·          GRAVITY AND STELLAR INTERACTIONS-----------------------------236

·          BINARY PULSAR ORBITAL MECHANICS-------------------------------243

·         THE G-THEORY EXPLANATION OF  THE-----------------------------246


·          SUPERNOVA PHENOMENOLOGY---------------------------------------251

·          SOME COSMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS--------------------------255



  • BLACK HOLES--------------------------------------------------------------------266
  • ACCRETION DISCS-------------------------------------------------------------273
  • MAGNETARS----------------------------------------------------------------------276




Einstein's fudged field equations inject modificants which add various distortions to the standardized geodesic metric. They are not exactly correct but have been masterfully reverse engineered to provide a nice fit at certain points in various geodesic spaces in order to solve for various anomalous gravitational behaviors observed in astronomy but they fail on the grounds of n-metric non symmetry. G-theory can demonstrate why those geodesic metric modifying field equations are actually necessary and what causes the geodesic metric to not actually be geodesic after all (which of course they should be if 'G-rel geodesics' were to be true science).

This applies specifically to distortions in the gravitational stress tensors of the sun, stars and galaxies, and even more so to the 'hotter' bodies and regions in the universe. What this all means is that the strength gravity (Fg) which is notionally derived from the sun and stars doesn't follow the nice curved (bowling ball on the trampoline) space-time continuum line at all! Note: Other stress tensors have not been deemed necessary to address here.

The following is a coherent group of assertations regarding the G-theory phenomenology of both universal and local gravity.








Prior to analyzing these, here is a summation of subjects covered in previous chapters, but with some necessary elaboration regarding the circumstances postulated at the instant of the birth of the universe.

Before cosmo-universal equilibrium of any kind was achieved a primordial upheaval of immense proportions occurred. Granted that the cosmea is proposed to have existed in time within an infinite three dimensional Euclidean metric* where time, motion or physical existence had no relevance, it somehow became rent or (more likely) pulverized by an incredible occurrence which resulted in the introduction of our physical, dynamic space time (universe). This inexpressible event caused a mixing of matter that was not unlike the very rapid mixing of paint and similarly yet expansively on a four plus more dimensional scale.

*This might appear incomprehensible but it is not impossible because the cosmea exists outside of our universe of laws, and it is not observable within the universe. However its historical and current affects such as the 'universe' itself including universal 'mass' and motion are.


During and after the event the universe may have maintained an outer event horizon with the cosmea (unknown but probable) but because of nodal effects at different points within the universe, clouds of atoms regained sufficient 'energy' to attempt a return to their original cosmean state. These areas of 'subduction' of universal matter became known as black holes which grew larger and still exist to this day (within the observational time skew, of course), like plug holes in a super sink. It is highly likely that most of the existing black holes are actually remnants of the cosmea that exist within the known universe; hence the moniker cosmo-universe.

Atoms; now having individually less 'energy' than cosmean praetoms were formed in a vast array of nodal regions with the likelihood of atoms of less 'energy' being formed in nodal clouds more towards the edge of the cosmea or in proximity to black holes. The denser elements would have formed further from the cosmea or black holes because the cosmological area around them lost less 'energy' to the black holes or the cosmea proper from that which they gained by instantaneous graviton 'attack'*. So the matter in those nodal vicinities was more energized at higher temperatures for longer and it had enough time to condense slowly from Q-G plasma in order to form  some of the denser elements.

This is purely related to the law of the conservation of 'energy' which forces matter containing high amounts of 'energy' to form mechanical constructs that conserve as much 'energy' as possible. This is not M-E equivalence, because the 'energy' isn't turning into mass. The actual simple mechanics is that high temperature Q-G plasma and baryonic matter forms are being converted into higher forms of matter consistent with the stupendous 'energy' and time available in consideration of the particular node under evaluation.

Because of the existence of nodal and interfering 'energy' waves (force fields) many different kinds of atoms were formed, and uniformly definable masses of elementally similar atoms appeared. This caused various clouds, each consisting of different groupings of similar atoms to become amassed together in diverse places, and because of atomic forces and the proclivity of atoms to combine for the purpose of 'selfishly' giving their 'energy' away to other atoms, they joined together en masse to create elements and molecules of various substances. Note: This is a bit of a 'tongue in cheek' explanation and it wasn't really random: GD modality forced clouds of similar atoms to combine at various times during the universal birth throes when the consequential gravity was sufficient to overcome the coulombic repulsion forces that beforehand kept them apart. This of course was weighted to the universal matter density curve we are familiar with.

*It should be possible (even if perhaps not probable) for large bodies of dense and elementally pure materials to exist in the universe. I.e. large bodies of diamond or gold! And for that matter, bodies existing of elements as mundane as iron would be surmised to exist. Atomic amalgamation phenomenology will be discussed later . Note: Alchemists; eat your heart out!


This was only all possible at the time because gravity was then variously engaged at extreme and incomprehensible GDs, and the atoms and molecules found themselves being crushed together by the net vector sums of the phenomenal GD forces so involved and by consequence the heat generated as well as universal and local gravities would have been immense.

If this didn't occur then there exists no other known or theorized phenomenology which is able to provide the necessary multilateral force which could drive nucleons together to form atoms greater than 1H. Even the so called big bang would have been a massive multilateral force and the 'magic' matter that would have arisen would be completely homogenous.

Atoms of like matter would have been assisted in their combination by the dimensions of forces and fields which were also new parameters which came into effect. The bonds of these forces were not so vastly greater than the instantaneously strong force of GD (gravity) at that moment.

Diverse atoms forced by extreme gravity were also bound together either as molecules or elemental objects and bodies of varying size, and by bonding via atomic forces (biracial, SBF, electron bonding, valence) and/or catalyzed by the early gravitational impulsion, formed AMOs with massive elemental or molecular structures. Such forces powerful enough to enable the creation of the greater elements are now unavailable in the universe; which is probably why most of those that do exist are unstable. This could be because the extreme gravity which provided the catalyst for their formation no longer exists for their sustenance yet there is a force toggle which they must overcome in order to fully decay or they would be all gone already. That toggle is SBF.

As far as stars go; clouds of hydrogen (especially prevalent in spatial proximity to areas of cosmea such as black holes) LOST their atomic identity and became very neutron dense objects and in so doing became forced together yet variably separated into individual bodies by reason of the existence of GD interference nodes. Many of these became so massive that they slowed most gravitons down to zero within themselves and also became black holes or other super dense bodies.

It is proposed by some astrophysicists that there are black holes at the center of all galaxies and that many more exist that can only be observed by anomalous behavior of stellar bodies, such as some strange pulsar activity and observed orbiting of nothing! Note: It remains possible by G-theory that light can travel unaffected by, and straight through some super black holes, which renders them invisible. However that's another subject which can be concluded by analyzing the contentions of G-theory as a whole.

To explain this further: At the time, in high energy nodes; gravitons were so dense that they caused some massive clouds of matter to become forcefully crammed into such dense objects of matter that they became so hot that they turned into black holes. The internal atoms returned to somewhere near their original cosmean state by achieving the black hole significance temperature (BST) at which point the atoms become fully ionized with maximum 'energy' content, and in so forming the black hole they became realigned -in the vacuum modifies sense- to the force matrix in order to enable the return to the cosmean state praetomic matter and subsequently at zero k with just ground state potential 'energy' once again. Such a state of matter is just an 'event horizon' away.

What I am saying is that the 'singularity' of a black hole is at (or near) Zero k; as is the cosmea. This is contrary to some other theories. I also disagree with Stephen Hawking by my suggestion that the singularities of black holes do not emit BBR, so neither do they evaporate! Even though the current paradigm disallows any matter at all from escaping a black hole*, it seems rather strange how in the face of that particular detail, Mr. Hawking is capable of contemplating the absurd. I know; one should never discount the power of magic!

*I agree with this part. Paradoxically the temperature of the atoms at the event horizon of a black hole is extremely 'hot' at BST. This is also the temperature above which the matter state toggles to zero k and time ceases to have meaning, and nothing including BBR, gravitons and photons are ever again emitted. If the singularity is at zero degrees k then, all other dimensions other than the three physical dimensions would possibly also vanish or in the case of the dimension of time, even though still existing, it would actually become redundant.


Having explained that; J let's continue: Other less significant clouds of hydrogen, along with other gasses and elements lost too much 'energy' and had insufficient density to regain enough by graviton bombardment to become black holes. They simply became dense and hot and began to shed so many photons and other forms of 'energy' in an attempt to entropy back to zero k, that they created an effect called fusion in which the new elemental atoms 'plasm' to such a degree that even light fails to propagate via the photos and turns internally in random directions, which inside a massive 'star' means a greater trapping of 'energy'. All the while the star is still generating heat by graviton 'attack'. Gravity doesn't cause fusion but it sure does catalyze it.

At the same time as this, the new star is slowing the gravitons down to such an extent it results in a massive GS surrounding the body, and hence a huge nucleon 'n'/gravity relationship, therefore while the GD remains at a sufficient level the star continues to gain and retain sufficient 'energy' to maintain the fusion within itself. This means that stars don't have some sort of internal perpetual 'energy' creation mechanism which feeds off their own fusion. Note: Refer to the later chapter dealing with fission and fusion phenomenology.

What this means is, that even though the forming star reaches an incredible temperature and density, it can't actually be seen very well until the moment of fusion and it bursts brightly onto the scene.

Unfortunately even as you read this it is a fact that stars are either using up their 'fuel' and will one day run out* or they will be swallowed up on a grand scale by black holes. This may have serious implications for some future generation. However because of observational time skew and other possible astrophysics mass calculation errors, it may be somewhat disconcerting to consider that the future may have already caught us up, and either a massive coronal matter ejection event or even worse, a solar supernova could occur; or perhaps even more radically a black hole may indeed be nearby. Note: I wouldn't laugh! Your physics is only in its infancy (oops), which is evidenced by the way that your understanding of the known universe is continually changing. However it matters little if one of these events were to occur because there may be none of you left to argue the point!

I will reiterate at this point: All stars affect their own gravity, especially in close proximity. Note: Even though stars slow incoming gravitons down and strip some of their energy; they also create a significant GD by light collisions within and in proximity to themselves as well as by BBR of gravitons. Refer to the Mercury problem.

With consideration to what we have evaluated in previous chapters; let's consider our own sun:

Because light being emitted by the sun in the photos is almost parallel, the high velocity GD created is not enough to back fill its GS to any significant degree by the time it reaches planetary distances (mercury altitude halo excluded). When solar events occur however, graviton production is increased and the affects are measurable as a gravitational anomaly here on earth about 8 minutes before the light event arrives. Note: Refer to the Allais effect.

*The stellar entropy is being slowed by the continual return of sub quantum particles to stars by the massive amount of graviton transitional traffic. This allows bosonosynthesis which leads to limited higher level nucleosynthesis to occur. Unfortunately this cycle appears to be unsustainable in the long term due to negative divergence, and the star may (case specifically) either explode or contract to a super dense matter object of some description at some time or another.


This brings us to consideration of the current health of the universe. The only way we could take the pulse of the universe up until now was by direct observation. However all photonic observations of the universe are in the distant past and dare I say it; mostly the extremely distant past. Therefore we have no known way of observing the distant universe as it exists, period! Well that seems to leave us pretty much in the dark really, doesn't it?

