Unless otherwise stated the following assertations are deemed to be occurring at or around STP. All of the following chapters need to be studied with particular reference to CH. 19 and visa versa. Ctrl click here---


ABSTRACT: Note: Quantum stepped also means pulsed as ones and zeros. i.e. digital.


Atoms are tiny gravity to force/energy conversion machines of amazing complexity and wonder that have lost their way on their journey back to the cosmea but while they remain cosmean entities to some extent, as the fundamental building blocks of the universe they are responsible for eliciting the god code of the 'four' nucleon affected properties of matter, transparency, conductance, magnetic Gaussian value potential (degree of the ability to be magnetized), and emr transparency. (Electricity is caused by the movement of previously described matter). The phenomenological derivation of other elemental properties of atoms will be analyzed in a later chapter.

G-theory declares that atoms are vacuum modified (VM) multi-dimensional objects and the diversity of quantum particles conditionally occupies various dimensions. (Remember that dimensions are never invisible to the extent that their subject matter becomes invisible to the perfect microscope, being the 'Observer').

This theory also contends that all nucleons exclusively, must have some presence in the gravitos and consist of (among other things) gluons which consist of trion (as biracial twins) value sets (biracial neutrino twins). This gives gluons a proportionally powerful biracial charge value. Gluon bound quarks consist of quantasized biracial-charge boson sets which could be considered to be 'color' parameters in QCD. Note: It is probable that B-E statistics related G-statistics applies within every quark lattice at all times. Refer to definition. Refer to page 292.

Unbound nucleons are considered to have constant mean boson density per temperature and quantum state (Sp)*, which in itself should not be thought to confer them with 'mass'. Nucleons are multi- dimensional, and as well as having a presence in the gravitos they may or may not have parts with existence in other dimensions as the case may be. Protons and neutrons have very similar and constant boson density within the gravitos dimension and in that regard they are similar and only differ by the prodigiously smaller P-mass of a lost electron in the case of  a proton**. I.e. A proton can be considered to be minus the boson density value -ingnoring one antineutrino- which has since become the matter density of one electron. This is deemed to occur by QCD truncation phenomenology which is yet to be addressed herein.

*Sub fermion particle density. Refer to chapter 18.

**Refer to the previous subject of 'The fundamental cause of mass' as well as 'the mass defect' explanation.


To help facilitate an analysis of atoms it seems necessary to speculate as best we can, as to what they used to be in the cosmean pre universe state. As I mentioned before; the praetom (for simplicity) probably consisted of four sub particles (baryonic mesons) with the praetomic density being held together at zero k by similar cosmean forces* which now applies with differing force and energy within nucleons as per the proposal set out in the following analysis.

When the cosmea was shattered by an external event (creation), the praetoms flew apart with some level of statistical predictability and in the manner previously described they shed massive amounts of energy as a mind boggling quantity of particles of every description. In so doing, most of them soon cooled down by such a rapid and massive particle emission until they again reached the Bose Einstein state and by that time -happening in the very first instant- they had become something else entirely, yet something which still retained some characteristics of praetoms. They became atoms. (ions actually -probably cations enveloped within a Fermi shell). Electrons were unable to bond at this temperature.

*This is why the helium atom and the element of iron are extremely stable or have very strong nuclear binding forces. In fact any atom with 'quads' of four nucleons in the nucleus, are stable. This can also explain why the alpha particle is the most common complex nuclear relatable particle. This -as well as the reason why an alpha particle isn't a true helium nucleus- will be examined further on. Note: Cosmean forces are not open to any comparison with currently observable cosmo-universe specific forces.


A helium atom (and similarly) an alpha particle are as close as possible to the ideal 'quad' and therefore maintain the status of preferential return-ability to the cosmea but since the creation of gravity they are generally unable to become either cold or hot enough to do so. With the possible exception of a black hole; nowhere in the universe is cold or hot enough!






At the following instants-days? of creation the hotter spots in the new universe created denser and more complex atoms than the cooler areas which tended to retain 'quads' such as helium, or nucleon 'loners' such as hydrogen 1H isotopes, of which the universe mostly consists.

The proton and neutron are basically sub nucleon units of deprecated praetom 'quads' that have lost a large amount of energy. In losing cosmean energy they still retained the strong and (in normal externally induced energy states) the weak nuclear force. If the conditions were right these nucleons maintained an electrostatic charge via the biracial charge of the cosmean dimension which helped protons to VM-conditionally maintain a permanent connection with any proximous neutron, as well as with one of the first particles the proton emitted from B- decay. I.e. an electron. Note: limited explanations--- overview only.

Soon after the first moments of creation however, the ions soon reached extremely high temperatures and were then paradoxically unable to keep any electron orbitals, but what they found they still retained was the 'biracial force derived, binding force'. This enabled them to form bonds with neutrons in order to become deuteron ions and as the temperature rose –because of the increasing gravitonic assault- and the speed of light slowed, and also because the eos was becoming effective once more (whenever the surroundings reached the required temperatire window) this bond was replaced by what we now know as the strong nuclear binding force. The new 'ion' was conditionally now able to attract as many (more or less) electrons (which were condensing from the electron plasma cloud that would likely have concurrently existed at the time) as there were protons in the new nucleus, and the praetoms were then finally converted to the lowest order of atoms that sport complex nuclei.

The idea that large atoms have weaker nuclear binding force than smaller atoms (being thought to be caused by the fact that the force is generated in the center of the atom and decreases with radial distance) is considered by G-theory to not be very attractive. The true reason is more likely to be that each 'sub quad' has a finite force which is diluted by the vector spread of the forces with the existence of a stronger degree of dependence on nuclear space filling determinants than supposed. The vector sum of forces in the center of such a force field is therefore greater than at the outer regions and such a force only conditionally diminishes with size such that the relationship isn't firmly speherical as previously proposed in the prior theory. The observed facts support this stated contention of G-theory. TBE

With regard to SBF we can still conclude that the binding forces of smaller nuclei are stronger than the larger, for this reason: The energy result of these forces being slightly different compared to the probable results from E=mc2 are a good indicator that even at quantum levels this formula is only a guide, but it is the best formula available to date and it works fairly well for the quantum science we have, even if we have noticed such science to be somewhat questionable. Multi-dimensional VM G-theory is able to account for slight differences in nuclear bond and atomic mass anomalies, and these will be analyzed in depth in a later chapter.

Getting back to the thread: Once this new nucleus was formed and condensed, and with the temperature becoming stabilized to 'known universe' typical values, a point was reached where no new nucleons were capable of being readily received into the now fully formed nuclei because of the near-field--- 'like' coulombic charge repulsion of electrons. So nucleosynthesis became mostly limited to the fiery bowels of stellar and greater bodies.

Without getting into the subject of the mass defect problem for the moment: Protons may exhibit less 'mass' than neutrons because they have essentially reached equilibrium less the boson density of an electron which only exhibits a miniscule P-mass which doesn't contribute to N-mass except during particle collisions. It might be considered that 'Mass' at the quantum level must be determined by m=E/c2. This also arguably suggests that electrons must have some conditionally effective mass! This has actually been the case up to date because we must now consider that the magic formula only applies somewhat to fermions and below and also specifically by its G-theory variant E=Fc2 in relation to the quark lattice as well as E=hf for all particles with spin (vibration). TBE

When nucleons exceed the quark lattice boson 'n' density relative to any immediate proximity nucleon by any increasing value (and visa versa), they reach a QIP 'quanta tipping point' by the zeroeth law and (subject to PEP) instantly transfer a quantum value of extra particles to any other (lower temperature) nucleons for parity purposes. If such proximous nucleons are in a non receptive state by having a mutually 'similar' quantum energy state as well as the surrounding atoms, the nucleon will then reemit particles either as individual bosons to other atoms by electron activity for immediate parity purpose or (in the case of surface atoms) back into the eos (vacuum) as BBR trions. This is because parity is eagerly sought and without it the laws of thermodynamics would be extinct and the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Note: The whole inter-dimensional interactivity is probably enabled intricately and variably by the other known quantum level particles and it all occurs in particular accordance with the 'zeroeth law' of thermodynamics in tandem with existing quantum physics laws. However there are some exceptions to the latter that baffle scientists. All will be revealed.

Many other particles exist within protons and neutrons to facilitate the creation of forces which ensure sufficiently strong connections to each other. I am referring to gluons, quarks, mesons, and bosons etc. as agents of the strong and weak nuclear force. Note: This theory does not substantially threaten the standard model of particle physics but the graviton -along with gluons in a separate sense- may actually be one of the hypothesized particles which substantially fill the atomic particle density and gluons which consist of an unknown quantity (probably two) of some other unobservable particles such as biracial trions (VM neutrino biracial pairs) may be involved in inter-dimensional relationships within the atom and be the fundamental cause of 'mass' when positioned on the cosmean brane as the Zo boson. This has been examined in overview and will also be analyzed later.

Quantum and F-D statistics apply to this as well as the previous analysis. It is theorized that bosons residing within a quark lattice femtospace are indistinguishable from each other and only attain individualism as a distinguishable entity by multiplex VM phenomenology which enables them to be combined, defined, identified and named. I propose calling this the SUB BOSON TRANSMUTABILITY PRINCIPLE (SBTP). I.e. positive and negative particle decay/annihilation.

