies? I believe they are coupled with certain terrestrial planets. Similarly, if the 6 hypothesized primary neutrinos are limited to dwarfs in the Kuiper belt region (which apparently does contain 6 dwarf planets) and further limited to most massive, or those in resonance with Neptune, some of these could be missing (being coupled to outer planets). However, since the main asteroid belt contains 4 dwarf bodies (matching exactly the hypothesized number of primary anti-neutrinos) while the Kuiper belt contains 6 dwarf bodies (matching exactly the hypothesized number of primary anti-neutrinos), I'm inclined to consider that neutrinos (or anti-neutrinos) do not like sharing shells with other neutrinos (anti-neutrinos) - they prefer coupling to electrons/positrons if these are not already paired. Just like in case of the main asteroid belt, where 3 bodies are dead, 3 bodies in the Kuiper belt are likely dead as well. These may be bodies not in resonance with Neptune - Salacia, Quaoar, and Makemake. Note that any celestial body coupled to a localized U₁ graviton should be in hydrostatic equilibrium (once fully formed), however, the body can remain in hydrostatic equilibrium for significant time even after death, although its activity should be generally decreasing and it should be more vulnerable to disturbance.

These results can, again, be interpreted as another evidence that constants in QM are the result of superposition (average) of oscillating values.

Note that, with em force almost completely neutralized, due to equal energy between positrons and electrons, or matter and anti-matter counterparts in general, there may be no apparent large differences between these particles on planetary scale, apart from anti-alignment of magnetic spins between entangled particles.

I assume that only naked gravitons are inflated (in other words, at time of inflation they are decoupled from real mass at the original scale, or have been decoupled some time before), real mass is then acquired mostly with the end of inflation - from existing mass fields (gus/dust) on new scale. These fields may be generally created with deflation of other gravitons in nova like explosions. Deaths (deflations) and births (inflations) of a particular scale are relatively synchronized. There are reasons to believe that the electro-magnetic potential is, however, an intermediate step in the whole process. It has been found that the average mass of dark matter particles in the Milky Way should be about 10 GeV. This is very interesting as the mass of the standard ¹⁰C isotope (or similar isotope with 10 nucleons) is 9.33 GeV (94% of 10 GeV). Considering that the dark matter is the dominating energy in the Milky Way and that the amount of interstellar gas/dust is about 6% (1.2 × 10¹⁰ M_⊙ of 2.06 × 10¹¹ M_⊙), the same as the calculated excess mass in the Sun, it is very much possible that the rest mass of the Sun is composed entirely of dark matter (in the form of large scale gravitons and possibly smaller amount of U₀ scale dark matter) inflated from the aligned/superposed ¹⁰C imprints, so the excess mass is the acquired gas/dust during formation. Thus, stars in the Milky Way may, on average, mirror the galaxy and contain only ~6% of standard matter. In such scenario, the final electro-magnetism comes entirely from this acquired real mass. The mirroring of the galaxy in stars probably should no be surprising and can be interpreted as enforcement of self-similarity. The similarity should, however, depend on scale, and significant deviations from 6% are possible. Most likely, smaller stars, on average, contain larger amounts of standard matter (note that they do have more frequent and stronger solar winds, which may be a consequence of higher standard matter enrichment), and in smaller bodies (such as rocky planets) the situation is, on average, even inverted - standard matter dominates. The inferred mass of dark matter particles of ~10 GeV suggests these particles are of U₀ scale, however, on U₀ scales the electro-magnetism should dominate. There are two possibilities:

• the inferred mass represent the mass of U_-1 particles that has been localized to U₀ scale,
• the dominance of electro-magnetism is restricted - its distribution is not homogeneous and isotropic and gravitational mass is not everywhere [yet] coupled to electro-magnetism (in other words, electro-magnetism dominates in fully developed systems).

In any case, however, inflation to U₁ scale probably involves the intermediate step of electro-magnetic dominance. Since it has been found that electro-magnetic energy has a negligible contribution to the mass (gravitational energy) of charged particles, the rest mass of standard particles and atoms is the gravitational mass. If one strips the charge from atoms what remains? Dark matter. Dark matter then represents imprints of standard matter, which, with the acquisition of charge become standard matter. The dark matter particles in the Milky Way then, on average, probably represent imprints of atoms with 10 nucleons (e.g., ¹⁰C). With annihilation, the 6% of the average mass of 10 GeV is converted to charge, leaving 9.33 GeV rest mass. This produces standard atoms (with dominating electro-magnetic force). Further annihilation and inflation of these results in U₁ gravitons or U₁ scale dark matter imprints of particles/atoms. Upon localization, these acquire additional mass in the form of standard matter (dust/gas, mostly in the form of hydrogen initially). The inflated large scale atoms that have 10 nucleons mirror the galaxy in composition, explaining the excess 6% mass of the Sun (beyond the expected rest mass) - it represents the acquired standard matter. But why does standard matter dominates in smaller bodies? This may be a consequence of available energy for inflation. If there is a lot of energy, most U_-1 dark matter would inflate/annihilate beyond the electro-magnetism dominated U₀ scale, if not, more energy will remain/stabilize on U₀ level, in the form of U₀ particles - representing standard matter. This, however, implies that all the mass in a star is created from the same source - U_-1 scale dark matter. In this scenario, some of the created standard matter remains unbound to the star system, forming interstellar gas/dust. Thus, instead of something being used for star formation, it may be interpreted as a byproduct of star formation. Another interpretation is possible, however. Instead of all the standard matter being created in the process, the acquisition of already available standard matter may [also] be inversely proportional to scale - this can be achieved if the ratio between negative pressure (e.g., of high angular momentum) and positive pressure during formation is higher for bigger energies. Note that the intermediate dominance of electro-magnetism doesn't just explain formation on stellar scales, it explains why the large scale structures in the universe (e.g., galactic arms and intergalactic filaments) resemble plasma discharges and filaments (suggesting that some aspects of the universe formation models proposed by H. Alfvén, A. Peratt, and E. Lerner may be correct). While many claim that standard isotropic cosmology models predict the observed structure of the universe, this is not entirely true as the models use shortcuts and some parameters are not computed or physically explained rather fine-tuned to match the observations. Without these, the predictions wouldn't match observations. The intermediate electro-magnetism is probably what seeded the large scale structures. It is not present today on large scales because it has been exchanged for gravity with inflation.

