·          QUANTUM STATE STATISTICS--------------------------------------814





·          THE THEORIZED INTRICATE AND DYNAMIC--------------------827


·          THE G-THEORY MODEL OF ELECTRON---------------------------838


·          A RESPONSE TO THE 'SIX POSTULATIONS'---------------------843


  • SALT FOR AN OPEN WOUND-----------------------------------------844

·          ELECTRON BEAM SLIT BEHAVIOR.---------------------------------847



·          EPILOGUE, RATIONALE AND CONCLUSIONS-------------------851

  • A STARTLING CONCLUSION OR TWO-----------------------------872







ABSTRACT: deconstruction


The structure and behavior of atomic dynamic systems is definitely a work in progress. The idea of electron orbitals being caused by standing emr waves emanating from a spherical point source is less than convincing; not in the least because that is based on what must be a necessarily closed, reflective system which it's not.

The other idea of emr nodes like radio antennas is also not very appealing because otherwise emr transmissions as emr radiation and large electromagnetic fields would eject electrons from the orbitals under real world conditions because the electromagnetic force at the atomic level is weak indeed.

Enter the Dirac four field where the whole thing is made to be relativistic and this time the relativity is made to apply to emr functions which is not a feature of other relativistic theories where emr is strangely exempt, and this from a guy whose 'delta function' is based on a mathematical error of calculating the integral of a theoretical infinitely high pulse with a base approaching minus infinity by utilizing the 'WTF' equation -1+1=2.

The currently popular quantum field theories are just more relativistic patch jobs slapped over the knowledge gap of a science still in its infancy. Quantum mechanics is an interpretive regime of declaring rubbishing facts about ridiculous experiments that aren't even capable of being observed without external influence ruining the results. We know it's all weird down there but weirdness is one thing; irrationality is another unless you're in the irrationality club that indulges in sensationalism and gives out brownie points and Nobel Peace Prizes to its members who flamboyantly indulge in metaphysicism and call it physics.

These guys don't even know the difference between a photon and a separable gamma particle yet and they're making statements about such drivel as supposedly indivisible photons separating and traveling two paths and allowing electrons to be occupying several orbitals at once without having any idea of multiplicity. Because of the knowledge gap -which they seem loathe to admit to- they are then forced into the corner of offering philosophical and metaphysical explanations which are typified by quantum mechanics and a non phenomenological wave-function theory.

I am able to consider such things with G-theory, but how can the scientists offer their explanations with a straight face without a consensual acceptance of appeals to magic? Are there fairies in the bottom of their garden?

Yes! -and before you paint me with the same brush let me say this: VM multiplicity applies only to the quantum world. It can get a bit 'macro' but not very much. Electrons would be about the limit and because they have no femtospace it would be possible for them to occupy several dimensional states simultaneously whereby if one dimension is the eos they could then even appear in different places at the same time. A least I have a real reason which allows this*. Apart from magic; the current paradigm doesn't.

Consider the fact that it was only decades ago that electrons were thought to orbit the nucleus like planets around the sun and we'll soon see how that idea led to faulty science as well. Have we changed all that much? What false assumption regarding quantum emr fields might be the driving force behind consequently faulty physics? Come on it's as obvious as dog's appendages that classical Maxwellian fields have no invariant connection with quantum fields, relativity or not.

*Some dimensions can occupy different spaces at the same time but not at the same space at different times; but not the macro particles per se.


Now G-man's going to be wrong in specifics also but the question to be asked here is. Does G-theory offer a better model fit to the facts? -full stop. G-theory suggests that the supposed emr field mechanics controlling electron orbitals is a VM multiplex function which is not based on traditionally accepted ideas of real word emr phenomenology. Much of it may be similar in some functional and subjective aspects but in singular field assessment we need to recognize the divorce between the ED magnetic and the multiplex QED magnetic. We need to also understand the paradox that when the electron shells are not full we must declare that the observed charge appears to be columbic from the point of view of an external observer but that cannot be the case from inside the electron orbitals and especially at the tri-points of SBF (where Mr. Coulomb appears to have taken a vacation) as well as even further inside nucleons where the disparity between emr and EWF is not as predicted. The only answer I put forward is VM  G-statistics. Having said that, I need to make it clear; we still need to asses it all from the coulombic point of view to allow real world sense to be made of the overall picture.

However there is something else going on in the world of the atom that needs to be understood also; and it's not at all relativistic:-

If you combine Dirac four-field and Lorentz-Poincare invariance you have a locked up relativistic emr field system without any dynamic capability even if it's able to finally be rationalized just by looking at the mind boggling array of mathematicians hammering away at keyboards in the vain attempt. Elasticity is a prime requirement for any proposed dynamic electron orbital mechanics and G-theory gives that stalemate a breath of fresh air.

So rather than being of the opinion that I just don't know  anything much, please understand that -even though I do admit to serious knowledge deficiencies;  I am seeing all this from another point of view, which once ingrained doesn't have to be explained all over again time after time.

That may not apply to any given reader so if you have skipped to this section like I expect many will do, you probably won't be able to draw any valid conclusions at all other than puzzlement - without at first having studied the body of the thesis and so understand the fundamentals of G-theory.

I find it necessary to utilize commonly understood terms for the sake of simplicity. I feel the need to take this approach because the true understanding of the G-theory mechanics of electron orbital stability under a wide range of seemingly impossible conditions of real world magnetic, charge, temperature and pressure assaults as well as other atom proximity related affects would threaten the possibility of the traditional understanding of electron orbital mechanics from achieving the slightest chance of being factual.

G-theory promotes the idea of QED phononic Hilbert space multi-dimensional harmonic wave sets of interactive g and form factor strings in the multiplex space. In basic function these are all expected to be relatable as strange magnetic lines and charge conditions which can have no invariant relationship with real world magnetic and electric fields or emr*.

(a1) If it were not so; charges in orbitals would otherwise prevent electrons from traveling sideways to another energy position; in which case the ED coulombic charge variation would cause only a Z axis shift because of vector resolutions of the charge eigenstates resulting in the unlikely existence of a constantly definable apacenter (apparent atomic center).

It seems I must allow that notion for the purposes of simplicity; for basic explanations but it must be understood that the reality is quite different and the atomic music that translates to the real world observations of the fields is unlikely to be decipherable in any way that will make sense to Lorentz, Dirac, Maxwell or Coulomb. This means that cosmean law supersedes universal law at the sub quantum level and in effect the quantum world is truly in a different universe but not in the way commonly accepted. That traditional 'way' just doesn't gel into any concepts of unification.