Neutrons have 'got it made'. They -type conditionally- exist in the perfect cosmean patterned (multiplex) matter state which theoretically enables them to be instantaneously convertible to gravitons and other bosonic matter, and release 1.2 MeV of energy whenever the chance may arise to re-enter the cosmea. (It theoretically only takes two whole neutrons and anti-neutron pairs to decay to release the same energy as the potential energy in a praetom).

Unfortunately, a couple of things prevent this instant decay from occurring in free space* and even though they (neutrons) will decay, the complete decay is truncated and the time taken is increased to minutes because of the continued energy being supplied to them by graviton transitions and BBR.

*The neutrons are no where near a black hole in order to decay back to cosmean matter. Wait and learn about the femtospace and particle anihilation.


This delay plus low temperature constraints also prevents the instant recombining of neutrons in space. Such a strong force combination of neutrons and anti-neutrons would theoretically create a micro-cosmean black hole of one praetom energy, being by deduction 4.8MeV. The other thing that prevents them from undergoing entropic decay is the fact that protons won't undergo further decay at all and they greedily hang onto their useful neutrons by way of the strong nuclear force. Although this appears to infer that protons have intelligence, it is all only the proton's simple obedience to cosmean law. If protons weren't so stable you wouldn't be reading this!

Another way in which protons also rid themselves of energy is to transfer gravitons by both quantasized (photons) and non quantasized convection, to space as BBR or via its mesons/gluons etc. to other nucleons of atoms in close proximity which are at a lower energy state. Because of nuclear spatial separation this is fundamentally by BBR unless quantum activity supercedes. Electrons have no direct causative involvement in this. A theoretical mass of cations would even emit BBR -as light even- for parity purposes.

There is however another theorized phenomenology at work which abrogates the laws of chance. Nucleons have an existence in the force field dimension which enables them to keep in direct contact with other nucleons with which they are able to 'translocute' and promote bilateral energy transferability by photonic means or BBR, in a way that treats electron orbitals as if they didn't even exist. Thus they form intimate 'connections' of convenience which paradoxically are then kept intact via the subservient role of electrons. This connection is therefore via a data mediated transfer pathway and NOT a force between nucleons, and it must be understood that this is in no way similar to the force that holds nucleons together or atomic bonds by electron-ion interactions, it operates under the auspices of 'field and signal physics'. Note: Of course nucleons are not being selfish and even though seeming to possess intelligence and decision making capabilities, we know they actually don't. This manner of 'personalizing' dumb particles is simply a tool not dissimilar to the description of straight or wavy lines which don't actually exist. Atoms are simply obeying the laws of dimensions in which they have no choice but to do--- What is---is!

It is a prime contention of this theory that the status of proton dimensional statistics is likely to be determined by the aperiodic space filling of the nucleons within complex nuclei, which by reason must be considered to be different for every elementally diverse nucleus. This forecasts the reason for some properties of atoms coming down to something as simple as the geometric arrangements of nucleons within a nucleus! Other characteristics are proposed to be caused by elastic quark lattice and gluon orientation relationships, especially within protons. (later chapter)

Electrons do not normally collide because they repel each other and their orbital shape is dependant on four variables -usually thought to be three, which may be theoretically and only true for a lone atom in space- which also determine the electrons energy state. Fermi level*: charge: magnetism, and 'spin' (vibration) which translate out to g-factor, form factor and electronegativity/positivity as the case may be. If they somehow did collide because of external forces they would simply bounce off each other.

*The Fermi level is likely to be eos controlled according to universal energy state statistics -we're all in it together- and it may have a relationship with ionization energy which is temperature dependent (external forces being disregarded). An electron which is externally induced to strike a proton may or may not be reunited by positive beta decay depending on -among other things- the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) because of quantum state restrictions within the proton. (more later)


 It is now well understood that electron clouds probably form nodal shapes by 'quanta' confinement as well as electron 'like' charge repulsion and other complicated electron/nucleon phenomenology as examined in other chapters. Uncertainty principle suggests that if the electrons are buzzing about very fast we haven't got much clue about where they actually might be. I do have one suggestion; that they move in a dance caused by a process inferred by something slightly akin to quantum harmonic oscillation theory. 

It is theorized then, that the inner electron shells would show tight and extreme nodal patterns and the outer shells less so by inverse square law diminishment of point source effects by the diminishing and smoothing of the quantum electromagnetic field. However it is also theorized that the outer shell of atoms (which if fully filled), may conditionally exhibit a spherical shape due to force equilibrium, as is observed by tunneling electron microscopes. Note: 'Tunneling' or 'atomic force' microscopes are not imaging by light, so any images that show atoms to be spherical in shape can't be taken too seriously.

Electrons 'snap' in quanta steps to other energy level 'orbitals' according to known physics, but in this thesis by a theorized interactive 'three to two' variable wave phase nodal form factor function instead of wave function for states refer to G-theory quatum physics*, and (If I play the Devil's advocate) I would state that if at all; electrons are most probably only indirectly utilized as the emitter of light ---like duh! A photon at the very least has to get past (through) them---, which is otherwise considered to be fully dictated by the proton, which emits light as singles or streams of quanta (quantum packets). Electrons do display quanta effects when light emission occurs but this reaction should not be confused with being any evidence for direct causation. Note: We may have a chicken and egg argument on this point. We should ask--- Do cations emit light? Have they ever been observed to. Electron beams in a vacuum never do! FEL's are too powerful and also operating in an imperfect vacuum to be of use here. Synchrotrons are no proof either. Refer to synchrotron mechanics.

A variable 2-3 ratio is supportive of the nodal affects speculated to cause the orbitals which are theorized as occurring in aperiodicity as a function of Hilbert space set 'g ' and form factors occupying the space defined within the Fermi layer of individual atoms. By this theory; slight variations of the phase mode could result in changes in the hybridization of electron orbitals and partially account for the Hydrogen (and some other atoms) fine structure anomaly which will be analyzed later.

*You could say G-theory proposes a 'snap function' rather than a 'wave/state function'. There is no wave particle duality in G-theory. There is particles with vibrational statistics and other different attributes that provide quantum states and promote the viability of mutual electron orbital interactions or not. Refer to CH 23.


The phased interaction of these factors is specifically capable of 'targeting' an electron in one shell at the quantum state specified intersection point and 'tractor beaming' it to another shell or position. This predicates that quantum steps are either the result, determinant -or both- of this phononic oscillation theory* and that during such steps one or both of the nuclear factors would need to become amplified in order to empower the electron shell transition. However it is likely that the g-factor is the dynamic instigator and maintainer of electron orbitals. Refer to the quantum analysis in a later chapter.

This would require energy input to move an electron to a higher energy state, and the energy that was used to move it to a lower state position would be given back because of the electromagnetic factors in the electron. I.e. it takes more energy to hold an electron in a higher energy position than it does for a lower energy position. The energy state (measured by temperature) of the nucleus will therefore determine the actual position of the orbitals in any case. This is observably the case because high temperatures cause atoms to eventually become stripped ions commensurate with the temperature increase. Conversely low temperatures cause nucleus hugging. Note: The energy state of electrons NEVER CHANGES without velocity change.

*N.B. I'm not sure which, but such a phenomenology must be according to some sort of algorithm, the source of which is so far indeterminable. I'm not at all sure whether the mechanics is determinably relatable to any kind of esoteric quantum behavior that could be proposed.

The proposed theory of electron orbitals is a whole other subject. Suffice it to say that orbitals are nodes that respond to internal nuclear factors which results in differing patterns of nodal interference. The valence orbitals are the last to be affected. When they become non functional, electron bonding becomes abrogated. This is why sometimes atoms won't receive free electrons into empty shell positions and bonding just doesn't occur by simple contact. There are temperature and VM requirements to be met as well as PEP and QIP when analyzing the bonding phenomenology.

The responsible emf forces are completely dissimilar to the higher generational emf, electrostatic and magnetic fields; especially when contemplating magnetic lines of force which have a separation and build velocity (by internal motion of sub particles only). In the electron orbital phenomenology the lines of force (which combined with those of other atoms are responsible for the higher generational magnetic field lines), are permanent resonance features of each orbital node.

These orbitals are able to be repositioned to a greater or lesser degree by external forces which proportionally and concurrently realign the magnetic dipoles of the nuclei.

With regard to the significance of Magnetic resonance technologies such as MRI and MRS. This kind of technology could possibly be taken a step further to not just analyze but to promote or interdict, targeted chemical interactions. The future could even see the ability for scientists to target very small areas such as early growth tumors.

If we return to my previous postulation that alpha particles are just dimensionally strange helium nuclei and that if we could inject them into tumors to wreak havoc and then morph them into helium in a timely manner, then that would be job done on the tumor! This becomes an even more tantalizing dream to pursue, because while chemical intervention from afar is one thing, medicinal nuclear intervention and control from afar is a mind blowing though possibly dangerous technological capability. 