Fortunately by this theory there are other ways to 'take that universal pulse'. I.e. one is by gravity. This is because most gravitons are still traveling at phenomenal speeds vastly in excess of the speed of light and especially through deep space. I conclude that if photons of light can make it through from distant galaxies then gravitons must also get through unscathed or at least half the speed of gravitons arriving on earth must be by such a conservative estimate, at least about the speed of light squared. This gives us a far more recent look at the health of the universe than photonic or emr observation can. We can then possibly observe in terms of only thousands of years of skew delay rather than millions or billions of years. The fact then that graviton GD at a universal level appears to be declining in our window of observation is probably fair reason for concern. (See Chapter 5)

After the 'big bang' (big splat!), 'energy' escaped from the universe in vast quantities and right up until this day it is still continuing to be lost and the universe is cooling. As you are no doubt aware, the third law of thermodynamics also indicates the eventual demise of everything as we know it. This will probably see all that's left behind ending up at about the Bose Einstein condensate level a couple of degrees above zero k. But good news for now however: The distant universe could still be humming away at a slightly different and pulsating level of equilibrium and that's why we can expect some variations of constants including GD and 'c' which may be detected closer to real time as gravity waves. Such gravity waves are not the proposed cause of gravity.

This equilibrium is caused by the theory that light has the same proclivity to soak up gravitons as it does to emit them. So light traveling through the universe on its tines, emits and absorbs gravitons such that anyone with a grade three education will see that an equilibrium can be reached if the 'energy' cycle is circular and not subject to other external interferences and able to be self re-energized within the confines of a system. One that's even incurring losses to an external environment*. However the tentative equilibrium can only exist as long as there is enough light (fusion emission matter) to do the re-energizing. Note: Because photons are 'packetized' space limitations suggest a far greater quantity of free gravitons. This unseen and vast quantity of gravity matter is a strong candidate for the 'missing mass' within the universe. It should be understood that both invisible gravitons and light are being lost to the cosmea but because of the multi-affected erratic motion of gravitons and the relatively slow speed of light we should understand that the process of universal 'energy' depletion will take a very long time indeed. But it is a known fact that the universe is getting cooler.

The creation of gravitons and therefore the existence of gravity itself is dependent on light in the long run and even apart from the threat of stars 'running out of steam' atoms are still attempting to either entropy themselves or vanish into black holes and the cosmea. This can be concluded to take eons but if enough time can be even envisaged, the only conclusion left is that one day it will all end.

*If gravitons only traveled in a singular direction without almost perfect elastic rebound even with matter assimilation and reemission as photons etc, the universe would have emptied itself of 'energy' a long time ago.

 By G-theory it is proposed that photons are transacting particle transfers with gravitons in a relationship that could almost be described as symbiotic. This can really only lead to the conclusion that average graviton velocity will be close to maximum graviton velocity and that gravitons only lose significant velocity when they transit 'bodies'. Note: This concludes that the graviton velocity 'y' and the time observational window just mentioned may be vastly different in actual reality. I.e. deep space might exhibit a much higher graviton velocity -and paradoxically less energy-  which could predicate a much shorter time to 'lights out'! Graviton energy is dependant on its particle Sp.


In order for the law of the conservation of 'energy' to be met; IT MUST THEN BE CONCLUDED that if the transfer of 'energy' was only considered to be unilaterally from photon to graviton and not in an overall circular fashion (with some losses), then very little light would be observable from the stars we can see now. This declares that, photon graviton transitions are only a rate specific 'energy' balancing phenomenon when they are traveling in deep space and their differential energies are very similar because balance (parity) has been achieved. Photons in the long run will lose 'energy' during their travel across the vast expanse of space in order for gravitons to gain 'energy' and hence invigoration -read velocity- and this is the likely reason that we don't observe a bright stellar background at night. The photons that arrive at our eyeballs from stellar observances are energy depleted by loss of particulate sub bosonic matter and as a result their amplitude is lower even though they never lose their signature emission frequency.

This lack of background light has been a classical 'head scratcher' when the light output of trillions and trillions of stars is calculated and related to inverse square law. Now you know why. Note: Up until G-theory there has been no plausible explanation for this phenomenon other than 'space gas' or some such blocking it out*. It has been reckoned that the number of stars in the universe exceeds the number of the grains of sands in all the seashores of the world… Anyone want to start counting?

When the Stars run out of fuel (which will not be a visible occurrence because of time skew) the first thing that will be noticed is a reduction in gravity, which unfortunately we may already be seeing the beginnings of. So it behooves mankind (if he wants to save his 'bleep') to not only look towards universal or time travel but perhaps even 'beyond cosmological' travel!!

Enough of such metareligiophysicocosmouniversiosty: Hey is that the longest word ever coined?

I apologize for the vain digression, but I simply have to check! Antidisestablishmentarianism--- Aha; that doesn't even come close!

*The massive GD could be considered to be dynamic 'space gas'.


OK enough levity: So now we have a humungous universe but how did galaxies end up looking like they did? And how did the spin get imparted to them as well as the orbits of planetary systems and planets even? That is of course, if galaxies really are spinning!

Pretty simple really: In the first instant of the universe everything was really out of 'whack': A bit like paints being initially mixed together. Graviton GD was very nodal, as was 'energy' emission through other dimensions. These nodes or interferences (which are a common feature in physics) caused lopsided force vectors which began things moving, and in many cases with some spin in certain directions and you know what angular momentum is about… So as objects with angular momentum approached each other by graviton induced gravity the law of the conservation of angular momentum as well as the other laws of motion and force/inertia/'energy'/work/time came into play. Note: Some of the most distant galaxies able to be observed within the 'time skew' window have not yet formed shapes that we 'see' in closer galaxies.

As far as galaxies go: The 'elasticity principle' associated with accelerative/decelerative interactive forces has come into play such that as the bodies (being stars) were pushed together, it happened by interaction with elastic interference which as we all know creates patterns. Any number of patterns or nodal results is possible without any specifically known force eigenstates etc. etc.

(No big deal) just practical physics on a universal scale! The flatness of galaxy accretion discs has already been acceptably explained by astrophysicists so I see no need to repeat their work.






How about binary pulsars? Oh no not them! Oh yeah why not? Binary pulsars are deemed to be too big to be revolving around each other as they do. They have a 'Kepler problem' and compounding that they also have a 'De Sitter problem' as well and considering that they are thought to have so much intrinsic 'mass' they should just do the right thing by everyone and crash into each other already.

Under this consideration they seem to be either defying the laws of known science -and therefore special relativity- and it has been suggested that perhaps both stars could possibly be orbiting a black hole. However binary pulsars often consist of a smaller and larger body orbiting each other and exhibiting wobbly orbits with precession. It has also been noted that in tight binary orbits the stars appear to lose up to 75% of their individual gravity. Another problem is the previously mentioned anomalous 70% fit to the Lorentzian curve among other problems noted in the literature. Note: This 30% error is model destroying! The mathematical result of calculating the extent to which problems cause theoretical difficulties is always by the square of the sum of the number of problems. So the quandary realized under the current paradigm in the study of binary pulsars is immense. The emperor has no clothes!

Because of the previously presented G-theory assertation of graviton backfill (photonic self modification of gravity) of hot bodies and summative GS; I might simply be able to REST MY CASE! But no; the show must go on.

Precession; which among other things can be caused (according to my presented case in a previous chapter) by graviton backfill caused bent gravity, is postulated to be modified by somewhat proximal 'closed' 'energy' systems in the binary pulsar symbiotic relationship being affected by their attempts to maintain angular momentum and 'energy' conservation with slight overall losses being realized. These effects cause the whole ellipsoid orbit to be forced to maintain the conservation and in so doing it is perhaps not always preceding but maybe sometimes even be lagging. …specifically in a planetary system which has a retro rotating star. However I can't imagine such a system lasting for very long.

If you understood the previous chapter you should be able to understand that there should be some significance with regard to precession if one body is much 'hotter' than another in a close orbital relationship. Precession might also be caused because the binary body's orbital -or even planetary system- as the case may be, is itself orbiting a galaxy center or black hole as well as its lesser universal body. Or even more likely: A black hole is in a close to ninety degree relationship to the bi-orbital axis. This is possible because here we have a three body problem where the orbiting pulsar-stars might have their complete system orbiting a black hole at right angles to the plane of their own orbit.

Either these explanations of pulsar activity might suffice; or perhaps an expanded explanation by G-theory is more likely in that binary pulsars are creating vast photonic and gravitonic emissions which are colliding head on in such a way that the GS between them (angularly corrected) is severely reduced by vector resultants and the gravity between them is also reduced. Two such objects not emitting particles to such an extent that promotes the inertial frame drag caused back filling of their own and each other's GS would otherwise have crashed into each other long ago. This problem may be the cause of the supposed 'frame dragging' effect mentioned but not yet even proven as predicted by general relativity or even the Lorentzian form.

The observed binary systems are likely to end in a giant fireball one day. The only reason they are able to continue in the 'dance of death' for a cosmological size while is that they are in effect each chasing the lagged apparent gravity center of the other and they will likely speed up as they get hotter which creates more gravity lag etc etc until they actually depreciate. Note: Refer to the Mercury problem at the end of the previous chapter. Also refer to 'force frame dragging' in a previous chapter. Note also: The Small super fast binary system recently discovered by NASA would be unable to be observed as a binary system if SR or LR is true because they are noted to be orbiting at half the speed of light. I rest my case.

This G-theory postulation is also the probable reason that LARGE MASSIVE (COLD) LOW 'ENERGY' EMITTING BODIES DO NOT APPEAR IN CLOSE SOLAR OR STELLAR ORBITS UNLESS THEIR (HOT) STAR IS RELATIVELY SMALL. This is proposed to be because the cold bodies don't emit much 'energy' to so cause a significantly proportional GS backfill in the same manner as 'bright' stars do. This observation is supportive of the preceding chapter and leaves relativity clueless!

The large planets which have been observed in the universe in close proximity to their large star may actually be emitting large quantities of infrared and gravitonic BBR and still be relatively hot but below the point of fusion. Such a system may also be considered to be a binary pulsar.

So as per these explanations, it would then be a prediction of this theory that greater light (or other photon) emitting stars (I.e. gamma, x-rays and cosmic rays) could exhibit far less gravity than they should because of a higher level of backfill of their own GS. This means that they would be actually denser than they appear. Note: Again refer to the Mercury problem in chapter 3. This may not apply to cosmic and gamma particle emitting stars for reasons which will be forthcoming. Whether stars actually emit enough 'x-rays' to make a difference to their gravity is unclear.

G-theory could create more difficulties for the Einsteinian, Keplarian and Newtonian gravity models when analyzing different types of 'heavenly' bodies. It subsequently creates difficulties for space time warping geodesic theory and the idea of Einstein's 'ring effect' being caused by the lensing of light by gravity. G-theory overcomes all of these problems and addresses and solves the problems currently presented by the otherwise 'strange disobediences' to those models which have been well documented. Note: Einstein's ring effect doesn't prove the idea of space time warping or even gravitational affects on photons as many speciously suppose. It just shows that there is something about universal bodies that causes them to bend light which doesn't contravene the laws of physics. In geodesic theory it's not possible to actually SEE the supposed space time warp because (if you actually bother to think it through) the relativistic manifold should make light appear as if it is traveling in a straight line even when following a curve; yet strangely here is another contradiction because we can actually see Einstein's ring affect. So there goes G-rel theory out the window! Will somebody close it quick!!