*This of course also causes the energy invariance stated right at the beginning of the thesis but if you back track you might get to understand that there is a proposed relationship equation and the effect is VM multiplex.


You're laughing! I can understand that: Your math looks really great; I admit that, but it's all based on assumptions which don't even include the emr equivalence assumption which is as bad as the electron-planetary-orbital assumption which spawned relativity*, e.g. that energy is mass; even though this can only be simplistically allowed at the sub nucleon level applicable to electrons but not to the nucleus per se.

However -and fortunately in that case- the energies are covariant and the equivalence is merited. So supposedly the energy is mass for conversion to the Schrodinger equation which ties Dirac's four-field to non relativistic quantum mechanics.

 All that demonstrates is the nullification to normal that I declared earlier which ends up with no relativity at all. This is noted in the literature as 'Lorentz invariance violation' and many wild and wonderful attempts are being made to solve this problem without any success. Without cheating that is.

*N.B . You guys need to drop your calculators and go back to first principles and log all the enigmas then work forward from there. G-theory is a prime example of the start you can come up with if you do that first. There is no point in accepting equivalence of phenomenologies that don't interact in predictable ways. Ask yourself first; why don't every day emr fields destroy atomic structures or at the very least the orbitals within structures? Then use forensic reasoning. E.g. the charge field is apparently not the problem because we know that more than one electron volt per atom is going to start getting things pretty hot. Also the magnetic fields of atoms are able to be manipulated by everyday magnetic fields to cause current in a conductor and visa versa; but the question is this:-

If the eigenvalues being realized here are able to do that and shift electrons in orbitals then why don't these emr fields cause a disruption to the orbital quantum numbers and states and destroy the atoms if simple ED is really all there is to such orbital structures? I.e. the cause of the assumed quantum emr wave function! Ponder on that for a while and relativity will just fade into the background as a non issue. Forget trying to prove some archaic drivel. There's real work to be done here!




This is all very predictable when all four spinors in the Dirac field-motion reference frame are made (subjectively forced to be) relatable to the four Poincare vectors of the Lorentz group which is exclusively involving particle related linear-motion reference frames. GTR has the same problem in the macro gravitational field so once again we find that the math is simplistic and not representative of reality but this time with respect to a particle space-time and energy field-time coordinated system.

Yes particle and antiparticle, chirality etc. are valid solutions but anti-time, and anti-momentum are not and neither is Lorentz invariance breaking.

This can be declared as the true case even if the gamma matrices were to actually transform without a boost. The obvious nullification is demonstrated in the negative possibilities shown in the Lorentz transform but the mathematicians solve that little problem by relating that to antiparticle assumptions which is not at all valid because the analysis is being carried out from the singular reference frame of the entopic system.

On top of that the normalization of the negative results is also achieved mathematically by simplistically applying it to motionless particles, which is a giant sleight of hand -typical of others- very commonly stooped to prove the impossible. This is because we are only truly dealing with particles having a relatively high velocity relationship which I just punctuated above as exclusively related to relative stable motion.

Have you ever heard of an antiparticle field?! Has anyone ever even measured an anti-field where positive becomes negative etc. That would actually nullify the accepted antiparticle theory into a stupid revolving door situation. -Oh the mind games we devise in our lunacy!- and the antiparticles would then be declared as particles and visa versa ad infinitum! That typically stupifying reasoning is what we are dealing with here, and such can only devolve to the depths of insane subjectivism; that is if we're not there already. Don't let math fool you. In the end it's all in the interpretation and assumptive reasoning from your chosen point of view. If you can't see that then stay there in the dark!

Look I'm not disputing that Dirac's 'blah de blah' can work in the particle motion reference frame and visa versa but the two relativistic arguments can't possibly work together. This of course means that one or both are incorrect. Whichever way you look at that, the relativistic model is destroyed.  You can bend space-time and fields around all day because all of those concepts are of course connected in a universe of motion and mathematically distorted functors are a dime a dozen. Stop being dazzled by pages of mathematical gobbledygook. It's time to let the facts drive the narrative and not try and fit them to an agenda with crowbars.

Methinks that such concepts have gotten way past the limits of general human understanding and are only able to be instilled by the university of choice into the minds of the unfit. There are few free thinkers out there. It seems as though most mathematicians are very adept at joining the numbers together but not the dots! Perhaps we should be taking note of Occam's razor by now. After all there is a solution right here that I'm sure must have been raised before, so I have to ask what the possible agenda can be for science to be so protective of drivel like relativity--- very puzzling indeed.




Make sure you check out the excuses for impossibility here. Check out the -ve p (negative momentum) sect3: Sect 4: shows a typical -ve solution and also we have the following statement--- "We can't see the relation with antiparticles yet - for now it’s just notation". Note in Sect 5: The covariant inner product is NOT Lorentz invariant. What don't tell me that Lorentz invariance is broken? This cannot be!!!

Also look for the brazen "not real numbers" statement. Dumb just got dumber!


In here we have the statement that declares that the Dirac four vector (field) breaks the Lorentz invariance. That's all just another way of saying they cancel each other out unless you stupidly declare that one is affecting a particle at the same moment that the other applies to an antiparticle.


There is a fair amount of mathematical laxity going on in those calculations and there are many arguments in the literature which I haven't shown because they all make ridiculous excuses. There is an easier way out of this dilemma. Just rescind one of the theories. Of course the likely one to go is the Lorenz invariance because with Dirac it might seem that you no longer need Lorentz. But then we need Lorentz for the leptons like neutrinos or is that Dirac? Mmm.

There are a couple of insurmountable difficulties with doing that:

1/ that would place the visa versa plausibility of either chosen theory in question.

2/ it would also destroy Einstein, Poincare and Minkowski et al.

3/ it would cause universal S relativity to become only applicable to light/emr in a mathematical sense rather than motion relative reference frames, and then gravity would even need another solution other than GTR. It would also mean that previous relativistic observations made of the stars and greater universe would probably be nonsense.

4/ to avoid that nonsense you would have to get rid of both of the theories and evaluate such a theory as the one being presented here. I have my hand up for gravity too, in case you missed it!


Having savaged the tradition like that, it is incumbent upon me to have a better proposal to replace it with. That is as follows: You decide.




