introducing the theory


G-Theory ©








The following is a preview of a holistic presentation of G-theory which (by default) necessitates significant refutations of some current theories within the self imposed constraint of presenting EXTREMELY reasonable proofs against, and similarly presenting a plausible and substantive replacement theory for.

Unless otherwise stated all of the assertations are evaluated at STP with gravitational acceleration being treated as a constant   'g'  of 9.81m.s.s caused by a 'g' of 9.81N/kg.

Quantum mechanics and the standard model are being upheld as the likely models from which this theory both derives and offers conditional support. The difference is that G-theory expands and adjusts the standard model by providing dynamic existing particles being responsible for dark matter and 'energy' and it simultaneously provides plausible phenomenology which solves the fundamental answers that have to date remained elusive. Perhaps it should truly be called the Extended Standard Model Theory. G-theory is a model fitting replacement theory for relativity per-se and the two are not compatible in any way.

Many of the particles observed and named in the standard model might appear to be short lived dregs of working particles, especially the ones that just disappear. That should be seen as a cop-out, and where the true particles disappear to and where they return to and what they return as   and why instantaneity of action (particle decay and annihilation) isn't noticed--- must and will be addressed. The Higg's boson was initially presented in G-theory under a different and very surprising moniker for reasons that should be soon understood and in G-theory this particle (hereon referred to as the generally accepted name of Higg's boson) is theorized to operate phenomenologically in more prolific ways than that which is currently theorized. E.g. Stop press: Already existing in G-theory as another theorized particle by a different name which has never been observed until perhaps in July 2012 when the Higg's boson was hopefully discovered. I have since updated and gone with the common name.

G-theory departs radically from special relativity and contends for conditionally observable 'c' constancy from the reference frame of the external cosmean 'observer' as well as the universe but not from the reference frames of observers situated on moving objects and bodies referenced to the URF.

This then requires light emission speed variability (anisotropy)- but not frequency variation- relative to and proportional to the reference frame of a moving object. This will be proven by (among other things) the analysis of results from experiments producing light speed anisotropy as well as by a sharp analysis of synchrotron phenomenology and predicted quantum behaviour in the amended standard model.

Any concept of special relativity which purports to hold with universal 'c' constancy is invalidated because if you hold with 'time warping' then universally observable 'c' constancy is not possible because you have now removed the basis for the measurement ar assessment of the speed. Such constancy is therefore just an ad hoc position taken by most relativist astronomers whether they understand that or not. On the other hand moving observation frame 'c' constancy will be refuted as well.

When you investigate the theory of special relativity and recognize all the assumptions and total disagreements between the various proponents of the schools of thought and compare that to G-theory then perhaps it would be a reasonable suggestion that 'Occam's razor' should be dragged out, dusted off and applied.

S-rel is fundamentally based on a priori first assumptions regarding the wave theory of light (emr) as well as the rigid doppler expectations from any noted changes according to the standard doppler effect*. Also -because of assumptions relating to emr and Maxwell's equations- the fundamentals also include further assumptions regarding the reflections of light from mirrors. We must ask. Is light reflected at 'c' or re-emitted at c+-v? Other assumptions surround the speed of muons in other experiments.

G-rel is based on a historical lack of knowledge regarding the mechanics of gravity, and both relativities find their convoluted origins back in the philosophical thoughts of Mach and even further back in time to Galileo and to some extent later on with Newton. It is simply lack of knowledge that leads to such 'flat earth' type theories. Mathematician's arrogance has led to the longevity of the attachment to the failed paradigm.

Einstein was wrong on several counts: He was swept up in the wave of paradoxical and contrary weirdness* and surfed the renaissance embodied by the offerings of many brilliant but 'artistic' minds. Einstein and co should have recognized that mathematics was only a picture of reality and he therefore deserves the fame as well as the infamy incurred by his famous theories which while appearing to be very scientifically artful, are somehow reminiscent of the art of Salvador Dali. Einstein's relativity and all the precursor theories entertaining similarly relativistic ideas had one thing in common. They had scant regard for either logic or even the laws of physics including the laws of thermodynamics and in particular the law of the conservation of energy.

