LIGHT; THE GREAT ACHIEVER Note: Refer also to the subject titled atoms.

  • THE WONDERS OF LIGHT PHENOMENOLOGY-------------------294








In this theory I suggest a fifth state of matter, which is light as a plasma, but without temperature requirements, charge or 'mass'. (woah!) I suspect that such plasma has already been unwittingly created in laser experiments but not recognized as such. Such plasma would offer better insulation than a vacuum, like 100%. Some scientists believe they have created light plasmas by other means. Those are not light plasmas! True light plasmas can be concluded to have some P-mass and be either cold or hot but other than that they are invisible. It is only as they decay and photons re-enter atoms and become re-emitted that one may become visible as an effect, but only if the decay is slower than instantaneous.

Light retention anomalies have been noticed in laser experiments, but other explanations have been proffered. Note: This fifth state of matter is not to be confused with any electron, ion or even quark gluon plasma. It is photon plasma pure and simple. As such it would be subject to the de Broglie thermal wavelength formula (DBT). Such a plasma may be caused by too many photons attempting to crowd the same space time continuum at which point it may be concluded to be hot, but an almost instantaneous emission of BBR would occur and the bubble of plasma may actually end up at the Bose Einstein temperature for an instant until external BBR begins to reheat it to the point that it becomes visible. This could mean that bubbles of almost zero k bosonic matter could exist momentarily but intensively within fusing stars and such a circular temperature phenomenon would not just be a feature limited to black holes. Now I must admit; that's a novel postulation but it could help explain the wild stellar magnetic field affects which are often observed, and if realized it would mean that light has been STOPPED and such a possibility could have fantastic implications for science and technology.

This speculation is provided with a caveat and is not necessarily a proof or disproof of the overall G-theory. This theory is able to offer an explanation of the above effects as well as such things as 'plasma balls' that have been observed (in one case by a group of incredulous scientists) passing right through an air hostess. Such coldness would not be felt because the plasma balls are only receptive to sub nucleon BBR and not acceptant of emitted nucleon bosonic matter such as other photons or via any conceivable convection. This is because that state of matter is already bosonic and it will reject other bound bosons because of its likely dimensional shift to the eos and this also includes gravitons which will pass straight through with minimal perturbative affect to any sub particles in there, hence the idea of anti gravity. This of course means that for you to become 'anti gravved' by being enshrouded in such plasma, all of you would have to be dimensionally shifted out of the gravitos as well.

Another possibility which would have more plausible applications for anti gravity would be if a light-plasma happened to soak up all or most gravitons and not re-emit them. However that would be expected to be a black hole and none of this is at all clear, nor has it ever been experimentally observed. It is purely hypothetical at best--- delusional perhaps?

It may be of interest to note that atoms have been observed to form a cloud of matter at the B-E condensate temperature at almost zero k and they appear to lose all gravitational perturbability. This would be predictable by G-theory. I.e. if the quark lattice femtospace becomes devoid of bosons then the nucleon will no longer exhibit G-mass.

 The portentous possibilities that should become the agenda which drives a scientific effort in determining the veracity of this speculation is in the theorized proposition that such plasma would not only have no 'gravity' it may be able to be used to DEFEAT GRAVITY in contained AMOs! (as preposterous as this may seem). The stupendous takeaway from this is that GTD which prevents hyper velocity speeds would also be annulled. This might all be futile but I think its worthy of keeping as a paperweight!  ---out of mind perhaps but not out of sight.

Most light plasmas are probably only as small as a few photons--- and would be extremely short lived and unable to be observed. Perhaps they may be theoretically named gravi-photons. It could be the case that only plasma created in a vacuum will remain stable.

Even though such vacuum plasma may be unobservable*, it may be detectable however and any gravitational anomaly caused in its vicinity may be measurable by a highly sensitive gravimeter or accelerometer. Light plasma may be unable to be contained by a physical enclosure. However the gravi-photon plasma would eventually decay as the photons move back onto tines in the photos and be re-endued with speed by the eos and instantaneously continue on their way at 'c' (albeit on different tines) as if nothing had occurred. Such a phenomenon must therefore become visible at some stage of decay. Note: Photon plasma is non-atomic or non-gaseous plasma, and should also not be confused with electron plasma.

*The introduction of a gas may enable it to be observed with the naked eye for some unknown time duration but confusion would reign.






Most of the phenomenologies touched upon in the following assertation are analyzed more specifically in later chapters as well as the definitions section. You may skip to the back of the book but believe me you need to taste the first assertions before attempting to chew on the last.