ASSERTATION: Reconstruction


Apart from my original analysis of electrons moving through a conductor which would (just appear to) occur at 'c' in every case, I must now analyze electron behavior in orbitals when approached by a 'strange' electron moving at almost 'c' on an undefined trajectory. In this case the target atom is full, with a neutral net charge but with interactive QED dimensional charges acting within the orbitals.

The following storyline utilizes simplistic concepts for analysis so it appears to show that the author is considering spherical shell structure. That is not the case and I also don't consider likely, either the spherical standing wave orbital model or the relativistic four function orbital mechanics, in case you missed that also.






According to G-theory there are five multiplex states which are common to all fermions (in particular) but there are four remaining multiplex states that exclusively apply to nuclei. In singular consideration of electrons there are four possibilities for known quantum states (over and above any proposed interactive multiplex states) and these are as follows---

(1) Principal quantum number state

(2) Azimuth state

(3) Magnetic quantum number state

(4) Spin state.

(5) The spectrographic parity state. This is expected to be caused by an interaction with nuclear multiplex states via the nuclear factors and this will be addressed.

Numbers one and two relate to the shell and shell position respectively which leaves the next two to provide enough difference to meet the PEP requirements for all the possible fillings required for the periodic table. That doesn't quite provide enough permutations however so another variable was required to be brought into the mix; I.e. Z axis preference 'ms'. That would have seemed to be enough until the Hydrogen fine structure was analyzed and there appeared to be no possible explanation so relativity was somehow brought to the rescue. How can G-theory possibly overcome such a daunting problem as offering a non relativistic solution to the Hydrogen (et al) fine structure anomaly? First we'll need to analyze that relativistic phenomenology from the Lorentzian point of view.

I imagine that if you've got this far in that you don't need me to fill you in on that particular subject; so I will advance my theory:-

Now we all understand that the PEP applies to shell/orbital filling processes, and when another electron approaches the atom (whether its shells are full or not) the principle comes into effect and by so doing the atom effectively analyses the intruder with a 'mind' to either accept it or reject it. If accepted there is an energy disturbance. Surprisingly; if rejected there is a similar energy disturbance--- plus more. The energy disturbance results in Bremsstrahlung radiation to 'somewhere'--- it matters not where. Note: This problem of apparent violation of energy law is solved by G- statistics.

In order to theoretically analyze how the nucleus-electron orbital ED emr factors respond to a new arrival we need to derive a workable theory of how they function in a stable atom which is at parity with its environment. This will be a challenging task and I will probably fail in the details but that's not the point of this exercise which is to determine whether 'variance' or 'invariance' makes more sense and which one of them is a logical non starter.




Before we begin, we need to consider that whole atoms are dynamically viable entities with dynamic variability relative to temperature--- in our case. We must therefore imagine that the temperature is fixed and the atom (ion) is at parity.

We should also understand that any dimensional states and electron states are interlocking via the phononic oscillations and resulting complex but targeted data harmonics of the nuclei-orbitals emf interactions in the vacuum. These are keeping the state of the atom stable at parity. All else is equal in the vacuum. Before even considering an approaching electron we first need to analyze that particular dynamic state in the presence of either variance or not.

Let's begin with relativistic invariance: This considers that the electromagnetic fields relative to the motion relative reference frame of individual electrons and the nucleus are propagating at 'c' (or some hyper speed) and there is now no time lag or distortion of the fields subjectively discernable because of the relativistic time adjustments.

Without any URF relative spatial motion being considered we are able to evaluate the theoretical static states which are the fundamental derivers of the other states. These are separately; the coulombic electric charge interaction (form factor); and the magnetic dipoles interaction (g factor). So in that hypothetical situation nothing else matters or occurs.

At this stage an electron -1e charge can be considered to be a unit coulombic point charge for explanatory purposes only. The nuclear form factor charge is actually an average of the individual nucleon QED charge eigenstates of the Hamiltonian and it would have a resultant but dynamically variable apacenter inside the atom and ditto the electron. The coulombic charge relates to these apacenters and it is the end result of these sub fundamental vacuum modified QED charge interactions and not the result of point source vector relatable interactions.

In this regard it would be hard to imagine how -in a complex nucleus- any given nucleon is singularly bound to an given electron/s so the proposed affect on all approaching electrons (theoretically considering the nucleus being a cation) would be for it to accelerate spatially (rate not applicable) toward that apacenter which would see a complete and -unpredictable by typical means- eigenstate shift by vector force resultants as they approached the nucleus from any direction and changing orientation and the charge resultant would never be zero (internally relative to a defined point in the whole system) only at outer nucleon layers where electrons and nucleons would be touching. However that's probably beside the point at this stage. Note: You might consider that your understanding of the nuclear relationships up until now has been rather simplistic.

However -and generally except for certain effects which result in B+ decay- something stops this result -of electron nucleus touching- from occurring; and that 'something' is the nuclear matrix QMPOT controlled positioning of the now fairly static quantum magnetic field lines from the summed nuclear QED magnetic field.

Under this statistical regime the electron ED magnetic dipoles will cling to the QED mag. field lines which -in a dynamic atom- are peculiar to each electron by way of quantum status as currently recognized. This means that shell and orbital positioning is fully prescribed by this magnetic g factor which must in effect move and 'lasso' electrons then 'shift and drop them' to cause any position shift within the orbitals. We must consider that this action will also have a jurisprudent retro affect on the nucleus.

Under relativistic invariance we are forced to come to realize that after a short time of attenuating elastic interaction with other electrons the individual electron would find the relative position at which to remain unless other conditions prescribe that the nucleus is constrained to exhibit fluctuations in its g and form factors. This can only occur by external force interactions in the absence of any phenomenology which is able to produce an internal force typified in G-theory alone.

The relative position of electrons is forced to be faithfully following the 'g' and form factors but by relativistic invariance the nucleus and the electrons appear to be stationary with respect to each other. Either that or else we require a variable invariance! Which is it?  We could have a variable variance with unknown dependence upon either Dirac or Lorentz and then we can appeal to the uncertainty principle to bail us out. Oh how exiting it all is!

Historical calculations have shown that this 'invariance' was insufficient to provide the necessary dynamics to energize the system and so another variable was employed to solve that problem. It was either decided that there had to be some 'variance' after all (but just a tad and don't tell anybody!) or the fact went completely unnoticed. In any case a very suspect 'loop current causing' electron magnetic dipole 'variability' that was now somehow dis-related to relativity was dragged out to solve that little problem.