This G-theory proposal of graviton induced G mass and gravity may also explain difficulties noted with the planetary observances in our own solar system.

This all implies that our own sun is also denser than we accept because as previously asserted, its 'light' and consequential graviton manufacture, (like all stars) affects its own gravity and it causes and increase in the gravity of the whole solar system within the heliosheath. This can also be supported by the fact that gravitational anomalies are currently being observed being caused by solar activity. This phenomenon can be highlighted by the observed gravitational information arriving on the earth (and very significantly for this theory) almost instantaneously (By my calculations in the order of 0.0005 of a second), compared with the eight minutes taken for the photonic data to arrive*. This observation in collusion with the Allais effect, not only lends support to this backfill theory but also strongly supports the ultra high graviton velocities calculated herein.

*It may be of profound significance to note that this might mean that a gravimeter could give eight minutes of advance warning of a coronal mass ejection for the benefit of astronauts, and perhaps enable critical power grids to be powered down in time to in order to protect them .








At the time of writing; even though the experimental results of study of the Allais phenomenon are still pending, it became of interest to note that one gravitational anomaly was recently observed by an oil exploration company in Saudi Arabia . This was recorded as a sudden and significant decrease in gravity as measured by a gravimeter during a solar eclipse. However this has remained largely unsubstantiated by other gravimeter experiments yet specialty pendulum experiments yield fairly consistent and positive results which experimentally violate accepted limits on Majorana shielding.

If it were allowable by their theories, both Newton's and Einstein's offerings would have predicted that the gravimeter should have actually measured an increase and definitely not a decrease or tilt, and which would by all accounts follow the normal tidal gravitational curve by the causing of an extra high tide. The gravimeter in question had actually been 'tide corrected' and should not have shown the very noticeable extra dip in the now corrected and steady flat line.

This is because gravity is not thought to be generated by the sun under any circumstances so (apart from the impossibility of any Majorana shielding) the moon should not be capable of blocking even a gravity 'pull' let alone the 'push' (dip) that was observed! In any case if the gravity is being blocked by the moon at the moment of the observed eclipse then logic suspects that sunlight can't be carrying the gravity or gravity is not traveling at 'c' so it isn't being blocked by the moon and in light of all that data we are now faced with a stupendous dilemma which some will shrug off and simply cast doubts on the experimental results. However doing that pompously assumes their position of currently possessing a true model of gravity that like intractable 'flat earthers' can't be influenced by little things called facts!

What is really troubling about all the scientific analysis of this effect -that I have witnessed- is that the scientists actually treat the 'apparent' solar position as being the same as the gravitational position during the eclipse? This of course assumes that they are either lax or they consider that gravity travels at the same speed as light and also that it emanates from the sun. Both of these conclusions have been dismissed by science and the former in particular by van Flandern.

However if we question the model and become a fool just for five minutes we might avoid the ignominy of remaining a fool for ever. So this phenomenon (most likely connected to the Allais effect) is a significant dilemma for contemporary science. Not only was the decrease a sudden dip which contradicts the gradual theoretical increase that is normally expected but it was a short but definite decrease at around the middle of the duration time of the eclipse.

This correlates with the timing observed in pendulum experiments except that in those cases we see a gradual 'tilt' in the verticality of the anomaly during the eclipse and this is excruciatingly and positively profound when viewed in the light of G-theory.

When I first began to study this phenomenon I became a little alarmed but not deterred. As well as threatening relativity; the Allais effect seemed to even threaten the credibility of G-theory. However being somewhat comforted by the many model fitting phenomena I had already analyzed I forged intrepidly ahead and I now feel absolved because in spite of early misgivings due to incomplete assessment;  the following assertation is probably the most stupendous support for G-theory that I have come across to date.

After much consideration of the facts and data I have reached the conclusion that not one of the current theories of gravity is able to explain gravitational anisotropy*. Relativity cannot allow this for any reason especially when recent experiments have shown negligible terrestrial frame dragging.

Apparent anisotropy already exists because of the apparent solar position but that has been taken into account by our clocks and this assertation and it is stable and reflected on the dark side of the earth with only around 0.12% variation noticed in the diurnal gravitational force.

*Shift from the vertical angle. This is not referring to cosmic ray diurnal anisotropy or light speed anisotropy but any deviation from the supposed verticality of the gravitational metric from any given point on earth.


G-theory breaks up the components of solar gravity into two; one of which provides so called gravitational waves (which is another subject). It is this vector summed duality of gravitational forces which allows for solar eclipse gravitational anisotropy to be observed in violation of relativity.

The apparent solar gravitational center (AGC) is a couple of parsecs east of the solar geocenter. Light from the sun also creates gravity to a much lesser extent during its travel away from the sun to any given point in its sphere of influence, specifically earth. The extra gravity is fairly even but proportional to solar light fluctuations which gives rise to gravity waves being embedded in the overall solar gravity field. Such gravity waves should exhibit phase anisotropy from the true vertical.

All that aside, here is the proposed reason for the Allais effect: As well as the AGC which is caused by gravitons transiting the sun at approach speeds in the order of 1e17 times 'c' and (being decelerated and slightly perturbed by the rotation of the sun) exit-ing at round 1e10 times 'c' (per Van Flandern). Solar light photon transitions also generate gravitons which are vectored from the angle of transition by the previously described method in 'chapter 3 Technical 1' and they travel almost radially outward from the light collisions at around 1e17 times 'c' also. In that case they are many orders of magnitude more forceful but their lower density is vastly disproportional to the general solar gravity shadow (GS) flux.

However those gravitons do have an affect and the existing anisotropy is amplified to shift the AGC further east towards the apparent visual solar center (AVC) caused by astronomical aberration which results in them almost appearing to be the same and constant point in space. The flux strength of the photonically generated gravity falls by modified inverse square law with distance from the sun. Now we must understand that the light which is creating the gravity which is effective on earth is traveling outwardly but it is being created according to a conceivable angular shift from the solar geocenter towards the AVC relative to the earth and such extra gravity is being created further and further away from the sun until we notice that the gravitons being created as the light nears earth appear to be being created from the AVC itself but that would be a specious conclusion.

Without any shadowing object in the way we observe the combination of these two gravitational phenomena as the actual gravity we observe where high noon almost relates to the vertical overhead position. In affect the photonic gravity ameliorates the otherwise expected anisotropy away from the optical azimuth towards the gravitational azimuth. This will also have the affect of slightly increasing the overall gravity experienced by an object on the earth which results in vector summed 'g'.

During a solar eclipse the shadow of the moon causes a lessening of the solar light and a consequent cessation of photonic gravity creation between the moon and the earth because of the column of darkness now existing in the light streaming vertically from the apparent solar optical position.

We should be able to predict what will happen first once the column of darkness begins to move over our Foucault pendulum on the earth's surface. Compared to the gravitational force from the SGC the photonically generated gravity is approaching at an ever increasing angle shifting towards AVC as it approaches earth. This means that as that gravity component shifts the overall vector summed gravity to the side and it then loses the vertical gravity component during the eclipse; the result is (although very small) a prominent and measurable anisotropy from the vertical.

This is followed by an actual dip in the gravitational tidal force at the very center of the shadow which is caused by the cone of the lesser gravitational affect of the shadow. A gravimeter not positioned exactly at the center of the eclipse may indicate either nothing or other gravitational affect curves. It would never be able to measure any angular shift from verticality which requires a Foucault pendulum.

This mechanics also means that the anisotropy will gradually decrease but peak during the first phase of the eclipse towards the 'center of contact' and exhibit a less prominent anisotropic affect during the last phase. This decrease is due to the reduction in the gravitational affect by inverse square law with angular distance from the solar geocenter. Effects should begin before and after the eclipse because the sun is not a point source and the tilted gravity field is actually an elongated arc relative to the earth and subject to variability (waves).

Any expected change in gravity during the exact 'gravitational center' eclipse several minutes earlier will show no gravitational anomaly because the Majorana shielding of non solar-photon-generated gravity is extremely small to almost non existent and is unable to cause any anisotropy. The reason for the Allais effect is not from gravity shielding but from an anisotropic gravity defect caused by angled graviton-generating-light relative to the apparent gravitational center acting in an apparently increased manner of pushing (dip) because of the loss of the central gravitational column (normal apparent pull).

One might expect that twenty arc seconds is too small an angle to cause such an affect. What is to be noted here however is the sensitivity of the measuring devices and the extremely low value of the measured tilt. A plumb bob would show nothing. Even an ordinary clock type pendulum wouldn't exhibit any aberration in its motion; or perhaps some almost imperceptible change that could be explained away by supposed changes in the Coriolis force etc.

Allais affects are expected to be variable because of differences in positional affects caused by the solar system n-body problem as well as the lunar ascension/declination, annual and cyclic solar positional variations and barycentric/geo-gravity differences and it may not be always observable. This has been borne out experimentally.





Some have offered an earth based solution and have proposed distortions in the earth's barycenter as being the cause. However novel that approach may be it would still result in an even change in the tidal force and wouldn't result in the observed anisotropy.

The shimmering light bars that are often observed during an eclipse are likely to only be explainable as fringe shift affects caused by variations in the energy of light (for any reason) causing potaic-gravitational interference striations*, with the shimmering simply being due to atmospheric lensing affects. It would be very interesting to see the results of an experiment carried out on the 'night' side of the earth.

*I have proposed in the previous section that light from the sun travelling at different energies causes proportionally variant extra gravitational affects. The moon acts a little like a single sided slit and the darkened atmosphere also allows the interference pattern to become observable. This effectively destroys S-rel but the proponents will simply  throw their whitewash one more over a multitude of signs pointing at there theory of relativity and boldly painted with one word--- absurd! A single slit experiment on earth is inconclusive because annoying colors are involved. This may be related to the 'Specter of Brocken' effect.

Note should also be taken of the proposal in G-theory that reflected light travels at different motion relative reference frame proportional speeds (anisotropy) than the incident light. That alone can cause the observed fringe shift which is supportive of the postulation and which simultaneously destroys S-rel.


I mentioned earlier that graviton emission from photons was likely to be at the vector summated angles of the eigenstates of the respective energies of the photons so involved. If it was to simply be a random phenomenon then the sun and stars inclusively would create so many gravitons aimed back at themselves it would create a positive feedback 'energy' loop which could in theory cause them all to become supernovas. Of course this backfill just doesn't occur and by the G-theory phenomenology it is impossible.







We do know for a fact however, that stars over a certain density  do run the real risk of creating such an anomalous positive feedback at some time or another, and that some of them subsequently do undergo extra graviton induced thermal amplification. So by another possible mechanics to that which will be described shortly; 'boom we have a supernova'!

The affects of powerful magnetic fields and the far field affects of massive bodies on gravitons and photons will have to go unaddressed for now because it requires intensive research which is beyond the scope of my capabilities. I suspect that other than affects which are already logged, there is a strong likelihood of other phenomena being elicited when sufficiently powerful force fields are at work.