Note that, on the right (outer) side, the energy of formed bodies is decreasing with time, while on the left (inner) it is increasing (Mars and Mercury being formed first, Earth last). This is because the negative graviton radius is proportional to the gravitational imprint (flavour). In case of positive gravitons, radius is inversely proportional to the imprint. The Sun's surface radius is also a graviton radius, this graviton is likely negative, which should not be surprising, as neutrons are composites of positive and negative potential. Note also that, once the decoherence started, with collapsing speed of 2.93 × 10⁶ m/s, all the early planetary embryos could have been created in an interval of time on the order of 7 days, if not exactly 7 days. An interesting value, making it hard to ignore the correlation with the 7 days of creation in the Book of Genesis, or the Bible. To be clear, in its current form, the Bible is mostly a fairytale, but it is also likely that at least some of the writings are based on truth and true events, and some small parts have survived corruption. As it will be shown later, the interval of 7 days for creation is not the only signal that this may indeed be the case. Of course, it is probably unlikely that the original writings are based on the knowledge of the authors obtained through conventional scientific method. More likely, this was subconscious intervention in the writing process. The correlation with the writings in the Bible then certainly should not be interpreted as strong evidence for this interval (even though people on average probably had a much stronger intuition in the past), but could be interpreted as an event of synchronicity that increases confidence in the result, even if marginally. Due to self-similarity of scales (universes), I believe there are two ways to obtain knowledge about any universe, the extroverted (or materialistic) one - which includes the conventional scientific method, and the introverted (or spiritual) one - which includes non-conventional exploration methods. True understanding of a universe, however, probably requires employment of both, and if the two are in agreement regarding a certain hypothesis, then this hypothesis deserves serious consideration at least. Nothing is known about the methods employed by the original authors of the writings the Bible is based on, however, the sheer fact that the writings have been saved and passed on through generations (even if corrupted along the way) may be telling us something about the authors. Religion can grow from science, science can grow from religion.

Correlation of the Solar System with standard scale particle generations, hints at the existence of new particles in the standard model of physics (which, obviously, should be relatively 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): ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 3477.228 \times 571.864\, MeV = 1988.500\, GeV = 1.9885\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 206.768 \times 571.864 = 118.243\, GeV$ or, with Sun's proper rest mass: ${\text{tau} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 3477.228 \times 537.552\, MeV = 1869.190\, GeV = 1.8692\, TeV$ ${\text{muon} \over \text{electron}} \small X^n = 206.768 \times 537.552 = 111.149\, GeV$ One of these may have been detected already in cosmic annihilation events, the other in LHC as a W' boson signature. Note also that one of the masses is close to the Higgs boson mass, 125 GeV.

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.

Note that this recent revision of Milky Way's mass significantly reduced the amount of dark matter in the galaxy. Total mass of dark matter appears to be a superposition in the form of the average of 2/3 and 3/4 of the total mass (with the mass in ordinary matter being 0.6 × 10¹¹ M_⊙): $\displaystyle {1 \over 2} \left( {2 \over 3} + {3 \over 4} \right) = {17 \over 24} = 0.708\overline{3}$ If one now assumes that the same is true for Earth, the amount of ordinary matter in Earth should be much smaller than assumed (1.74183' × 10²⁴ kg). This is, however, questionable. The percentage of dark matter is different between galaxies and it probably depends on the stage of development, available real mass for coupling, and its disturbances/interactions with other galaxies, similar is true with stars and planets. In a fully developed system, the amount of dark matter is probably effectively equal to the mass of the associated large scale graviton(s). The obtained mass is, however, suspiciously close to the estimated mass of the Earth's core, suggesting that perhaps in Earth the ratio is inverted, with dark matter mass being equal to 1.74183' × 10²⁴ kg, and dominating the Earth's core mass (estimated to be equal to 1/3 of the total Earth's mass, 1.99 × 10²⁴ kg). Is it a coincidence that the amount of dark matter in the Milky Way is exactly the average between 2/3 and 3/4 total mass and that Earth's core mass is exactly 1/3 of the total Earth's mass? In any case, if the amount of dark matter in the Earth's interior is on the order of 10²⁴ kg, this interior is much different than assumed. Distribution of dark matter could be correlated with the distribution of different gravitational maxima (energy levels) inside the planet.

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

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

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

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

This is based on the hypothesis of initial inflation where discontinuities in the Sun also represent fossils of initial radii of gravitons of terrestrial planets (the Sun's outer graviton radius initially was roughly equal to the current orbit of Mars). The Earth is entangled with two discontinuities (which may be due to a 2e configuration, although this is not a requirement) which also represent local energy levels. Note that the Earth's orbital distance is 2/3 the orbital distance of Mars, correlated with the entanglement with the 2/3 R_⊙ discontinuity. The entanglement with the 1/2 R_⊙ discontinuity may be correlated with the Theia graviton and possibly its original coupling at the Venusian orbital. One evidence for the Earth's entanglement with exactly these two discontinuities is presented in the chapter \chr_quant_sun.