It is of crucial importance for G-theory analysis that I convince you that Maxwell didn't calculate the speed of light. What he did achieve is: He calculated the virtual force propagation speed of electrostatic and magnetic fields which he took to be at 'c'. This is what convinced Lorentz and Einstein et al to take the line of assumptive reasoning that light must therefore be an 'emr'.

I trust we are going to discover that this idea is actually based on two false assumptions, and if the coincidence was empirically treated it would have been left to remain just that; an enigmatic coincidence. If such is the case then we must reasonably conclude that Maxwell's formulas are only relative to electrostatics and magnetism separately as virtual force fields but they don't apply to light, or for that matter an emr combo either. This is an importantly supportive contention for the following theories of light and emr mechanics. NB: Refer to Maxwell's errors section.

In iteration we can see that the idea of light being an 'emr' is only a theory*, albeit seemingly supported by some observances. However I intend to show that these observances can be better explained by the particle theory of light and (even though subjectively acceptable) that light does not exhibit a wave particle duality. Note: Refer to the chapter titled "Light; wave, particle or duality".

*And a specious one at that. If light is an 'emr', how come it is not affected by electromagnetic fields?


By G-theory the speed of light and the speed of 'true emr' are deemed to be set by the requirement of the universal 'voltage' of cmf via the gravitos via prerequisite photon-graviton-nucleonic action to keep the universal 'temperature' at a hopefully constant level, and this we have already concluded is performed by the setting of the rate of energy transfer through the universe by the cosmean law response to the received data. Either that is one more effective 'goldilocks' happenstance or we face the real and possible risk that we might all shrivel up and die by either heat or cold at any moment! Note: This is just light jurisprudence. The phenomenology of light emission and the reason for its speed is given under the section heading. 'PHOTON EMISSION STATISTICS'.

Light therefore cannot confidently be concluded to be an emr simply because it has a similar speed as electromagnetic fields. G-theory once again breaks from convention and contends that all photons, conditionally including the notional gamma photons exit via the nucleus and are not emitted by electrons*. I ask you: Has an electron beam in a vacuum ever been observed to emit photons apart from gamma particles? Having asked that, I will admit that in a decaying universe and imperfect laboratory conditions, anomalies do abound, and the first law of physics applies. Note: Synchrotron mechanics aside at this juncture.

*Except by electron decay or electron positron collision mechanics whereby gamma photons are the result.


Atoms are a disconcerting enigma in normal Euclidian, Newtonian or even Einsteinian physics because the quantum activities so often appear to defy the laws and theories that have been historically derived within each of those their frameworks. In line with the auspices of G-theory the quantum particles are seen to be acting normally, as they (via the agency of nucleons in the main) are the cause of light as well as fields and charges. This includes 'emr' propagation, gravity and 'mass' and as such they themselves are not necessarily counter-subject by conditionally varying degrees to the laws affecting the objects and phenomena derived from them. Note 1: Perturbative affects will be brought into the mix as required.

Note 2: Refer to the law of disassociation.

After magnetism I would consider light to be the second greatest enigma in physics. Its behavior under certain conditions can be strange indeed. The greatest problem in understanding light and its behavior is the 'constriction subjugated' understanding based on the 'three plus one' geodesic dimensional paradigm. Within this framework there can't be a comprehensive understanding of what light actually is, what it consists of and even how it is propagated, (How can an object, ostensibly with no mass or charge achieve a limited speed at all?), and what it does, where it goes, what the result of that might be, and even why it has an assumed constant speed in a vacuum.

An alternative conjecture according to G-theory is that light is a quantasized packet (string) of graviton packets which by graviton definition is a packet of force carrier particles (photon bosons), which having virtually no mass can be (at first assumed to be) propagated in a similar manner to the 'emr' wave in wave theory and at the same 'wave front' speed: being 'c'. There are forces within nucleons able to emit various quantum particles and photons at the same time over different dimensions. TBE Note: this would appear to occur in accordance with quantum statistics. There is a more probable theory given under the section heading. PHOTON EMISSION STATISTICS.

A dictum of G-theory is that light is only able to be emitted from nucleons as well as decaying light plasma and other limited particle decays. The general emission mechanics we are analyzing at this point is nucleonic emission. Broadly speaking the emission of various light frequencies is 'applied-electron-energy' related*. As well as that the whole spectrum is able to be shifted up or down by Doppler effects to the point where only x-rays or conversely infra-red are observed respectively.



