EULERIAN CALCULUS

Solving Mathematical Conjectures

Willie Johnson Jr.

First Edition First Print

August 9, 2017
Chapter 1

Conjectures
Given the quaternion equation

Uqn = nUq (1.0.1)

several longstanding mathematical conjectures may be easily

solved.[2][3][4][5] Solving these equations has profound
implications in the fields of physics, chemistry, and number
theory.

1.1 The Negation of Fermats Last Theorem

Prove, that given the positive unit quaternions, ,, and , each

having a positive integer value, that these integers satisfy the
equation n +n = n for all integer values of positive n except zero.

Proof.
1. It is given that Uqn = nUq.

2. It is given that ,, and are unit quaternions, each having

positive integer values.
3. Therefore ,, and may be substituted for Uq,Up, and Ur
respectively, in equation the equation

(Uqn + Upn) = (nUq + nUp) = Urn = nUr .[4]

3
4 Conjectures
4. Therefore
(n + n) = (n + n) = n = n. (1.1.1)

5. Therefore
n + n = n. (1.1.2)
6. Thus
23 + 33 = 53
(3 2) + (3 3) = (3 5)
6 + 9 = 15

7. Therefore is it proven, given the unit quaternions , ,, and

, each having a positive integer value, that these integers
satisfy the equation
n + n = n for all integer values of positive n except zero.

Q.E.D.

Fermats Last Theorem states that no three positive integers,

a,b, and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any positive
integer value of n > 2. But since a,b, and c are just general integer
variables then they may be substituted with the integer general
variables of ,, and , respectively. Given equation (1.1.1) step 7
of the previous proof may be restated.

Axiom 1 Given the positive unit quaternions, ,, and , each

having a positive integer value, and the power rule for constants
where Uqn = nUq, it is proven that (a = ),(b = ), and (c = )
satisfy the equation n + n = n for all integer values of positive n,
except zero. This is the Negation of Fermats Last Theorem
(NFLT).
1.2 The Counterexample of the Beal Conjecture

In general, given any positive rational numbers, ,, and

where > > and the power rule for constants where Uqn = nUq,
 5

then , and satisfy the equation nn = n for all values of

positive n, except zero.

1.2 The Counterexample of the Beal Conjecture

The Beal conjecture states that if for positive integers

A,B,C,x,y,z and where (x,y,z) > 2 that if Ax + By = Cz is true then
A,B,C must have a common prime factor.

Prove that the Beal conjecture is false.

Proof.
1. Consider the equation Ax+By = Cz where A,B,C,x,y,z are
positive integers and (x,y,z) > 2.

2. We allow the integers A,B,C to represent the prime integers

2,3,5, respectively and x,y,z to represent the integers 14,4,8,
respectively.

3. Therefore 214 + 34 = 58.

4. Since a prime is only divisible by 1 and itself then a prime is

a unit quaternion where P = Uq.

5. Therefore A,B,C = P = Uq.

6. Given equation (1.0.1) where

Uqn = nUq.

then (2 14) + (3 4) = (5 8).

7. Therefore 28 + 12 = 40.

8. Therefore the integers A,B,C as the prime integers 2,3,5,

respectively, do not, and cannot have a common prime factor.
9. Therefore the Beal conjecture is false. Q.E.D.
6 Conjectures

1.3 Affirmative Proof of the Goldbach Conjecture

The Goldbach conjecture states that every integer > 2 can be

expressed as the sum of two primes.

Prove that every integer > 2 can be expressed as the sum of two
primes, where I > 2 = PA + PB.

Proof.

1. Given that P 2, where P is some prime then

I
= q = Sq + V q = nPS + nPV
= TqUq = Tq(cos + P sin)
= (PaPbPc....PnPs) + (Pv)n
= (PaPbPc....PnPs) + (Pa + Pb + Pc + ....Pn + Pv) where I is

any integer 2. [2][3][4][5]

2. Since every integer is a unique summation of a series of

primes then it must be the case that at radians

I = (Pa + Pb + Pc + ....Pn) + Pv

3. Therefore

I = Psum + Pv

where
Psum = (Pa + Pb + Pc + ....Pn).
 4. Since every integer is a unique summation of a series of
primes then it must be the case that at radians Psum must
equal some prime integer PA and Pv must equal some prime
integer PB.

5. Therefore I > 2 = (Psum + Pv) = (PA + PB).

6. Therefore is it proven that every integer > 2 can be

expressed as the sum of two primes where
I > 2 = PA + PB.