I must argue the point with the current theory of supernova mechanics. The traditional idea that a white dwarf running out of fuel has sufficient gravity to suck up fuel from a neighboring star is based on the specious pull theory of gravity. In any case why doesn't it just suck up enough matter to simply become itself again and the neighbor would then become the white dwarf. This to and fro mechanics should end up with them both being white dwarfs.

It appears unlikely that any individual body would be able to gain such a massive amount of 'energy' as that exhibited by a supernova being derived from a cannibalistic 'energy' losing mechanics. Where's the empirical science in that? Where's the physics behind a vague gravitational phenomenon which allows part of a body to fall into another body in an orbital system? There is none!

I'm really being a bit facetious but in actual fact the graphical representation which is often shown to represent a white dwarf acting like some sort of space 'vacuum cleaner' sucking in the matter from its neighbor, doesn't fit at all with any known mechanics of gravity that I have seen! Not even G-rel can allow such fanciful and puerile mechanics.

At first I thought such a mechanics was just a bit of sensationalism for public consumption but I find to my horror that many scientist actually *support the phenomenology! This even applies to the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates who won the 2011 prize for proving that the universe is expanding. In light of this, I suspect that they were unjustly rewarded (for not having empirical proof) because supernova physics of binary pulsars with a white dwarf is not well understood enough for iron clad conclusions to be reached: especially when other scientists have concluded the opposite contracting universe scenario!

*This is not decrying the result.


The only mechanics that can cause some of its stellar dust to arrive at the white dwarf a little before the mother object does, is only enabled because the dust particles are running into severe retardation of their orbital velocity by a possible stellar wind imbalance because of a greater size proportionality to PIR than to AIR whereby the converse may also be true. Dust and gas is being affected no more by space drag of any description than the mother star. We should declare this to be an unknown. Perhaps we could tentatively assume that maybe the white dwarf isn't emitting stellar wind?! I personally couldn't go that far.

However I think it more likely, and for the following reasons that dust and gas will arrive before their mother star, but not in the vast quantities proposed because no more matter than that which is emitted by the stellar wind can be forced to be sucked from the ordinary star. However the collapsing of the white dwarf would probably cause a coronal matter ejection event in the ordinary star (which may or may not enter the gravitational capture zone of the white dwarf) but it would cause a far greater and denser stellar wind by gravitational and magnetic distortions. This would cause the ordinary star to began to experience a massive stellar wind friction which would be thought to cause a devolving orbit and a similarly massively altered GTDg which would further upset its orbital characteristics.

Such an increased stellar wind would be proportionately captured by the increased gravity of the white dwarf. The white dwarf would consequently see an even greater temperature increase because of the increased graviton 'energy' and the pressure inside would grow which would in turn cause fusion to occur to higher generational levels of matter such as carbon being fused into oxygen!

Another approach to understanding how this phenomenon might cause a thermal imbalance which results in a type 1a supernova might be as follows:

Consider first the likelihood that a white dwarf has used up its supply of hydrogen and even helium has mostly been fused to carbon and carbon is being or has been fused into oxygen and it is likely that the fusion can go no further because the star is too small to gain the extra 'energy' it needs from graviton transitional 'energy' transfer or further fusion generated energy.

So the white dwarf is now a star that's no longer undergoing fusion and it collapses under its own pressure because of a lack of dynamic volatility and even the electron orbitals that might now be reconstituted become crushed and stripped once again. In this condition it is likely to remain stable for a very long time as a super dense ionium.

 Let's take a step back a minute and analyze the currently recognized progressive steps in stellar fusion. I.e. H→ He→ C→ O--- If we study this for more than a few moments it becomes patently obvious that at some critical point during the process of fusion to oxygen sixteen, that an oxidizing reaction between the oxygen and carbon is likely to occur. At the extreme pressures expected this will be stable but should the pressure at any point within that potentially fatal mix within that star fall to a sufficient level, such an unfortunate happenstance would result in the formation of an expansion of super hot CO2 gas at first, which would have historically remained stable as a liquid or even a solid at the super high temperature and pressure.

This particular fluid however is a serious threat to the continued existence of the star, should any phenomenon cause a sufficient imbalance of pressure and/or temperature. We could consider such a star to be a containment vessel for the CO2 and should any of it expand by turning into a gas, then that bubble would result in -at the very least- a super massive matter ejection event and in the worst case of severe 'flatulence', in a runaway explosion which would, in parlance 'Blow the sucker to smithereens'. This would in turn become an even more massive event, once the inner oxygen layer met the outer hydrogen layer which it just gained from its neighbor. …Anyone for a drink of water? Hot water that is! J

A supernova would be the result and it is suggested by this writer that such large matter ejection events (which have been observed) as well as supernovas are set off by something similar to a massive 'soda pop' explosion. Nucleosynthesis is likely to occur during a supernova event for reasons that are well understood.

The very act of limited matter absorption into a white dwarf star from its binary pulsar partner would cause the risk of such an occurrence to increase by many orders of magnitude upon reaching the required 1.4 solar mass point. Apart from the gaining of hydrogen (another oxidative fuel) it would at some stage become imbalanced by matter density divergence. Note: Such matter absorption would take some time because it would have to 'spiral' in, and at first it would be fairly even and only fill the outer hydrogen layer of the white dwarf until (comparatively speaking) chunks of calcium and carbon began to strike. Such an off centered strike of these chunks would make the resulting explosion (of either kind) slightly imbalanced. I.e. this means not perfectly symmetrical or even. This symmetry -which isn't ever observed- would have to be the case if the explosion generated from the core of a star with even shells as per current understanding. So the current theory is doubtful.

In all likelihood its decomposing partner star would be following the spiraling matter stream, not too far behind. It would only be being delayed by the combined mutual affect of force frame dragging.

At some point quantities of oxygen would be gathered into the white dwarf which would have already internally fused carbon to oxygen as well, and this would now be ready to add fuel to the supernova once there is a perfect mix.

The problem with the traditionally accepted suggestion that all supernovas of that type achieve the same 'brightness' is dependant on the assumption that when they reach the critical Chandrasekhar mass of 1.4 ms they auto self destruct. I have shown good reasons why this is not necessarily the case. So the new practice of drawing distance data from type 1a supernova brightness is problematical, as is interpretation of the abruptly delineated red shift observed at the outer universe: TBE.

It can be assumed (or not) that larger stars forming more massive supernovae were manufactured from stuff that already contained heavier elements and further supernova nucleosynthesis would only account for more elements up to 60Fe. All of this is impossible to prove because spectral markers for various elements that exist deep inside stars are difficult to define and in the case of supernovas, the even greater difficulties are well known.

A possible phenomenological mechanism for the type 1A supernovae could be as follows: At sufficiently high temperatures, the stellar hydrogen ions (which have been the identifying markers for these types of stars) become too cold to fuse any more and in a sudden and very short time period, they find themselves being forced together to form an extremely fast decaying 'neutronium' and/or 'positronium' (actually any old 'ionium') whereby the star becomes almost perfectly inelastic because of this kind of bonding which, at every instantaneous 'time slice' consists of an even but morphing bonding arrangement which is non electronic and extremely compressed to almost non zero separation. However we are able to consider that the star is not quite large enough to become a neutron star.

In such a case the individual nucleons can no longer move, they just change internal states at hyper high frequencies caused by graviton transitions and intra nucleon 'energy' (particle) elastic resonance motion which may cause the emission of x-rays*. This is fuelled by the gravity caused and residual heat emanating from inside the star; in which case the smallest external force would cause almost instantaneous nucleon decrepitation in all directions.

Such a release of pent up elastic tension would occur at almost the speed of light until the resulting quark gluon plasma began to recombine to form visible clouds of space 'dust' whereupon the process would lose 'energy' and slow down as a result**. In such large supernovae, a vast quantity of higher levels of elemental matter might also be turned into Q-G plasma. In other words you could expect matter transformation to occur but most of it only as matter degeneration with only some lesser amount of actual nucleosynthesis at extremely nodal hotspots.

*According to G-theory electrons are not necessary for the emission of light. The idea of the core explosions postulated by others is a very problematical and implausible phenomenology.

**Here we have 'energy' being consumed as binding and bonding 'energy' as well as being used in slowing motion by various fundamental forces but not being converted to 'mass' per se; which we have already discounted as an impossibility.


Much of the decrepitated matter including recombined hydrogen and helium would therefore be lost to space to form a nebula in that state and the remaining nucleonic mass might be unable to ever become anything other than a small neutron star. This would require a massive amount of 'energy' and matter particles which would cause Beta positive decay on a grand scale indeed! This could only be caused by the extreme centrally compressive effects of such a behemoth event causing sufficient internally directed explosive force. Think about it. On the outside everything not tied down is being turned into Q-G plasma while on the inside protons and electrons are being recombined en masse and forced into the center as 'neutronium'.

Photons etc, gravitons and neutrinos etc would be manufactured and emitted at their own particular speeds as well. This brings me to the point where I must admit that (if as is currently recognized), neutrinos are capable of being eventually captured by matter, then because of the laws that govern all of physics, they also must have some affect on gravity because of their possession of a small degree of mass (to what may turn out to be a limited and perhaps even insignificant degree). However this is a deviation from the standard model.

*The expansion speeds of the heavier ejectile matter would be less and variable. Such an explosion would be uneven and this indeed is what is observed.







Right now the gravities of the earth as well as the planets are also being affected by the continuous graviton transitions and resultant sub boson particle absorptions into atoms and to a lesser extent by photon and complete graviton absorption etc. This not only helps heat up the earth and planets (especially the deep mantle regions of Earth in specific analysis, which eventually concentrates in the core because of convection and BBR) but it also would have some affect on their gravities in a modified inverse square manner over distance.

The solar photon and neutrino generated 'extra GD' is expected to be miniscule when evaluated in proportion to actual graviton created GD. However with regard to planets on the inner orbits such solar gravity generation we have already shown to possibly be significant and perhaps ditto for neutrinos. Note: The Mercury problem has already been addressed.

The overall effect of this extra gravity (push away) on earth will be a slight change in GSe, and the earth will orbit at a greater distance than it otherwise would. This all means that 'large body' gravity effects and 'mass' estimates may be quite subjective, and as we have seen may well vary from body to body by a power law modifier. This will result in miscalculations of the mass of bodies and lead to anomalous precession and orbital observations, which I suggest will not always accurately track Einstein's predictions or (I suspect) anyone else's for that matter.

Now it is a fact that the earth and the planets are orbiting in the solar wind. The vector force acting against the orbits should have seen the demise of those orbits a long time ago, yet surprisingly they are still orbiting.  In ignorance of my theory on this matter previously addressed in an earlier chapter, a few specious reasons have been historically postulated, but not yet proven, in order to try and make some sense of such a 'wonder'.

The problem with one of those 'unnamed' theories is; that it disregards the obvious mechanics that the vector sums of solar wind forces acting on planets are (in instantaneous vector resolution) LINEAR yet they are somehow considered to be П related in order to hope to prevent expected orbital decays without any other reasons. The sum of the actual friction of the solar wind is not really addressed as it must be. Simply changing subjective particle attack angles can never decrease the drag on the orbits.

The idea that orbits are just planetary bodies falling around the geodesic curve of the sun is disproved by the formula relating gravitational mass to centripetal force* by the equation mg=mv2/r unless of course mass can be related to the form of the geodesic manifold by 'magic'. This means that if some historical and speculative mechanisms such as those put forward by Lense Thirring and De Sitter can't be proven in a reasonable amount of time then we should be forced to consider that there must be something else going on here.