Those who continue to propose solutions to the 'Twins paradox' in support of relativity need to get their conceptual house in order. Firstly it is an illegal operation to appeal to 'Einstein's equivalence principle'* as support for the proof of asymmetry between the reference frames. It is also totally necessary to keep observational 'c' constancy between the relevant motional reference frames (of the twins) or you are guilty of carrying out a giant illegal fudge by using universal reference frame 'c' constancy which SR doesn't support under conditions of acceleration. Either that or the traveller must be considered to have travelled out and back without experiencing acceleration or deceleration and/or a violent inertial turnaround; in which case his reference frame solution is the same as that of the earthbound twin. "Oh that's impossible" you say. Me; "Well so is travelling at any speed faster than a few million km's per hour at which speed (according to G-theory) you would be a physical pancake. Not by relativity but by gravity!"

* don't worry there are more paradox's but I won't appeal to them because EEP is disproved in the thesis as well as in the Newton's errors tabs. Einstein isn't completely guilty for some of his errors. He just followed along with Newton.




It now becomes incumbent upon me to lay down some empirical laws and principles; ones those historical scientists should have adhered to within the framework of their theories.

1/ Law: Neither, Mathematics nor concepts are able to cause, create or destroy any particle, object, body or containment of matter.

This is a law with sub conjugative principles...

a/ The universe runs on physics not mathematics. It is noticeably full of physical substance and not mathematical stuff. The physics has laws but the mathematics doesn't necessarily hold to those laws.

b/ Scientists need to distinguish between mathematics and physics and even keep in mind what the term 'Physics' really means.

2/ Law: No action or exhibition of 'change of motion', mass, energy or structural change occurs without the pre-eminent application of a force.

a/ All actions conserve energy within the allowance for temporary local losses as well as deviations consistent with the size of the universe and the speed of light and gravity. True energy conservation takes time, and this is an important supportive argument when it comes to objections regarding the permanent reduced vector field of gravitational energy surrounding universal bodies. The objection is successfully parried (in the G-theory prolegomenon) because in G-theory the whole system is shown to be continually dynamic. Such subjective objections also demanding strict and instantaneous energy parity are non-effective at best, blindly ludicrous at worst. Does your kettle cool down instantly, does it?

*Just peruse the history of Special Relativity on Wikipedia for a shocking expose' of the total disarray of thought inherent in the general concept OF RELATIVITY.

Should you ever find yourself faced with the time dilation problem whereby your time is contracted when you observe the speed of light going forward from your moving spacecraft (or earth) and the disconcerting realization that your time must simultaneously expand for observations of light being   received  from the front; you'll probably find yourself either frozen in your tracks, or brain dead; one of the two.   Note: Hint... Just call that dilemma relativistic and hey presto... problem solved!

Lorentz's assumptions were based on Maxwell's a priori assumptive equations which weren't based on any actual measurements of field build-velocities. He assumed them to be at the speed of light and this also led to another false generalization pertaining to light; it then being determined to be an emr. Relativistic theorizing is choc-a-bloc full of the mother of all 'stuff ups' ...assumptions. Yes; I make assumptions too but they are for the most part either empirically legal or physics/physically substantive in nature, particularly with regard to the strict meaning of the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation and exceptional observability respectively.

Emr fields might very well be inertial reference frame sensitive, however if we can derive the mechanics of a particle theory for everything where the speed of both emr (and light) only has proportionality with the frequency of emitted light and not received light then the problem is solved. In that case proposed emr relativistic problems piggy back themselves onto the 'light relativity' problems and the solving or not of light speed dilemmas apply equally as well to emr fields. We can further see more likely problems for S relativity with experiments that utilize (moving) mirrors if such mirrors are concluded to be re-emitting* rather than by the dark age tradition of simplistically assessed reflection. The Stillwell experiment would therefore become inconclusive because it is based on doppler shift assumptions regarding strict light speed to frequency relationship.

*G-theory contends that they are, and the re-emission is consistent with 'c' constancy but the law of thermodynamics predicates the emission of photons of a proportionally lower wave length. E=Ek+hf.