Q.E.D.

1.4 The Eulerian Proof of the Collatz Conjecture

The Collatz conjecture is described as follows:

Take any even natural number n, and divide it by 2 yielding n/2.

For odd n multiply it by 3 and add 1 yielding 3n + 1. Repeat the
process indefinitely. The Collatz conjecture states that no matter
the initial n the process will always result in a value of 1.

This conjecture may be proved by several methods. One is via

an infinite series. Others are a Fermatian antiderivative and an
Eulerian derivation.

1.4.1 Infinite Series Solution

Upon inspection it becomes immediately obvious that in the
Collatz process the 3n + 1 addition process merely assures the
successive production of even halves, , is uninterrupted thus
allowing the fractions, as halves, to converge to 1. The division
by 2 process may be construed as a collection of halving
operations where it is the operations themselves that are being
added, not so much the results of each operation. Every division
by 2, no matter its value as a quotient, is a half. As the geometric
8 Solving the Riemann Hypothesis
series proves the summation of halves must sum to a final value
of 1. Therefore the solution to the Collatz conjecture is simply

where n now equals the number of halving operations.

Q.E.D.

1.4.2 Fermat Extrema Solution

Consider the following problem:

Given line B divide line B into two parts such that the product of
the two parts yields a maximum result.

Fermat addressed this problem and found the maxima to be

1/2 by employing his own unique method of differentiation to
achieve this result. He began with length B and computed the
derivative to be B/2. Adding two such derivatives yielded the
whole, or B, or 1 again. That, by definition, is the integral of B/2.
Therefore employing the Fermatian approach to differentiation it
may be stated that the quantity 1/2, in whatever form it may take,
may function as a derivative. And the addition of a series of such
halves constitutes an integral. It is a Fermatian integral comprised
of the summation of halves. Thus the Collatz conjecture is no
more than the geometric series of

(1.4.2)
where n now defines each individual derivative, each fractional
term defines a specific derivative, and 1 is the integral of two
halves or the Riemann sum of a series of halves. 1 may also be
considered as a derivative formed by rise over run where is equal
to both rise and run. At the ICR integral and derivative become
indistinguishable.

Q.E.D.

1.4.3 The Unit Circle Solution

The operator i is an intermediary in the process of reversing 1

to 1. Mean reversion is the process by which i rotates radians
or 1/2 of radians, then completes the process by rotating i a final
radians where counterclockwise, ii = 1. Clockwise (ii) = 1.
Thus

Since i is equivalent to a halving process then any and every

rotation of i, no matter the number of radians it or its operand
rotates, may be considered as a halving process. In the unit circle
since all radii are 1, then every application of i, no matter the
10 Solving the Riemann Hypothesis
degree of rotation, will yield an absolute value of 1. Thus no
matter the value of n any single rotation of i must return an
absolute value of 1 as it must since it is a Fermatian limit of . Any
combination or summation of rotations that sum to n must return
an absolute value of 1.
Thus the solution to the Collatz conjecture becomes

where n now defines any number of radians,

where x = n,

where

(1.4.3)

where

where

(1.4.4)

Q.E.D.
12 Conjectures

Chapter 2

Solving the Riemann

Hypothesis
Several methods lend themselves solving the Riemann hypothesis
(TRH). Some are listed in the following sections.

2.1 A Fermatian Solution to the Riemann Hypothesis

The Riemann zeta function, (RZF) is a function where an infinite
series of reciprocals are added, each denominator being raised to
the power s, where

(2.1.1)
The summation of the terms on the right hand side converge to
form a limit. Eulerian tenets find a limit to be a derivative or an
antiderivative or a maxima or a minima or some example of an
extrema. The RZF simply sums the reciprocal of integers, each
integer raised to some power s. s may be any number except 1 in
order to obtain a convergent number.
TRH essentially asks, "What is the value of s when (s) = 0?"
It is found that s, as any even negative number, will yield a value
of zero. Such derived zeros are called