Single color frequency emission is related to particular elemental or molecular combinations. The spectrum has divisions between the colors that are not in accordance with an artist's idea of a palette. However the divisions appear as dark lines in a spectrograph that delineate elemental nucleonic emissions and are caused by electromagnetic interference. These spectral lines are typically used as element identification markers. TBE Note: this can be problematic under conditions of Doppler shift which is generally rectified by instigating pattern recognition techniques.

Apart from element specific properties which can allow the emission of light at cool temperatures, if a broad spectrum emission source has insufficient energy to allow this it may only emit BBR and the next emission level due to temperature rise is emission of light in the infrared region. A sufficiently high temperature and 'quantum charge time' window may allow the emission of broad spectrum white light up to a maximum of ultra violet. TBE

X-rays and gamma particles are considered herein to only be emitted during high energy particle collisions and other similar events. The x-rays are notably emitted by 'electron to charged plate collision' in a Crookes tube. X-rays can be emitted from astronomical events such as from high intensity mutual graviton collision events, especially in accretion discs near black holes and other regions of high energy collisions. Black hole flares emit some low energy x-rays but such supraliminal flares in common with lighthouse beacon beams from magnetars mostly emit gamma particles. Any combination of other light and emr emissions is by companion phenomenology. TBE

Plasma; -in the process of reforming to standard states in these flares- can cause the emission of some x-rays. As well as this, lightning bolts, Q-G plasma recombination to higher order matter as well as the humble vacuum tube TV can produce limited x-ray emissions.

In G-theory the formation to the point of emission of broad spectrum white light is thought to be by a process of photon quanta accumulation near the surface nucleons arising from deep within the AMO. This can cause variable but even quantum state changes to occur within neighboring atoms due to QIP and PEP by way of interactive atomic factor relationships. This would likely result in an apparently complex shambles of variations in the inter-nuclear quantum jumps however there can be order in chaos and the overall result is that the AMOs photon emissions becomes evenly random. Refer to quantum definition and later expositions.

This results in the broad spectrum white light which is emitted to tines from the nucleons in discrete packets of photon quanta. Each packet becomes an observable photon of a particular color. Single white photons just don't exist. Such temperatures that are often required to cause the emission of white light can ionize the object, blow off surface nuclei or cause the complete deprecation of the AMO. Emission of light from solid state devices, gas plasmas and some lasers is not so brutish. It is more controlled and most often occurs at much lower temperature. As far as emission sources go we will stop here for the purposes of the analysis.

All light emission is subject to the law of the conservation of energies in both the photons and the emission source.

Only G-massless* particles are able to be propagated without a medium while a wave absolutely cannot! Wave motion propagation requires a medium whereby the wave can compress and expand it, by the well understood mechanics of wave front motion. (I.e. As in sound traveling through air) and a medium is not to be found in the universe and according to G-man one is not necessary at all.

*Photons have zero G-mass within their own dimension of the photos and they posses an infinitesimally small P-mass, but still enough to exhibit very slight effects of N-mass, but they only exhibit this mass when traveling whereupon they can be considered to have linear Ek and inertia which defies most perturbative forces, and they can travel vast distances with little energy attenuation with most vibration and spins intact. Refer below to PHOTON EMISSION STATISTICS.


Any variations in vibration and spin would be thought to be possible and not at all problematic.  None of that spin or vibration is ever transferable to or from gravitons during photon collisions. The spin of gravitons is a fundamental function of the dimension in which they travel. All spin and vibration of particles is related to PIR and the conservation of energy.

Unperturbed fundamental particles are theoretically able to exhibit a kind of perpetual motion but only as a function of the laws of the dimension in which they exist whereby they are actually re-energized by universal virtual forces. Such a state requires extreme degrees of freedom, and it is unforeseeable that any would remain unperturbed for very long. In any case the law requires that they must 'wind down' over time, we just might not have that amount of time.

Upon re-assimilation of photons into AMO's only a small and mostly imperceptible inertial impact is realized TBE.


At around a standardized mean GD*, photons are accelerated instantaneously from the nucleonic quark lattice femtospace where their P-mass doesn't exist, so in that situation they are considered to have no mass at all -and existing in a state of thermostasis- and not contributive to realizable energy and it is the former phenomena which gives or aids in the capability for instantaneous acceleration because by dimensional abrogation f=ma no longer applies to them while within the femtospace. So it is quite possible that photons get ejected from the femptospace with velocity. Refer to PHOTON EMISSION STATISTICS.