The fact that we don't notice doppler shifts every six months from the same stellar light sources is therefore meaningless in principle and if the a priori assumptions are incorrect only wrong conclusions can be expected. However I have concurred with both measured and universe reference frame 'c' constancy not only for reasons of simplicity but for another reason which will be forthcoming, and in that case the concept of time dilation which has never actually been proven then becomes 'not necessary'.

under an analysis of electrodynamics the relativistic problem still exists unless we can similarly show that Maxwell's fields are disassociated from the propagatory mechanics of emr. And in any case the real world relative motions between magnets and currents (or fields) don't even approach to a small percentage of 'c'. In that case the magnetic and electric fields are not required to have any interaction of significance with moving space-time; they are only relative to each other within their own reference frame. Note: This could be taken to mean that a radar gun might give a true calibrated result in the forward reflected direction but an anisotropically variant error in the reverse direction. No; this won't be declared to happen, by either relativity, classical physics or G-theory phenomenology. Note also: Anisotropy should occur from reflections, and that also include some refraction in imperfect transparent materials such as sea water. Anisotropy is recognised right now and is expected to be a useful tool for computing ocean wave heights from space. Such are valuable phenomena in support of the likelihood of light speed anisotropy being proven by peer reviewed experimental results. G-theory predicts it.

However G-theory makes this distinction by a plausible mechanics of particle based emr propagation. G-theory accepts the evidence that an emf propagatory aether has also never been forthcoming and similar in effect to light, emr cannot propagate by either wave motion or Lorentzian mathematics. In that regard Poincare and Minkowski are 'out of there' in mathematical la la land.

In all of these analyses it must be understood that the real world speeds of large objects in the universe are very small percentage of the speed of light and we don't expect to notice any affect other than doppler shifts.

Relativistic beaming is not relativistic at all. It is purely observational. In fact... 'c' constancy-observing omni-directional time warping ...should solve that problem. Unfortunately –as we have seen- S-rel is self refuting in the omni-space. Consider this: If I start running in the middle of a herd of goats that are all going in the same direction but faster than me; eventually I will have more goats to the front of me depicting a narrowed observational reference frame (beam). During the time it takes the herd to completely leave me behind, a similar number of goats are passing alongside and very few to none behind me. They have beamed to the front!

In this simplistic case the observational beaming is due to the inverse square law of size with distance. In the case of super speed it is because light is the observational data for the observances in the first place, and if we approach to the speed of light in our space coupe the light is now time vector shifted towards the front but time hasn't changed just the  vectoring of light observational effects. Your observational frame of the whole universe would also shrink to a distorted semicircle towards the front and your headlights could only be seen in a (beam) cone of forty five degrees to the front. This is all a completely observational relationship and how it can be concluded to be relativistic unless the relativity causes things to appear normal at 'c' (which is impossible unless you have a double acting dilating and expanding relativity) is beyond my feeble thought processes.

Even if you notice light to the front as well as light at forty five degrees to both be travelling at 'c' you still find you have a variable time warp problem for your clock to deal with, and this becomes even further exacerbated when you are travelling at much lower velocities and ridiculous when declaring light being emitted behind you to also be considered to appear to be propagating at 'c'. I know; don't worry it's all just relativistic! Note: Refer to the 'Twins in space paradox on the home page.

Now I'm not going through this exercise just to indulge myself in 'bagging out ' the relativities. Many of you are aware of these paradoxes yet you still cling to the theories, so in that case you probably need to be embarrassed into shape and to do that it probably requires the kinetic activity of as many people as possible who understand the problems and the unassailable fact that there is zero possibly of any unification between the two relativities. It is past time for new science to sweep the simplistic observational relativity under the bus! That is exactly what I am offering. A valid science which replaces the need for relativity. Relativity sits upon the horns of the dilemma of dark age assumptions from more than 100 years ago!