13
trivial zeros. Obtaining and proving the existence of these trivial
zeroes is trivial. However, there also exists as set of nontrivial
zeros. And so the Frenkel interpretation of the Riemann
hypothesis is, "What is the value of s when (s) = non trivial 0?"
Riemann conjectured that all non-trivial zeros are found along a
12 Solving the Riemann Hypothesis
critical line at points . It still remains to prove that all of the
non-trivial zeroes are located at this location. This is the essence
of the Riemann hypothesis.
Consider an xy Cartesian coordinate system where x
represents the real numbers and y represents the complex real
numbers. Mathematicians have determined that non-trivial zeros
must occupy an area bounded by 1 and zero on the x axis. This
bounded area, is known as the critical strip. All non-trivial zeros
are thought to be located within this strip. So far all of the
computed non-trivial zeros have been found to lie along a specific
line that divides the strip in half vertically, i.e., all of the non-
trivial zeros, so far, lie along the critical line . The
working definition of the Riemann hypothesis may now be stated
in two parts:

1. The Riemann Hypothesis hypothesizes that all nontrivial

zeros of the RZF lie along the critical line, .
2. What is the value of s when (s) = nontrivial 0?
To prove TRH only two critical facts are required:

The quantity , in whatever form it may obtain, will and must

always be a limit.

Any and every non-trivial zero, by definition, is a limit.

Fermatian Proof: Prove that only nontrivial zeros of the RZF lie
along the critical line, .

Proof
 13
2.1 A Fermatian Solution to the Riemann Hypothesis

1. No matter what point is chosen within the critical strip that

point will and must lie along a horizontal line segment
bounded by zero and 1.

2. This horizontal line segment is the cosine or positive x axis

with a y intercept of iy.

3. Any one and every one of these horizontal line segments is

exactly the horizontal line segment employed by Fermat in
his derivation of extrema. Not equivalently. Exactly.

4. The critical strip is an infinite vertical stacking

(summation) of Fermats line segments.

5. Following the convention of Fermat where he allowed his

derived value of to represent a maxima, then all such
maxima of the critical strip must located at along the x
axis.

6. By definition a maxima equals a derivative or limit with a

value of zero.

7. Thus non-trivial zeros, by definition, are limits or extrema

if located along the x axis bounded by zero and
1 at a location of .
8. Since the critical strip is an infinite stacking of identical
Fermats line segments then so too are their individual non
trivial zeros, stacked vertically such that they form a
centrode of nontrivial zeros.

9. This centrode of nontrivial zeros is the critical line.

10. Thus all non-trivial zeros, as extrema or zero derivatives,

must be located along the critical line at .
14 Solving the Riemann Hypothesis

Q.E.D.

The Fermatian proof concisely proves non trivial zeros must

lie along the critical line. It does not prove that all non trivial zeros
must lie along the critical line. Nor does it address the value of s
in the Zeta function when (s) = 0nontrivial. These items require an
Eulerian proof.

2.2 An Eulerian Solution to the Riemann Hypothesis

Again, Fermats task was, given a line, divide it into two parts
such that the product of the parts is maximum. was found to be
the maximum either part could obtain. This Fermatian
differentiation is exactly the process that occurs with the cosine
and the versine along the unit radius of 1 at radians. At precisely
one half of the cosine or at 45 degrees the sagitta and cosine are
equal. They are both simultaneously maxima and minima and
indistinguishable from one another. The union of versine and
cosine forms an ICR. They effectively cancel at their point of
intersection, , and become zero, in this case, a nontrivial
zero. Thus the formation of the critical strip, which is simply a
stacking of unit radii of 1. From the critical strip follows the
formation of the critical line, which is an integral of Fermats
maxima. Finally, a centrode of ICRs at is created, which
is formed by the critical lines attendant non-trivial zeros. This
interaction of cosine and versine creating an ICR at , is
also an illustration of the following:
Let f be a real-valued function and let c be a real number.
Then

lim f(x) xc
2.2 An Eulerian Solution to the Riemann Hypothesis 15

exists if and only if

. (2.2.1)
Thus in equation 9a c may be considered as a nontrivial zero.

Prove that (0) = 0nontrivial.

Consider Figures 2.2.1 and 2.2.2..

1. The initial conditions are:

(a) In the unit circle, at radians, the sec = 2i has an

absolute value of two.
(b) The cosine has an absolute value of 1, its value
increasing from left to right. It is zero at (1,i0) and
reaches a maximum absolute value of 1 at (0,i0).
(c) The versine has an absolute value of 1, its value
increasing from right to left. It is zero at (1,i0) and
reaches a maximum absolute value of 1 at (0,i0).