Both of these possibilities would require targeting of both electrostatic and magnetic data SEPARATELY because phononic modulation is not emr modulation, (being radio type) which is quite different. The pragmatic difficulty lies in the fact that it would be necessary to be able to accurately map and subsequently mirror the postulated factor modulation data for the first instance of chemical perturbation, while it would require the discovery of a suitable data set by experimentation for any hope of undertaking the latter. This proposed direction for a future branch of exiting research probably stops just sort of alchemy.






The following supposition may well be challenged but it does have an ally in quantum harmonic oscillation theory, and by way of serious support I will be presenting a profound theoretical nuclear space filling geometry in a later chapter which is itself undergirded by the hard data wherein---



So in light of this we should understand that electron shell positioning and prevention from falling into the nucleus is in accordance with quantum 'emr' (QCD) forces associated with this featured 'QUANTUM STEP MODULATED PHONONIC OSCILLATION THEORY'. An assertation in the relevant section also postulates the extension of this phenomenology to the higher order ATOMIC, AMO, MOLECULAR AND MASSIVE CRYSTALLINE PARAMETERS.



The Hilbert space vectors confine the various intra-nuclide fermions to states which cannot be the same for each fermion. This could be the process which results in the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) and the quantum states are only able to be transferred in a manner which could be likened to a wave propagating a-periodically in the extension of the near field but within the limitation of nodally alternating 'g' and form factors. The Hilbert space modal sets would conditionally determine this field extension and therefore the radius of the atom as well, and it would be considered to terminate at or near the Fermi level. It is probable that the sets and therefore the PEP would operate at light speed because of the similar speed of the actions of the nuclear sub bosons. Note: This is the first refutation of Dirac and Lorentz. The propagation velocity of forces is at 'y' or the speed of light squared (cubed?). It isn't quite instantaneous because of the slight inelasticity of the eos (vacuum). Otherwise particle annihilations could occur instantaneously which is not what is observed.

This doesn't require any light speed related oscillation frequency, which needs to be low enough to allow sufficient time for any given electron to locate (or be located) during any given quantum step and become recruited by the mode. Quantum steps are determined by electron shell jumping whether from internal nuclear forces or external forces.* The actual frequency is likely programmed into the atomic software like atomic DNA** and it would be required to vary from atom to atom in order for the mechanics to be incontrovertible in every case. If randomness and not order was the father of atomic behavior, there would be no universe at all, because such mechanics is not permitted to fail. Of course the 'nothing's perfect' law always has precedence but it is very obvious that it is all perfect enough!

*This declares that ionic plasma emissions are purely by BBR.

**Refer to that section. G-theory by Wussell K Lonney.


The thermo-chemical energy of electron bonding is shared equally with the ions of the bond by a firm interconnections via the Hilbert space sets. The ionic g and form factors are now interacting as one new set which becomes proportionally related and relevant to every other set within an object of atomic matter (especially so in crystalline AMOs) and even though the electron bonding has a high degree of relevance to this structure and also has an interdependent relativity, it appears to require a high degree of ionization to destroy the bond. This means that electro-negativity gains extra energy from the APERIODIC (CODED) HILBERT SPACE RESONANCE. This activity has a full relationship with the quark lattice geometry within the space filling ionic matrix and requires the G-theory solution in place of Maxwell's charge dynamics: TBE.

In spite of this it is hard to imagine a completely ionized lump of matter remaining bound together at all so it must be considered that the resonance energy alone is insufficient to maintain objective integrity because of ion-ion electromagnetic incompatibility.

The proposed linking of Hilbert space aperiodic resonance sets which is almost exclusively and directly derived by the ionic g and form factors might provide answers to some problems associated with Kekule′ structure theory, as well as other resonance theories. Note: The Rayleigh-Jeans law of standing wave action is problematical for any supposed harmonic oscillation theory because it assumes periodic cavity mode sets which would disallow the exclusion principle (and therefore quantum physics) which requires a modificant-specific single node propagation of the factors. Normal but still alternating periodic mode phononic quantum behavior would then seem to be limited to the higher order mechanics occurring within most AMOs consisting of periodic crystalline molecular structure.

However; (and this is important when it comes to deciphering QIP/PEP and electron shell behavior which extends to the reason why electrons are even able to maintain orbitals at all) the g-factor in particular declares the necessity for the internal magnetic field of atoms and AMOs alike to not only be phononically active but it becomes reasonable to suggest that the magnetic field lines are real and separate. Laws obviously exist which promote -but limit- electron populations on each dynamic line, each of which would be associated with an orbital. Electron attachment to such lines is extremely flexile but governed by inviolate limitations even though electrons in-cloud are inter-reactionary.

If the electron-nucleus relationship was static and the field lines weren't separate entities then in the first state, electrons would not move around in a cloud, and in the second situation the electrons would never be constrained to keep to their conditionally subjugated orbital position statistics.

When a proton emits a photon/s or causes internal neutrino forward scattering, it is simply giving up an excess of energy because of the 'zeroeth' law of thermodynamics*. In the case of light emission, this dampens its overall vibration amplitude by one or more quantum numbers as the case may be. This then causes a decrease in its positive charge (form factor) and/or g-factor as a modulation modifier and consequently an electron/s jumps orbital/s towards the nucleus (or another position in the same orbital) because of the subsequent (quantum reduced) Coulombic repulsive force etc. Note: The position to which an electron moves may also be influenced by externally applied forces.

 This in effect agrees with quantum optic theory and admits that photons when emitted are also emitted as quantum integer packets. Multi level coherent quantum jumps lead to the emission of higher level photons such as x-rays etc, and the 'exclusively chosen' electrons will change energy levels in response. This suggests that in this case PEP is a function of multi QIP level preempting nuclei forces with resulting multi level electron behavior. In other words the QIP jumps several quantum steps at once, being faster than the Hilbert factor-propagation to the electron orbitals. This would be coincident with more highly energetic 'sub-sub-boson number' sub-photon boson filling. To be examined further.

*In contrast; when a photon strikes an atom, a shock is noticed within the nucleus. My question is: If electrons supposedly emit photons, why then don't they receive them as well? The other significant observation to be made here is that the nucleus also shows a vibrational kinetic response to the emission of photons. This will not exhibit an inertial recoil in any emitting AMO because the phenomena is related to E=hf so in iteration, it is only a vibrational inertial response .






Atomic quark-quantum-levels are reasonable speculated to be responsible for band spectra, and sub quark photonic quantum units would then be thought responsible for line spectra. The temperature and specific heat related quark behavior causes the quantum jumps which are sub boson frequency modulated, and this gives a photon its vibration frequency signature. The individual photon particle packets are quantasized with photon quanta number per Planck's constant (which is the actual photon count per stream) which, along with the photon frequency results in line spectra which is further determined by elemental properties of the emitting atom as previously described. Note: this suggests that a rainbow only looks to be smoothly transitional but it is really quantasized right down to actually existing microscopic divisions in line spectra. This all predicates that a spectrometer is actually measuring quantum stepped energy by this relationship as E=hf.

Under normal conditions the atom will 'recharge' and at each quantum particle emission, an electron will jump in response to the conditional electromagnetic changes. In both cases the Pauli and Fermi conditions must be right, or the atom may remain slightly ionized until they are, and when quantum conditions are finally met, an electron is then able to move, and the photons can be emitted. This can explain both long and short duration residual luminescence phenomena which have been observed in laser experiments. Note: Luminescence from tritium or phosphors occurs via different mechanics.

Electrons therefore are not deemed to have any other function than electro-chemical and electro-magnetic ones. This is indeed not to understate their importance because without them ATOMIC universal matter would not be possible.

However I must insist that electrons are not the receivers of photons. According to G-theory constraints; an electron is unable to physically touch a photon because they don't exist in the same dimension. Rather it is a proton that emits the photons which travel multi-dimensionally through the electron orbitals but it may be tentatively understood that these orbitals may in certain conditions exert a perturbative force on the photon. Although; how it is possible to affect a string of photons with electromagnetic energy remains unreasonable*, so I must suggest that in the end it is unlikely that electrons have any role in photon emission whatsoever and in any case G-theory declares that electro magnetic waves per se don't actually exist to enable them to be emitted from any electron!

*However such a relationship is thought to exist but it is almost insignificantly perturbative.


As far as the wave theory of light propagation goes; it may be noted that in some manner -which is not at all clear- the vibrating photons may be seen to trace a wavelike path*. However this is only the observance of a Galilean transformative motion relative action occurring in real time and is not actual reality. What happened to relativity in that instance?. Note: Please wait for the phenomenological analysis of lightening, synchrotron and betatron radiation before you object to or perhaps even ridicule this conclusion. 

*Spiraling if spin is declared. Both phenomena have historically created problems for the idea of an upper speed limit of universal motion which has been concluded to be 'c'. I have eliminated this problem elsewhere.


However it can be concluded that external forces which compress electrons towards the nucleus will be able to enforce shell jumping which of course will result in quantum effects being exhibited by the nucleus. I.e. externally affected electrons are able to cause photons or at least convection and or BBR to be emitted by a nucleus.

The effect of electrical current is a force-field effect which is caused by the motion of electrons and sometimes whole atoms or ions, and such a current is only observable in a conductor. By the same token 'emr' (radio not QED) can only be emitted from a conductor. Note: The idea that an electric field and a magnetic field combining in space will form an 'emr' wave is probably absurd! The Lienard-Wiechart potentials are considered then to be flawed science because they are not fully relatable to the complete paradigm. Perhaps this is because they are based on the relativity model!