Velocities c_1.1 and c_1.2 have been calculated in the \chr_quant_sun_layers_sun chapter.

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

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

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

Each layer of the mantle is then a relatively independent body, just as terrestrial planets orbiting the Sun are independent bodies. This can be interpreted as a consequence of conservation of self-similarity. It should thus not be surprising that the Earth's core mimics the Sun - the Earth is relatively mirroring the Solar System nucleus (up to Mars). It is assumed that the Earth's inner core temperature is roughly equal to the temperature of the Sun's surface, and it has been shown here that interpretations exist in which the gravitational acceleration would be equal as well, even if that may not be the case today. This suggests that gravitons have affinity for specific equilibrium temperatures (correlated with the mass confinement ability). In other words, initially, all the Earth's mass may have been concentrated within the graviton radius but this state was unstable, the temperature was too high and the mass spread out until the equilibrium confinement temperature was reached. This would not be surprising if the Earth-like bodies evolve from stars (as hypothesized). All evolving bodies (lifeforms) during development imitate their past incarnations, but they develop further as that past state is unsustainable in the current incarnation. With 274 m/s² surface gravity being one such past state for the Earth's graviton. Similarly, Earth's mantle layers can be interpreted as the equivalent of relatively delocalized inner planets and it would then be reasonable to expect habitable zones as well (this is further explored in later chapters).

Life is fundamental, universal, ubiquitous. But it must be relative. Since the only way to sustain life is to consume and exploit other life, unless eating one's self is sustainable, it is obvious that all the potential food must be different [or, more precisely, considered different] than the consumer. Carnivores will tend to see animals of different species as less complex, less conscious or less deserving of life. Herbivores will, in addition, tend to see plants as less living than other life. It is not surprising then that both will tend to see their planet - which is formed out of completely different building blocks and which operates on much larger timescales, as something even less than that. This is normal. However, in the absence of regulation and decreasing awareness of life in other life, normal tends to become abnormal and unsustainable. When there exists [a growing] interest in increasing differences, there will be [a growing] interest in the ignorance of similarities. This can, and usually does, hinder the advancement of science. It should be clear that deeper knowledge and understanding increases the chances of long-term sustainability, while long-term ignorance is a sure path to extinction, of a certain [way of] life. But all this can be normal as well. Sometimes, ignorance in the beast leads to its taming by the host. And this is probably common in the evolution of life.

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

Proper interpretation of lava solidification is thus coagulation of blood.

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

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

The heart rate may still be variable as the Earth is still in development (although probably close to the end) and thus in a superposition of states on various levels. The fact that we can measure these rates [and anything else in the Solar System of similar scale], with high precision without disturbing the system, shows that, while uncertainties in measurement are fundamental, the size of uncertainty is a measurement problem arising from inadequate scale of observational energy, a relative quantity (Planck's constant, ℏ, as a dimensional constant between entangled properties, must be a relative, not absolute constant).

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

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

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

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

The results suggest the equation relating mass and lifespan is incomplete (it works for standard mammals, where total mass is basically equal to real mass). With no metric (or G) scaling, Earth's mass is apparently bigger. There is ~10¹⁸ kg in surface oceans alone, ~10²² kg in the crust, ~10²³ kg in the inner core and more in the mantle, however, these values are relative to the gravitational constant of the standard (U₀) scale G₀ (6.674 × 10^-11 m³/kgs²). Properly scaled mass of Earth on U₁ scale is the mass obtained using G₁ (e.g., previously calculated 5.73 × 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 values of variables, as shown in Table \tbl19.

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

Table \tbl19: Relative Earth mass Here, m_E(1) is the proper relativistic mass of Earth calculated with 2nd order T_x, m_E(2) is the relativistic mass calculated using 3rd order T_x. Third mass, m_E(3), is the mass of Earth relative to standard scale (m_E0) calculated using 2nd order T_x. Masses m_E(4) and m_E(5) could be considered as inverse (or anti) masses of Earth relative to the gravitational maximum of radius r_s. Note that m_E(4) is [roughly?] equal to 2/3 of the mass of the Earth's inner core, while m_E(5) is roughly 1/4 of the Sun's mass. Interestingly, the Tx associated with m_E(1), m_E(3) and m_E(5) is basically equal to the calculated lifecycle of the Sun's core (25.7 My - 25.9 My, see chapter \chr_quant_sun_en_rep). Note also the presence of multiple periods in the cycling of Earth's [maximum] existence, 1.512 My and 25.82 My. While the shorter period could be considered as a fossil of the Solar System U₀ half-life (¹⁰Be₀), this entanglement cannot be lost completely and some time compression at the end of 1.512 My cycles can also be expected. I have previously hypothesized that the Solar System is a product of annihilation and inflation of ¹⁰C and ¹⁰Be atoms of smaller scale, thus, entanglement with ¹⁰C can also be expected, although the collapse and the induced time (evolution) compression should be negligible due to short half-life (19.3 s) of ¹⁰C. Note that with T_x of 19.3 s, mass of Earth [m_E(6)] becomes roughly equal to the mass of 2 standard electrons (or positrons). If m_E(4) and m_E(5) are correlated with Earth's inner core and Sun [core] mass, the data suggests asymmetry between mass and inverse mass, growing with period T_x. The solution is the inflation of T_x and/or G. With G₀ [roughly] equal to 2.222 × 10^-5 m³/kgs², m_E(5) becomes equal to the mass of the Sun, while for G₀ [roughly] equal to 1.9561 × 10^-5, m_E(4) becomes equal to to the proper relativistic mass of the Sun. The same can be obtained with T_x equal to 36.23 My and 2.06 My, respectively. With a period of 555619.11 years, m_E(4) becomes equal to Earth's inner core mass (assuming that mass is 1.1 × 10²³ kg). Interestingly, for T_x equal to the 1st order period (4.25 Gy), the value of equation M1.1 (G₁m_E product) is 2.93 × 10²³, equal to the speed of light on U₁ scale (2.93 × 10⁶ m/s) multiplied by 10¹⁷. Note also that the ratio between G₁(7) and G₁(1) is roughly equal to the ratio between G₁(1) and G₀(1) divided by 10: $\displaystyle G_1(7) \approx {1 \over 10} {G_1(1) \over G_0(1)} G_1(1)$ which is consistent with the association of different G's to different vertical energy levels and therefore to scale (period) of general oscillation. If G₀(1) is associated with U₀ scale and G1(1) is associated with U₁ scale (as hypothesized), G1(7) should be associated with U₂ scale. If one assumes that: $\displaystyle G_1(7) = {1 \over 10} {G_1(1) \over G_0(1)} G_1(1)$ one obtains a T_x of the 1st order of 4.254788 Gy (4.254788 × 10⁹ years).