The relativistic Doppler affect which explains the lack of color change in astronomical bodies relative to our earth's motion in the universe should really be called the doppler abrogation by time dilation or expansion (time-warping) effect. This problem is also resolved non relativistically in G-theory by the particle propagation theory of light which dis-relates reception velocity from received light and emr frequency data. In other words. The old ideas of mechanical reflection, emission and absorption of light into atomic matter is replaced by interactive transfer by means of neutrino forward scattering and photonic emission absorption statistics. As well as this, the ancient idea of the propagation of light- with or without an aether- is also replaced by a new exclusively particle propagation statistics relatable to gravity.

*In G-theory there is a 'motion conditional' emission (and reflection emissive) speed and light frequency doppler shift but no 'motion conditional' light frequency change upon reception whether into eye or instrument. The jury is still out on reflection dynamics but that will be addressed in the thesis.  Because fringe shift analysis does show a doppler affect on light being reflected from a moving object, that definitely means we must find a different mechanics of reflection which you will find robustly presented in the thesis.

Note: It does appear in the real world that there are noticeable fringe shifts from light reflected from moving objects. This is consistent with the theory of light being re-emitted at a different speed but at the same frequency (energy)!! That is required in order to conform with URF constancy and the laws of thermodynamics.

NB; here we have (whether by standard or relativistic evaluation**) more observable light speed changes from such differential motion reference frame reflections which also show detectable frequency change. Unlike relativity, G-theory not only relates moving reference frames but it is also deferentially referenced with the universal reference frame (URF) as well.

This is all too complex to analyse in depth right here but needless to say G-theory can allow such a fringe shift. Until anisotropy can be proven by experimentation this just means that the frequency change referred to earlier has a component of frequency shift in the reflection which is temporarily related to the 'nothing's perfect' law (i.e. the differential universal reference frame (URF) proportionality) and the law of energy conservation.

Even if a kind of relativity could speed up all the goats and make me look like I'm standing still, I have a real subjective paradox to deal with if another herd of goats is running in the other direction in an overpass just above my head. My 'watch' must slow down or speed up with full dependence upon which herd of goats I am observing at any given time.

** SR has a choice from two possible solutions here: By not having URF 'c' constancy, then the reflected light from the ship could be travelling away at relative 'c' in all reality, with there being nothing relativistic about it at all. But such 'c' variability in the universe is ludicrous for visibility reasons and others which I have used to prove this in the thesis that SR and URF 'c' constancy are incompatible.


Now we saw earlier that S relativity is actually disbarred by the documented paradoxes from either being able to contemplate 'c' constancy within the universal reference frame (URF) as well as between any relatable motional reference frames (MRF). This brings us to the point where the principles to be proven and adhered to in G-theory must be laid out.


1/Time is a constant within the URF and IRFs.

2/The speed of light is constant only with reference the URF.

3/All other reference frames (MRF) are relative to each other within that frame and the relative speed of light can be proportionally different (e.g c-v) relative to the motion with respect to the URF. This means that the evaluation of relative motion only has to relate to the reference frame relative objects under consideration themselves, whereby they are deemed to have a frame of motion relationship between each other with no need for any reference to the URF. This needs to be 'as theorized' (except for reflection phenomenology which is still under consideration and open for experimental disproof).

This theory is a solution to all the noted problems but it can only be resolved without artistic relativistic thought if the emission speed of light from a moving body is allowed to be proportional to the body's motion relative to the constancy required in the URF. Note: please resist the urge to have a knee jerk reaction here: Patience; quantum and particle behaviour is well considered in the thesis.

The theory proposes that the speed of light between two reference frames can be different. This means that the emission velocity is related to the signature frequency of the light or emr which (conditionally) never changes. This allows doppler shifts from moving-body IRF relative emissions to be consistent with the facts. By reason, this then requires that the frequency of detected light must be dis-related from the reception speed of light. For this to be possible; the necessary requirement is for a consistent and 'conveyor belt' like particle propagation mechanics for both light and emr; one which does not include fictitious force or quantum fields or virtual particles. As well as that; mirrors must therefore be deemed to re-emit light and any doppler shifts in the real world might be too small to be noticed but because they are there I have addressed and solved that problem in the thesis. (hint wave analysis--- law of conservation)