Under the affects of externally applied high temperatures and/or by externally induced electric charges, the protonic charge and atomic vibration (spin) will be seen to increase severely in accordance with extremes of nucleonic vibration being caused by (equal-opposite) reactions within the atom as it attempts to shed energy. When this occurs; the electron nodes are forced away from the nucleus in proportion to the larger*, and more complex 'frequency pulsations' of the proton and probably the neutron as well.

At first; electrons react to this by jumping orbitals in the reverse of the specifically ordered filling manner which is well established in science but this is all within the constraints imposed by the four variables that constitute an electrons energy state. This is most likely due to frequency and phase changes between the nucleus' electric and magnetic fields which as the nodes reach peaks will perpetuate orbital node peaks in different spatial positions that don't necessarily result in an even and linear orbital jump sequence that we might notice at around STP. Thus we may consider the idea of the electron orbital nodes as being hybridized orbitals.

*You might expect lower frequencies because of the inverse square law of power versus frequency but don't be confused. This is an example of quantum physics by E=hf and not of the emf propagation law of classical physics. Also remember the law that states that the objects of the cause of an effect are not subject to the laws of the effect so caused, and in any case G-theory is a particle and not a wave propagation theory so a revised reason will be forthcoming.

Because of this cause and effect law, quantum physics may not necessarily be the esoteric or magical physics defying regimen it is thought to be.


Picking up the thread: As the energy state increases, uncertainty principle comes into effect even in the nucleus because we cannot know the positional moments of the nucleon quarks and dipoles which cause the electrons to move away from the nucleus in any particular manner except that we do know that at extremely high energy states electrons are forced to exit the atom altogether. This leaves the atom as an ion. If left in an enclosed space the electrons will drift around or act in accordance to external electrical or magnetic influences and as the medium cools they begin to recombine with ions. (A cloud of detached electrons behaving in this manner in a vacuum is called 'electron ion' plasma).

Atomic bonds are severely affected during this process and an AMO can melt, or completely vaporize. Note: The protons or electrons do not lose their individual charge or dipole signs during this process, but the nucleons do attempt to reach 'eV' parity by shedding energy. (The dimensions of the eos and force-field, both contenders for being causative are unaffected even though the eos at some high and low temperature points will become ineffective. These are the unknown temperature points at which there is a cessation of BBR and all energy emission or reception becomes photonic externally or convective internally with respect to any AMO) and strange occurrences are noted in high energy particle physics with relationship to the vacuum.

Electrons only move and maintain orbitals and/or spatial positions completely governed by the forces I have described and nothing else except for a small and insignificant graviton induced P-mass. They have no actual G-mass so they aren't significantly or even observably affected by gravity* and they have no quark lattice so they have no N-mass. No particle without a dipole or charge and not existing in a common dimension (tensor) is able to collide with them and any possible affects would then be only perturbative.

*Put an electron next to a black hole and we'll see.


With regard to the magnos: An atom cannot be considered to be the smallest magnetic dipole. Apart from the possibility of the existence of such a particle as a fundamental magneton dipole; an electron, positron and nucleon (proton) are equally the smallest electrostatic and magnetic dipoles which exist except at the sub fundamental level of the quark.

An electron dipole will usually be found typically oriented towards the nucleus and POSITIONED somewhere near the crossing point of an electric and magnetic field line, being aperiodically provided by the nodally vibrating electric and magnetic fields of a nucleus by alternating form and g factors which is able to be modulated by Hilbert space quantum statistics. The various orbitals are then able to be imagined as modifiable interference pattern sets of these wave forces subject to 'the four affects', and the modulation modificant is likely to be a function of nodal snap or quantum related standing wave mechanics.

The electron also has a radial net negative electric charge field situated somewhat elastically at right angles to its magnetic dipole. The electron is determined (within the constraints already suggested but by both quantum field and classical magnetic and electrostatic laws) to keep its negative charge end oriented toward the (varying) positively charged virtual charge center of the nucleus, as well as to simultaneously keep its dipole aligned and oriented with the (varying) nucleonic magnetic force lines. It achieves this on a more or less elastic and average basis only so its predictable position is statistically uncertain within a nodal 'cloud'. Note: Classical electromagnetic theory DOES NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORT the standard quantum theory speculation that a spinning point charge will create a magnetic field. According to G-theory that is a contentious phenomenology. Magnetic fields are only able to be produced by the spatial motion of electrons within a conductor or in the case of atoms--- sub fundamental particles TBE. Transference of classical theories to quantum physics (especially including quantum mechanics) 'ad hoc' is not seemingly possible and is one of the basic difficulties with historical unification attempts between those two branches of physics.






G-theory allows the idea that matter and anti matter may be able to exist and be dimensionally separated at hadron levels. Consider an electron and a positron: Being declared by this theory to be objects without significant G or N-mass and therefore only P-mass, they must move with little kinetic energy or momentum and then recombine without significant emission of energy and there can be little realizable extra mass resulting from this and the direction of movement of the gamma particles so formed is likely to be random but at still at 'c' by the agency of energy derived from biracial annihilation of  the particles according to cosmean law by the agency of the eos and possibly the gravitos. Note: A robust phenomenology is still being undertaken for this. It's all in the details!

This just means that the energy derived from electron-positron collision is NOT derived from their 'mass' as either emission or kinetic energy. The energy is in the annihilation to, and emission of, other particles, such as gamma.

However I understand that the formation of multiple gamma particles can be conditionally emitted from electrons in higher energy states where the eos is actually non functional but it requires electron speeds at almost 'c' to cause any significant emission enabling inertia gained from their infinitesimal P-mass to be realized; so when it finally occurs, the emission of the gamma particles will only be at the speed of the electron. This novel, fledgling proposal will also be examined in greater and tantalizing detail.

The magazine of your relativity gun should be well and truly empty by now as should be the 'cross draw' pistols of energy mass equivalence; both of which nuclear physicists sometimes attempt to utilize whenever it suits them, even if it necessitates the ignoring of an obvious element of reverse logic.

That's not a fair sledge really, because science is always a journey and sometimes the inexplicable and downright contrary have to be ignored to enable advancement in any area for better understanding even if that does lead to theory rejection in the end. At least some of the physicists admit the quandaries and the general idea is OK if it is useful but we must be wary of dogmatism in the face of model challenging dilemmas, or science may advance no further in crucial directions.

I strongly assert that the electron has been wrongly determined to have any significant and inertially active N-mass because of the misunderstanding of the forces involved. This problem should have been cleared up if you accept the proton-electron phenomenology as stated above. I will be expanding on this subject further now and in much greater detail later.






For a more in depth analysis of the following overview--- please refer to chapter 23.

I suspect that electrons are positioned around the nucleus by the following process. Protons exhibit a pulsation of various and variable QED fields from zero to a positive magnitude determined by nucleonic parameters. The frequency of pulsation is possibly too high to be measured but it stands to reason that it could be at the highest x-ray frequency known or even higher because of  the fine constant energy loss function.

The magnetic field also expands and collapses at other frequencies and orientations determined by energy state and nuclear space filling parameters. These two forces create nodal patterns, in that; rapid changes of frequency of one or the other causes electron orbital nodes to snap to and fro. N.B: Phenomenologically comparative rapid nodal 'snaps' can be instrumentally observed when experimenting with sound wave interference also. These quantasized nodal shifts can perhaps be indicative of nucleon quantum level shifts and may actually be causative of PEP. Wow! If that could be true then quantum steps could simply be controlled by variable 'g' and form factor interference, rather than envisaging some sort of internal atomic computer. Such interference phenomenology is the more likely scenario.

The electrons are always positioned in an elastic coulombic avoidance relationship with each other and will always be found (elastically) near the region of the junction of magnetic lines of force and electric field nodes.

A necessary digression: This will give them a particular spectrum line which of course can be affected by the Stark and Zeeman, and Paschen-Back effects because the electron is both an electrically charged particle (in the summative double negative and single positive manner which will soon be described and depicted diagrammatically) as well as having an elastic and cross charge oriented magnetic dipole, otherwise electron and other related phenomenology could only occur if 'truly' unworldly physics is involved. I.e. magic! This is offering real phenomenology. Note: The spectra affects are suspected to be caused by retro-charge and retro-magnetic effects transmitted to the proton by the electron proton interrelationship, which in turn would rewrite the signature vibration of any photon that the proton emits while in any given state. Multiple lines are caused by multiple atoms being affected in slightly different ways according to their real world parameters within the field.

This high frequency force interaction causes the electrons (which consist of a magnetic dipole and a '-ve1' net charge as a dualistic imbalanced charge particle)* to move at very high velocities within the constraints of the fields and interactions with other electrons so described. Uncertainty principle declares that an electron can be at any legally approbative position relative to the intersection point at any time but (on average), equidistantly averaged between other electrons.