*although utilizing standardized phenomenologies from ordered patterning  in atomic structures; the eos will seemingly signal the emission and also the transmission velocity with proportionality to GS (and relative to the velocity of the emitting nucleon) which is only significant where large GD or GS differential (GTDv) is noticeable. I.e. near black holes and binary pulsars etc. Here on earth the emission velocity is as we observe it as c-ve. (speed of light minus the actual spatial displacement velocity of the earth) This changed emission velocity is insignificant but still able to ameliorate expected Doppler shifts such that they might seem not to occur in certain situations. Note: Light speed anisotropy is to be the analytical tool.


Putting all of this more simply: The force that enables photon emission comes entirely by QIP related parity and PEP phenomenology, and the emission velocity becomes determined by the eos -according to graviton particle statistics- to be 'c'. I.e. they basically get 'kicked out' by a cosmean force in the quark lattice and take an energy -notionally calculable by E=mc2- with them. Profoundly and with serious support for G-theory over relativity and M-E equivalence theories, they DO NOT cause a change in the 'mass' of the AMO they are emitted from or received into. TBE Note: This action may be seen to conform to both quantum and B-E statistics simultaneously. However because of the theory I am about to propose I consider B-E statistics to be applicably incorrect above the B-E condensate temperature except within a quark lattice femtospace. I will be proposing G-statistics later.

Having theorized this I still insist that photons travel in the photos while so called 'emr' travels in the propos and in that way the two are observed to not interfere with each other. Either that or light is propagated via particle statistics and emr via wave statistics in the propos and perturbed by the gravitos. However a medium would have to be found for that as well.

Photonic energy is thought to have a different affect on atoms than 'emr' energy. Conditionally; photonic energy is immediately available for the 'proton' nucleon to be able to re-emit it at close to the same instant it is received*. 'emr' however must be transferred by charge/field (QED) effects caused by electrons. The propos has a close bi-perturbative relationship with the force-field (QED) dimension.

*Under quantum state conditional requirements as explained.


Electrons are deemed to play no part in photon propagation. The role of electrons is seen in the QED dimension of charges and fields, and along with atoms and ions it is able to cause electric current and subsequent magnetic resultants. Electrons have a proactive relationship with their own nucleus, and at times a fully retroactive effect on other nucleons and nuclei.

Science continues to realize greater understanding of the behavior of light but physicists are forced to keep subjectively alternating from wave to particle theory in attempts to explain certain behaviors of light. I agree with much of the physics currently understood about light except for the behavior of light in media as well as reflection and refraction mechanics.

Other questions about light that don't seem to have substantive answers which this new VM multiplex theory seeks to explain are: What causes light to remain (conditionally) arrow straight and to remain the same color across billions of light years of space such that under the full expectation of them remaining to be observable as points of light -only slightly affected by the atmospherics- we can confidently continue to teach our children the song "Twinkle, twinkle little star"?

When light slows down to enter a medium, it is currently thought to be delayed by so called 'atom energy swapping' (which relates to the next question). How does light really pass right through solid and other transparent media? Also why does light exhibit birefringence with media that consist of 'chiral' molecules? Why (if light really is delayed in media by atomic transfer delays) don't the incoming photons or waves pile up? Why then does some material allow atomic energy transfers and pass light when others don't? Why does light have instantaneous acceleration if it is a packet of rest state energy; which if it is -in accordance with convention- it should therefore have 'mass'? The mass/no-mass quandary continues unabated in the current paradigms. G-theory proposes a plausible solution from outside the box which is to be presented herein.

How also is light capable of developing energy and therefore 'mass' only when it moves linearly? Where is it's spin energy when not emitted? Does a photon actually exist within an atom? Why does light exhibit spatial displacement at times? If it is assumed to travel by wave propagation why then does it keep the same apparent wavelength when it slows down while passing through a medium? If light changes speed compared with its point of origin wouldn't its color change? How can a scientist know (without spectrographic pattern clues) what element he is observing by spectrography if he has no clue as to what the original frequency was because the originating source may have been moving when it emitted the spectra wave at 'x' frequency? Why do they need those clues at all? Why does light seem to have intelligence by trying to take the shortest possible energy/speed conserving path though a media? Why does a light 'wave' appear to have momentum if it has no mass? Of course many of you have already reached for the 'relativity' gun to shoot me down with, but I have already taken the bullets out and I assure you there are other more plausible answers which I will be submitting to the forum!

The following articles are that promise undertaken---





Required study: Chapter7 Atoms.