*Confusion sometimes reigns. Centripetal force is often thought of as the outward 'pulling' force acting on an orbiting body. No that's inertial centrifugal force attempting to keep the orbiting body traveling in a straight line. Centripetal force in consideration of orbits is actually the notionally attracting gravitational force that theoretically acts towards the center of the bodies in the orbital system. Similar to the use of speed for velocity, lax use is OK as long as the situation doesn't demand force vectors for mathematical consideration.

In that case we consider that with respect to the orbiting body, centripetal (gravitational) force is vectored towards the center of the orbited body and centrifugal (inertial) force is theoretically acting equally and exactly in the opposite direction.


In subjective analysis; this friction caused orbital decay is not the same decay observed in geodesic space time warp models. You know, like when you spin a billiard ball around the bowling ball in the middle of the trampoline, it soon spirals into the center. So what is going on in this case?

The pure mathematical form geodesic metric cannot lead to a sustainable orbit by any phenomenology without the approaching object transiting its metric space through an infinite number of unrelated geodesic set elements* without any required mechanics for adjustment of the gravitational energy stress tensor and consequently the law of energy conservation. If the geodesic was symmetrical this wouldn't be a problem but I intend to prove that it isn't. It has many modifiers in the real universe. Planet spin frame dragging was supposed to solve for this. Duh!

In other words if the object were to approach the body on the defined geodesic metric, it can only ever encounter drag and spiral inwards because the bodies have definable volume and are not a mathematical point**. If we force the metric to a truly non geodesic model by assuming point source gravity emitters and then collapsing the manifold to resolve any problems of non-symmetry, then we have a zero sum game and the geodesic model remains destroyed. Note: Poincare's attempts to solve this problem are still not truly symmetrical and they show flawed mathematical persuasion by allowing reversible time coordinates.

*In such a case even a lack of friction cannot even allow an orbit because that 2D model requires a geodetically distorted angular approach when the only actual approach which is mathematically allowable is a linear one via the Euclidean metric.

**Refer to supplement 1


In the former case the inwardly accelerating frame of reference will also be seen to generate an outwardly spiraling orbital decay in every case. This is because of the vector relationship between the curved metric and the outwardly acting axial linear centripetal (inertial) metric*. So with either a curved or a collapsing geodesic metric, there are severe flaws in the theories.

*There is no part of G-rel that can modify inertial vectors! Such things are simply 'shoved under the carpet'.


If this is thought to be arguable and not to be acceptable as the case, then when you attempt to unify the two relativities in multi-space time, the time warping becomes impossible to correlate in opposite directions and the only metric left which is capable of providing the perception of momentum while accelerating inwards is by distorting the fabric of space such that space itself is deemed to accelerate and squeeze into the body and by that motion be able to 'magically' APPLY A FORCE to cause the appearance of gravity.

In this bit of iteration; I could allow this to stand as a possible phenomenology if the space fabric consisted of stationary gravitons or other dark matter. (Forget dark 'energy'. Such subjectivism is unscientific).

However this would be instantly refutable because if we give it the required density to provide the 'energy' for gravity at such low velocities it wouldn't give the (real world fitting) hypervelocity space drag curve that is derived herein from G-theory, and by my calculations we would feel a 'not currently observed' 10N of drag force if we ran at just 10m/s, and if that's not bad enough; THE SQUEEZING OF DARK MATTER FILLED SPACE ACCELERATING IN TOWARDS THE BODY SHOULD BE FELT AND MEASURABLE IN A FALLING OBJECT. This is not the case and both theories of relativity are not unifyable and therefore debunked. Note: This collapsing of curved space (not time), through an object (even if possible), would create a vertically nonlinear gravitational force which would paradoxically, also disarm Einstein's equivalence theory! The strange dilemma for geodesics is that on the one hand the theory disallows space to have any ability to provide any retroactive force against moving matter because in S-relativity that little problem is deemed to be taken care of by 'time'. Note: We are dealing with Newton's missing inertial reference frame for hypervelocity which I have just discovered a plausible mechanics for in chapter 3.

So on the other hand G-relativity geodesics, contradicts itself when it assumes that space has the capability to be able to provide such a traction force when subjectively required. How can space passing through objects cause them to accelerate when empty space has no power to perform any function at all? So now we are able to have both time and space warping phenomenology removed from the list of possible contenders for gravitational mechanics because they are self refuting 'magic nothings'.

To be fair; measurement difficulties similar to those which were noted for 'the falling lift' mind experiment would be realized. However we still must ask. If the accelerating space consisting of 'magically'* transitional 'dark gravitational matter' falls into bodies and objects, then where does it go? This question may have plausible answers, so the real difficulty for such a theory is as described throughout the thesis and by others. Such difficulties are aggravated by the space drag non conformability to reality.

*This is quite unlike G-theory transitional gravity which provides a jurisprudent phenomenology and so is not similarly declarable to work by magic.


If space were to be a medium that falls inward and bounces off the objects being pushed towards the center of the body, then the same refutations that were successfully leveled at the Le Sage theory would apply once more to geodesics. Therefore any space matter (graviton) theory must be considered to be by transitional phenomenology, and more importantly for the success of this venture: the featured non-relativistic G-THEORY of high velocity transitional gravitons IS THE MODEL FITTING FORM.


Beulah! So it's G-man to the rescue on both problems: Firstly it must be reiterated that G-theory is solely based on the Euclidean metric. As a post Newtonian rethink, The G-rel geodesic theory is a faulty and purely mathematical representation. S-rel is junk science!

The solution to the problem of long age orbit retention is only explainable if the sun does backfill its own GS as per my previous assertation*. Explaining this here in a simplified form: Whenever a planet slows enough to cause a descension in its orbit it attempts to enter a zone of reduced gravity which is further affected by a modified inverse square law which, by the resultant evaluations, may actually end up being pi related (curved) and this in effect creates another one of those enigmatic 'goldilocks zones' whereby (as we have previously seen) the planets are able to maintain orbits EVEN WHEN SUBJECT TO VARIABLE (within limits obviously) EXTERNALLY APPLIED FRICTIONAL BRAKING FORCES. However who knows how long that can all last for? Note: In spite of the theory I have presented, the actual length of the earth year is getting infinitesimally shorter EVERY YEAR. Even if the length is measurable in nano seconds, it is insignificant and way below any normal expectations. So once again I rest my case on a profound point.

*Even the planets do to a lesser degree, because they are emitting infrared and reflecting other light simultaneously, and both those phenomena create gravitons. Refer to chapter 3.


A little summation and further explanation on the overall subject: The universe and atoms are 'energy' machines on vastly different scales. The universe began not so much as a single void in the cosmea occurring as a point source 'big bang'* but rather by a 'big splat' creating a fragmented void with an innumerable number of left over cosmean pieces existing within the universe called black holes, and all this along with matter and also the matter residue of trillions upon trillions of other sub black hole baryonic matter fragments in filaments.

*No allowance for the time taken for matter to travel from the central point of occurrence of the supposed 'big bang' to the edge of the known universe is ever taken into account when estimating the age of the universe when engaging in such 'point source big bang' phenomenological arguments. In typical subjective analysis it is simply ignored or assumed to have arrived there instantaneously or close to it by the almost infinitely massive force of the 'bang'.

Any relativist would have to be stupid to accept that assumption because such an idea flies in the face of the predicates of S-relativity. Maybe S-relativity wasn't around until Einstein invented it and the speed of light was almost instantaneous at the birth of the universe. On that particular point: Welcome to my club!


Any idea of a 'big bang' originating from an infinite universe or a universe encompassing an infinite number of similar points is considered by this theorist to be subjective nonsense. However if you can show a reasonable methodology; I'm listening.


 Whether by 'big bang' or 'big splat', we can still make the following postulation: Because of the sudden outburst of 'energy' and the extreme velocity of the 'energy' burst, much of the matter and 'energy' of the original universe may be considered to have reentered or 'bounced' back into the cosmea either through black holes or into the surrounding cosmea proper. Such interaction has since become stifled by the state of equilibrium caused by the gravity-light 'energy' return loop.

By way of another explanation; the universe continues to pour 'energy' back to the cosmea* but having now reached a tentative equilibrium in comparison with the early universe; the rate of 'energy' and matter return has been slowed dramatically. This is due to three effects. 1/The speed of light has slowed to a more leisurely and constant level because of the mean relationship between light and gravity being in current relative equilibrium. I.e. The atoms remaining around in our time frame don't ever receive the eos' cosmo-legal 'command' to emit light at faster speeds. In fact light is emitted at no speed!

This will remain so while there are enough opposing light collisions and BBR to maintain the GD status quo by the reactionary status of the eos. 2/The rotation of objects around black holes causes a decrease in the rate of attrition into them because of the increased angular extension of the distance of travel required to enter the singularity. 3/The starlight colliding around a black hole would infill its (otherwise absolute GS) with gravitons and this causes it to have a lower gravity than it otherwise would and in turn, that also reduces its ravenous appetite. This would result in the apparent mass of black holes to be less than it actually is.

*This is in direct refutation of the theories that are forced to postulate that the universe is a closed 'energy' system, so any such theories must logically assume an infinite universe. Such contentions have been disallowed by the third law of thermodynamics as well as by E=mc2 and so they must be concluded to only remain credible by the asinine idea of the acceptance of the impossible as a valid and empirical scientific method. ---Ah the pure simplicity of magic!


The reason that the so called red shift exists in distant galaxies is not necessarily because of their retreating motion or any change in light speed with observable time. Rather, it could simply be that the skew time we are observing was when the photonic 'energy' released was probably more in the red and infrared region than anything else at the time of their formation.

This could only occur under 'other world' like conditions of gravity compression (massive GD) which would allow fusion at much lower temperatures and the photons emitted were subsequently of lower 'energy' because of reduced quanta separation integer level states required within the atoms and a reduced 'fine constant'. If this is not the reason; then it becomes more likely that those same outer galaxies may already have accelerated themselves back into the cosmea by now. Note: Because of the nodal nature of GD as it moved towards a more stable and even state, some stars will be observed to begin to fuse at later 'skew weighted' times than the original universe. In such cases we should observe radiation from surface fusion in young stars that more closely resembles the radiation you would expect from any nuclear fusion reaction on earth. You may even notice a strong infra red signature at the moment of initial fusion.

The reason that the outer galaxies appear (in skew time) to possibly be accelerating away towards the cosmea could be because they may actually be being pushed by gravitons towards the massive GS existing at the event horizon of the cosmea in particular. This would be because that particular event horizon is tantamount to one which surrounds a possibly eternal black hole of infinite proportions*.

 Many universal galaxies may already have crossed the event horizon but the events are not yet observable by light or even gravity observation because our observation window is both insignificant in relation to the overall duration of time, and of course time skewed as well. However this eventuality would have to be consistent with there actually being such an event horizon. This hypothesis remains unclear.

*THIS WOULD EXPLAIN THE so called 'DARK 'ENERGY'' which is supposedly pushing galaxies apart and so preventing universal collapse under its own gravity: TBE. Note: Others also theorize (now supposedly proven by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate) that the universe is accelerating outward. Only G-theory gives a plausible reason if such is thought to be the case. The veracity of the proof is doubtful but I strongly suspect that they are correct in their conclusion by a stroke of educated guessing.