2. At the origin, (0,i0), a limit is created.

3. Several methods are enlisted in its formation.

(a) A Newtonian/Eulerian limit where f(iy) = 0, is created

at the origin by the shrinking of the secant, 2i, to 0.
(b) A Fermatian limit where f(x) = i, is created by virtue
of the midpoint of the secant, 2i, being located at the
origin.
(c) An Eulerian limit, f(x) = 0, is created by the ICR
formed between the cosine and versine at the origin.
(d) An Eulerian limit, f(iy) = 1, is created where given
16 Solving the Riemann Hypothesis

then

4. Therefore the origin is a derivative and may be expressed as

such.

5. The x and y components that comprise the origin must each

themselves be a slope at the x and y intercepts. Therefore the
origin is composed of two slopes.

6. Therefore

f'(x) = f(iy) = m = 0 = i = midpoint = ICR = 1 = L.

(2.2.2)

7. At precisely radians the cosine, the sagitta, and both sides

of the secant obtain exactly the same absolute value of .
8. This duplicates the initial conditions when radians
except the dimensions have now been scaled by a factor of ,
which in effect, creates a secondary unit circle half the
dimensions of the initial unit circle.

9. These two circles constitute the space and body centrodes

forming two ICRs at the two points where secant 2i goes to
zero.

10. Therefore given equation (2.2.2), and the fact that the secant i is
now a Fermatian limit of the secant 2i, the secant i, in its
entirety, must and will go to zero.
2.2 An Eulerian Solution to the Riemann Hypothesis 17
11. The zeroes that comprise this tangent line = secant of i are the
nontrivial zeroes.

12. The tangent line of i =secant is the critical line.

13. Given Figure 2.2.1 the slope created by the first and secondary
unit circles is

.(2.2.3)

14. Therefore the location of the midpoint of i must be

.
15. By Eulerian differentiation if iy = i then

(2.2.4)

16. Therefore,

17. If such is the case then the origin must now be labeled as the
point (1,i), as given by equation (2.2.2).

18. The location of the points where the secant 2i goes to zero, is
therefore the origin at (1,i) and the circumference at (1,i).

19. If non trivial zeroes are defined as i0 then given equation

(2.2.5),

(2.2.6)
18 Solving the Riemann Hypothesis
20. Non trivial zeroes will therefore be located all along the secant
2i, all along the critical line = secant i, and all along the tangent
lines as indicated by the dashed lines in Figure 3 when
radians.
21. Non trivial zeroes will not and cannot be formed on the negative
side of the x axis in the unit circle of diameter 2i. To do so would
create a precessional rate (slope) of positive which is
proscribed.

Q.E.D.

f ' (i)= (0) =nontrivial zero

iy

ix
e
m

1 -4 cosine sagitta 1
-4

ICR=NTZ

m
ix
e
ix
f ' (i) e 0 e ix

Figure 2.2.1: The Eulers formula presentation of an ICR and its

equivalent nontrivial zero (NTZ) when (0) from a secant of i.
2.2 An Eulerian Solution to the Riemann Hypothesis 19

Figure 2.2.2: The dashed lines indicate the location of nontrivial zeroes and
the slopes they occupy when
20 Solving the Riemann Hypothesis
Chapter 3

Solution to the Navier-

Stokes Equation
The Navier -Stoke equations are a group of equations that describe
the motion of a fluid, be it liquid or a gas, in space through the
application of Newtons second law, F = ma, and the law of
conservation of mass. The problem has been divided into two
parts:

1. Find solutions to the equation.

2. Prove whether or not the solutions can become singular or

grow without limit. An example of a singularity is the point
at which the attracting gravitational forces appear to
become infinite within a black hole.

Physicists have struggled to understand the dynamics of

turbulence, one of the components described by the equations of
part 1. Mathematicians have struggled to solve part 2.

Definition 2 Turbulence is the time-dependent chaotic behavior

exhibited in several varieties of fluid flows.

23
3.1 Equating Eulers Equation to Newtons 2nd Law

Eulers formula is the basis of all physical phenomena. There is

nothing in the whole of physics that cannot be described by some
form of this equation including the Navier-Stokes equations. It
follows that Newtons second law, F = ma, must also be derivative
of this equation. Eulers formula essentially precesses e about the
circumference of a unit circle. It is given that some object being
rotated in a circle is acted upon by a centripetal force which may
be described mathematically as F = ma, thus Eulers formula
applies Newtons second law to e, via i. This force may be either
centripetal or centrifugal in nature. Since i accelerates e around
the circumference then

F = ma ie (3.1.1)

Since i,, and e may all be considered as quaternions then it

follows that

F = ma = am ie = (3.1.2)

Therefore F = is a force of precession, e mass, i is the force per

mass, and F,,a,m,i, and e are all quaternions. Also from equation
(3.1.2)

(3.1.3)
Therefore if

then

(3.1.4)
Therefore

3.1 Equating Eulers Equation To Newtons 2nd Law

Therefore when i mass, then e a. When e mass, then i a.