Energy is the notion of the motion of particles. Temperature is the measure of the state of the quantity of particles in place and is a measure of the energy.

The rate of the motion (speed) of particles is dependant on the value of time. The value of time might be considered to be found in the speed of the rate of the transfer of the purest particles of which energy consists. I.e. ---the speed of light.

 That however isn't the case because photons of various energy states travel at the same rate and a different value of energy is therefore delivered for variously specific photons.


The value of time in our universe appears to be a constant so we have a problem with this understanding of relationships. So the rate of motion of particles has to be not only dependent upon the value of time as -just stated- but also the value of energy. So in effect the energy states of various 'travelling' photons can be linked to temperature as follows. (e) non constant energy.

 So e: f:t

(a) Now; of these two only time is a constant so we have e=f.T.

 So now we can see that the speed of light can't be related to energy, independent of frequency. Therefore E=m.c2 is a fallacy. If we hold the temperature state constant then E=mc+f  ---and if we utilize another constant which accounts for variations in temperature (literally energy of a quantum or a defined rise in temperature per quantum value of energy per time which is strangely enough given in Joules* and not eV) then  E=mc+ hf is the true equation for photon energy and the E can now be a relatable constant. This can be broken into two parts. The mc relates to the linear displacement kinetic energy component and the hf relates to the quantum energy or rest state part.

How do mass, the speed of light and Planks constant combine together to specify the value of time 'T'?

That's a profound question because that leads us to the only specific value of time in the whole universe. If you thought the measure of time was the 'second'** then you need to study up on the meaning of time before you analyse this. The answer is in the 'energy per time' statement but we'll get to that later.

*Also by the misnomer Kg.

** I know but being the smarty scientist that they were they've tied everything together to the second so we now have a common relatable mark of the passage of time. However; it's the time which has been made relatable and not the second.



So far we have only derived an equation style relationship between E,c,h and f. This is because light is deemed to have no mass in the traditional paradigm.

Well if you study this thesis subject thoroughly you will discover that light indeed has mass which is not readily noticed for the reasons shown. So now we can legally bring mass into the equation which only applies to light itself.

E=mc2 has no legal basis at all It simply 'fell out' of some equation that was being tossed around back in the day.

So now we have time being firmly related to Plank's constant because f is really action per time or energy per time or a quantum value. Therefore time is firmly related to the Pauli Exclusion Principle and therefore quantum states. Where the traditionalists go wrong is in Dirac's wave function shemozzle.

Of course I have no trouble with quantum states per se -as long as they aren't purported to mathematically provide force without a phenomenology- and as I have also achieved elsewhere -by another method and from a different approach-* I have once more related Ohm's law to the PEP a little further on. So we now we have a relationship of Ohm's law with time and energy in the macro sense and it's all staring to come together in the ED sense but I digress.

*These circular unifying connections can be seen a lot in this theory. Mmmm?


Getting back to the quantum number (Qn) relationship with time we can bring another unknown into the mix and that is gravity. This is because gravity is definable as a value of photons per graviton but then gravity moves the energy (particles) at a different rate. This we have achieved elsewhere and we also discovered that the mass defect was caused by gravity, so now we have the relationship between the quantum and the mass defect- which has no relationship with binding energy per se. I digress once again.

Now we get back to this question. How do photon mass, the speed of light and Planks constant combine together to specify the value of time 'T'?

Answer: It's in the speed of light silly. The speed of light is a URF constant in the overall vacuum of space.

OK so now we can ask the doozy of them all. What then gives light it signature speed?

Well that's relatable to the quantum as we have just seen but also now to some loss constant otherwise 'c' would be infinite and not stable.

I suspect it is the constant 'z' derived elsewhere herein and which bears a remarkable numerical similarity to pi.


Remember that was derived from electron-proton relationships and the speed of light.

Now the value of energy is the value of the quantity of particles moved a specified distance by a specified and related force. If we have one volt of emf force we move some particle which has the mass value of an electron 300,000 kilometres in one second -over the perfect conductor- and we calculate the energy by E=vI. That's an ED formula.

If we have a photon of light which must have the same laws applied to it then the energy of a photon travelling the same distance for the same time must have proportional force acting on its mass. For the electron we saw that it was a force of one volt.

What is the force that moves a photon and what is the conductive medium for such linear propagation? You can hold me accountable for stating that laws and math don't cause anything to do anything at all; so this law declaring that it must be force moving particles can't be the motive force itself. There must be a real and phenomenological yet powerful force to cause a particle of mass to have instant momentum without any noticeable acceleration. Take note of the word 'noticeable' which reeks of assumption. However there are still some real conundrums in there.

