G-THEORY thesis CH 8


CHAPTER 8:

 

 

THE GOD CODE:

 

ABSTRACT:

 

One thing we notice about nature is the proliferation of order in chaos and a wide and all encompassing exhibition of patterns noticeable in the natural world. We also seek for law and structure in physics so discovering a pattern which seems to respond to specific characteristics of elements should come as no surprise. Perhaps the real surprise is that such a discovery has not been forthcoming much earlier. Perhaps further discoveries that are able to respond to the entrenched enigmas are not really expected or for that matter even desired.

If the mighty scientific ship of state hadn't been busily steering a course to run aground up its own everglades this might have been the case much sooner. With that I am raising a warning call from the banks. "Turn around before it's too late". The public is becoming seriously inured to the banal and frequent changes to the pile of scientific understanding which is noticeably tilting towards the ditch of fanciful hypothetical conjecture.

How anyone like Richard Dawkins has the gall to continue to call out religions from perpetuating myths is the ultimate kettle and teapot soot fight. Everyone can see that science churns out more myths than any religion ever did and the time for self lauding and laurel resting is far gone and a serious direction change is well overdue.

Why not refrain from perpetuating jaded myths and seek out the secrets in the patterns and order of the universe instead. This thesis reveals many but there must be more and with the 'heads up' provided herein there is still much work yet to be done.

Whenever discoveries are made and/or plausible theories are presented the whole scientific world gets a breath of fresh air and it soon becomes obvious that even though a theory of everything is currently needed to answer to the current dilemmas such a discovery as the following just opens doors for further knowledge and we all realize that it might lead to a theory of everything after all.

 

ASSERTATION:

 

Having said that I courageously suggest that protons might look the same and all have the same mass but according to G-theory they are all different in ways which are now to be examined.

Protons in particular are considered to be multiplex entities. This is deducible from their ability to cause variations simply depending upon their quantity and positioning within nuclei. Neutrons don't posses the same 'power'. They all have a similar presence in the dimension of the gravitos but protons also have existensional and variable presence in other dimensions as well. Protons (by their electrons?)* have a proclivity for the extreme near field acceptance or rejection of various frequencies of light and are emr dependant consistent with the elementary, dimensional, atomic and molecular makeup which is (for reasons yet to be divulged) subjectively dependent upon 'energy' and force (specifically for this analysis; electrostatic and magnetic force), as well as the Fermi band and internal motion relative effects at the whole quantum, atomic/molecular and macro levels as previously described.

*I have been unable to determine which. It could even be neurons or either hadrons or all fermions. At this stage it will have to remain a mystery for future study. See more questions get raised.

 

The proposed theory here is that some protons have a presence in the photos while all of them are equally perturbable by the gravitos and therein have cross brane sub particle transfer or perturbative capability. Such being combined with other protonic dimensional variation is related to many observances of the behavior of light (and emr). For example it can explain how light travels through certain fluid media and not others and how it can be affected by crystalline and other affects as previously outlined. Also light is likely to be more readily emitted and re-emittrd by atomic matter in which the protons have a presence in the photos for obvious reasons. Also emr emission would only be enabled because of other dimensional shape shifting of protons in metallic elements/allows etc. Note: At all media event horizons (both transparent and opaque) the eos causes all the protons at the surface to have a presence in the photos. This is thought to be through the agency of the surface electron interactions. This is where electrons have one important place in this phenomenology.

In classical physics this media transparency is thought to be caused by 'band gaps' between the valence and conductivity orbitals of electrons and so allowing small photons of one color through the Fermi layer and blocking large ones of a different color.

How then can this effect block small photons and pass large ones when such is observed? Also this is problematic when there is some confusion as to whether light is passed through an object via either the band gaps or even the nucleus as others postulate.

Both of these theories are mutually exclusive, so in analysis, both create difficulties. I.e. A 'wave' should pass through band gaps and bypass the nucleus or else interference patterns would be observed but that is not problematical for photons which are factual entities. Also the band gap theory may be flawed by the utilized simplistic method of evaluating atoms as two dimensional realities only. At least, the nuclear passage postulation attempts to explain the slowing of 'c' in media while the band gap theory can't. Note: Refer to the plausible solution presented in the relevant section in Chapters 6 and 9.

Schrodinger's equation (while viable for crystalline structure mechanics which is useful for semiconductor technological research), fails to produce any probability result that can be reasonable presented as evidence for the theory of band gap light transition-ability as it only applies to crystalline materials and many transparent objects are not crystalline.