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

One fact going in favour of this hypothesis is that during all previous major extinctions there were periods when poles were free from ice. Although, one could argue that, during Phanerozoic, world was more often without polar ice caps, than with. Stronger evidence is Mars' dichotomy, which can be correlated with the creation of neural tubes in the southern hemisphere. It is also clear that, with deteriorating climate/environment in the currently inhabited regions, humans will be migrating northwards and southwards, however, going north one eventually runs out of land (note that this was the case on Mars as well at the time when it had oceans).

The ocean is, of course, currently stratified and pH varies with depth, generally decreasing fast from the surface and reaching a minimum at about 400-1000 m depth, remaining roughly constant or slowly increasing with depth afterwards - depending on region. Interestingly, the pH minimum in North Pacific is about 7.33. However, I believe it is the surface pH that is the important marker here. Various interpretations for this are possible (perhaps only surface layers are used - which I find likely, or different layers of the ocean are used for different things, e.g., surface layers may form CSF, others may be used for cytoplasm equivalents) but the evidence that indeed surface pH here is relevant comes from the analysis of past extinctions. In example, the pH minimum (about 7.33 as hypothesized), associated with CSF, has been already confirmed for Permo-Triassic extinction. The cited work shows a [relatively] rapid drop in pH to a minimum, followed by rapid increase and slow progress towards 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 the high-CO₂ model, the pH minimum is ~7.35, in agreement with the predicted minimum. The work, however, favours the low-CO₂ model, so it cannot be excluded that Earth's CSF pH is somewhat higher (less acidic) than human. In any case, the existence of such pH minimum strongly supports the theory of neurogenesis.

Here, homo.omega is a species of life Earth belongs to. Obviously, this classification is different than the conventional taxonomy - Earth does not belong to homo genus, however, reasons exist why this kind of classification was chosen in this context. In conventional interpretations, where physical laws are considered absolutely invariant, Earth cannot even be a form of life, let alone belong to the homo genus.