Lets deal with them one at a time.

1/ what is the force that moves photons? Answer: Well, you tell me what emf is and I'll tell you that. We could leave it at that and imagine that there must be some unknown quantum state force which causes a photon to always move at the required speed. This is promoted by the variable 'h' in the equation above. Let's follow the leads and see if there is a force available as causation for the motion. There must be one!

By a=F/m we can understand that the force required is not great for a quantum energy by hf of an almost insignificant mass understood from the E=mc relationship. We can calculate the force by the energy which is ½ Et ---so that equals hf.







Because F=ma





F= a x 1e18 x 6.626e-34/6e8

So with a 1e18Hz x-ray photon it comes to--- 1.1e-24kgF

So if we make up a suitable acc rate for the occasion---


m=hf=1e-42 (NASA gives 1e-45kg)



F= hf x 1e30m/s/s

F= 6.626e-34/6e8 x 1e30



I can't really work this out even with the photon energy figures because there are two unknowns i.e. force and acceleration but you can see that the acc rate is so massive that it occurs within the atom -so I gave that an educated guess- and that the force is extremely small but sufficiently great; and can be calculated by that acceleration times the photon frequency times h which is extremely small so then divide that by twice the speed of light and you have an insignificant but real force with a real value and acc rate caused by PEP, which is related to the elemental PEP of the Marjorana state between to biracial elemental particles or neutrinos. Note: When it comes to acceleration there is a phenomenon which isn't being thought of here and that is this.

If acceleration is caused by collision or significant perturbation between elastic objects then the component of motion can be transferred with a proportional amplification of the acceleration rate to another particle with less mass. There are other features of elastic transfer in classical physics to get that photon out of there!

Consider a cricket bat striking a ball. The noted acceleration rate can be incredibly great for a short duration. We fire bullets from guns in just centimeters and these are large objects compared to photons.

If there is something in the atom which can act like the cricket bat and something else that can get some elastic 'wind up' mechanical energy storage even, then we can have that photon being batted, shot and slung out of there.

You see the energy can be small and the force large and of short duration. You don't need wave function mathematics to do that job. HOWEVER A NICE PHYSICAL 'WAVE FUNCTION' IN THE RIGHT PLACES CAN CREATE A NODAL SNAP OF ENERGY WHICH COULD DO THAT JOB VIA CLASSICAL PHYSICS. There is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of acceleration in the real world. F=ma doesn't quite cut it. Even dvdt is incapable of reflecting impossibly instantaneous force nuances. Refer to Impetus definition herein.

Now we understood that it was this Higg's junction that elemental mass was generated and here we can see the tenuous connection between the speed of light and mass in the most famous equation of all.

Yes the relationship is there but as we can see from the study of mass per se, there are various Marjorana brane junctions which are also similarly active but with different sub fundamental quantum values. This means that mass is related to energy but only through quantum states and that goes for the higher order photon quantum statistics which again reaffirm the contest that E=mc+hf is the true photon energy equation and not the traditional E=mc/w (w for wavelength) -Light is not a wave and they are not taking its two energy components into account. All this I will prove- and that is also the only true mass energy relationship and this is not ME equivalence. From here we also have a connection to Ohm's law E=vI where v equals 'c' and QED marries ED and---



So then current at 1 electron/second is matter delivered as energy = twice the photon matter mass delivered per second (approx because ME equivalence is not exactly true).


X-ray photon energy is 6.626068e-16 J

Infrared photon rest energy 6.626068e-18 J

 1 electron energy = 1.602e-19J

Now the electron energy equates to the rest state energy of a photon which equals its kinetic energy component which becomes evidenced when an electron jumps down a shell position.

X-ray photon energy is 6.626068e-16 J ---Multiply this by the fine constant and we get 4.835e-18J which is close to the infrared photon energy. That's a statistical match in fact!

Now we multiply the infrared photon E by the fine constant and that equals 4.835e-20J


If we utilize the 4z2 loss constant from the universal energy loss constant in spherical space we have---

X-ray photon energy times fine constant divided by 4z2---

We get an answer of 1.22e-19J

The electron energy is1.602e-19J


That's so close to being the same energy it's not funny.


Now in any case if we don't utilize 'z' we know that the 'flowing' Electron Ek is 1.602e-19J.  This energy -which must include losses- lies somewhere in between those two loss-adjusted, high and low photon values. Is that a coincidence? I know its new science but what if we do utilize the 'z' loss constant?