This seemingly wild postulation REQUIRES THAT THE ELECTRON NOW HAS VARIANCE WITH THE NUCLEUS' G-FACTOR thus disallowing the Lorentzian model. In that theory that would be because the electron's angular momentum -which because the electron has very little mass it remains pretty well 'glued' to the nuclear factors- is supposed to defy physics because a freakish loop current is able to flow in the vacuum -of all things- and in this way they provided for a specious variability to the electron's magnetic dipole to make up the required extra dynamics and simultaneously providing for a missing quantum state. However there was still a problem until Mr. Dirac came to the rescue but then there were more problems--- patch--- patch--- patch--- unknown invisible currents and forces un-relatable to any of the rest of physics--- patch--- patch!

Can you see the problem of electron to field factor agglutination here? Can you see the sleight of hand being used in an attempt to solve the problem? This STR junk science completely fails the smell test.

In the real world unless an electron is forced to move, it (electron) will actually remain glued to the factors which will stay the same and  its motion relative to the nucleus factors must appear stationary with elasticity because its spatial motion relative to the universal reference frame is dynamic.

The main problem the current paradigm has is the theory of wave energy which is a sort of constant harmonic oscillation whereas in G-theory we have particles and snap function where everything occurs in VM relatable quantum steps. Like duh! Note: Neutrino forward scattering is exempt from VM but still under control of PEP.

Also in the real world of 'charge being the immediate extended existence of particles' the g-factor is not required to cause any action other than what would be normally expected under G-statistics unless parity is threatened and an external change in the force fields is detected but in our case the only threat will soon be from an approaching electron.

To check if the G-theory alternative provides a better result we can analyze this from the same point of view that the electrons undergo the same charge attraction with a motion relative interactive g-factor relationship exactly similar to the first case. This time however; as the electrons accelerate to hyper speeds towards the nucleus they find that their factors have become time lagged or simply 'dragged'*. At 'c' this drag would be at 45o to the rear and very close to that at hyper speeds and Lorentzian relativity might be the resulting solution. However the proposed subjective propagation speed of fields is the speed of light squared or even cubed, so the drag angle would be very small yet still existing. Note: This means that even though a charge is deemed -in G-theory- an existing part of a particle it is manifested in a different VM field which comes under G statistics and the speed of gravity is the proposed speed of charge field propagation and not the speed of light.

  *Which is what appeared to be a problem for Lorentz (et al) back in the day because they didn't have a clue about what actually went on inside an atom. They couldn't see any chance of the supposed electron planetary orbits unless invariance was advanced as a solution. We no longer require that solution. Electrons don't orbit: STR and Lorentz invariance doesn't work; so toss it out.


Now however we have the apparent problem that an electron is accelerating rapidly and very soon it approaches but -because of the slight force frame drag- never to anywhere near the speed of light, but not yet presenting its full field forces to the nucleus in a timely fashion and -reference frame visa versa-*  So now under the G-theory 'variance' the electrons are able to venture closer to the nucleus/orbital than they could in the static situation until their slightly dragged factors finally catch up and run into the nucleon's factors -which are also time delayed but who cares? ---certainly not the electron- in which event the electrons are then brought up short by the g factor**. Note: This g-factor against form factor statistics which -in any mode-l holds an electron out from the nucleus is only phenomenologically achievable under the auspices of the G-theory cross shaped electron particle model. The idea of any fixed relationship between the electron charge and nuclear dipole in the current models is laughable. You try and make it work***! Although how such an analysis could even be possible (with the current batch of scientists who appear to be conceptually adrift) beats me. Considering their suspected intelligence I can only conclude a willful disregard and excusing of model threatening problems.

*With regard to a two body relativistic motion relative reference frame. This point of view is Einsteinian; but it's very much what Lorentz et al had in mind and whether or not we have any relevance with a universal reference frame in Lorentzian relativity; matters not.

**This would seem to suggest that there is a velocity requirement for electron acceptance and therefore bonding. This must be by forces -case specifically- both internal and external.

***Here's something else to sit and ponder abut. Solve these problems first!


After a moment the factors fully catch up (and of course by that reason the nucleus charge apacenter has shifted again) and the captured electron/s now begins to be forced back from the vicinity of the nucleus in various but precisely relatable outward directions. This motion now begins to exhibit the proton-electron positional G- statistical eigenstate relationship with the phononic harmonics emanating from the nucleus albeit in a -extremely insignificant- lagging manner.

As they accelerate back out -due to elastic ringing- electrons will once again find their factors being dragged but this time back towards the nucleus, and because the full force of the outer-orbit's-positioning g factors are once more denied them by eigenstate lag they will arrive at an azimuth which is slightly higher than otherwise predictable and the interactive time delayed process begins all over again like a stretchy elastic band and while we have continuous energy injection from gravity (fundamentally) we have a continuously dynamic atom with orbitals. We have an atomic engine with a non relativistic azimuth quantum state!

This demonstrates that relativistic invariance is not a phenomenon at all supportive of what we consensually recognize in the real world. Under this G-theory phenomenology all electron approaches will be interactive in a similar time delayed manner before the system is able to fully adjust and reach a cause and effect quantum emr solution according to similar G-statistical quantum state behavior and PEP. In consideration of already occupied orbitals being approached the electron will not be permitted access without a nodal snap occurrence which is -in the final analysis- controlled by PEP. This is why some vacant positions are not always fill-able and bonding doesn't readily occur when two similar elements are brought together. Such bonding is more energy state dependant. I.e. that electron momentum state we were referring to above comes into play. As we will see that will have an applicable relationship with a quantum state I.e. spin.

From this non relativistic 'variance' solution we are able to speculate regarding other electron state quantum resolutions -all being enabled such as azimuth, spin (by dynamic orbitals) and spectrographic parity which is a statistical resolution produced by differing elemental and isotopic nuclear-electron interactions -under VM controlled G-statistics- at parity. We have just seen how this is completely impossible under the Lorentz-Poincare relativistic invariance model, so now we're only left with Dirac to deal with. Note: Refer to nucleon matrix space filling which underpins the VM dimensionally subjugative variability of elemental and isotopic behavioral statistics.

Electron spin states -in G-theory- are internally caused by forced quark inter-connective string shifts in the linear electron's pseudo Q-L such that (as shown in this very simplistic example) one spin state might be (- -+) and the other is then (+- -) relative to the same magnetic dipole orientation.