F = am = ie = ei(0) (3.1.5)

e and i are therefore equivalent. Therefore e is the versine and 1 is

the cosine. The interaction of cosine and versine imposes the
existence a type of precession that is coplanar with rotation. This
type of precession is seen in the spinning of a top as the planar
precession rotates counter to the rotation of the top. Thus equation
(3.1.5) applies. If rotation is considered as being the result of a
centripetal force then equation (3.1.5) is centrifugal and positive.

Definition 3 Eulerian precession is de ned as the rotation of an

object under the influence of at least two forces acting at right
angles to one another.

Just as every particle must be defined by Eulers formula, any

and every particle must obey the gyrodynamic precessional
scheme of Figure 2.2.3, which is the gyrodynamic manifestation
of Eulers formula. [7] Figure 2.2.3 makes it obvious that inertia
is
F = ma = m(r)
and gravity is

F =ma = m(r 2).

Therefore Newtons 2nd law is axiomatically included in Eulers

formula. Since tovacian conjugates are equivalent then as

centrifugal acceleration, r, increases, inertial mass, r also

increases proportionally. As centripetal acceleration, r 2,

increases, gravitational mass, 2r, also increases proportionally.
This is classical relativistic mass dilation.
Eulerian precession accounts for precession out of the plane
when > 0 radians. As e acts on the cosine the versine acts on e
laterally and i acts on e orthogonally. This constitutes the
precession of e being acted on simultaneously by both i and the
versine. Therefore e is not just rotated, but is precessed by a yank
out of plane. Yank equals the change of force with time or F/t or
F. Therefore

(3.1.6)
Therefore i and e are not just acceleration but rather jerk where
jerk .
Therefore when i = m then e= jerk. When e= m then i = jerk. It is
also found that if

then

e= a.
If
e
then
i = a.
From equation (3.1.6)

where t = time = P = Period = . Therefore

If P is a period of 1 second then F and Y will have the same

quantitative values. Substituting

into Eulers identity yields

(3.1.7)

The general expression of Equation (3.1.7) is

ei = eeY (3.1.8)

Rearrangement of exponents yield

ei = eY e (3.1.9)

Given

(3.1.10)
and equation (3.1.3) where

(3.1.11)

3.1 Equating Eulers Equation To Newtons 2nd Law then

since i exerts a force upon e therefore

, (3.1.12)

Rearranging exponents yields

eix = eFex, (3.1.13)

However equation (3.1.9) was also previously derived where

eix = eY ex. (3.1.14)

Equation (3.1.9) applies to, , the precession or right angle spin

to , rotation. In situations where coplanar rotation is present that
equation (3.1.13) is applicable. Therefore

(3.1.15)
Therefore

(3.1.16)
Thus e, as a quaternion, is a carrier and mediator of enstrophy as
are all quaternions. Also

(3.1.17)
 (3.1.18)
Equation (3.1.9) may now be expressed in terms of enstrophy
where

eix = eFex = e=x = e= (3.1.19)

Orthogonal i engenders precession. Rectilinear i, in the form of

the versine, engenders vorticity in the form of centrifugal
acceleration. Given equation (3.1.20) = turbulence.

3.2 The Navier -Stokes Equation: Part I.

The Navier-Stokes equations is given by

(3.2.1)
where

Therefore
 (3.2.2)
and

(3.2.3)
Taking the derivative of Fr2 yields

Fr2 = 2Fr3 = 2(F) = 2F (3.2.4)

This refers to both the pressure, p and stress, T, terms. The Navier-
Stokes equation in terms of f equals
f = 2fp + 2fT fN (3.2.5)

Factoring both sides by velocity, v, yields

(3.2.6)

= 2 + 2

= =2 (2 =2 )

Given = power and equation (3.1.20) then

= =2 (2 =2 )

= power = mv[(r 2)]

(3.2.7)
Equation (3.2.7) is the time dependent Navier-Stokes equation
(TDNSE).