*To behave as it does an electron can be conceived as an elastic particle consisting of one north and one south magnetic 'particle' at right angles to a set (or multiples of a pseudo-baryon set) of three charge 'particles' in a (-2/3 -2/3 +1/3) arrangement giving it a net electrostatic negative-1 charge and also (and very importantly for G-theory) AN IMBALANCED CHARGE DIPOLE WITH A SUMMATIVE NET –1 CHARGE BUT STILL WITH A SLIGHT SINGLE SIDED POSITIVE CHARGE RELATIVE TO SPATIAL ORIENTATION STATISTICS. Note: Charge particles (with color changeability) do not follow coulombs law within the fundamental particle they exist in; otherwise a proton would fly apart by quark repulsion! This is a novel theory based on a coming conclusion concerning quark lattice phenomenology, but how else can you explain the ability of an electron to notionally change its energy level without a comparative color change QCD retroaction?







According to G-theory, electrons MUST consist of a lot of particles if an electron positron collision is able to cause the formation of two gamma particles. Note: I also suspect that a nucleon consists of a conditionally vast quantity of particles WHICH MOSTLY EXIST WITHIN THE QUARK LATTICE, AND THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE 'POLYSTATIC GRAVITOS DIMENSION QUANTITY' SINGULARLY DETERMINE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE NUCLEON. That temperature is conditionally determinable by the rate of boson emissions relative to temperature differential between the atom and the measuring instrument. It becomes clear that the temperature measuring instrument is able to affect the measurement.

All second generation particles are deemed to be sub level bosons and it is these bosons existing in relevant 'dimensions' which give electrons and nucleons charges and poles. The electrons (and just as importantly) quarks exist and behave according to Hilbert space sets by quark lattice derived modulated harmonic vibrations. This concludes that quarks may not have a very significant magnetic dipole moment or g-factor and only a biracial charge component. However even though such is strongly suspected because of a lack of a mechanism; this remains unclear. It is possible that quark dipoles may become camouflaged in certain baryon states. If dipoles are joined end to end a dipole is still the result but if they become conjoined because of some dimensional aberration the dipole is effectively annulled and only a force can drive them apart.

Under quantum statistics and multiplicity; bosons -being capable of becoming any particular boson when and as required by internal nucleonic multiplex states- is a mechanics which is able to help explain the existence of quantum number sets of similar bosons, which in turn can explain (along with space filling) the major yet extremely stable difference in properties of very similar atoms such as gold and mercury. This can also explain why solids of similar elemental purity don't simply assimilate when brought slowly together in an electron plasma when the energy states are low.

The Hilbert sets however are paradoxically thought to be initiated by quarks and this can also explain the reason that electrons remain in orbitals well away from the nucleus. Quarks could be thought to enclose a two sided Euclidean dimensional (flat) space adjoining several dimensions. This may sound very enigmatic because in Euclidean space two dimensions don't exist, only in pre-Hilbert space. However this is not problematical for sub bosonic particle cohabitation of dimensions which posses no necessary size or shape! I.e. even though the flat space must have thickness, they don't occupy any necessarily measurable space and therefore the quark's particles are able to appear to exist in the same 'space time' where they are multi-dimensionally subjugated. Also by the same reason the area within a quark lattice may be deemed to be of no determinable but variable size within any given nucleon in any given element. This would be considered to be one probable cause of some radical differences in elemental properties. Note: If anybody measures one let me know.


Bosons within the quark lattice system would be thought to obey B-E statistics, and because of the matter state of that lattice system; its wave function never changes until the system is emptied of all sub-bosons which would occur either if it were possible to reach zero degrees k, (where the last quantum step would still be expected to be phononic because bosons and quarks don't 'freeze') or if it were to become completely full--- at BST. I.e. There is no change in the systematic wave function until the system is either full or empty so under B-E statistics within the quark lattice it is the 'h' in E=hf which becomes the variable, so any non quantum emission of particles from the lattice into the nucleon proper cause a change in 'f' because they are not a full quantum and therefore if that didn't occur there would be no theoretical-but-rationalized sub-obedience to the law of the conservation of energy and no BBR. This is how the boson count of the quark lattice gives the observable indication of the temperature of an atom. Note: If the frequency is held constrained by external forces then with regard to the applicable laws it would be the amplitude of the nucleonic waveform that would necessarily change.

All bosons that are restrained (by quantum and other laws) from being ejected from a nucleon, and which are in excess of requirements are sent back to the quark lattice B-E storage 'shed' on the next wave node. In that case they could be sent as quantasized packets only. This just means that light photons wouldn't be emitted; only BBR.

When 4He atoms are super-cooled to almost zero k they exhibit gravity defying behavior because they have lost most of the graviton perturbable bosons in the quark lattice because some of the mesons are now taking the place of the lost bosons in the normally static number, so in such a condition they would then be considered to have lost their G-mass. I suggest that all atoms will behave in the same manner at that temperature and right at zero k the atoms might be thought to cease to exist and that they would devoid themselves of all matter by a consequential and complete deprecation to baryons and bosons.

That's impossible however because the energy required to take that last step is paradoxically not available in that state, so when such atoms are left to their own devices they have no recourse but to once again begin to receive bosons from the environment and begin the long and mostly fruitless journey towards BST. Note: In the context of the universal energy system, the bosonic matter in super cooled nuclides has not been lost and it is still potentially capable of becoming enjoined with an atom about to reach BST at the event horizon of some black hole.

 Electrons find themselves existing in quantum states generated by related Hilbert sets (with some eigenspace variability able to be imposed by external forces) which surround the nucleus and protrude into the orbitals to occupy the defined space of the whole atom including orbitals (being configured by the sets). The quarks may also contain dimensionally shifted magnetons as charge poles by quantum statistics. Note: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle sets indefinable limits of the reach of these sets by limiting covariant functor communicants over distance. The degree to which this communication or STF relates to the maximum size or 'reach' of atoms may never be known, but I suspect it is Sp (specific fermion particle density) related and may be determined from electronegativity values associated with isolated atoms.

 For the sake of explanation we will incrementalize the quark lattice to have some realizable physical thickness.

Continuing the narrative: If we subjectively slow things down, such positioning of electrons is thought to be caused by the action of electrons sliding in and out by charge pulses but in the main by sliding along magnetic force lines. This occurs by the requirement to keep their charge and magnetic pole alignments as close as possible to where the two fields cross each other at or as close to right angles as their elasticity will allow. This gives electrons a 'nebulous' transverse motion. An axial motion is also likely within nodes in order to keep distance from other electrons. This doesn't cause a quantum number change –when not required by the internal nucleon state- because the Hilbert sets give them axial 'leeway' without any quantum jumping being forced outside of quantum step arbitration. The speed of motion is so great ('c' perhaps) that we are only able to 'see' a cloud. A single cloud or node will be seen to have denser and lighter regions because the electrons (more often than not) occupy the 'expected' regions of the nodes according to Schrodinger's equation.

The nucleus can be considered to now have a significant electromagnetic 'interference pattern' bond on its electrons and of course the bond is proportionally equal from electron to nucleus. When electrons from other atoms overlap in valence orbital nodes, it is enabled by electron nodal sharing arrangements by the interaction of compatible but differing 'set' positions*. In so doing they also share the atomic electromagnetic forces which results in what is called atomic bonds between atoms. This interaction causes the nucleons to have to reset their energy levels and they emit or receive energy as the case may be. It is necessary for the atoms to be in the right energy state for bonding to occur. In practice this occurs by chemical or mechanical means.

*This forces the theorizing that there must be a Hilbert set format covering each of the quantum stepped electron orbital values (s,p,d,f etc). Of course the mechanics of valence in bonding remains as classically understood. Compatibility must be a function of the frequencies that interact harmonically in ways that either accept or deny the possibility of bonding between any given atoms.


It is easy to understand the reason that the lower energy levels are positioned closer to the nucleus. Electrons are able to jump levels as determined by the nucleonic parameters just explained, which in turn is mostly determined by the energy state of the proton*.

For electrons, it comes down to the 'Pauli exclusion principle' (PEP), in deciding which one, if any, in any particular orbital is destined for a jump. The determination of which levels or positions electrons jump to is a well known process and it needs no further discussion except that in reiteration it appears to me that the modulated mathematical periodicity causing electrons to jump to a higher energy orbital rather than a higher quantum number position in the same orbital is somewhat similar to periodic 'snaps' caused by interference patterns.

*This suggests that electrons don't actually realize a change in their own energy state so their matter content and P-mass exhibit zero change. Electrons would be deemed to only react to quark/dipole electromagnetic aperiodic oscillation differences in the force field Hilbert sets, and Pauli exclusion principle (PEP) is more likely to be determined by positional set information being 'snap' propagated out from the nucleus than by any energy or color state that particular electrons may be postulated to possess as in other theories. By a predicate of G-theory; except for kinetic energy, electron mass, energy as spin charge and magnetic states are intractable in any given gravity.


A take on alpha particles: G-theory proposes that alpha particles are a 'quad' with zero 'spin' which is in such a changed geometric state compared to a helium nucleus that its multi-dimensional status has consequently changed*. It is proposed that this is caused by reason that the electric and magnetic fields oscillate at the same frequency as a helium nucleus but ninety degrees out of phase. This would result in there being zero attraction nodes (moments) for electrons to exist in, even though the alpha particle would still exhibit a net positive charge and magnetic moment of some description it is one which is incapable of allowing electrons to maintain an orbital.