From this we should recognize that (-2/3 +1/3-2/3) spin state is not seen to be a likely scenario but if more spin states are required it can't be ruled out because the net fundamental charge is still -1. This baryon rearrangement would require far more 'string' shifts and these are available and relatable to G-statistics as momentum states and the speed of light is never an option so the momenta of all electrons is never 1 out of 1. There is a fine structure loss which toggles to the next unexpected state in certain circumstances and this is noticed as fine structure anomalies which are almost like spectral lines in the spectrum. But this is only part of the story as we will soon see.

Ref: figure (a) below. These vacuum eigenstate modification-determined-combinations produce four possible charge eigenstates as two possibilities each having two opposite Z axis preferences, and after the fourth; the similarly controlled magnetic dipole shifts in the p-baryon lengthwise direction form the derivation of the same four but now with four different charge eigenstates relative to the four magnetic moment positions creating eight possible combinations of 4 -ms and 4 +ms in all. -Restating this from the other point of reference: In this way the overall magnetic dipole eigenstate is then slightly changed in the other direction dependent upon its 'ms' (Z axis directional preference) value. Along with the quantum numbers these eight combinations of dipole and spin alone are able to account for the fine structure of hydrogen without dubious relativistic explanations.

Another 'nothing's perfect' state is seen in the fact that the electron's dipole will never be perfectly aligned because of the affect of the non balanced shape of the p-baryon with its quark dipoles towards the overall electron dipole moment and that fact is evidenced as the  currently recognized 'anomalous magnetic electron moment'. This is the true cause of the QED anomaly derived 'fine-constant' 's'. (OK α). This anomalous 'spin' causes energy loss which limits electron velocity caused by internal forces, and such losses are consistent and entropic and are confined to complex particles and electron shells; which are of the G-theory electron, nucleon, pion and muon constructs. Note: How can any of this be coincidence? You've all been advancing metaphysical reasons in place of a purely mechanical operator. More later.

All other theories are devoid of any possible mechanical resolution such as you find here for quantum spin and moment states, which by the way also conditionally relates to other quantum particles with spin.

G-theory predicts that an electron in the wrong spin state may be (under energy state and conservation statistical requirements) easily forced to change states for the purposes of PEP resolution as well as electron shell depletion statistics and the electron will then be capable of being retained in a new shell position as a viable particle. Such a phenomenon is just a simple VM dimension shift away from a different state. Note: No energy conservation violating interchange of sub particles is deemed to be necessary. Parity is a wonderful healer of energy state violations. It just takes time. Herein lies a remarkable relativity indeed.

This dimensional shift causes changes in the angular momentum in the orbitals as well as the spin quantum number. This would be expected to occur at the closest point of approach to the nucleus apacenter over an arc of about half the radius of the lowest angular motion, being relative to 1/2pi.

Dirac didn't relate relativity to quantum mechanics after all. That was just an opinion which was rather brave considering that most of the mathematics involved in this whole concept is classical. He should really have related quantum mechanics to multiplex vacuum modification (VM) as a better explanation of that as well. You don't need relativity at all in order to explain the differences between the Bohr model and the Dirac resolution.

Conclusions in further support of G-theory:

1/relativity is a dubious science.

2/invariance has been thoroughly disputed.

3/the facts are that any electron in space already has a magnetic dipole moment and doesn't need to have one artificially derived or modified. There is no known mechanics whereby a spinning point charge is able to produce a magnetic field. Also there is no known proof whereby a charge field can become a magnetic field by swapping terms in a relativistic equation. That's not science.

4/ there is no electromagnetic principle which can allow a loop current in the vacuum and such can never be the cause or modificant of an electron's magnetic dipole moment. Such a quantum state as angular momentum is disqualified by empirical analysis.

5/ including the principle quantum numbers, angular momentum  (G-theory style) and the azimuth numbers, when you add in combinations of the four spin states and the four magnetic moment states applicable to G-theory. Note: You now have plenty of diversity to keep Mr. Pauli happy and the whole electron-proton-energy relationship becomes a circular interaction with the vacuum being modified by internal quark shape shifting. OK color then.

For example: If the n1 fundamental q-number is included as only requiring an electron of any state; when shifting shells to the n2 and n3 numbers then, just the four proposed spin states allows the hydrogen fine structure to be realizable (e.g. 2p ½, 3p ½, 3p¹/з, 2p³/², 3p³/², 3d³/², 3d 5 /²--- that's three q-numbers and four spin states or two spin states and two moments). So if Z-axis preference is ruled out, then we still have two spin states and two magnetic moment state combinations which can still provide four different relative states so 'ms' is not required in the hydrogen case.

Straight Note: We don't need all those eight possible states at once because sub shell positions are vacated relative to the various hydrogen ions but we do need four which we definitely have without Z-axis preference or relativity. This is further explained in that even with just ms+ orientation we have four different charge azimuths such that the closest arrangement relates to 1 with the furthest away in the third shell being 'qn' 5/2 of 3 which is less than 3 by ½ with all the values derived as follows--- 5 / ²(3-½), ³/²(3-1½), ½ (2-1½), and ¹/з (2-1²/³). This is charge eigenvalue variance of either ½ or ²/³ with the 'spin' states being the four known possibilities.

This gives a fine structure constant for hydrogen which once recognized should have had a theoretical divergence of about 1/12 at the third shell. However a statistical position divergence is caused by the described interactions of the electrons which all causes energy losses* which are better calculated by Schrodinger's equation or surprisingly by the more stringent relativistic equation*. This gives a result called the 'fine constant' of 1/137. This results in electrons not ever traveling at 'c' because of those losses.

The astounding discovery in this thesis (as you should have noted) is that this fine 'loss' constant becomes relatable to calculating actual energy states in the whole universe with all other required statistical loss-constants in place.

*Relativity is extremely useful as a mathematical tool. It just doesn't cause anything. It is purely and simply a mathematical picture of other real phenomena.


The integers in the penultimate paragraph above equate to the theoretical fundamental quantum charge shell difference when the new position is in the next shell. This means that in this case, two spin states as well as two different magnetic dipole ('q' states) with reference to the electron charge eigenstates is all that is necessary. Even though nature is sometimes anomalous, the statistics are the same as the standard model and none of this is in violation of Hund's rule. Refer to figure (a).

*These energy losses are reflected back to the nucleus and are emitted to the environment as BBR to stabilize parity.