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

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

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

Note 1: According to current models based on Newtonian mechanics or GR, none of these asteroids are on a collision course with Earth in near future. However, conventional models obviously do not account for the periodic disturbances of the system with the collapse/inflation of gravitons and emission/absorption of large scale gravitational waves. As argued before (see, for example, chapters \chr_the_cycles and \chr_g_rel_edm_egm_cor_ext), there are good reasons to believe that courses of asteroids are altered at times of extinctions. If these impacts are genetically coded at some level, as hypothesized, they should not be questionable, it is only the source and method of delivery that may be unknown prior to the event.
Note 2: Interestingly, there was an impact event on Earth at the time when 400 ppm CO₂ was reached (Chelyabinsk meteor, ≈ 20 m diameter, 2013.), agreeing with hypothesized 50 ppm quantization and suggesting that, not only are intervals between impacts quantized, but that impacts may possibly be expected with every 50 ppm of CO₂ increase. However, if the events are generally correlated with the average ppm value given by the C1.1 equation, which gives year 2015 for 400 ppm, the 400 pm in year 2013 should be understood as deviation due to inherent uncertainty. Assuming probability of correlation of these events with CO₂ significantly increases once CO₂ rises above background levels, the first event should have occurred at 300 ppm - the time of the 2nd industrial revolution. Indeed, one such event had occurred at 300 ppm - Tunguska, 1908. Note that the Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest known body entering Earth's atmosphere since the Tunguska meteor. The equation gives year 1992 for 350 ppm. No meteoroids of comparable impact energy to the Tunguska or Chelyabinsk were recorded in or about 1992., probably eliminating highly energetic direct impacts on/over land area. If a stronger event did occur, it had likely occurred over/in the ocean, 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 the tsunami wave being unusually large (9.9 m high) for the strength of the earthquake (belonging to a group of rare tsunami earthquakes). I do not believe, however, that the impact (assuming it happened) caused the earthquake. This was likely the effect of synchronization of events (synchronicity) - the tsunami was caused by the earthquake but it was amplified by the impact. The Earth is a living being and it would not be surprising it reacts, even if unconsciously, to incoming bolides and impactors (just like humans do) to some degree. I have witnessed such synchronization myself - on 2019.03.07 I have observed a larger meteor burning up in the atmosphere exactly at the time of an earthquake in Hungary, its trajectory was, at least roughly, towards the epicentre or the hypocentre. It is even possible that Earth reacts to most potential impactors, only the reaction may be usually negligible - proportional to impactor energy. Historical reports do suggest a stronger correlation between earthquakes and meteors, but no serious studies or statistical analyses have been done. Note that, due to enhanced relativity in causality on the scale of U₁ gravitons, the reaction can happen some time before or after the impact. Also interesting about the Nicaragua event is that it occurred at the time of my birthday (September 1st, local time) producing an obvious signal for me. Based on my heavy experience in synchronicity (I'm experiencing synchronicity almost on a daily basis for years now), I could now interpret this as a confirmation that the meteor was indeed involved in this event (and I originally did), but I cannot claim high confidence in such interpretation. Note that Nicaragua, Chelyabinsk and Tunguska impact sites on the world map can be connected with a straight line - a correlation suggesting that the next impact may also occur somewhere along this line (even the Chicxulub, Yucatan crater is close). This correlation is a form of synchronicity as well, which then increases the intensity of synchronicity correlated with Nicaragua and the associated impactor. Still, the effect on confidence is marginal. Additional, and stronger, evidence is needed for a highly energetic impactor in 1992. Although there were no sightings of extremely energetic meteors over land in 1992, there was a notable incident in Uganda, where a large explosion and infall of 150 kg of material in the shower was recorded. While such incidents may not be so rare, it is interesting that this event occurred only 2 weeks before the Nicaragua event. Also interesting, and symbolic, is the fact that the last visit of the Halley's comet to the inner Solar System occurred about the time when 350 ppm CO₂ was first reached - in 1986., and the next time it will be close to Earth is 2061. - exactly at 650 ppm (calculated using the C1.1 equation). On the other hand, the assumption of 50 ppm quantization may be wrong, a 100 ppm quantization does not require the impact in 1992 while still predicting Tunguska and Chelyabinsk (gives year 2040 for the next possible impact). It is currently hypothesized that Tunguska event was caused by a large body which eventually escaped Earth's atmosphere - it can thus be interpreted as a warning coming from some 3rd party. Given the fact that neither the Chelyabinsk nor hypothesized Nicaragua meteor did not directly impact land, these too would qualify as such. However, I do not interpret these as warnings. I believe one purpose of the atmosphere is to disintegrate incoming bodies to protect life during weak evolution. Without it the Chelyabinsk meteor would be called a meteorite. Tunguska asteroid close-by, however, would not leave any effect but the atmosphere might have caused the Tunguska asteroid to split. I thus believe that whatever caused the Tunguska event is destined to eventually hit Earth, the Earth might have just quantized it and spread over time with its instinct (manifested as atmosphere) to defend its surface life. These recent events may then be interpreted as signals of things to come. Note that Newton calculated year 2060 as the first possible year of the Day of Judgment (but what I interpret as the beginning of the end of the surface world, at least in one model), although allegedly he revised this year later to 2016 by the suggestion of others. His final decision to revise the year was, however, based on a signal. As he was doing calculations, large earthquake occurred, which he later interpreted as a signal that the year 2060 is wrong. This earthquake could be interpreted a signal, but he misinterpreted its meaning - a better interpretation, at least from the current perspective, is that earthquakes are to be expected at the end and may have a prominent role in it. Newton also calculated that the end cannot come after year 2344. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the previously determined pH minimum (which should be reached sometime between ≈2040 and ≈2300, with earlier dates probably more likely). The year 2016 is not there without a meaning for me too, it is the year [of the start] of my soul rebirth (transformation, or change of soul energy level) occurring at the age of 36±1 (here, margins may be interpreted as the spread of the transformation in time as it is not absolutely instant) of the incarnation. The calculations of Newton are based on the writings in the Bible and one could certainly argue that these should not be taken into account. I, however, interpret it as a correlation that is increasing intensity of synchronicity here, increasing confidence, even if marginally. Note that year 2016 may indeed be the point of no return regarding the collapse of civilization at least, but some other tipping points may have also been reached about that year, associated with climate change and biodiversity loss. Note also that the year 2016 is not far from the year 2015 (year associated with 400 ppm, per the equation), while year 2060 is not far from the year 2061 (year associated with 650 ppm, per the equation).
Note 3: Interestingly, at the time of the Chelyabinsk event, Apophis asteroid was in close approach. Considering that the composition of Chelyabinsk meteor seems to match the composition of Apophis surface (LL chondrite) a possibility does exist that the meteor broke off of Apophis and is thus a part of impactor energy splitting.
Note 4: The equation C1.1 is one variant of the 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: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2C_1 - {C_1 \over CO_2(T_1)} \times CO_2 = 2C_1 - {C_1 \over CO_2(T_1)} \times 300 \times {\biggl ({6 \over 5} \times 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x \tag{C1.2}$ $\displaystyle x = {{T - 1905} \over {10 \times 55}} = {{T - 1905} \over 550}$ where C₁ = T_1/2(T₁) is the half-life of the element measured at time T₁. The equation gives half-life of 0 at, or near, T = 2075, which is the year when CO₂(T) is equal to 800 ppm (half-life however cannot reach absolute 0, suggesting that 800 ppm is an unrealistic marker in this interpretation). Just like in case of CO₂ I do not expect for half-lives to follow the equation continuously (e.g., half-life might appear constant and then get reduced significantly in an instant). Generally, changes in decay rates should require sudden changes in properties of space. One exception to this could be the half-life of ¹⁰Be, due to vertical entanglement with the local U₁ system. If the Solar System cycles through ¹⁰(C-B-Be) in the 1st order cycles, a continuous precursor enrichment in ¹⁰B at a lower scale (U₀) may be effectively announcing the state change of the parent U₁ system (the Solar System). For ¹⁰Be, incorporating the value from the most recent measurements (T₁ = 2010, T_1/2(2010) = 1.387 × 10⁶ y), the half-life equation is: $\displaystyle T_{1/2} = 2 \times 1.387 \times 10^6 - {{1.387 \times 10^6} \over 385.915461731} \times 300 \times {\biggl ({6 \over 5} \times 2^{45 x^2}\biggr )}^x$ and it gives values in good agreement with previous measurements, as shown in Table \tbl22.