If the red shift is caused by galaxies accelerating outward, then they are supposedly travelling at faster than the speed of light and that is a fatal drawback for S-relativity which declares that light (and its notional wave motion) will always appear to be moving at 'c' to an observer in a motion relative reference frame, and this further dictates that nothing can move faster than 'c' or time goes backwards.

Even though I might feel that the outward acceleration is not exactly proven; if I agreed it was, it would likely be read as an all too eager acceptance because such proof is biased towards support of my own theory. I should be delighted at such a result should the proof be convincing to the consensus and that would assuage any reservations I might harbor regarding the method of proof utilized for such a discovery.

Self serving acceptance would be very disingenuous albeit very tempting because such a scientifically hailed, measured observation of the outward acceleration of high velocity galaxies destroys relativity on two counts and id in support of G-theory. The two counts are as follows.

1/ The Doppler red shift itself being now declared by some as scientifically proven predisposes the mind to either recognize faster tha light speed or alternatively recognize an observed relative light speed change (slowing) with significance to the reference frame of the earth, where we stand peering into the heavens.

2/ Some of the galaxies have been concluded to be moving away at faster than 'c'. How a scientist who has just recognized the previous problem can say that with a straight face; I have no idea. How could we possibly observe them if 'c' is that galaxy's reference frame constant speed of light? Duh!

This outward acceleration also presents a serious problem for Einstein's cosmological constant.

The whole scenario is fraught with problems for any relativistic theory. Firstly there is the problem that De Sitter and modern counterparts have shown by experimentation; that binary pulsars exhibit no significant Doppler shift, yet paradoxically experiments on earth show a Doppler shift from moving light sources in that laboratory.

Now we have the problem that we observe a massive Doppler shift from moving galaxies that has inexplicably and very problematically shifted straight to the red spectrum without any intermediate light color shifts from closer and more slowly moving galaxies being observed, as one would expect.

This is a severe problem and there are only two possible answers.

1/ An outer band of galaxies underwent a sudden and rapid velocity shift without a possible explanation, in light of current understanding. I.e. they went straight from white (averaged) to red, without undergoing acceleration!? If the red shift was actually noted by the statistical deviation in the red star count in that part of the universe when compared with the rest, then such a gradual accelerating theory could be accepted, and there goes relativity off into the distance. Will someone please shut the window after it! Make sure you lock the b…y thing! …and bolt the doors!!

2/ The outer stars are not able to be proven to be moving outwardly at all, and by consequence we can deduce that the universe isn't expanding and therefore those galaxies way out there are simply exhibiting evidence of something else that happened to them in the far distant past. There goes 'c' constancy S-relativity. G-theory considers that the URF is a gravity flux density relative constant only. However the G-theory relativity would make this 'c' change unobservable but not the red shift which we do observe.

If you hold to the theory of the wave nature of light then this doesn't seem to correspond well with the G-theory speculation that gravity increased rapidly at the creation of the universe and that gravity increase slows down the speed of light; because then we would observe the opposite of the marked and rapidly red shifted light from those distant galaxies.

However if you consider the other contention of g-theory that the 'wavelength' isn't relatable to the speed but to the gravity at the time of emission then the lesser gravity occurring when light speed was enormous was producing less internal quantum energy states which relate to the frequency of the emitted light. Such quantum energy states are dis-related from the energetic matter content of the atoms which were emitting the light fantastic during the creation event.

Ask an atomic clock. Its cesium atoms have extremely little internal energy but its quantum states relative to its fine constant are still the same at almost zero degrees Kelvin and those quantum states ARE ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGEABLE BY GRAVITY. An increased gravity increases the fundamental frequency of the atoms. This fact is relatable to the theory just presented in a supportive context.


The CONCLUSIONS on this point are:


 The stars either underwent fusion in the red temperature state because of the lower gravity, or perhaps they are all so old that there are an awful lot of red giants out there. That would have to be a ridiculous conclusion because in skew time we are actually seeing their birth pangs, so the prior determination must prevail.

Having evaluated all the possibilities that I can come up with; I still must further address the idea that the outer galaxies are expanding outward and the marked red shift delineation zone would have to be caused by a delineated GD difference under some as yet unknown power law with an extremely severe line of equality. If the universe is spherical and fairly even in density then it must be pi relatable in some manner also. However there is nothing convincing in such ideas that omit any proposal addressing causality.





 It is a contention of G-theory that universal gravity is not generated by the center of mass of the universe and the outer galaxies may well be accelerating outward. I am not convinced of the validity of the method of support -by the proposed Doppler shifts- however tantalizing a proof may be.

The reason for swirls and rotations observed to be commonplace in the universe is not because of any coriolis affect caused by a rotating universe (The utter chaos noticeable in comparative galaxy orientations disproves that theory), rather; it is probably because of the massive nodal and interference patters of 'energy' (gravity) which occurred during the birth of the universe, and it may be that the galaxies are not rotating at all as is commonly supposed. That's an option until proven. I personally believe they are but the outcome of highly advanced light speed anisotropy experiments will demonstrate the fact or not. I.e. Are we in fact travelling through the universe at 250kms/s or not? Note: To expand on the former---refer to the section on black holes and their accretion discs, and light speed anisotropy for the latter.

As we just analyzed, objects consisting of atoms and clouds of atoms were torn apart and were forced together by stupendous gravitational forces. Variable force differentials acting on whole galaxies as well as star systems caused overall movements vectored in particular directions.

The objects moving in relation to each other were under the control of gravity and perhaps acting against centripetal force but they also then possessed angular momentum. Future forces acting randomly upon them in random nodal and interference patterns may have caused the galaxies and star systems to rotate and form spirals due to the law of conservation of angular momentum. As the universe slowed and subsequently quieted its upheavals -during the process of moving towards its presently observed general state of universal equilibrium- local equilibriums were found within these systems

What we are left with though is only what we see via skewed observation. I.e. Many spiral and other seemingly 'angular momentum shaped' objects*. It may be possible that they are not spiraling at all. If our galaxy is in fact spiraling and we are traveling through space at hundreds of kms/sec then -according to the traditional wave theory- there should be an observable (measurable) Doppler shift difference dependant on the direction of stellar observations. Do we really observe that?

*Standard theories of physics fit the shaping of galaxies as mostly flattened objects spiraling around a central dense matter cluster or black hole. In G-theory the angular momentum is produced by spiraling gravity in a variable spread of collusions with moving galaxy arms.


Having asked the question I must admit that there is actually no empirical motion relative reference point that we are able to determine to begin with, and because of other observations in the literature, I personally think some galaxies are actually rotating.

Retro rotation of part of an accretion disc presents no problems to G-theory physics because it stands to reason that the phenomenon is observed to exist simply because that's how the initial forces formed it and there is no law against retro orbits full stop. However sustenance of such orbits would seem be a problem within the current paradigm.






Pull gravity supposedly operates in the universal sense by the provision of a virtual center of gravity towards which everything is vectorally attracted. The big bang supposedly blasted matter far and wide to create the universe. Once the universe stops expanding by the affects of the deceleration caused by the central attraction of such gravity it should begin to contract back again and once again collapse into this self imposed gravity center.

This theory supports the possibility of the outer galaxies moving away faster that those towards the universal gravity center but it requires an anti-gravity force typified by Einstein's cosmological constant to keep the appearance of a steady state universe.

However the contention of an accelerating expansion of the universe is violently threatening to that model of gravity but (strangely enough) not to G-theory graviton transitional push gravity theory which actually predicts such acceleration and which is supportive of the hard data on many levels without the need for any cosmological constant or dark 'energy'/matter. Note: It's quite sad that the relativists haven't clicked to the fact that mathematically, G-relativity is ironically a push and not a pull-gravity. It still however only remains a mathematical model which we will come to realize is predicated on the wrong geodesic curve.

In the first place G-theory supports the outward acceleration of galaxies according to arguments presented elsewhere herein. Secondly the G-theory gravity model provides a fairly even gravity flux over the rest of the inner universe. This is because of the omni lateral production of gravitons by light throughout the universe (in an averaged sense). This predicates a fairly average GD and non existent GTD (averaged) in the general universe, which keeps everything in a general steady gravitational state but there is an increasing GTD relative to the universal edge because of the overwhelming graviton traffic heading outwards compared to none coming in, right to the edge and this is what would cause an absolute GTDg there which is very similar to the expected GTDg at the event horizon of a black hole.








I disagree with Stephen Hawking who insists that time doesn't or didn't exist in either a black hole or the pre-universe respectively. I have shown rationally and mathematically that this is impossibility and that time does exist permanently, it's just that it's redundant within both of those entities, even if the cosmea existed from infinity and exists in infinity. However applying infinity to our known universe of universal laws I prove herein to be a mathematical nonstarter. Note: Both mathematics and logic are not reliable as the trustworthy bastions of empiricism they might appear to be. Mix them both with a good dose of reason and logic and stir well. Ok; shaken not stirred.

The current paradigm of 'c' constancy and geodesic space time warping is paradoxically and with a cruel ironic twist actually proven to be incorrect by the current theories of black hole mechanics themselves. It has been correctly pointed out by others that if time has stopped inside the event horizon of a black hole in order to maintain 'c' constancy then the contention that nothing can travel faster than 'c' (including gravity) would disallow gravity from being emitted from the black hole and rather than the intense gravity that we observe from a back hole it should actually exhibit none. (duh!)

This is another profoundly model challenging dilemma for the currently held beliefs however the observed intense gravity of a black hole is a phenomenon which is supportive of G-theory, wherein the emission speed of light is PROPORTIONAL TO GRAVITY but the propagation speed is under the control of the eos via the overall GD state of the universe so it generally appears to stay the same. This is the prime cause for the De Sitter and Kepler problems noticed with binary pulsars.

It is a proposal of this theory that black holes return matter to the cosmea that exists inside them, usually at random intervals, as spiraling objects of matter are inexorably attracted to the absolute GD of the 'singularity?', whereupon they reach the event horizon BST. When this occurs atoms lose their strong nuclear force and recombine in cosmean configurations with parts of other atoms especially nucleons which already consist of 'cosmean stuff' (previously explained). In the confusion and shambles of the attempted swirling reintegration into the cosmea by the reformation back to praetoms you would typically find left over and unintegrated universal matter swirling towards the singularity as well.

 Black holes may be extremely large There is no limit on their size except for the amount of available matter which can/has feed them. This may be millions ore even billions of times the mass of our sun. The cosmea surrounding the universe is an almost infinite sized black hole. Note: Obviously the size of black hole within the universe is limited or we would notice whole galaxies or vast sections of space orbiting behemoth black holes.

However this is not the case for regions which are far distant from us near the edge of the universe and the cosmea may be encroaching in a very disturbed manner a bit like a wave foaming as it crashes onto a seashore. I like our area of the universe thank you very much. Note: The cosmea or black holes are unable to encroach at a faster rate than that which is determinable by the average speed of matter (which is likely to be less than 'c') full stop. The somewhat sobering thought is that the fate of the universe is sealed unless another cosmean creation event occurs. Then it's only our human fate that is sealed and the universe will continue after undergoing a makeover.