The model demonstrates that Z-axis reversal is not probable for hydrogen. So in that case the diagram below shows only the four remaining possibilities. It is however highly likely and necessary for higher order atoms with highly energized outer shells. No simplistic magnetic dipole flips are required at all which would void the model.

So we have 7 levels of principle quantum numbers and 8 combinations of quantum spin states, then we have quantum magnetic moments relating to azimuth states and as well as that there are spectrographic parity states which are dimensional states of which there are obviously at least two. This gives us 112 possible states for any atom. Unfortunately there are atoms with more electrons than that; up to 118 so far.

However we find that the spectrographic parity states have more possibilities than two and this status is related (to/or the same as) another quantum status called angular momentum* relating to and being termed 'angular spin quantum numbers'. In the current theories this relates to tilting of spin configurations in the complex orbital field which gives 'triplet' states. These are supposedly seen by PEP as true quantum states within stable orbitals at parity and we can refer to that as chirality.

No matter what the phenomenology; because of that, other quantum state possibilities then become opened up to a maximum quantity of '??' This partitioned off physics is still an effective but rubbery science with more than one proposed model existing in the literature. G theory will show another more plausible phenomenology shortly.

*Supposedly but not likely: In G-theory electrons don't have angular momentum, they are being forced into elastic motions by the nuclear factors. The spectrographic parity is caused by something else entirely. Even under the standard theory such an idea as angular momentum is questionable, angular velocity would be better. However in G-theory motion has got nothing to do with any quantum state but only to the energy parity state of the atom so in that regard spectrographic parity is a correct label but angular momentum and spin momentum are not.

6/Lorentz invariance is not required and it is in fact detrimental and impotent. Note: force frame drag variance is never a problem requiring a resolution in the real world of everyday velocities.

7/ The Dirac four-field-resolution actually results in Lorentz invariance violation, no matter how you spin it.












I lied earlier: The electron graphic I originally presented was simplified for the purposes. Fig. (a) is the true representation of a G-theory electron charge relative structure -without the magnetic dipoles which remain as originally shown. If that W boson gets in between those -W bosons we have a false baryon or negatron.

Take note of the depiction of the rotate-ability of the electron p-baryon through ninety degrees with respect to the magnetic dipole moment. This is spectrographic parity G-theory style. The supposed angular momentum orientations in the standard theory are replaced with more believable rotational shifts of the charge field x,y plane around the z axis. The charge field prevents tilts but not rotations which are determined by magnetic influences* but it is not tilt-able except for the flexing (mostly due to external magnetic forces responsible for electromagnetism and the Zeeman, Stark and Paschen-Back effects) and it only moves along the z axis by similar nuclear phononic data commands a well. Refer to (a1) above.

This structure also allows electronegativity and electropositivity which is critical for bonding statistics, and it also allows for the bunching of electrons into the noted discrete packets in an electron beam. The current theory can't explain or provide for any of those phenomena!

*Strings, branes and dimensions don't cause or do anything but provide a pathway. The electron structure is kept together by biracial charges and the dipole doesn't come adrift from the electron. Vacuum dimensional status allows conditional space-time simultaneity of position.


You should be able to imagine a sharp g factor twisting-loop-pulse snap* sending the dipole (still connected by the strings) into the next energy position with the p-baryon part following along by its own data command in the relevant orientation some very small time later. To consider it to be able to happen all together is not easy because that would require an instantaneous interlocution of all the factors of every proton in the nucleus which is not considered to be likely in this universe of time and that in itself is restrictive and would cause the required time delayed responses and be supportive of the necessary quantum 'bucket filling' time requirements. Note: This needs to be taken on board for reference in the following analyses. Nothing ever occurs instantaneously.

The spectrographic state rotation has to be caused by phononic harmonics in the nuclear magnetic g-factor. Our atom is starting to look like it actually sings a tune! If we keep up with this analysis we might just decipher the song sheet!

Some possible mechanics for electron positional rejection could come from how solar and plasma flares twist and then snap off; releasing the matter in the end part from the main loop which would retire back to position after ejecting the end loop or electron in this case.

Chuck in a big fat CAVEAT sign here. This is assuming a lot because we don't even now what magnetic lines of force are yet. That's next I guess but we do have a clue in that flares follow magnetic field lines and what we observe is probably the field lines snapping when they touch because of abrupt diamagnetic effects repulsing the field lines apart and they literally explode each other into gamma particles.

Even to shift an electron this 'snap' process would take force and use energy. That tiny bit of magnetic loop would be lost energy; perhaps to be picked up by an unknown mechanism later. All energy would be conserved and BBR mechanics would be the premier parity mechanism.






The full cause of PEP is theorized to be because the phononic harmonic patterning is geometrically restricted from performing the exact same function in two places or more at the same time within a single atomic system. So we have to conclude that the whole atom runs on music written by the eigenstates of the nuclear matrix structure and in higher order atomic constructs, there is an even more complex interplay of tunes between each atom in the structure. Amazing!! We humans could no doubt figure out the program for a low order complexity phononic interaction like this but we still can't make an atom!






The QUANTASIZATION of orbitals is theorized to be because the phononic Hilbert set's harmonics cause the nodes to be 'digitized' and the effects of this pulsing will be explained.

I will be mentioning the operative term 'shift registered' in the following section which might become a clue (especially when you add in 'the god code') in that unlike the traditional quantum theories which are analogue wave energy related, G-theory is 'digital'. It is also based on rigid and ordered crystalline nucleus structure (rather than nebulous analogue wave functions); a system where fundamental positives and negatives become ones and zeros. Why modern science remains stuck back on the wave analogies as reality beats me. Get with the program--- the digital age is here!

Analogue processes don't lead naturally to digital ones however, so I guess that could be a formidable reason for pause for some theophobics. Not one of them wants to find out that someone else has beaten them to the quantum computer and especially in such style! You are able to sit and read this only because you are running an internal quantum computer. All you can hope to do is emulate to some degree in some aside systems.

OK back on track: A nucleon is in effect a processor and an analogue-to-digital converter. The electron is a local 'mother board' E-bit, while photons and ramatons form data streams which are converted to analogue data for real world apps. Other digital virtual force data -such as gravity- becomes analogue for the real world as well. As we have already seen, it is the gradual digitizing of analogue data from 'that' world back to the quantum world which causes limitations to Vdd minimums in 'that' world's digital circuits. Cryogenics seems to be the only solution to that one. Refer to the relationship between PEP and ohms law.