So you see there is some variation and imperfections surrounding true calculability* but we've got them in the 'ball park' and there is a new science to be had which doesn't rely on laws and mathematics as the actionable statistics for the physical behaviour of the universe.

*Even the fine structure constant isn't really a constant!




E=mc+hf with some loss adjustment by the fine structure constant and the vacuum loss constant 'z' or in effect the true value of pi derived from quantum physics. Refer to--- the derivation of 'z' section.

Note: We can find the energy of photons but you can't have a mole of photons -as is often alluded to- because light is NOT a gas. It would more than likely come under de Broglie thermal wavelength statistics.


Light is emitted at 'c' because of the force of emission acting over the required time by quantum statistics. This is effectively caused by nodal snaps in electron orbitals which result in an electron jump to another level and the QED snap is the force which ejects the photon. The emission statistics can be random or simulated by VM of the nuclear matrix states.


The standard method of attempting to calculate photon energy ends up with results which bear a divergent relationship with electron energy. That's because they use the sleight of hand equation---


Lets analyse this.


E=hf so  E=mc/w ??? How do they derive that with a straight face?

That means that hf=mc2/f or rest energy is reducable to E= mc2/f --- WTF













Note: This theory usurps the quantum loop theory* which is a grand attempt at finding the connection between quantum physics and gravity. This section is a brief overview of subject matter which is covered in depth throughout the thesis.

*Refer to quantum loop in chapter 20.



Light has fascinated physicist for centuries. The amount of research conducted with regard to the subject is phenomenal. Some of the questions, (many of which I have just listed) will remain somewhat unanswerable with regard to any real consensus. This theory doesn't attempt to give answers due to any perception of the writer being endowed with greater intellect or reasoning powers than generations of historical physicists. On the contrary; those physicists have conducted and are continuing to carry out experiments and evaluate mind boggling mental and mathematical problems that leave me gasping and floundering in the ditch!

Humbly following in their footsteps and stitching together the hard data and theories they have provided, I have simply stumbled upon an idea which has its parts lodged firmly in (albeit sometimes fringe) historical thought. I have simply imagined a way of collating these into a mainstream candidate theory that seems to answer a substantial majority of the questions by the addition of VM multiplex multi-dimensionalism into the mix.

Precedence for such addition of non physical dimensions has already been set by the accepted addition of time as the fourth dimension of the universe. As with time; all of my additional dimensions are of cosmean and or universal stuff which can't be objectively observed or felt. All dimensions that we subjectively see and observe in the universe must interrelate and be causative of the ability of the other dimensions to exist. A dimension is not an effect. It must have an affect but not necessarily be affected by other dimensions, and they all occupy and are interwoven within the same Euclidean space time continuum.

Now I will engage in a little summation by reiteration: Dimensional interactions and effects caused as per this theory declare the following: 'Nothing' (including empty space) is not a dimension because it cannot be causative of anything. (Mind games aside) Three dimensional space has three infinitely referential right-angled dimensions which are interchangeable and causative of each other. The cosmea is enabled by being enclosed by those dimensions. Time acts in three dimensional space to enable motion and work/energy to be done at a certain rate. This causes energy to be moved and its characteristics to be redefined. Time has no power to elicit a force. Just like time none of the dimensions can elicit a force. They just contain the particles and patterns which can, and that's all folks!

The laws of thermodynamics relating to this universe are enabled by time. The universe contains an energy cycling system which is enabled by other dimensions because there is no other mechanism OF ANY SORT within the universe which can maintain equilibrium if energy exit-ing from stars as well as the universe per se is 'one-way traffic'.

The fact that we have had thousands of years of observed equilibrium and have not noticed a winding down of the temperature and energy state of the universe in any significant manner MUST be because of the existence of a dimension or dimensions responsible for a very significant energy return.

We must therefore exist within a gradually converting potential energy loop which is non linear and perhaps even subject to an inverse law of decay caused by the interaction of other dimensions returning energy over time (and at a reducing rate) to the sources of such energy, so that at this moment in time we find ourselves at the fairly flat bottom of a power law energy decay curve.

Such a postulation of fairly steady state thermodynamics even if cosmologically temporary (albeit perhaps measurable in giga-years) removes the need for Einstein's cosmological constant as well as static dark matter/energy and also including Higgs' mass particle field postulations.