Therefore

. (3.2.8)

Therefore

= () = . (3.2.9)

Therefore

Fr = ii(2). (3.2.10)

Dimensionally r i. Therefore

. (3.2.11)
Therefore

. (3.2.12)
Force may be expressed as

. (3.2.13)
Pressure, p, may be expressed as

. (3.2.14)
Given

,
then

Since 2r = F and ijk = 1 then

, (3.2.16)
which may be rearranged as

. (3.2.17)

Therefore

Therefore

. (3.2.19)

By definition a rotor is formed by the formation of

q(r)q1 = q1(r)q. (3.2.20)

Therefore, given Equation (3.2.20) a rotor is in fact formed where

 p

= derivative of Fqx2

= 2F (3.2.21)

. (3.2.22)

Therefore
 1
Since = , = , and = 2 = then

(3.2.25)
Therefore

= f = force

= p + T + f
Therefore

The a of equation (3.2.27), though descriptive, is lacking

in terms of being descriptive of the broad characteristics of a
fluid. To that end a flow rate term is included. To better quantify
this characteristic the quantity a is substituted with

(3.2.28)
Therefore the time independent Navier-Stokes equation (TINSE)
is given by

and the TDNSE is given by

 (3.2.30)

Equation (3.2.30) is equivalent to

(3.2.31)

where = + =solvation parameter, equals the curvature

which is equivalent to pressure, p, and equals the torsion,
which is equivalent to the stress, T.
The Navier-Stokes equation is also the direct result of

Figure 2.2.3 where

= fr = mr( + 2r ) = ij = k = versor

= rp = mr(r) = scalar

= r T = mr(r 2) = k = versor. (3.2.32)

Therefore turbulence would be defined as

 (3.2.33)

The counter current expression of the TDNSE is given by

The quantity [Y ()] implies a counter current and imposes the

quality of turbulence. Turbulence is also generated by the
quaternion rotor.
3.3 The Navier -Stokes Equation: Part II.

Prove whether or not the solutions to the Navier-Stokes equation

can become singular, i.e., grow without limit.

Proof:

Faradays law informs us that precessing charge will induce a

magnetic field. This magnetic field is characterized by a north
and south pole which establishes a magnetic dipole. The behavior
of this magnetic dipole is identical to that of a bar magnet. When
situated within a magnetic field the magnetic dipole of an electron
precesses. Turro states the following:
According to classical physics, when a bar magnet is
placed in a magnetic field B0, the torque acting on
the magnetic moment of the bar magnet is
proportional to the product of the magnitude of the
magnetic moment, , of the bar magnet, the
magnitude of the magnetic field, Bz , and the angle
between the vectors describing the moments. [?]

From Modern Molecular Photochemistry (MMP), by

N.J Turro.

Figure 3.3.1: The magnetic energy foundation of the inertial potential.

 Refer to Figure 3.3.1. In the analysis of charged particle spin
it is useful to follow the magnetic moment because it coincides
with the angular momentum vector. Note that spin and precession
are synonymous. When the bar magnet is subjected to such a
magnetic field it will assume a certain magnetic energy. This
magnetic energy is given by Equation (3.3.1) where

Emagnetic = Bz cos (3.3.1)

It is proposed that the electron is composed of three quarks, j
and i. The j pair of quarks combine to form a magnetic dipole
called the up quark and i forms the down quark. If the magnetic
dipole of the electron functions as a bar magnet and the down
quark component is the source of a coupling magnetic field
analogous to the magnetic field Bz, then the up quark component
must also assume the magnetic energy given by equation (3.3.1).
Therefore the energy inherent in the inertial potential is the
magnetic energy assumed by the up quark component of the
electron as it precesses within the magnetic field supplied by the
electrons down quark component. This is defined mathematically
as

(3.3.2)
It is this magnetic energy that constitutes the fundamental nature
of inertia or the intrinsic quality of mass to resist gravitational
attraction.
mmi
n m
m

m
1 2
3
9 mma
accelerati

Figure 3.3.2: The precessional generation of mass.