In analyzing the theorized mechanics of a black hole and its superluminal flares: Just before photons become totally reintegrated they collide with an immense number of other photons in a spatial manner which is determined by the shape of the whole galaxy and accretion disc which has reverse formed from a spiraling disc shaped GS by the law of graviton emission. This in turn causes the matter to move towards the gravity shadow in a flat spiral manner by the law of the conservation of angular momentum and 'energy', and consequently the whole galaxy in conjunction with its own particular 'n' body problem. Note: a large portion of the accretion disc must be considered to be part of the black hole proper. This part is the substantive constituent matter that has gone beyond the point of n return and could never possibly escape except for the intervention of another black hole, and that part of the accretion disc plays a very significant role in its own gravitational swirl. Whether the body of the black hole beneath the event horizon is spinning or not* has no effect on the surrounding matter and a singularity does not exist.

*It becomes obvious that a spinning black hole is unable to be observed. NASA has only discovered an accretion disc spinning at what it declares to be almost 'c'. That's a strong likelihood which would be because of the extreme GTD at the event horizon. However it is a real stretch for even NASA to decide that they are actually observing a black hole spinning as they have recently done. Note: the scientific consensus is that unless an object is gravitationally 'attracted' within a narrow cone of verticality it will always form a noticeable curve or spiral as it falls. Under the right conditions which cannot occur without other gravitational n body influences, a satellite may be the result. This must lend us to presuppose that accretion discs are actually spiraling into the black hole and could probable better named 'attrition' discs. Other bodies approaching black holes and not being affected by any n body problem will generally travel parabolic escape paths if at all they are able to escape. Orbits of bodies around black holes are possible but close orbits are not.


The force on photons caused by the incredible density of nucleons/praetoms is very powerful. Such density disallows the exit of gravitons from within the event horizon and this causes an absolute GS which in turn causes light to begin to appear to switch tines. This is o the case. Gravity can't bend light. This curving of light is actually cased by a massive quantity of new emissions because of the unilaterally disproportionate photon/photon collision interactions which creates gravitons and in so doing, the graviton vectors begin to appear to spiral inwards also and thy collide with a massive quantity of matter within the spiral which decreases the GS as I have mentioned before.

This causes further photon emissions from hyper speed matter and this causes photon collisions to occur in a particular spiraling manner such that gravitons so produced stream tangent-ally away from the singularity at summative right angles to the 'flattish?' singularity. (Just as many go into the singularity, or at least the event horizon. None exit).

These gravitons act on left over (incoming) matter and they restore the GD balance to the side of the singularity and actually reverse the gravity at the center. This phenomenon would be caused by graviton depletion there at right angles to the accretion disc, a bit like a whirlpool in reverse. Note: If this gravity reversal didn't occur then no matter could possibly escape from the singularity as is often observed, let alone at velocities of the magnitude observed! In objection to this theory please explain how else ultra or superluminal flares can possibly occur with the current models of gravity. Also how can the force of gravity itself even emit from such an infinite gravitation anomaly according to classical astrophysics?

 Further analysis by G-theory: Because the GS of the black hole has been caused by spiraling light emitting matter, the matter at the center is quite often seen to spiral or flare as streams of matter particles. The matter, consisting of quark gluon plasma, cosmean, gamma, alpha and all manner of sub fermion particles (SFPs), streams out into space at swirling and or flaring right angles to the accretion disc plane of the singularity at very high velocities approaching the speed of light.

It is theorized that plasma and extreme light caused graviton effects causing a massive GS anomaly may also allow atomic matter to travel at such speeds. The eigenvalues of the graviton vectors would change little but the resulting eigenvectors would probably be calculable if the photonic eigenvectors were actually known in such a state.

Powerful magnetic field affects (if they exist) could also contribute to the shape of the flares, and this could go a long way to explaining the observed variations in flare mechanics. However care should be taken to insist on the scientific impossibility for magnetism to affect anything (including light) other than fermions and fundamental magnetic dipoles, so magnetism cannot be considered to be the primary cause of flares.

Note: The eigenspace at the side of the black hole is considered to be bilaterally single-sided. That sounds like a self negation but I'm referring to the same mechanics occurring on both sides of the black hole simultaneously. I.e. The eigenspace metric cannot be determined to exist within the singularity, only at the sides.

This flaring matter is expected to be at temperatures below the BST but most likely still at many tens of millions of degrees and the flare emits vast quantities of light from the plasma stream (probably from captive nucleons and negatrons(to be introduced but not from quarks, baryons or electrons) in all directions (which is how we can observe it). Universal and cosmean matter may be reunited* in these flares to form new universal matter (even consisting of some of the more dense atoms of the periodic table up to iron 60) as the plasma cools down and atoms and molecules reunite.

*Not as in a quantum loop but only by intradimensional nucleosynthesis. All sub fermion particles will remain as they are unless perhaps reconfigured but not ever to form a fermion from parts!


In contrast to the typified black bowling ball shape of popular myth, it is most likely that black holes positioned at the center of flat galaxies that have observable accretion discs positioned in intimate proximity to the event horizon would actually then, likely exhibit a do-nut shaped singularity (overall shape if it were observable). This shape is the most probable form considering the lower GS exhibited in the planar direction of the disc, and also the very low GS in the direction of and polarized at about 90o (with respect to the supposed 'singularity occupying center' of the accretion disc) out from the base of the flares. This would allow the continuation of the flares which I suspect would actually have begun flaring before the black hole even matured if indeed the creation of one in the universe is even possible. I consider them to all be leftovers from the 'big smack down'.

Light would be expected to be severely restricted from being emitted in multi spatial directions in the area around a black hole. This would be only because of the massive bending (by emissive tine shifting) that occurs because of the massive praetomic matter attractive force which is thought to be far greater and phenomenologically different than the normal universal state matter attraction* responsible for so called gravitational lensing. The latter bends light in transit while the former doesn't do that, rather the isolated effect is caused by the motion of the emitting objects themselves which you might imagine would be rather fast and not exactly linear to say the east. Note: This is one of the phenomena restricted to spaces which are completely different than the space around our own neighborhood which exhibits the observations we observe and from which we derive laws.

Explaining this in a more simple manner: This is one reason why light as well as ejectile matter is a major constituent of flares but not evident as emitting from the black hole itself. Any light not being emitted at the flare ejector will actually spiral towards the flare ejector and propagate along the ejector which acts like a kind of humongous light fiber, so we won't see any light coming from the black hole proper. We will see a great deal being emitted from the super luminal flare itself but look out if the flare points in our direction; in slew time of course. Note: this is dealing with emission effects only and NOT propagation distortion.

*This has nothing to do with the supposed intrinsic super gravity thought to be possessed by a black hole, which according to this theory has NO AFFECT, whatsoever on photons and neither does its magnetic field! Otherwise please explain how light entering either a black hole or (at the other end of the scale) a nucleon can suddenly go from velocity 'c' to velocity zero, within an infinitely small distance.

Once again please explain how both matter and light are able to escape the black hole at all via a flare, considering the observed intimate contact with the entity at the point of flare origin. It is obvious that singularly restricted physics is a notable feature of black holes. As with quantum physics this would be because of the cosmean laws usurping universal law at the event horizon. Remember G-theory proposes that a femtospace cosmean black hole exist within every nucleon. Note: I have previously theorized herein that black holes are invisible because transiting photons are able to pass right through them unaffected. This may be thought to be counterintuitive but it is because a black hole consist of non perturbative cosmean matter that doesn't have any existence in the dimension of the photos and the distortion affects near the event horizon only affect emissive mechanics and not propagative. THE COSMEA IS ANOTHER UNIVERSE. It is the only one that can be subjectively thought to exist parallel to the one we observe as the known physical universe.


Even though some seemingly plausible theories based on other unreal physics exist; mostly based along the idea of the magnetic field strength similarly affecting the light and matter simultaneously: With the standard models of black holes (because light has never been observed to be affected at all by any magnetic field), and in collusion with the current models of physics, flares are really a conundrum without any possible cause and they should not be expected to exist under the auspices of the current paradigm.

However with the G-theory model all of the noted enigmas are able to be answered without leaving similarly gaping holes which are noticeable in the other theories. In the G-theory model light is able to be forced to 'appear to bend' inwards as well as outwards at the pertinent regions of the event horizon, (Hawking radiation?) while simultaneously some ejectile matter is also permitted by the mechanics of unilateral graviton emissions and is therefore able to be expelled from the central (much lower GS) center of the 'donut'. Such matter is only able to be ejected because it consists of particles of matter which (individually in the threshold instant) are rejected by the repulsive force (already theorized) because the conditions for black hole entry were not existing because they found no reunification constituent matter to recombine with in order to form cosmean constituent 'stuff' in a timely manner and they are therefore rejected and swirl out towards the base of the flare by unilaterally spiraling graviton force, and they are most probably ejected at about close to 'c'. Note: Under the acceleration caused by unilateral graviton force, this is the only time that matter can be forced to travel near the speed of light, however it quickly decelerates upon encountering bilateral braking gravitons from the GD of space.

Of course those particles (in all likelihood now existing primarily as a quark gluon soup (or as volatile and unrecognizable q-g plasma constituent matter) which as such doesn't emit photons to enable it to be readily observed) will recombine with other ejectile matter. This is in combination with other recognizable matter which happily does emit photons and so we have been able to observe them to be continuously escaping the event horizon as superluminal flares.

As nuclear-synthesizing matter the hadronic particles will eventually slow down to less than 'c' by reasons previously stated and also by the 'energy' loss of inertial change being caused by the change of directions so forced by such matter recombinations, and they will exit the vicinity of the black hole via the flares upon which they will collide with gravitons in the immense GD of space and necessarily collide wit them at hypervelocities and find themselves being fused together which may cause even further nucleosynthesis.

This recombination upon colliding (In effect being reassimilated by gravity) allows universal matter to reform upon the slowing and subsequent cooling of the flare. This would probably occur in a chaotic condensation and collision event, and consequently in a non consistent manner. In so doing lumps of elemental and molecular matter will be formed because such occurrences are not stable or even in nature but very nodal.

It is also a definite assertion of this theory that the density of praetoms or post form neutronic matter inside a black hole is not considered to be much denser than that of a neutron star. The only difference is that a black hole appears to be very dramatic because one is usually being examined while in the process of having matter thrust into it, while a neutron star is not*. The idea of either gravity, atomic or other matter densities greater than what the laws of the universe and the cosmea allow is potentially ludicrous. Note: This type of mechanics can go a long way to explaining the phenomenon of photon (gamma) bursts from supernovae and other bodies.

*It could be possible for a neutron star to become a black hole under the right 'matter gobbling' circumstances. Many black holes however have forever existed as the 'king' of their galactic domain since the beginning of the universe. The neutron star would not exhibit the physics exclusively evidenced by a black hole.


In regard to the traditionally hypothesized singularity: With non observance of relative size of course, any arbitrary singularity point can be of any arbitrary size, so by reason any subjectively considered point size and hence singularity size fails to have any significance, and allowing any (and even universal size) amounts of matter to ever exist or have existed inside of a single point singularity is simply 'mind games'*. Ah the purity of magic!

*It may be fun for physicists to attempt to demonstrate intellectual prowess with the stuff of the mind: But that's not science!.. Really? Sorry about the digression but right now we are talking about universal matter and the obvious constraints under any consideration by physics. Having stated that, it might be of some comfort to know that you will be given the opportunity to analyze my explanation of the size of the pre-cosmea later and you might then consider that same charge to be well laid at my door! Be my guest.