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

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

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

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

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

Note that, if this is the last embryonic neurogenesis event of Earth, a collapse of Moon's graviton probably should be expected. Remains of the Moon could then be the source of eventual impacts of cometary nature (dust/water/ice).

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

Source code:

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

This, may or may not - depending on interpretation (mass being shielded or not) and the current energy level of the outer graviton, result in the release of condensed energy beyond the Sun's surface - effectively expanding the Sun. In any case, the amount of collapsed maxima should be inversely proportional to cycle order. Major extinctions are correlated with 2nd order cycles. At the end of such cycle, probably both the inner and outer maxima (or, large scale gravitons) of the Sun collapse temporarily.

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

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

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

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

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

It is a common assumption that all planets in the Solar System have been formed at the same time (this is also the case with my theory of inflation of the system), and calculations above certainly can be interpreted as a confirmation of that assumption. However, the term is relative and a deviation on the order of millions or tens of millions of years is possible. Early habitability of Mercury cannot be ruled out either. For Mercury, the equation gives a period of 517 My, with its end corresponding to about 4.0 billion years ago. Interestingly, this is also the estimated age of the most heavily cratered terrain on Mercury and the end of the Pre-Tolstojan period. What about the Moon? The equation, for the Moon's mass of 0.07346 × 10²⁴ kg, gives a period of 167.7 My. Again, very interesting, as recent studies provide evidence that the Moon formed about 4.51±0.01 Gya and had a great resurfacing event about 4.35 Gya. This gives a period between the two of 160±10 My, in agreement with the calculated value. Using the obtained age for the mare basalt formation of 4336±32 Mya by Borg et al instead of 4.35 Gya, the period of time between the two is 174±42 My. The average between these two is 167 My, roughly equal to the calculated value. Furthermore, assuming a period of time between the Earth's and Moon's formation is equal to the hypothesized 2nd order cycling period of the Solar System, with the 2nd order period equal to 25.92 My and Moon's formation at 4.51±0.01 Gya, one obtains Earth's age of 4.536±0.01 Gy, which is within the uncertainty of estimated Earth's age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that this model incorporates the mass shielding effect (outer gravity depends solely on the outer maximum), which may not be the case in reality.

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

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

Note that the calculated mass implies such density of the inner core that its temperature should be orders of magnitude higher than the current assumptions, for thermonuclear fusion to occur. Thus, assuming the temperature estimates are correct, if any kind of fusion is occurring in the inner core, it cannot be a thermonuclear fusion.

From this one can calculate the core radius at the end of a cycle (all fuel spent): $\displaystyle R = R_i - \Delta t {dR \over dt} = R_i - (M_i - M)^2 {R_i \over {M_i}^2} = 0.158\, R_{\odot}$ R_⊙ = Sun surface radius = 695700000 m With the current [inner] core radius at 0.2 R_⊙, amount of fuel left is: $\displaystyle {{0.2 - 0.158} \over {0.286 - 0.158}} = 0.328 \approx {1 \over 3}$ It is unlikely though that all fuel is spent during the cycle, total amount spent is probably equal to 2/3 (equivalent to fusion), in which case the cycle period is: $\displaystyle \Delta t_{re} = {2 \over 3} \Delta t = 25.76\, My$ and the core is at the end of a cycle. The 2nd equation for the rate of contraction (U1.1) produces a similar result, 25.9 My. 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 the 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 (e.g., helium ash). Gravitational stress may even create relative wormholes through core/surface sunspots enabling direct consumption of new mass by the core. Note that, with core radius oscillation, its time independent radius is obtained from the volumetric superposition of 0.2 R_⊙ and 0.286 R_⊙ cores: $\displaystyle {4 \over 3} \pi R^3 - {4 \over 3} \pi {R_c}^3 = {4 \over 3} \pi {R_i}^3 - {4 \over 3} \pi R^3$ $\displaystyle R^3 = {{{R_i}^3 + {R_c}^3} \over 2} = {{(0.286^3 + 0.2^3) {R_{\odot}}^3} \over 2}$ $\displaystyle R = \sqrt[3]{{(0.286^3 + 0.2^3)} \over 2} R_{\odot} = 0.25 R_{\odot} = {1 \over 4} R_{\odot}$ Such oscillation must be present on the standard scale too - thus, all results obtained from measurements of nuclear observables may be understood as superposition in time and/or space, however, in reality these are not constants, rather statistical mean state of evolving phenomena. Regardless of scale, no equally evolved (identical) phenomena can exist at two points in time, nor can they exist at multiple points in space. Delocalization 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.