In any case; life on earth was only possible because of this state of relative energy stability, which should remain fairly constant for the foreseeable future unless a skew time gravitational event is approaching because some unexpected skew time observational event has gone unnoticed simply because it is unobservable. Hopefully we are not residing in some sort of a Gaussian energy window; the opposite of a black hole. Note: I just made that up sounds good though huh? That's how scientists scam you all the time.

Now back to the presentation proper: Taking the state of the universe as we assume it to be from our 'primordial observance' vantage point, this is how G-theory sees the workings of the engine of the universe on the macro and micro level.

Being in a closed loop energy system; means that in order to analyze it we must break the loop to give us a starting point. I'll begin with what we can see with our eyes which is a logical starting point.

Light is emitted in vast quantities as photons or strings of photons which are emitted by protons at a speed determined by the eos through the agency of the protons themselves via their QED. Across the universe there exists an infinite grid of arrow straight virtual time line 'tines' for short. Light, without being affected by anything else, will travel by photon propagation along the tine it set out on without deviation from that tine in any manner right across the universe at 'c' speed via momentum, until it may sometime be absorbed by reintegration back to cosmean material or atomic matter or decay by other attritional affects such as innumerable collision with opposing light -with each collision resulting in the emission of gravitons which causes a slight attenuation of the photon vibrational amplitude. This light attenuation is probably why we don't see a white background at night which we should if the light from the phenomenal number of stars was reaching us un-attenuated. This consensual fact concurs (in G-theory) with the expected energy loss from light to the return side of the loop by the agency of gravitons.

Pursuant to this we can also propose the existence across the universe of another dimension supposedly consisting of lines as well. We can envisage such a dimension being called the gravitos. The virtual lines in the gravitos I have named gravitines.

These two dimensions occupy the same three dimensional space at the same time because they are not 'matter' and it is only 'matter' existing concurrently in any dimension that must conform to the first law of time.

Tines and gravitines account for the whole space of the universe. However they are deemed to have thickness and separation in theory because neither can be infinite in number or density. This is because they are both reasonably full of traveling matter/energy, by reason of which, if they were infinite in number their total energy would by necessity of reason be infinite itself, which according to observation and the fact that we are even around to observe such; it is not.

To answer the question of why does light (and for that matter emr) appear to have momentum? Do you remember the little black and silver 'spinny-thingy' from your school science class (better known as the Crooke's radiometer) that was supposed to show that light had mass and therefore momentum?

In standard light theory of absorption, the light is absorbed and transfers momentum to the black vane because photons (by some miracle) have mass, while the light reflecting off the silver surface is a perfectly elastic collision* which (also miraculously) transfers no momentum to that vane and the resultant is that the black vane moves away from the light source.

*In the real world there is no such thing as a truly perfect elastic collision and the light should lose some energy to the silver vane. Note: The experiment has not been concluded to be convincing in any case because in an almost perfect vacuum it doesn't rotate!


If it was to be an actual phenomenon; then as we determined in the chapter about gravity, mass and motion, and the subject of the behavior of light, the black vane does indeed absorb the light, but according to G-theory the light is a 'force stream' of graviton packets emitted into the photos but upon contact with the absorbing material some light reflects in random directions and it collides with other photons and this causes near field anomalous 'proximity graviton emission' to occur*, and so the GD on the black incident side of the vane is slightly increased which affects the GS balance. From what we determined before, what do you think will happen? Yes! It moves away from the increased GD because of GS imbalance which changes the effective mass in the black vane by GTD and not because the light has 'mass' and momentum similar to explanations of classical physics.

The effect remains the same but the difference is not in the photon attaining mass and momentum by speed, but because a photon contains gravitons with speed. So from this we can surprisingly conclude that the mechanics being observed has a gravitational rather than an inertial cause.

*Even though a photon has P-mass, this is also a valid explanation of why light has the appearance of having 'mass' only when it is moving because (apart from nucleon 'ringing' which we have analyzed elsewhere) no similar equal and opposite reaction has ever been observed in objects that emit light. Now however this problem has been dissolved.


On the other hand; as we will see later, the light has zero effect on the silver side because in (a perfect) reflection there would be true elastic collision because in that case the photons don't even enter the femptospaces in atomic nuclei and there is therefore no net force applied to the silver side regardless of whether light has mass or not yet the light loses an infinitesimal amount of energy. So we see that the vane spins in the direction that G-theory would have theorized anyway and that's the main point of mentioning this effect. Note: This explanation may not be the case and there are other reasons to do with air molecular mechanics which are able to explain the phenomenon away.

We will continue with light in a later chapter because in order to understand other photon related phenomenology it is crucial that we first address the subject of Atoms.