Consider Figure 3.3.2. The electron is accelerated along the q

vector causing an increase in the magnitude of the q vector and a
concomitant increase in the B field of the down quark component.
This creates an increase in the torque acting on the bar magnet-
like up quark, which increases the normal force acting on the up
quark, which is manifest as gravitational attraction.
This increase in torque also causes an increase in the angle .
At = 0 = 0 radians the magnetic energy is at its maximum. At
= 90 = /2 radians the magnetic energy is at its minimum. An
increase in the angle implies a decrease in the magnetic energy,
which implies a concomitant decrease in the torque exerted on
the up quark component which results in a decrease tendency of
the up quark to be pulled by the normal force of gravity. This is
the essence of inertia. Therefore all mass, be it gravitational or
inertial, issues forth from an electromagnetic interaction in
general, and from the magnetic field specifically. Such
interactions are defined via equation (3.3.2)
Depending upon the orientation of the applied magnetic field
of the down quark component of the electron, the up quark
component is allowed to assume certain specific orientations. We
focus our attention on the state of mass when theta assumes 0, 90,
and 180 degrees. At 0 degrees the up quark component of the
electron is aligned parallel to the B field of the down quark
component. Here, presumably the up quark will have its most
minimal gravitational mass and its maximum tendency to precess
or alternatively, to be attracted by an attracting body such as the
earth. As increases the up quarks gravitational mass increases
until it reaches a maximum at ninety degrees. At this juncture the
maximum gravitational mass attainable by that particular particle
has been reached. Note however, that this also denotes its
minimum tendency to precess. Since a spinning tops precession
is predicated on the normal attracting force of gravity it may be
alternatively stated that this denotes its minimum tendency to be
attracted by an attracting body such as the earths gravitational
field.
In short, a particle, at = 90 = /2radians, will attain a
maximum mass whereupon it will then cease to be affected by
the magnetic potential energy field as per (3.3.2). This magnetic
potential energy field exerts a Newtonian gravitational force field
defined by Newtons gravitational force law. Such conditions are
found within a black hole. Since the dipole is now at right angles
to the magnetic potential energy field then the mass has reached
both its maximum mass and maximum velocity. It cannot
generate any more force from the induced B field it once
generated while being accelerated.
Since its dipole is now at right angles it cannot be affected by any
other magnetic fields including gravity. Again, gravity is the
force component of a torque generated by the induced B field of
an accelerated (precessing) charge. This torque is the gyroscopic
couple. The component of force of the back reaction to the couple
is inertia. Thus upon reaching a maximum mass status it ceases
to be attracted to any other gravitational masses. However, just
as this maximum mass particle cannot be gravitationally attracted
to any other mass, it in turn cannot attract any other gravitational
mass. To do so would necessarily require it to evince some type
of acceleration in order to produce a net induced B field.
However since it has acquired its maximum velocity and thus its
maximum acceleration, it cannot exert any gravitational
influence, i.e., an induced B field, upon any other gravitational
mass. This would also impose a violation of Newtons 3rd law.
Thus growth ceases and the maximum mass particle becomes
inert.
Gravity is a negative inverse square law force that may be
expressed as F. All of the forces contained within Navier-Stokes
equations may also be expressed as negative inverse square law
forces. They too may be expressed in their own individual forms
as F. It is given that the solution to an equation is invariant to
changes in measurement units. Therefore whatever physical
principles may apply to gravity, as F, may be equivalently
applied to any other negative inverse square law force since they
too may be expressed as F. Figures 9900 and 34554-
demonstrate that any such negative force is coupled to a
complimentary positive force. They are inversely proportional,
thus when one reaches a maximum the other reaches a minimum
and thus both will obtain a limit. Therefore via the principles of
equation (3.3.2), the Navier-Stokes equations cannot grow
without limit. The solutions cannot become singular.
QED
Bibliography
[1] Arthur Latham Baker, Quaternions as the result of algebraic
operations. New York, D.Van Nostrand Company, 1911.

[2] P.G. Tait, An Elementary Treatise on Quaternions.

Cambridge at the University Press., 3rd edition, (1890), 47.

[3] C.J. Joly, A Manual of Quaternions. Macmillan and

Company Limited, (1905), 3, 28.

[4] P. Kelland, P.G. Tait, An Introduction to Quaternions.

Macmillan and Company, 2nd edition, (1882), 46-47.

[5] A.S. Hardy, Elements of Quaternions. Ginn Heath and

Company, Boston, (1881), 62-63.

[6] W.Johnson Jr., The Gyroscopic Force Theory Introducing

Tovacian Chemistry. Willie Johnson Jr. Publisher, (2011)

[7] R. Arnold, L. Maunder, Gyrodynamics and its Engineering

Applications. Academic Press Inc., New York, N.Y., (1961).

43