Are these ideas indicative of a growing prevalence for the acceptance of absurdities in scientific modeling? It's OK to present weird and absurd 'sounding' theories which may be shown to have a reasonable expectation of substantiation or which are not found to be illogical or irrational. But certainly, shouldn't other famous and irrational theories be 'left on the shelf' and not found swelling the text books simply because no other reasonable solutions have been forthcoming to date? Whatever happened to the phrase 'It remains unclear'?   Note: Also consider the explanation of the photoelectric affect in the following chapter.

Another elucidated supposition that transparent states of solids are thought to be intermediate states between solids and liquids is a theory which at first may appear absurd, because otherwise it might be concluded that the complete fluid to solid matter state is actually fully transitional. But because of the reasonable assumption that another fluidic state of matter is not necessarily impossible then (even though not logically applicable to AMO's for the stated reason), perhaps the idea should be a matter for further study in relation to quark orientation, and perhaps even by studying neutron orientation by typical methods to hopefully enable the atomic definition of such a state. If this cannot be achieved then the postulation probably is absurd and should be canned. Note: I intend to show a different mechanics which remove the necessity for such an idea by undertaking the necessary analysis which is to be forthcoming.  

The characteristics of matter apart from electrostatic and magnetic fields (among others) are theorized to be determined by protons having some presence or not in the following extra dimensional arrangements that are specific to atoms within matter. The characteristics are formed by a 4 bit code sequence most likely derived by quark behavior. Atoms with protons which have some presence in various dimensions will likely be observed to have differing 'energy' states, but more to the point, differing quark lattice gluon orientation and positioning. This is all of course subject to random and anomalous variance in an imperfect universe with variations in absorption centers etc. Note: This refers to spin in the current theories.

The following is a theorized quark lattice gluon derived proton dimensional occupation sequence which is theorized to cause varying properties of matter. Note: There is some abherrent dimensional perturbation evident. This is typified by the fact that all elements are in some way magnetc, but we are only referring to the strongly magnetic. Some of the properties listed below are only observed in man made materials. However they do exist and may even be discovered as natural occurrences in other places in the universe. Another four bits are proposed in order to explain all the other properties of matter but that's going to take a lot of mental wrestling, and best left for another time. Note: ---more questions!

Bit significance:   (1=proton with presence in dimension    0=proton without presence in a dimension. Such a presence may include a variable component of perturbability.)

1…gravitos     2…photos    3…magnos    4…propos

1234         bit numbers,

 

 

EXAMPLES

 

1000    transparent, non magnetic, emr transparent--glass

1001    transparent, non magnetic, emr opaque------water, diamond?

1010    transparent, magnetic, emr transparent--meta plastic

1011    transparent, magnetic, emr opaque----meta material

1100    opaque, non magnetic, emr transparent--some plastics

1101    opaque, non magnetic*, emr opaque---bismuth, lead, copper

1110    opaque, magnetic, emr transparent-------meta plastic

1111    opaque, magnetic, emr opaque---------------iron, steel

*or diamagnetic

This is a four bit digital code; however some of the properties appear to be absurd. The actual reality may be more coincidental with a 'Turing machine' set. The code might also be better written as an expansion of the vectored Cartesian coordinate system. a=100 b=010 =001

Even if it's weird; once I realized what I seemed to have discovered here, I almost fell off my chair, and I have no hesitation in calling this the GOD CODE for some of the characteristics of matter.

Now these characteristics apply mainly to elements and are limited to some molecules. The properties of other elements is probable describable by an expansion of the code to 8 bits. Complex matter such as large atoms and molecules; cellular, crystalline objects and agglomerations will exhibit these characteristics in a more or less substantive manner. It also applies to the state of matter called plasma (but not light plasma).

The lighter gaseous elements seem to be prone to (apart from the cosmea and eos) having their protons 'occupy' the gravitos only, which increases their strong nuclear binding force while larger atoms may have a dispersal of protons in different dimensions resulting in some of the observed characteristics of the element, perhaps including a lower SBF.

This dimensional shape shifting also extends to molecular structures such as SiO4 (glass). Another interesting observation is that elements with protons which have a presence in the photos as well as the propos are also more likely to be able to emit light and emr. In opaque materials the protons are likely to exhibit trans-dimensional characteristics.