Ask yourself: How can digital functions arise from an analogue system? Analogue functions are able to be naturally derived from a digital system by elastic averaging in higher order processes but not visa versa unless forced. How does your standard quantum model AD converter work? This whole exposition is another serious model threat to the traditional understanding of quantum physics.

I guess the wave function Hamiltonian would have to be either by duty-cycle or a count process. That last one seems to be the most difficult to imagine and would make the wave function obsolete; but then if particles are being 'shift registered' we might just have a brave new world to explore, and quantum computing might be resolved around that existing quantum data rather than forcing data at our own arbitrarily determined rates through qibit gates etc. The quantum bit is already there; go work with it!







Now we come to the really weird part where I postulate the roles of dimensions, branes (Marjorana junctions) and strings within the nucleon and the greater universe.

First of all we need to recap on some prior conclusions:

1/ particles below the fermion level are real entities that take up space but they are able to reside either fully or in their biracial parts in one or more dimensions. This means that many will not exhibit mass or a least the correct mass in any given state or temperature. This is what creates one massive 'head scratcher' for high energy physicists.

2/ many particles are similar to other particles and they are only able to be named according to their particular dimensionally enabled state. This disqualifies quantum mass predictions of any description (not kinetic energy) and the only signature for identification is as described. E.g. a neutrino is a part of a trion when in a nucleon as each half of the trion which is a ( ve m -ve) or a gluon (m is for brane). In another dimensional state we call the trion a W boson*. Neither exhibit any mass (which doesn't mean they have none) because in the case of the gluon trion it is responsible for mass via the gluon brane separation. A gluon is also massless because it is responsible for mass by extension. The neutrino has been addressed elsewhere. This creates the other 'head scratcher'.

*No wonder physicists are so confused. This assertation should clear things up a great deal. It seems that the humble trion is beginning to look like the fundamental particle.

In G-theory I have referred to trans-universe strings as tines to avoid any confusion with relativistic string theories. There are many tines and lesser strings that are active within and inter-relationally with other nucleons as well as between whole atoms and molecules and this contention will be supported by strong and unassailable evidence.

Tines and strings are Euclidean-sense dimensionless. They have no relationship with time or space. They are able to exist in the same space-time, and the particles so involved ditto. The expansive universe that we see is caused by forces and fields and there can be some conditional perturbation between particles while transiting through or close by to each other in foreign dimensions. Some of these tines go right through nucleons and AMOs while others terminate at the first nucleon they come in contact with.

Branes are the biracial separation point for particles at the point of contact, so internal AMO strings and tines are just spatial but role playing extensions of branes. We alone are able to consider them to have Euclidean spatial coordinates and orientations. For all intents and purposes a brane on a string could be the exact same position as any other point on the string. The spatial separation is only caused by the interaction of biracial fundamental charges and fields and not spacetime.

To allow for some sense to be made, tines have been given names as required. I.e. photines, gravitines, magnetines, emetines, raotines, ramatines and eotines. Both gravitines and eotines pass right though solid matter including nucleons. Neutrinos travel in eotines, while gravitons travel in gravitines etc. Not all tines are straight in the euclidean subjective sense.

Inside nucleons there exists a quark lattice which in stark contrast to the elastic and dynamic EWF structures consists of a rigid geometric structure based on a flattish much truncated tetrahedral shape which is the necessary form to provide for the required quark positioning as well as the correct angular placement of three offset Q-L to SBF attachment points corresponding to three of the face centered sides of the tetrahedral shaped nucleon matrix filling construct. This provides for the EWF Higg's centered superstruct connectivity via one of each of the three color charge quark tri-sets being top, charm and bottom. This is able to change dependant on peculiar external force conditions.

Inside the lattice resides a cosmean femtospace which apart from holding a variable quantity (ranging from none at zero k to an incomprehensible quantity at BST) of energy sub bosons, also contains a permanent and fixed graviton cell. A string runs from the bottom quark tri-quark cosmea femtospace brane and attaches to the Higg's boson Zo biracial brane connection point where it terminates. A photine string connects to other nucleons in the AMO which can be patterned in crystalline and evenly structured matter. It is from this brane that photons are emitted to other nucleons or to the vacuum via the universe vacuum photine. Such action is triggered by the eos quark lattice to EWF connecting brane at the bottom quark tri-set, or else the eos brane emits BBR trions.

This is applicable to the other color quark sets for magnetines and ramatines to the Q-L pion brane and the SBF pion brane respectively. The cosmean string directly connects to the gluon branes in the EWF and they are fully responsible for causing the exhibition of mass in the proposed manner via the elastic EWF structure. I have models for all of this in my possession. If you Earthlings don't want this physics then put out a press release and I will destroy them!

Here we get to see the finger of God: These nucleon structures were originally praetoms in the pre universe cosmea. They are only able to be annihilated or decay and are never created within the universe, not even from quark gluon plasma.

How it all works might remain a mystery but I am sure of this one thing: Nucleons are the engine of the universe and it is the energy return loop between light and gravity which keep the nucleons fueled. It is this relationship which produces the soon to be famous formulas y=c/G and E=y.c. So the energy in the universe appears to be around 9e45J and the evident mass is 9e44kg. It's probably more than that if the 'y' in deep space is even greater than1e27 times 'c'. This is really unknowable.

The gluon cosmean brane interaction uses cosmean force to derive mass so therefore the conservation of energy must reign and the eos will consequently scavenge trions from the cosmea proper and so some energy as particles is forever returning to the universe but this doesn't undercut the fundamental law of entropy and the lost nucleons are gone forever. This whole universe energy conservation problem becomes a 'systematic' argument which I'm not going to pursue because frankly we just don't know everything!

Please take note that time disjunctive dimensions are not required in this model which only proposes vacuum-modified-space time simultaneity.

This brings us to what quarks consist of: The model proposes that a 'u' quark is a dimensionally arranged gluon (W-W) and +trion (W). A 'd' quark is a dimensionally shifted trion most likely positioned on a multiple brane junction. The 'not' quarks are just the same but on different brane combinations. The color charge quarks have a variable number of helper bosons (sea gluons) in residence, the annihilation products should tell the story to some extent.

Helper bosons would dimensionally facilitate the transfer of sub bosons in and out of the femtospace by a 'shift register' process which would occur at 'c' which in such an immeasurably small space would be tantamount to instantaneously but from what we have noticed to date in collider collisions that's still not fast enough to get the job done. The shift register (gauge boson chain) would be 'manufactured' onsite by the Sp forces from the femtospace itself. Basically the gauge boson 'shift registers' itself to form a quantum packet. This is seen as force to move particles.