Now the helium 4He isotope has zero net spin in its electron orbital which would likely give it an electronegativity of zero. This would be thought to also be the electronegativity value of an alpha particle. Because they both have zero Paulings of electronegativity the only difference that can be appreciable between the two otherwise identical ionic state nuclear entities is a ninety degree phase angle difference between the 'g' and form factor wave function

*The three body problem applies equally for 4He as it does for the alpha particle. The system appears to be the same but the internal geometry (which in the current paradigm is spherical, but G-theory will show a different mechanics of nucleus structure) dictates the particle's electromagnetic field behavior. For all intents and purposes an alpha particle looks to be the same as a helium ion but don't expect electrons to fall for that trick.


If this were not the case alpha particles would take electrons with them and become helium atoms! Also; please explain how alpha particles can escape from inside the uranium atoms and through the lead it has (notionally) decayed into by 'tunneling'? I know it supposedly takes billions of years but 'time' has never yet allowed the impossible to occur!

I could be accused of asking a trite question on this point. This is because of observed decay mechanics which don't equate to the production of lumps of lead from uranium decay. Lead in massive AMOs must have been created at the time of the creation of the universe and I will allow that tunneling of sorts does indeed occur. E.g. as in the tunneling diode.

The salient point is that I'm not sure that an alpha particle of the conventional kind could ever tunnel through anything without becoming a helium atom (nuclide).

Quantum theory 'works' with many repeatable experimental results, but this only suggests that if certain wrong assumptions remain then the interpretation of results will stay the same. I don't dispute the fact that fermions and bosons exist. But whether they have 'rotational' spin, inherent mass and stationary spin momentum I have my doubts, but only because of this new theory whereby bosonic particles are deemed to exhibit 'mass' which is limited to P-mass and their mass is not deemed to be given to such particles by spontaneous symmetry breaking. The particles already contain the bosons which cause the mass by perturbation with gravitons but for reasons yet to be put forward the boson masses may not be contributive to a given fermion's mass except for gravitational mass.

In any case the standard model theoretical approach works for now, especially around STP. I simply declare that effects realized by quantum experiments may be better described in a multiplex framework which leans on the G-theory explanation of mass and gravity which also brigs dark matter and energy into the fold. …The super fermion mass phenomenon by quark lattice dynamics associated with the effect of gravitons passing through particles (as described so far in part) and thus conferring gravity as well as a component of P-mass within nucleons and greater AMOs. recognized boson mass may be conditionally yet directly related to the gluon-Higg's boson mass phenomenology explained herein as well as a dimensionally facilitated variable component of G-mass. This explains the mass problems noticed with particle physics. Note: ---energy really what they are measuring is mostly graviton perturbation energy and misconstruing it as 'mass/energy stuff' at this sub fundamental level some mass energy equivalence is true but not all mass -some of which is mechanical- and if we don't recognize this we will have enimas. ---oops I mean enigmas.

Anti-particle behavior may perhaps also be better understood with multiplicity which allows space time coexistence of multiple particles including matter and anti matter occupying the same space at the same time.

Even in conventional quantum physics with up quarks, down quarks and 'strange and charming and -why not beautiful-' ones etc, the same three enigmas still remain. I.e. what is the cause of mass/gravity, charge and magnetism?


I have undertaken a basic fundamental examination of mass and gravity. The reasons for charge and magnetism, at the level of the electron and nucleus remain elusive so far as the thesis goes to this point and I can only suspect that they are in fact cosmean and/or virtual parameters as I will attempt to explain herein later, yet we perhaps don't need to explain them at all. Current electrostatic/magnetic theory at the sub atomic level is substantive and convincing enough. Having said this; I will be having more to say about this and 'emr' propagation further on. Note: I left this paragraph remain as written: I subsequently developed a robust understanding which is theorized in later chapters.

I understand that the so called electron spin momentum doesn't agree with classical physics by a factor of two to one, which is very significant. So much so that I theorize that the electron magnetic dipole is simply caused by it being subject to the infinite divisive affect which applies to all dipoles. I.e. in reducing a dipole to smaller pieces, then those pieces will still be dipoles. The fact that an electron is a piece of a neutron which has a dipole suggests of course that the electron will also be a dipole if it consists of the same matter as a neutron. So an electron is therefore not required to have spin or planetary motion. It does not and indeed cannot exhibit conservation of angular momentum significantly operating against the overarching forces that affect it, because it has almost no mass.  Without an appellation to magic, spin of a -ve point charge is unable to cause a magnetic field moment. But we are still faced with the question of where its dipole derives from. I have discovered the answer and it's not by the absurd notion of a point charge spinning in the vacuum. Patience--- later!

Also of course; the electron cannot then orbit by some sort of centripetal force acting against the Columbic attraction. This simplistic theory has long been rejected by most scholars. Note: The quantum particle arrangements -identifiable and phenomenologically aligned with the standard quantum model- which I have labeled magnetons and the role they play will be discussed in the following chapter.

I would consider that nucleons are full of a particular quantity of sub bosons within their quark lattice which not only determines their energy state (temperature) but also their G-mass. (Remember that below the quantum level all energy propagation in any manner is the role of boson or lower generational particle movement).

However within a nucleon it is a function of the 'quark sub-boson lattice depository' which exists within quantitative and dimensional limitations. I.e. At STP, and by this proportional multiplier; no more than ( bosons per nucleon can exist outside the quark lattice depository where Bn is the proton boson quantity and n is the electron 'quantity' and me is electron P-mass 'mass'. At STP a neutron would be considered to have approximately an electron 'n-quantity mass proportional number of bosons'* more than a proton. That is the derivation of electron mass.

*not including binding force related bosons but definitely including 'sea' gluons. The full capacity is temperate dependant in or out of the depository. Also the stupendous quantity of particles observed in collider experiments supports this contention.


Importantly with regard to G-mass; it must be the case that (with all else being equal) every nucleon of the same type has a similar unchangeable Bng existing in a dimensional state that maintains perturbability with the gravitos. I.e. these must be sub-bosons which are exclusively and intrinsically residing within a quark lattice over a very wide temperature range*. Now because an electron has no true G-mass the sum of electron masses fails to add up to the neutron plus proton mass, so we can calculate the G-mass of a neutron and proton by calculating the proton boson number. To do that we would need to know the electron boson number which we don't.







All we can say is that the nuclear mass defect is related to the loss of some SBF gluons from electrons that are simultaneously retained by protons during B -ve decay.  The mass defect is the sum of the lost gluon's effective P-masses. Simply put: Nucleons of either type (even if they have a changeable Bn related to temperature and pressure) always exhibit the same mass because they always maintain the weak force structure as well as the gravitos perturbative Bng. That doesn't apply to an electron, so when it leaves the neutron it loses some 'mass' as lost G and N-mass. It didn't lose much matter as lost bosons (OK one anti-neutrino and a few relatable gluons) it lost G-mass by loss of  direct perturbability by gravitons as well as most of its N-mass by losing its quark lattice attachment and it is no longer a true baryon (quark) and the gluons it lost its attachment to do have a very substantial mass effect. The salient point is; IT DID NOT LOSE MASS AS A NOTIONAL ESOTERIC TRANSLATION TO SUPPOSED BINDING 'ENERGY'. Note: binding energy is yet to be addressed.

*This would likely be the window of eos effectiveness. Outside of these temperatures the gravitational inertia of AMO's might be subject change.


N.B. A muon is likely to be an anti hadron and not a B-meson which has been observed to decay into two biracial particles. These are the non magnetic monopoles theorized herein. The Bs-meson oscillates from its own antiparticle and back. This may be indicative of a magnetic oscillation in the magnos as well as the idea that quarks are actually a combination of trions, W-bosons and various neutrinos. This might be indicated by the decay of a bottom quark into a charm quark via the weak interaction wherein a W-boson from the bottom quark is detached and changed into a Z-boson with possible gluon emission as a result. It is likely to turn out that it didn't change at all because a W-boson actually consists of Z-bosons (among other particles) which are responsible for the weak force and elasticity but not when combined within a quark. Elasticity reduces the mass evaluation of any particle with spin. This allows a gluon or a quark to have more mass than the hadron they exit in. This doesn't apply to sea gluons which have almost no mass.

To be quite honest I now consider the W-bosons to be dimensionally subjugated biracial trions and the Z-boson to be the same but attached to the non physical cosmean brane. This means that a gluon consists of a biracial pair of W-bosons separated by a dimensionally split Z-boson. If the Z-boson is replaced by a neutrino we have a neutral gamma particle. Note: Refer to the fundamental cause of mass and the relevant diagrams in chapter 20.

An electron neutrino may have some type relatable and realizable 'Bn' of bosons. This may all be one day calculable by the relationship between the P/N-mass (mp/mn) of a muon, electron and the neutrino decay products of the muon. At the moment some of these masses are being debated. Note: A photon and other bosons may or may not consist of sub bosonic gravitons as the case may be but if they do, as is the case with photons, they are dimensionally estranged from the gravitos as a general rule, and are therefore not inertially or gravitationally perturbative/able.