So the description of these protons as being likened to a swarm of bees almost blocking out the sun is apt. (as in very thin otherwise opaque objects passing some light)

As the object becomes thicker it is similar to adding another swarm/s until the sunlight is completely blocked. After this stage adding more swarms has no further effect and the object simply becomes opaque at a certain thickness. E.g. Gold can be beaten so thin that some light will pass through but at a certain greater thickness it becomes opaque. Note: Not forgetting the eos-proton relationship at media event horizons.

Now having offered a simple explanation I will now tender an idea which at the same time as appearing radical may also be quite fascinating.

You are all no doubt aware of electron quantum numbers. I have wondered for some time that if we simplistically consider that the atomic force (which is extremely powerful) between the nucleus and electrons is quantasized, and considering that the average eigenvalue at all points from the center of the nucleus to the outer orbital is a real value, and that there is a bilateral force effect between electrons and the nuclei; it stands to reason that quantum behavior of electrons must be caused (and mirrored in some retroactive and elastic manner) by the quantum behavior of nucleons. (More specifically: protons). Note: This in no way suggests that electron 'energy' states don't affect nucleons, because they do. In the following assessment it is assumed that the electrons are not being externally affected.

It would then be reasonable to agree in principle with quantum mechanics under F-D statistics that nucleons proper are subject to quantum numbers themselves which are 'energy' state dependant and more importantly affected by the probability of the position of the relevant proton in the individual nucleus. I will give protons a -ve quantum number becoming more -ve towards the center compared with the outer proton layer being at zero. I would also suggest that this can be quantum 'integer step' related to the strong nuclear force basement 'energy' state, which other than that of course has nothing at all to do with causing the changeability of 'energy' quanta states in protons.

The case I can now make is that the dimensions that protons are deemed to have a presence in may be determined by their quantum 'Fermi-group' number at ground state. Quantum units apply to all fermions so I'm simply making the postulation that quantum values may be able to differ from atom to atom. As far as I know, (about two feet I think) I don't think this has been evaluated.

When another atom with Fermi level connectivity becomes bound at the outer valence orbital then the proton quantum numbers of both atoms may change by a particular quantum significance and come into quantum parity by BBR convection*, or 'snap' levels without a change within the quark lattice (which would be required to occur within a nucleon in a lone state) and in so doing cause a change in the properties of the material by dimensional affects. This is a way in which chemical bonding might be able to change the characteristics of materials to a remarkable degree. Note: Please read the footnote below.

*Refer to the expansion of these postulations into a viable theory in chapter 17 through 18 in which the future referred to in the next paragraph did actually arrive.

 

In the future I can almost predict that an observational connection between protonic or (perhaps nucleonic) quantum theory and observed properties of materials will lead to knowledge of the connection between both proton and sub-nucleon quantum, and related dimensional states.

Solid matter with protons exhibiting a force (read quantum connectivity number) guaranteeing acceptance of a particular frequency of light will absorb that light if the proton has a presense in the photos as is depicted in the code from the dataset above. This conditionally includes the requirement for the proton to be in a dimensionally receptive state to a given photon frequency, then the material is declared to be opaque at that frequency.

If the proton is located in a medium with similar acceptance but in this case it has no presence in the photos, the photon will still conditionally enter the object by the protonic and electronic attraction but it will be unable to connect with, and become absorbed by the proton (now being in a different dimension), and it will pass right through the AMO*, I.e. glass, water, air etc. However the photons will travel a greater distance because of vector force resultants within the object acting perturbably on the tines which the photons travel along, causing observed but not 'real' linear speed loss of 'c'. Note: This phenomenon is fully explained in the following chapter dealing with the intra-media phenomenology of light propagation.

*Electrons have a very slight perturbative and mutual attraction between themselves and photons and probably by 1/a2 law with distance. But the two are in dissimilar dimensions so with regard to the photon-atom interactivity the proton dimensional attraction rules over near field distance.

 

One element exhibiting both of these two characteristics in differing atomic bond arrangements is carbon, as graphite or diamond respectively. It is not the crystalline nature of the diamond that determines its transparency. (However it probably affects its refractive index and its critical angle). In that particular atomic valence arrangement, the proton has switched dimensional status from the photos to the propos and the element is then able to pass light. Note: The neutron is never in the photos. It only ever exists in the gravitos and the eos. A lump of 'neutronium' would never pass light!