The mechanics of all of this at the level of the human eye and even lower at the quantum level is thoroughly addressed in the thesis. The simplified phenomenology goes like this: The light reflected from a moving mirror is re-emitted at a velocity consistent with the requirement to keep 'c' constant in the URF (i.e. c ± v). For this reason and specifically for moving mirrors, even perfect reflection will involve some losses, so either the wave velocity relationship must change unless the light leaves some of itself behind, or the 'reflection' event is imperfect. Energy conservation is required so I think I'll go for the latter. Otherwise we could asses it that to some degree the frequency of photons remains almost the same but the speed and perhaps even the amplitude must change to satisfy the law of energy conservation and we have to understand that the only change possible because of the second law of TD is in the negative direction.

For G-theory to be acceptable in principle then, this light anisotropy theory must be proved*. This appears achievable but I won't go deep into that right here. However I will propose a simplified method of proof. In the following suggested experiment it won't be the speed of light being measured, rather differences in speed in different directions relative to the motion of the earth through space. This will require two atomic clocks precisely positioned in similar gravitational, attitudinal and environmental positions directly under and equidistant from a geostationary GPS satellite. Note in cases where the speed of light itself isn't being measured such as in this experiment and also the Michelson Morley experiment for instance. They don't need to be carried out in a vacuum so long as the wind isn't blowing too fast. LOL

*Anisotropic experiments carried out under relativistic assumptions will be useless because of similar problems caused by light either travelling to and from mirrors, which makes the results obtained from measuring the speed of light using mirrors to be anything other than 'c' on earth impossible. As well as that; similar experiments utilizing light fibers (which also exhibit total internal reflection) is just as problematical and that is the reason proposed right here why emr in a coaxial cable shows anisotropy while light in a fiber doesn't.

In the proposed experiment--- The GPS satellite signal synchronizes both clocks and then simultaneously signals a pulse of suitably accurate laser light from both directions at once along an earth surface 'parallel' longitudinal direction.** The clocks will tell the story regarding the propagation time. The experiment must be repeated at various times and dates with the two sets of equipment being swapped as well at regular intervals. All stringent care must be taken to allow for all variables as well as steps being taken to ameliorate any differences. Also because of atmospheric and differential variability the swaps must be carried out many times with multiple tests in each case.

**Tilt adjusted longitude to prevent earth's rotational affects. We are then only considering the motion of the earth through space and the correlated motion of the two reference points should be fairly similar. The fact that the earth is not technically in an inertial reference frame wouldn't be expected to have any bearing on the results.




Once anisotropy is a proven fact then unless someone else comes up with a better theory then the proposed re-emissive light reflection mechanics has to be 'gospel' so I do describe an experiment or two in the thesis to double check that. If light speed anisotropy isn't proven then G-theory is impossible. If it is proven then relativity is dead! However when dealing with the relativity establishment you find that whenever a threatening result is forthcoming the proponents just cry out their well practiced mantra--- "that's relativistic" and so continue to prove relativity by relativity.

N.B. this Iteration: Speed of light measurements on earth which involve mirrors will not show any directional speed differences for the reasons stated being that one direction is slow and the other is proportionally fast with 'c' always being the result. Speed of light measurements utilizing light's own frequencies will be similarly flawed and will not show the earth's (or other centrifuge derived) motion related light speed changes with reference to the earth's MRF (not the URF). This proposed experiment is checking whether the URF speed of light is a constant whilst simultaneously whether differential speeds of light on a moving earth are c+-v or not. Note also: from this we can also compute the speed and direction of the earth though the universe and check for solar system orbit deviation which would respond to the velocity of the Milky Way galaxy through space. OMG real science??!!

Some comments regarding other pertinent matters...

The historical experiment with Jupiter's moons: The light is being reflected and in any case slight change relative to the motion of Jupiter's moons and earth would show little difference and be difficult to measure.

With respect to gravity the motion of all bodies is relative to the URF and not to each other's  IRF.

Relativity of simultaneity: There is now no need for observed simultaneity.

The complexities involved in any complete analysis of relativity and its derivatives is so mentally confusing that it would be preferable for you to temporarily shelve your learning and study G-theory with an open mind and once again I make the appeal to 'Occam's razor'.