AIR and PIR are phenomenologically dependent on the quark interconnectivity pertaining to each type of particle that has at least one quark in its construct (even though the existence of such an entity is doubtful). This predicts that all particles that exhibit any insignificant N-mass at all must contain a quark. This discounts neutrinos which would only have a probably non observable P-mass. THIS IS BECAUSE IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT ALL SUB PARTICLES EXHIBIT 'MASS' BY PIR DURING A STATE OF COLLISION BUT NOT BY GRAVITY.* This relates to the first law of the universe. Those particles are not affected by gravity, electrostatic or magnetic fields. They are purely biracial elementary particles. Trions (lowest generation biracial charge particles) when not combined in the form of a gluon are attracted or repelled from other charges in a straight line. E.g. During Bremsstrahlung radiation.

*Hence the lower acceleration rate caused by gravitational force compared with mechanical force.


This in no way limits the sub-boson particulate quantity within a nucleon. Such a limit is only reached at BST. Protons are able to have the contents of their 'quark lattice' (Q-L) variably existing across branes to many other dimensions, and it is this that gives protons their special features, especially with regard to light emission, quantum and electron behavior, as I have described, and this extends to fundamental properties of elements at various Q-L particulate densities (read temperatures).

If this is the case we should notice that atoms then have an overall mass by nucleon 'mass effect' sharing, and that protons have only around half the graviton perturbative affected G-mass than that of neutrons (except for helium, which will be explained). This could explain the low 'mass' of the 1H hydrogen isotope and the lack of nodes in its electron shell considering its low (no) nuclear binding force (or energy!) by having no bound neutron.


Because I can see an obvious 'mass' objection at this point I will speculate a bit further with what I consider to be a more likely mechanics: I tentatively suggest with a caveat that the fundamental quarks could be the 'receivers' of graviton drag and it is the down quarks in particular that exist in a dimensional state perturbable with the gravitos which are responsible for this reception of gravity*; so to speak. N-mass and G-mass are then equally apportioned by the strong and weak nuclear forces respectively. (Caveat: This still requires mass energy equivalence to be an incorrect theory). No other fermions or bosons exist that have full perturbability with the gravitos.

It could be theorized with an even greater caveat that gluons may simply perch on branes between the dimensions and facilitate interdimensional interaction and separation, and are only considered to be real for the purposes of explanation. Note: In any case electrons are considered to have no dynamic QCD or quark lattice and probably only one possible mass state (not energy) at any velocity because they now only have the remnants of a deconstructed quark lattice (quasi-baryon) which has no presence (real or perturbativly) in the gravitos, except for perhaps one quark, and unless joined as a meson, quarks and baryons and would only posses P-mass typical of the summation of that ordinary quarks etc. Ditto positrons. In other words accelerating electrons to the speed of light won't require a proportional amount of energy to hadrons.

*This is by dimensional mechanics and would propose that each nuclide could contain a specific and constant number of bosons existing in a gravitos perturbative state which would have to be proportional to the number of biracial down quarks in the nucleon which is a set number. So atoms of any description will always exhibit the same mass.


It now stands that whatever the case may be; the law remains that with regard to the particular graviton perturbability, it would be exactly the same for all specific nucleons of the same type. I.e. protons or neutrons. This means that the mass which is deemed to be lost from a neutron during negative beta decay to a proton is then simply because the neutron has subsequently lost a dimensionally shifted biracial anti-down quark to the electron which means the loss of a biracial quark pair (meson) from the neutron. This means that the electron maintains P-mass but has lost a GREAT DEAL of N-mass and all G-mass because of the loss of graviton perturbability.

Put more simply: This N-mass is the reason for the mass defect because while the Neutron has lost an amount of P-mass that is relatively insignificant to its overall AIR caused N-mass, the electron has lost a significant amount of its PIR caused N-mass by losing the same N-mass which it should have gained but didn't*; in accordance with the phenomenology just described. It should be reasonably clear that attempting to estimate the mass of quarks by apportioning mass derivatives from the known N-mass of nucleons would be futile.

*because it was sharing gluons which the proton retained.


By the G-theory predication of the electron construct -which only allows P-mass-, the quark will be shown to have a P-mass in the order of one third of the mass of an electron. Note: This is a reiteration that has been undertaken at least twice more in this thesis because of its crucial importance to G-theory and its refutation of M-E equivalence. However this particular tack for explaining the mass defect seems to be problematical in regard to the explanation. For a more in depth explanation refer to the relevant chapter 19.

We are consequently able to consider that the neutron suffering the losses (which is now a proton) has only lost the P-mass of the electron and by AIR it still retains the N-mass that equals the loss of the N-mass relatable P-mass of the electron. This would also mean that a positron has a P-mass which is also not perturbable by graviton transitional activity, because both electrons and positrons do not have a biracial quark pair (meson) or even a quark lattice per se. Note: Every seemingly massless particle that needs to maintain integrity has an inferred N-mass that ONLY APPEARS DURING KINETIC COLLISION EVENTS. Centripetal force behavior is ever only possibly observable by graviton mechanics near black holes. In the case of those bosons their integrity is never threatened by the other forces that cause their motion. They will retain their identity right into the black hole.

The nucleon structure as suggested by G-theory will be covered in a later chapter.


If a graviton is ever to be observed in a particle accelerator (linac type), I would be looking for something that always travels in a straight line but with random speed differences between individual gravitons and which shows zero deviation of linear motion regardless of the forces which may be applied unless they either collide with each other or a down quark. A photon should be seen to absorb or (If your observational instrument is quick enough) emit a graviton. They would be expected to exhibit no charge or magnetic moment and would never perturb other bosons or sub nucleons.

The protons that have residence at matter horizons – and because of their quark arrangement- are able to emit quantum packets of gravitons to tines at 'y' which instantaneously reduces to 'c'. These packets of graviton sub bosons are called photons (light both visible and invisible) *. The photons are also given a component of universal potential energy (not really self energy) seen as a rate of ability to do work which is only realized as work being done by the emission and absorption of gravitons from and to their package within the region of travel or totally during assimilation into an AMO.

This energy is bound up in a way similar in some respects to a pendulum. It is given a vibration (from internal particles 'spin moments') at a specific rate or frequency. The packets are held together by containment 'shapes' by the eos dimension which is vainly trying to send them back to the cosmea.  They do lose some energy but most is continually being replaced by graviton-photon mechanics in concurrence with the energy loop theory.

*A base level photon, which would never be observable and is actually a graviton by quantum statistics: However photons proper are a quantum of graviton bosons bound up in the photos (how I haven't got a clue) but they actually consist of a very substantial quantity of gravitons which we will later calculate and these values are quantasized by F-D statistics and subject to PEP.


When a photon strikes the proton of an atom (the proton has existence in the dimension of the photos) it is re-gathered by the atom, and usually without any 'significant' momentum or other spatially linear motion relative force being realized. However to allow the lack of such observance to lead you to the conclusion that light has no mass (effect) would be irresponsible and unscientific because a vibrational moment is observed.

The greatest effect by far of a photon's absorption into the atom is that it causes a change in the energy state temperature of the atom and its quantum electro magnetic field is also increased and consequently modulated into the electron orbitals at the frequency of vibration of the photon at 'c'. At the same moment the proton 'convects' the excess energy to other intimately (even momentarily) connected atoms via the force-field dimension, but apart from any BBR convection or quanta emissions from surface atoms, all occurs with regard to PEP. If the PEP is right and the atom is at parity the photon will be absorbed and re-emitted as BBR or conditionally  re-emitted at an angle consistent with either reflection or refraction phenomenology.

This absorption affect causes all atoms so involved to increase their amplitude of vibration and also by quantum physics; that of their orbitals in proportion to the bosonic matter energy received and retained. Therefore the reflected/refracted light will be of lesser amplitude than the received light.

How such a process with gravitons is able to be converted into spatial linear force or motion by graviton transition and the subsequent transfer of particles to a nucleons quark lattice will be examined later.

With all this being the case; then light acting on the retina of the eye and spectrometers etc. is actually creating electrical signals to the brain and electronic equipment respectively at the atomic rather than at the cellular or even molecular level. This concludes that variations causing the observability of different colors are caused by protonic electrical stimulation via the consequential motion of electrons and NOT by light waves somehow tickling some electrons or cells in rods or cones by some unknown process. Note: It is unlikely that spectrometers will ever observe the quanta-sizing of light because they operate by electron motion which is also subject to a quantasized phenomenon. This then predicates that electron flow in a conductor as well as electrostatic and magnetic fields are also quantasized. This would then be the reason that even electrons are unable to be accelerated beyond the speed of light in a Linac by electromagnetic propulsion! This raises a timely point. Mass spectrometers don't measure mass, they just measure what they are calibrated to measure.






After this necessary digression I feel it's a good time to re-address the circular energy equilibrium map of the universe.

When photons traveling in space collide with other photons they are still subject to the first law of time which states that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time (in the same dimension) without the release of energy, so then; something must give.

It is observationally evident that it is not light's speed or frequency of vibration that changes, so something else must occur. Light is also determined to not have (realizable) kinetic energy but it has two other types of energy: I.e. graviton quantum energy and vibrational rate energy*, the latter being caused by the emitting proton. Gravitons it can lose! Amplitude it can lose, but it can't lose its frequency which is its identity or signature.