This quantum force is determined by the Sp force against the inelastic Q-L. Don't ask me how but it would have to be in collusion with the eos derived parity considerations by a measure of the energy incomings and outgoings as well as string facilitated interlocution between neighboring nucleons first and atoms second, which is all able to be usurped by external forces either via electrons or physical/virtual forces.

The quarks are joined to each other by gluons and brane strings relative to the functions of the quark sets. These strings terminate in the gluons such that for example a quark gluon could be adjoined by two branes; say the photine and raotine, one from each conjoined quark. Every quark gluon also has connection to a cosmean-string brane. Single Meson quarks are able to be conjoined without the agency of gluons. E.g. ---as in a beta neutron.

The Q-L model I have developed in order to have the face-centered-relative EWF fixing points shows three layers of baryons. The top quarks are the most widely separated in an equilateral triangle form. The charm baryon consists of a slightly smaller parallel triangle which is offset (rotated around the vertical axis) by several degrees to give the required connection angles for the EWF structure to SBF point alignment. The bottom quarks are arranged in a smaller triangle lined up with the center charm quark baryon. The baryon 'wafers' are equidistant.

If this was a crystal with sides then the sides revealed by the twisting of the top baryon with relation to the others, forms sides which are portions of a larger tetrahedron. I can actually see the three dimensional crystalline model and it is an interesting crystal indeed. I don't think such a crystalline form appears anywhere else in nature; although I couldn't be sure. Note: Shape and distance are important for strength even down at this level and this Q-L structure appears to be an extremely strong shape. I couldn't say for sure whether retentive strings are length dependent but I suspect not.

You might now ask: How does the magnetic dipole structure fit with all that? Answer: ---In a picture to the side of the Q-L which is offset in the nucleon space. In reality; in the center by VM G-statistics.

It is also connected to the various strings by its relevant branes. The dipole is not as elastic (if at all) as the EWF construct but it is dynamic and motivational through 90o eigenvectors on its strings. The branes in these dimensions are retentive but weaker at gluon branes junctions and the center brane also has the lowest binding force due to the usual force decay towards the center of multiple particle constructs. That doesn't apply to the EWF construct because the center brane in the Higg's superstruct is the cosmean brane which is strongly retentive. Note: gluons have variable brane relative binding force.

Now of course it should be understood that the magnetic dipole oscillations are responsible for the g factor and the elastic gyrations of the EWF are responsible for the form factor which is dynamic and interrelated with the g factor via the inter-dimensional force dynamics. It is also an affected variable as a result of the Q-L gyrating around inside the nucleon which is a priori dependent upon external and internal environmental forces.

At the Higg's brane on the EWF superstruct (SS) is where we discover the relationship between light 'flux' energy and mass. When a force related to the exhibition of a Higg's derived mass is vectored to any end of the SS it causes a wave vibration in the particular EWF structure. The cosmean brane at the Zo boson opens and closes in sync. This is where the relationship to emr and electron behavior and also where light quanta emission occurs and the rate of the emission of photon quanta is directly proportional to the 'mass' derived at the Higg's. So this 'm' becomes more relatable to the light flux density rather than simplistically 'f' or 'c'* and therefore 'y' is seen to be so much related to energy and mass as 'c' is. This came into the derivation process for the energy equations in a prior section.

*These are OK for calculating individual photon energies.


N.B.  Gauge bosons might be made of articles which could just be sub bosons in another dimension. The cosmean brane is able to place some or all of a brane attached particle fully into the cosmean femtospace-string-brane entity. In such a state those particles (or parts thereof) are undetectable and parity violations may be observed.

When a violent enough impact occurs and a nucleon is shattered the particles so ejected might retain their connection to their string long after they have left the nucleon until such a time as they are absorbed into other nucleonic matter in which case new particles that weren't expected to be seen could become evident. This is also a mechanics for entanglement. Interlocution is different in that it is a near field data communication phenomenon. Note: when analyzing particles care must be taken when identifying –1 and +1 coulombic charged particles. These can be either electron or negatron and proton or positron respectively and there masses may be disarmingly similar to their higher order mother particles. So these are able to mimic each other in many aspects except that negatrons and positrons are unable to form or exist in quantum state orbital systems.

If you thought nucleons were tiny little round things then you might have to think again. If you thought they were evenly balanced in every respect; ditto. The logic proposes that evenness produces a blob, which is essentially what we had in the pre universe state.

The nucleon has an imbalanced emf factor which allows the diversity of characteristics in elements. In any given atom the shape of the orbitals could be non concentric and even non unilateral (1H hydrogen is a no brainer). The whole atom might not be anywhere near spherical. If you analyze the electron diagram as well you will see that this is the reason for the Pauli asymmetry.

If we return to the proposed nucleon space filling matrix phenomenology we find that because the nucleons have an unbalanced and limited SBF binding capability that the various constructs derive various atomic emir-field statistics which results in similarly variant characteristics. For instance just the addition of one proton neutron pair to an outer nuclear shell can predict the reconfiguration of the whole matrix (or at last the shell) which would be disproportional to the small physical change just described. This could result in a noticeably significant change in the melting point say. E.g. mercury and gold. This is all in support of my prior contention (described a little differently) that dimension shifts within nucleons are related to internal and external emr data.

A study of the nucleon model and the characteristics of the EWF Higg's superstructs determine them to be not only elastic but flexible as well and gyrations are able to be a feature to allow bonds of opportunity and it would be likely that the superstructs are all aiming inward at the outer nucleon shell. This also allows that the SBF points are also flexible and dynamic in a limited spatial sense. This would all contribute to characteristic and periodic variability in the periodic table. That alone would see the prediction of patterned variant elemental characteristics exclusively from the G-theory model. This should be seen to be strongly supportive of the model.

Apart from the form factor and EWF constructs the nucleon is open to the environment. However these emr and EWF/SBF entities provide formidable protection for the integrity of the nucleon and by extension but to a lesser degree the nucleus and furthermore to the whole atom but exhibiting conditionally weaker binding/bonding in molecular and higher order materials.

The internals of a nucleon shouldn't be taken to be completely inert. The volatility and dynamics within a nucleon is what makes the universe tick. If gravity were to disappear, floating around in the air with the earth flying off into space would be the least of our problems because the nucleons in your body would rapidly cool by losing particles and consequently energy.