Physics is by consensus! In gravitational theories we have three accords, Relativity, Strings & Quantum (RSQ) theories. Like a board of directors, the physics community, based on empirical evidence, agree to disagree on how Nature works. Nature, herself, has only one vote, and it is a veto.

The gravitational constant *G* is the one thing that Einstein inherited from Newton and my discovery of the massless equation g=tau.c^2 replaces *G* with the more fundamental constant *c*, the velocity of light. Therefore, *G* is not a fundamental constant but some function of *structure* that we don't fully understand.

However, our assumptions or axioms about the physical world affect or are affected by what we perceive as *structure*.

Over the last 16 years researching the *new physics*, I found myself arguing both sides of the coin! Holding dichotomies in my head. *Polychotomies*? Wondering where the truth lay? Was there was one? Were there many?

Our two most fundamental, implicit, unwritten, unthought, physics assumptions are (1) there has always been some form of order in the Universe at least since the beginning of time, and (2) that this order can be written down in mathematical form.

What if both of these assumptions were wrong? Prior to the Big Bang, was there unmathematical disorder? How then, did order come to be? Do we observe the coming of order as the Big Bang? How is it that this order can be described in mathematical form? Or does a part of the Universe that cannot be described in mathematical form, still exists?

I don't know.

I found out that if we dig deep enough we will find that everything we know is wrong. Einstein replaced Newton. Newton replaced Galileo, Kepler & Tycho Brahe, who in turn replaced some of the then contemporary church teachings, who were influenced by Ptolemy (Earth is center of Universe). And of course Dr Zefram Cochrane will replace Einstein.

Even worse. I found out that matters could be worse.

Herman Bondi who first proposed negative mass (aka exotic matter) in his 1957 paper, "Negative Mass in General Relativity" made the *implicit assumption* that mass was not related to any other property within the particle. Whereas Higgs Boson requires the *implicit assumption* that a particle's mass is created by properties external to the particle. How odd? How many Higgs bosons are there in the Universe, to support at least 10^100+ atoms? Like the three RSQ theories, if we had an alternative mechanism for mass, could we observe it, too?

Older theories on wormholes are based on matter, positive mass matter. Over the decades, to advance this field, physicist migrated to exotic matter as the origin of wormholes. Exotic matter is matter with negative mass and causes repulsion per Bondi. In my 2013 paper I showed that exotic matter could not exists as it leads to perpetual motion machines and the possibility of creating energy out of nothing. Unless of course you believe that there is a part of the Universe that cannot be described in mathematical form . . .

I was very pleased with this discovery, the perpetual motion part, and went on to figure which part of matter is it, that causes gravitational fields. You see, it is easy to say "mass", and then ignore the necessary testing and clarification of which part of matter is mass a proxy of, if at all? Protons, quarks, nuclear-electron shell interactions? Which? And, what experiments are required to confirm or deny this hypothesis?

On Earth, the *accepted value* for gravitational constant *G* is 6.67259x10^-11 (ignoring units). Using a combination of analytical and numerical methods I proved that *G* is not a constant (see *Super Physics for Super Technologies*). It is a variable that is dependent inversely on the atomic number of the isotope. For example, that of Hydrogen and Helium are 1.777957x10^-9 and 4.441839x10^-10, respectively, and *G* decreases with atomic number.

One interpretation is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. Some form of nucleosynthesis increased the nuclear atomic number, thus decreasing *G*. This reduced the gravitational field strength and caused expansion of the Universe.

I showed that if, within the nucleus, protons and neutrons break up into their constituent quarks, gravitational fields are caused by their circular motion. Or gravitational fields are due to quark motion, not mass. Thus, mass is a proxy for the amount of this quark motion. If you haven't noticed by now, the isotopic variability of *G* messes up everything we know about cosmology, but don't tell the cosmologists or the astrophysicists.

Okay, it gets worse.

Didn't I just say that negative mass could not exists? If gravitational fields are caused by circular quark motion, then it does not matter either the direction the quarks are moving, or if their mass is positive or negative, the gravitational field will always be attractive.

So negative mass could exists!

But in this manner, only gravitational attraction is allowed, and perpetual motion machines cannot be constructed. Therefore, exotic matter cannot be used as an opposite of normal matter as it reverses the momentum exchange behavior but all matter exhibits attractive gravitational fields. This suggests that the sign of mass is equivalent to a 180 degree phase shift, if mass were a wave function.

So the validity of negative mass has been reversed.

But wait a minute. If mass were a wave function, then its sign would be a phase shift. That is, negative mass is the same as positive mass, and it does not exists.

And reversed this validity, again.

So where is the truth? It is in the deeper underlying intrinsic structure of the particle. As observed in our Universe, the theoretical model for mass cannot allow for its negative, and rethinking Bondi's *implicit assumption*, a property related to particle structure.

Professors Steinhardt and Efstathiou, in their Kavli Institute video blog, and Professors Lykken and Spiropulu in their May 2014 Scientific American "A Crisis in Physics?" point to the real risk that their empirical data no longer supports their theories. They have suggested approaches to resolving these risks.

Having decoupled mass from gravitational fields, what is the truth? Could any theory on Nature be proved correct? We already have three, Relativity, String and Quantum theories. Given these three, other than Higgs Boson, is there an alternative explanation for mass that is *intrinsic not extrinsic* to the particle?