*A photon has infinitely realizable continuous vibration at constant frequency because the internal force moments of interacting gravitons within it never change because the gravitons sub particles ARE in some as yet unknown 'type of containment' which is subject to G-statistics and in so being, they conserve their own wave motion capacity with the 'f' term of E=hf remaining constant. Even when gravitons are emitted and reabsorbed by the photon, the frequency of vibration is not changed. If it did then 'c' would change as a consequence. (E=mc2 actually supports this idea, so this idea should reasonably attract further evaluation).


This is what I theorize: Photons interlocute with each other on approach, and at the instant of collision an amazing thing occurs. Photons move almost instantaneously out of each others way. Not spatially; rather they move into each other yet in complete avoidance by simultaneously shifting into 'mutually diverse' positions in the gravitos*, albeit it with limited DOF, whereby they seemingly pass right through each other and in so doing they emit energy in the form of individual gravitons at speed 'y' and yet the photons do not lose velocity, vector or frequency of vibration by any consequence except when the DOF is overloaded and they are forced to stop (plasm) or shift tines.

*They remain observable in both dimensions but there are some 'accidents' in which they may be induced into a momentary spatial side shift because of the 'nothing's perfect' law and scintillation is observed in light coming from space. The line it keeps is true so the idea of photos tines is not so outrageous as it seems. Weird yes! ---but like I said let's keep 'weird' at the sub fundamental level and our physics straight.


However in normally expected circumstances the photonic vibrations will lose amplitude (and perhaps the photons will attain inexplicable DOF rotational changes) and the light frequency will consequently attenuate. Fortunately for the universe (and the photon) such attenuation is ameliorated because the reverse is also true upon graviton absorption by a photon under similar circumstances during collisions. However the interaction is not proportionally equal and energy delivery to the universal gravity flux and towards the photon's own entropy are assured.

So the probability of emission or reception of gravitons is directly related to the cosmological energy divergence loop which seeks energy balance by the actual operational mechanics of the system. This  sets the GD and light densities in space. It turns out from the hard data that light is the loser by a tiny amount in this tussle.

This is only all possible in a multiplex universe and more importantly it thoroughly explains observed reality, so; though difficult to comprehend as this may be, it is no smoke and mirrors mind game. Note: I will admit that if it wasn't for the behavior of light plasma by this theory I could further consider the possibility that photons could pass through each other in the photos. However as a double whammy; that's in violation of the first law of the universe no matter how beautifully computer modeled it may be..

 A better way of describing the multi-dimensional mechanics of this: Under conditions of almost instantaneity, the photons are now transiting through each other in the gravitos but (under dimensional capabilities without any other affects) they maintain direct attachment to their original tine (by the agency of their gluons via the brane) which they return to and continue along albeit with slight attenuation. The energy that photons release into the gravitos is that they emit a graviton or more at vector angles prescribed under normal vector resolution by the direction of the collision and also proportionally relative to the energy level of the photons.

Also it could reasonably be argued: The more 'head on' the collision; the more gravitons emitted. Photons may also soak up multiple gravitons they encounter while in the gravitos. This ends up being a balancing act and the gravity density in space becomes relatively even, but anomalous around stars and galaxies etc. This has implications for the limitations previously described regarding solar gravity backfill.



This is of prime importance for G-theory and determines the contribution that photons and gravitons make to the energy equilibrium of the universe by gradually canceling nodal and interference areas of graviton densities (GD) and also engendering photon graviton equilibrium at the point of transition for each photon/photon 'collision'.

The end result of this is that in deep space we would by now expect to observe a general and somewhat constant gravitational effect (GD) and a generalized deep space filament temperature, being less of course than that realized in stellar proximities.

Being virtually massless and under the direct control of the eos via the gravitos, the graviton speeds away at incredible speed with close to instantaneous acceleration. Some have theorized (similar to my previous calculations in GSs) emission velocities of ten to the tenth or at least the eighth times 'c'). Note the individual gravitons don't speed across the universe. Their rebound affect does. The effect is omnilateral and proportional to the density of the graviton flux. The affect at a quark lattice might be like a graviton intruding ad causing the loss of the rebound that would have normally affected a graviton on the other side. This in effect is as though the graviton had transited the QL and lost velocity. The end result is the same. Magically transiting through each other or rebounding off each other. Which is legal?

However we can better visualize the idea of gravitons speeding along in the gravitos and interacting with photons, transiting nucleons and colliding with each other and in so doing and being subject to the laws of time and energy conservation they may well slow down a little when they collide with each other and because they collide with only 'almost perfect' rebound they should conditionally transfer force particles or emit trions as BBR. In any case they would be expected to mutually bend the direction of travel of their energy or (force capacity) by vector force resultants of the collisions.

Now to complete the energy cycle back to atoms: Gravitons traveling in the gravitos pass through (into) nucleons in the manner we have already determined, and they cause perturbative drag which is a force on atoms that is either converted to a linear motion relative force in the direction of the graviton transition (vector resultant) or it finally becomes captured and instead raises the internal nucleonic temperature after which it conditionally becomes reemitted or converted back to photons or other energy by the nucleons and the process is ever ongoing.

The mean speed of gravitons in the universe is also averaged by the sheer and inconceivable number of gravitons, photons and collisions. The mean speed of gravitons and hence a measurement of gravity itself may be someday be proven by the effect on matter at the event horizons of black holes (man made?) as well as the calculation of the maximum speed attainable by an AMO in space because the effect of gravitons on nucleons by GTDv 'drag'. However I have calculated the speed and it concurs with the Van Flandern et al in being greater than their calculated lower speed limit. Refer to the relevant section.

This theory contends that space is far from empty but is full of photon and graviton matter, (not dark matter or energy of contemporary yore)* and that all particles within atoms and higher order particles are multiple quantities of trions, gluons, graviton/photon bosons or their own and other sub-particles; and that greater particles, (often being 'packages' of gravitons) under the strictly correct conditions can be transformed into sub-particles either directly or by matter anti-matter re-assimilation or dimensional translation. This suggests that quarks as well as photon, 'radion-magneton quantum packets' (ramatons), may be more or less similar but dimensionally strange.

*Yeah I know that's almost self refuting but you get the picture?







In QCD theory; quark colors would not be seen to be necessarily consistent with quantum (stepped) temperature and energy shifts. I would imagine that color shifts would occur by analogue and not quantum transformation state changes because of B-E statistics. I would also conclude that under the right conditions, all fermions and bosons will be able to be affected and or transformed by electrostatic and magnetic fields, and some may even be able to be permanently transformed to more fundamental particles and even back to a 'cloud' of gravitons or lesser particles. These subjects will be analyzed in depth in later chapters.

Such energy states required for such activity may only exist on earth in the bowels of the Large Hadron Collider and other particle accelerators/manipulators.

These are only fertile ideas which would require expert 'fleshing out' by high energy and other qualified quantum physicists.

I will once again address the current theory in which photons are believed to be absorbed and reemitted by electrons in an atom.

All the Feynman diagrams in the world do not prove an occurrence. A Feynman diagram is simply a pictorial representation of supposed particle interactions. Unless someone has observed electrons colliding with or emitting photons such phenomenology remains unproven. Note: Bremmstrahlung radiation is another phenomenology all together.

The reverse in fact may be the case. What do you observe when a laser beam intersects an electron beam. With respect to the 'nothing's perfect' law; if nothing, then the current theories could be considered to have difficulties while at the same time lending support to mine.

I can hear your 'victory shout' from here because of course you will cite that high energy laser beams cause Compton scattering from electrons in a laser-electron beam collision. However it is fully obvious that anomalous behavior must be responsible because most of the electrons and photons are not engaged by reason that the two beams don't impede each other unless some of the particles have dimensional parity. It is also obvious from G-theory that close interdimensional separation can cause significant trans-dimensional perturbative affects in certain situations. So my original contention still remains, and your victory may well be vacuous.

This considers that my argument is dimensionally related, and G-theory would actually predict the results of such collisions, because as I explained before: In high power laser beams some light is forced into the gravitos and perhaps even the eos where it plasms and is then able to collide with the gravitons in an electron, so now there you have your Feynman diagram and you can calculate the same result either by Compton or Einstein!

This however in no way proves that photons generally collide with electrons within the atomic orbitals under real world conditions. It simply means that they can-do under restricted conditions. It also doesn't come anywhere near proving that electrons emit photons in an atom!

 Bremmstrahlung radiation doesn't prove whether it is an electron that emits photons or BBR, or even if it is the proton involved in the braking of the electron. There is something fundamentally flawed in the thinking whereby the electron loses energy by braking and doesn't transfer the lost energy electro-magnetically to the proton which is applying the braking force by its form factor. In that case the proton is the particle receiving the energy (into its system) and it will also be the particle dong the photon emitting*. Note: This is in keeping with the 'zeroeth law' of thermodynamics, while the contemporary presumption of electron emission of photons to anywhere else but the now out of parity proton; is not legal.

*fundamentally; energy is the motion of particles and the transfer of particles.