Assuming double compression of time in case of the Sun is real (probably unikely), how can it be explained? One possibility is that time compression is not dependent solely on the scale of time periods but on the scale of space as well (could be correlated with the relativistic time-energy uncertainty). The dominant large scale graviton associated with the Sun is larger and more massive than the one associated with Earth, which would then imply higher compression. It is also possible that a local 1st order cycle is larger than 4.25 Gy, but is forced to 4.25 Gy by some global cycling. Note that this age is exactly 1/3 of the obtained age of the observable universe in one class of measurements (Lensedquasars/Near) - 12.75 × 10⁹ years (also in agreement with more recent bTFR measurements), supporting the cycling hypothesis (this would be the end of the 3rd cycle). This would suggest that the beginning of the 1st cycle may have also been the beginning of the cosmic inflation, imposing constraints on the growth of the scale factor of the system. Assuming Solar System was inflated from the scale of a carbon atom (with atom radius inflated to Neptune orbital radius), this is an increase in the cosmic scale factor on the order of 10²². Assuming it was inflated from the scale of a carbon atom nucleus, the cosmic scale factor grew by 10²⁷. These values are generally compatible with the theory of cosmic inflation, although some scenarios impose tighter constraints (e.g., GUT epoch inflation requires growth of at least about e⁶⁰ ≈ 10²⁶). However, it is possible that the atom itself was inflated from an even smaller scale (e.g., U_-1). Gravitational stress of the 1st order must be order(s) of magnitude larger than that of the 2nd order. Likely, at the end of a 1st order cycle, Sun's outer graviton briefly loses some momentum (relative to CMB) inverting spin in the process. It falls into a lower energy level, closer to the galactic centre. Afterwards, it starts expanding again acquiring hydrogen fuel as it returns to the current state again (process may be relatively equivalent to initial inflation). Note that the reason for the 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 (3rd order period) and ≈26 million years (2nd order period). With the next larger period (1st order) being T_u = 4.25 Gy, its time compression should be: $\displaystyle \Delta t_{c_u} = {\Delta t_{c_x} \over T_x} T_u = { {24751.794\, y} \over {1512000\, y} } 4.25 \times 10^9\, y = 69573495.04\, years$ where Δt_cx is the previously calculated compression of time with a single Tx (1512000 years) pulse. Now one can calculate how much overestimated is the currently accepted age of the observable universe T_img = 13.799 ± 0.021 × 10⁹ years: $\displaystyle \sigma_{T_{img}} = \left\lfloor {T_{img} \over T_u } \right\rfloor \Bigl[ \Delta t_{c_u} + \bigl( \Delta T_{\scriptscriptstyle {E_{img}}} - T_u \bigr) \Bigr] = 1.07872048512 \pm 0.05 \times 10^9\, years$ where ΔT_Eimg (4.54±0.05 × 10⁹ years) is the currently accepted age of Earth. This gives for the real age of the universe: $\displaystyle T = T_{img} - \sigma_{T_{img}} = 12.72027951488 \pm 0.071 \times 10^9\, years$ resolving the discrepancy (Hubble tension). This discrepancy is thus explained with periodic gravitational collapses (speed of time is inversely proportional to gravity). As the large scale gravitons collapse the gravitational coupling is decreased - resulting in the acceleration of the expansion. This is equivalent to the tension between gravity and thermal energy in stars, where, with the collapse of a graviton, thermal energy overpowers the gravity and the star expands. Here, dark energy overpowers the gravity (and this dark energy could certainly be interpreted as large scale thermal energy if planetary systems are large scale atoms). Since the collapses happen periodically, the average expansion rate (Hubble constant) should be smaller for the earlier universe. This is exactly what has been measured - Hubble constant is smaller for the earlier universe. Time compression is thus a universal phenomenon. Graviton collapses don't just affect decay rates of standard radioactive elements, anything bound by gravity is proportionally affected/accelerated (orbital changes in planetary systems, universe's expansion, etc.). Note that this may be interpreted as regular exchange of energy between dark matter and dark energy. In any case, oscillation of energy between vertical energy levels generally involves transformation, implying that all couplings are cyclic. This can also be interpreted as vertical oscillation of coupling constants, for which it has already been shown that they oscillate horizontally. Recent dark energy studies show that the universe's expansion has indeed temporarily accelerated some 4.5 billion years ago, thus, confirming the predicted cycling. But why is the global (universal) cycling equal to the cycling of the Sun, or the 1st order cycling of the Solar System? Well, if one ignores stable stars (dwarfs), the median mass of stars should at least roughly be equal to the mass of the Sun. In other words, since the cycling period of dwarfs is larger than the age of the observable universe, the next dominant cycling that is lower than the age of the universe is the cycling of Sun-like stars. The effect could be further exacerbated with the harmonics of the Solar cycling in the smaller periods. The obtained value of Δt_cu is very interesting, it is suspiciously similar to the value of the Sun's radius (the value used in this paper is commonly 695735 km). It becomes even more interesting considering the fact that in the chapter \chr_init_setup_reg_disturb, it was found that a value for the Sun's radius of 695735496 m would satisfy the equation: $\displaystyle {1 \over v_c} \times {10}^{12} = {1 \over {2 \pi r_c f_c}} \times {10}^{12} = {1 \over {2 \pi 0.2 R_{\odot} f_c}} \times {10}^{12} = R_{\odot}$ r_c = Sun [inner] core radius = 0.2 R_⊙
f_c = rotation frequency of the core = 1644 × 10^-9 Hz Again, as discussed in the chapter Peculiar shuffling/mixing of values between scales in \chr_g_rel_edm_egm_ear_en_rev_eq_weak_g, two very similar values for two very different things, and, again, a peculiar addition of a single digit (5, in this case) preventing the similarity to be even stronger. Why is the value of the Sun's radius equal to the value of the 1st order time compression? Well, the proportionality between the compression and the graviton scale is expected, but for values to be equal? This suggests that the compression of time of the scale n in years is almost exactly equal to the radius of the graviton of scale n in metres, divided by 10. Since the compression of time is associated with graviton collapse/decoupling, the logical conclusion is that the contraction of the graviton radius in its space is equivalent to the contraction of intervals in its time. Note that one fundamental reason why the two values are not absolutely equal is that, per CR, radius cannot be contracted to absolute zero size (decoupling cannot be absolute). Note also that the amount of decoupled mass could be determined through the Kleiber's law (see chapter \chr_earth_as_liv_org_fut_dev_neuro_ev_time_com). The time compression associated with the 2nd order cycling was calculated to be 975014.206 years. Based on the above logic, this would correspond to a radius of about 9750 km. This may be correlated with the inner core of Jupiter or the inner core of the Sun's core (hypothesized to be on the order of mass of Jovian planets). Note that the amount of decoupling should be inversely proportional to the cycle order. Thus, with the end of a 2nd order cycle, the outer graviton of the Sun may be affected again, temporarily decreasing radius by 9750 km, instead of collapsing completely. Most likely, however, both inner and outer gravitons are affected to some degree. Note that this radius is significantly larger than the radius or radii of Earth's major graviton(s), which may thus experience full collapse with the 2nd order cycling (roughly every 26 million years on average). The 3rd order compression (calculated to be 24751.794 years) would correspond to a radius of about 248 km. Interestingly, this is in agreement with the Moon's inner core radius, estimated at 240±10 km, or, more recently, at 258±40 km. It is then possible that the Moon's inner graviton experiences complete collapse every 1.512 million years (calculated period of 3rd order cycles) on average. The Earth's major graviton(s) are larger and, by this logic, shouldn't completely collapse with the 3rd order cycling. However, strong entanglement exists with the Moon and a local disturbance of the radius by 248 km should produce a significant effect. Such quantized disturbances could be associated with discontinuities in solid bodies (which then could also be interpreted as fossilized disturbances). Indeed, as noted before, a discontinuity has been detected at 250 km depth in the inner core.