Every subject analysed within the featured theory presentation is cohomologous with each and every other part of the theory. I consider there to be no legal, self or theory refuting assertations within the thesis. To the best of my knowledge empiricism has been upheld and the laws of physics adhered to.

In the scientific literature you will find there is broad consensus re the existence of four (five) fundamental problems which are yet to be solved. I propose a solution for four of them within the pages of the thesis but as for the fifth dilemma regarding how nature chose to apply the scientific principles to both its origin and continued existence. I have no idea, just a suspicion which I have voiced.

The four known enigmatic questions have been answered and the applied phenomenological extent is omni-directional and concurrent with all of the known laws of physics.

Having refuted relativity at the universal level you might suspect that I'm going to disallow it at the quantum level also. On the contrary; the mistake Einstein and others made is that they took a phenomenology which only conditionally relates to quantum particles and attempted to extend it to the universe at large. Quantum particles are often fast moving and they have reference frame relativistic relationships. This is not mathematical gobbledygook. This is real QED and virtual force relationships in the near field. Of course there are going to be relativistic affects but it must be understood that time dilation is NOT a function of quantum relativity (because 'c' constancy has no conceptual value at that level), multiplex tensor shifts are. This relationships between electrons and bosons via phononic, QED and coulombic forces is evaluated in the thesis. the relativistic effects are purely observational and that results in definite changes re the laws of motion in the quantum world. There is no true relativity of S to keep the laws the same for all reference frames. After all--- is that  an electron I see speeding away from you or you from it. Lorentz has one idea about that while Einstein has the other, yet both are accepted!?

"...the ship of fools has finally run aground." Pink Floyd music.  

When it comes down to it I have invisible dimensions (multiplex tensors) and the relativists have invisible stress tensors and so it appears to be a stalemate. Wrong! G-theory is unifying while relativity cannot possibly achieve that; not in the least because some of the quantum forces only have reaches measurable in femtometers and are expected to be affected by something ridiculous called force at a distance; and many show no connection with any or all of the stress tensors which (among other problems not addressed here) then requires relativity to have dimensions as well, and that then hopefully promises unification... Enter superstring theory and its variant M-theory and not to forget SUSY--- Oh no anyone see where that dark matter went? I'm sure I put in this drawer waiting for the dark energy. LOL

Some of my theoretical analysis might appear somewhat similar to those theories. However the differences are mainly in the non mathematical-virtual particle theory as well as the intuitive time and 'c' constancy so because of that I predict that the unification so eagerly sought will turn on G-theory acceptance as a basic framework upon which to build... The string theories have been out there for a long time and they have not been a waste of time. In fact they have been a necessary stepping-stone to the development of G-theory. Even if SUSY turns out to be profoundly wrong it is still profoundly useful.

Quantum loop theory is rejected even though parts of a loop are fine. It is the positive reconstruction of fermions from quantum sub parts which is proven to be impossible by the laws of thermodynamics by way of either wave function or thermal emission loss analysis.

Such as is common in quantum physics, I have theorized particles which have turned out to be identifiable with other previously theorized particles; but that’s where the similarity ends. Please bear with a few foreign terms and names. You may even recognize the particles yourself for what they traditionally are. This has been done partly to overcome attachments to pre learned material and all will be brought under the standard theory umbrella in the end with some very novel solutions and conclusions.

As for quantum mechanics; well G-theory has a lot in common but a reason and phenomenology is provided which you should find to be refreshingly different from the 'We don't know' answer given by current quantum mechanics.

There is one item on the agenda which has never been addressed elsewhere and that is the supposed Lorentz contraction proof seen in the y-wave internal photography of protons. The internal particles mostly appear to be flat disc shaped objects but not always. The flash of light offered by the y-wave is not a square wave but a sine wave. What else would you expect to see in reflection but a blurry oblong?

If you think the G-theory proposition of the behaviour of light is radical, wait until you see the phenomenology re gravity as well as non motion perturbative gravity-light interaction for universal energy conservation and entropy amelioration via the humble neutrino. Up until now science has never really been able to address this.