Because of the observation that patterns and interference nodal effects are common in physics, the idea remains in contention whereby massive solids of nucleosynthesis atoms could well be (have been) produced under the incredible forces involved by being swirled like mixing paint, into variant matter density objects as the circumstances dictate(ed). I.e. The forces which allow the recombination and subsequent condensation of any given atom may be common to a particular value of nodal GD, and consequently various sizes of elemental AMOs of related An/Am constituency will be the result. You know; lumps of gold 'n such arrrgh!

Black holes can theoretically be of any size consistent with a critical density of nucleons being large enough to create a GS of zero. (This becomes the case by there being absolutely no gravitons exit-ing through the body in vector resolution)*. This enables the black hole to contain sufficient cosmean matter to give it a GS of infinity and the absolute upper value of GTD. This in turn results in the flow of tremendous and sufficient terminating graviton traffic which passes through the nucleons of the atoms from the event horizon inward (which is mirrored all around) and this consequently causes them to reach the BST and form cosmean praetomic matter.

This is because of two reasons: 1/The super massive nucleon density. 2/ Light is disabled (because of cosmean legal reasons just explained) from diluting the incoming gravitons and another compounding reason is the total impotency of the eos because of the fusion temperature realized in the stellar material being forced into the event horizon. The eos becomes completely superceded by the cosmea which (the eos) now has no noticeable affect on the emission and propagation mechanics of light whatsoever. The cosmean laws have taken over. This is also why cosmean law exist within nucleons at the quantum level.

*Anything less than this and the object is not a true black hole and may even be a neutron star which perhaps may never be able to reach the requirements for black hole qualification.









As I stated before it can be supposed that the inner part of the accretion disc is actually part of the black hole that hasn't yet entered the event horizon and gravitons are still able to transit and be emitted from the accretion disc. It is the graviton transitions through the stars near the event horizon in combination with elastic modality that creates the swirling arms. TBE

 Common artistic depictions which show a constant inwardly spiraling accretion disc is counterintuitive to G-theory. The restrictions to the star's velocity due to space drag would see a cross bar shape with trailing arms whereby the stars near the event horizon end up being accelerated straight in towards the 'singularity' or the apparent gravity center until the 'decision point is reached and some matter is rejected in the manner previously described.

The speed of the stars in the directions stipulated would form a GS spiral which would be though to be caused by severe bending of the graviton transitional paths derived by their traveling through an innumerable number of stars (in summation). The GS will bar-spiral in one direction and the stars will be pushed into that GS and travel in the opposite direction.

The spiral arm separation is caused by the attrition in GS in any given gravity transitioning through an 'n' quantity of stars which requires that new gravitons with greater 'energy' from another direction will bend inwards and strike the next arm. If you were to view the mechanics of this in a linear static manner it won't work. You must envision new gravitons entering the spiral arms and bending as they cross the arms in a reverse spiral. Even though the actual graviton entry transition is straight; the stars are moving relative to them at a sufficiently high velocity to cause appreciable relative bending.

This will give each arm the appearance of having central gravity strength and a definable repulsion relative to the next arm. However this is just a reverse apparition of the actual reality occurring with GTD. This is all proportional to the GD, local GS, star velocity and 'n'. This would have to be computer modeled because I am unable to give you a printout of my mind.









Not all black holes exhibit flares. In order for a superluminal flare to be observed, the black hole must have been in the process of sucking up stellar matter at the time the flare occurred.

G-theory considers that other black holes may be invisible*, and because of the phenomenology just presented it would be the case that one wouldn't even bend light that was traveling past as well as astoundingly, allowing its passage through completely unhindered. So an Einstein's ring would never be observed and a singularly existing black hole would never block out any star light.

* Stop press: Oct. 2012: James Miller Jones--- (ICRAR)--- Quote: "---M22 may contain as many as 100 black holes but we can't detect them unless they're actively feeding on nearby stars."


A black hole is not actually black. It is a potentially invisible cosmean 'matter sink'. By examination of the behavior of the Solar system and other observances in our own galaxy it could very well be the case that a black hole is nearing our own proximity in close to real time.

If one were to be threatening; I suggest it is approaching from a direction which is close to an alignment with the solar axis and at right angle to the planetary orbital plane.

This would explain an ellipsoid wobble of the solar rotational barycenter, which in turn elicits an elliptical orbit of planets including earth. An elliptical orbit in a planetary sense is an elastic relationship whereby inertial affects don't cause a planet to precisely follow any wobbles of the solar rotational axis. Note: This is all pure speculation but there is a tentative consensus that 'something gravitational' is out there!

As it draws closer we could expect the planetary orbits to become gradually more ellipsoid and in consideration of that; it may be that the human race may only have thousands of years in which to plan for a migration of our 'gene pool' to another galaxy 'far, far away!'








A magnetar, which is probably a byproduct of the original 'big bang' and also therefore likely to be an original chunk of the early universe is theorized to consists of a tightly packed mass of constrained neutrons in a particular matrix form which forces their magnetic dipoles to line up and 'follow the leader' (elastically and dynamically variable) and this creates an intense and motionally striated magnetic field. This in turn causes stresses on such a body which defy the imagination.

Magnetars are constantly and sporadically in the process of beta negative decay which is usually noticed to occur in massive spurts, most likely because of sudden grain displacement fractures caused by its own magnetic field gyrations. This immediately results in electron positron (proton) beta negative decay which in turn results in a massive stream of biracial gamma particles, a large proportion of which remain joined as magnetic dipoles which enables them to be attracted to the magnetic poles of the magnetar where they not only collide with each other as well as with electrons, protons and positrons that all have magnetic moments.

These massive collisions result in further kinetic particle division to basic gamma biracial particles as well as Q-G plasma and photons are emitted by standard photonic emission which is directed by the force of simultaneous magneton emission at the magnetic poles of the body. Note: This suggests that a magnetic field is caused by the directional transmission of dimensionally shifted gamma particle 'biracial pairs + gluon' (magnetons) at 'c'.

The shape of field lines can be mathematically calculated while the lines of force separation phenomenology is yet to be solved.  I suggest it is a dimensional law relationship.

The reason that the gamma particles travel in straight lines is that their exit from the poles is most likely because they encounter extreme temperatures which are capable of supporting Q-G plasma and at those temperatures the magnetons and electrons lose their binding gluon and the biracial gamma particles become separated and lose their magnetic moment and immediately that happens they stream off into space by now being electrostatically bound to the Q-G plasma. I.e. Free actively magnetic monopoles are a logical impossibility.

These gamma bursts have been observed to even be able to compress the magnetic field of the earth because most of the gamma particles have by then recombined by partial quantum loop mechanics as magnetons which have been dimensionally readmitted into the magnos*. A direct hit on earth by a gamma beam from a magnetar could have serious implications for earth dwellers. Note: If the gamma 'photons' as described by standard quantum physics were striking the earth's magnetic field then any affect on its field would be impossible. G-theory strikes again! Gamma particle are not photons.

*By G-theory; gamma particles are NOT light photons and should be referred to as particles. Under other circumstances as well, when they are biracially combined as magnetons they are able to be affected by as well as affect magnetic fields which is a phenomenon which can be arguably observed in synchrotron mechanics TBE.


Quasars are massive black holes existing on a galaxy eating scale. Black holes can't be seen, only their effects are. A black hole that has completely swallowed up its own galaxy may never be observed. Don't worry! If one was approaching us we would notice severely increasing GD anomalies and we would have advance warning of impending doom which of course we could do nothing about.

If universal, or for that matter, just local GD around the region of a black hole were to decrease dramatically then they could lose black hole status and explode back into universal matter in a macro cosmic explosion similar to some of the initial explosive events that occurred on a universal scale at the instant of creation. Such events may have occurred many times in the past, but they are not likely to occur any more for reasons which should become clear in a later chapter.

It is likely that gargantuan black holes even larger than super massive black holes which exist as stupendously huge left over sections of cosmea exist in the universe. They would however also be invisible and may have no observable affects until they come within range of observable bodies. As noted before there would be a maximum size we may logically consider to not to exist due to observability constraints.

Neutron stars are stars that are dissimilar to magnetars in that they are likely to have been small galaxies that have collapsed to maximum density on the verge of becoming a black hole but now find themselves in the unfortunate situation of having no matter left surrounding them to continue to 'suck' in*, so for the moment they remain on the verge of black hole status and (even though such a reality would be unable to be observed because of nearly zero light emission) they could be actually white hot approaching BST (with sufficient available density to cause light to bend back inwards)** but unable to achieve infinite GS. They would however not be deemed invisible and should an observable star exist behind them, we should observe an Einstein's ring effect seemingly occurring around nothing observable.

*Just a gentle reminder that when addressing the subject of gravity in future forums we may all have to learn to think 'push, not pull'; myself included.

**Not by gravity as relativists might speciously assume, but by electronic matter density as theorized by G-theory. These are not black holes so they are subject to universal law.


In such a neutron dense body any historically existing internal atoms have probably collapsed to form a mass of neutron ions, (if such a description is permitted). This would likely be because they have no charge, in that the protons have actually reattached their electrons in a vain attempt to become praetoms but the electrons cannot overcome the coulombic repulsion and still declare the protonic identity, even though they are all on the verge of becoming praetoms again. Also the magnetic dipoles are not aligned because of particle deficiencies and constraints caused by nuclear matrix patterning, which prevents it from becoming a magnetar in any case.

Even though they would be expected to have some cosmean like praetomic (neutronic) bonds they are probably without the requisite atomic elemental or molecular structures, and they find themselves unable to actually form praetoms for lack of 'energy' and a whole lot of particles. They have just discovered that the positive side of a quantum loop is unattainable in the universe and fermionic matter is never again able to be reconstructed except at the event horizon of black holes.

However they still emit some photons as x-rays or cosmic and gamma particles in a similar manner to black holes by reason of absorbing most gravitons (but not by nucleosynthesis in any significant quantities), and they still exhibit a massive GS. If they are rotating, their existence can often be observed because they can emit beams of gamma and other particles with a lighthouse like observational effect by a combined formation mechanics similar to the phenomenology that causes the flares of black holes and possibly by some magnetar mechanics just described in that section. Note: They are only able to rotate if they are actual universal matter. What caused anything to rotate at all is still a mystery!

By being in a state of not quite being black holes they still remain in the standard photos/gravitos equilibrium state like the rest of the normal universe.

Background temperature differences* noticed in the universe would be seen to show the original chaotic nature of the 'shattering' and tend to prove that the universe did not arise from a single point of existence, which to my mind is a difficult conceptual postulation to come to grasp with, and by G-theory; unnecessary!

*These temperature differences likely indicate GD nodal variances. These nodes would cause the currently noticeable light scintillation affects without the current and tempting recourse to the idea of any light propagation medium in space. The thermal 'energy' (photons) could only come from negatrons and false baryonic Q-Ls existing in with the other baryonic matter.


Gravitational lensing can be explained because light has an attraction to matter dense objects and regions, so because GD variations in space caused by bodies, are in effect 'dark matter' density variations, we are able to observe the effect. Note: This suggests that photons and protons or electrons have some attraction phenomenology over vast distances.