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

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

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

Time compression at the ends of Solar System cycles implies gravitational stress of Solar System maxima. While the 2nd solution may be plausible, at least at the end of one type of the cycles some mass must be ejected out from the Sun. It certainly seems easier than in case of the planets, as unlike the planets, the Sun does not have a solid [real] mantle to block the explosion (although terrestrial planets may be interpreted as Sun's or Solar System's mantle, they are in a localized 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. Helium is probably used to form the core (which should be a Jupiter-like planet). Rather than being a simple delocalization or a collapse to a different scale, collapse of a graviton can also be a collapse of the 3-dimensional spherical neutral form into a 2-dimensional charged form. Since the surface graviton of the Sun is entangled with Mars' graviton, with this kind of collapse, two ring maxima would be aligned and the ejection of ionized ash would not be isotropic, rather targeting Mars through the tubes of entanglement (magnetic field lines). The Fe covered surface of Mars may be the evidence for this. The mass is ejected with a change in spin and since the changes are synchronized, a lot of mass could be absorbed at the moment of inversion when the field on Mars is the weakest.

Note that constants C₁ and C₂ are the same as those determined in chapter \chr_earth_as_liv_org_age_life_3rd_ord_per_speed_time.

As shown previously, components of general force, charge and mass are exchangeable through inflation/deflation of momentum components (even in neutral particles, the amount of gravitational mass can increase at the expense of charge mass, with particle remaining neutral). Nature of the force can thus oscillate. Taking into account error margins, obtained distance is equal to the radius of the cosmological event horizon of the observable universe. Assuming currently accepted [img] age (13.799 × 10⁹ years), constant speed of light: $\displaystyle r = c \Delta t = 2.99792458 \times 10^8 \times 13.799 \times 10^9 \times 365.25 \times 24 \times 60 \times 60 = 1.305 \times 10^{26}\, m$ This is the distance light from the edges of the observable universe would travel to reach us if this universe would be static, and flat for the photon. In the expanding universe, it is roughly the distance at which the expansion reaches the speed of light (c). The current (proper) radius, which takes expansion into account, is thus, significantly larger, ~πr. But different interpretation is possible. The proportionality with π may not be a coincidence. As the photon expands, the enclosed mass is exerting a force on it (due to homogeneity of the universe, per the shell theorem, the mass beyond the photon radius has no such influence on it). This force will not affect the magnitude of its velocity significantly, rather curve its path (rotate the spin momentum). Note that this would, for an object moving away (more precisely, with increase in enclosed mass with each photon emitted), result in blueshift (i.e., gravitational blueshift) at the point of absorption. The blueshift is, however, on larger distances counteracted with the redshift due to universe's expansion. Thus, the universe may be at least twice as big as r, but the edge of the universe we are observing is at a smaller radial distance due to the significant angular component of photon propagation. The unobservable universe in this interpretation does not have to expand faster than c, it is rather outside of the photon range. The two interpretations, however, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if galaxies are moving away from each other, the observed redshift implies something is counteracting the blueshift, and one explanation for it is dominance of expansion. Another explanation for the lack in blueshift can be partial localization of photon, limiting its radius expansion and, thus, its path curvature. This should be more likely for higher frequencies. Of course, the blueshift should also be smaller for smaller mass eigenstates (it could be negligible for the smallest eigenstate), which are not limited to high frequencies. However, there is a simpler explanation for the observed effects. The proposed photon nature and mechanism of propagation would, on large scales/distances, actually produce a redshift if the universe is contracting - with energy density remaining constant or decreasing (as, in such cases, the enclosed mass would be decreasing with each photon emitted). Thus, dark energy may be misinterpreted and the universe may be contracting instead.