G-THEORY thesis CH 23b

Graphical representations are not presented on the website.



Some of you will have come to the true realization that everything is made of the same fundamental building block--- the trion. The trion and its higher order constructs are based on these fundamental biracial charge particles separated and conjoined with various strings and branes in a complex multiplex manner.

In their uniracial form the trions can be either neutrinos or W bosons in various dimensions and states. In their bound form they constitute gluons, Z bosons and pions. From these the greater constructs are formed (including gravitons and photons etc. extending further to higher order photon and emr packets. These bosons end up as virtual multiplex 'bricks' in the basic fermionic constructs--- the beta neuron, the proton and the electron.

Depicted below are three dimensional models. The first is a fact fitting model of a beta neutron quark lattice revealing the true divisibility into a proton and electron with all the charge sums still intact. I.e. the neutron is exactly net zero charge while the proton is exactly net +1 charge while the electron is -1; which all fits the facts.

Following that is a stylized 3D model of a 1H atom. This includes a little (non artistic) license. Note 1: The bottom quark boson group tier (being depicted) has its top boson layer skewed around the axis by the twisting of the EWFs during SBF bonding to protons and other neutrons. The other color charge groups are similar but bound to the femtospace and so are not conducive to the overall charge (F.S.)

Note 2: The electron only leaves the neutron as one boson group of three pseudo-quark baryons. It leaves the color charge quarks behind with the femtospace and these in turn become effective in providing a proton with many potential variables for dynamic activity over a neutron. The proton is the true engine of the universe. The death of a neutron breathes life into the universe! Refer to the following/facing page.




Simplified 3D model of a charge zero 12D Beta neutron.


Charge +1--- top three tier boson group--- proton

Charge -1--- bottom tier boson group--- electron


The quarks are formed by the relevant corners of the tier groups

Only one color charge is shown; the other non charge conducive color quark groups are depicted in simplification as being attached to the femtospace) F.S. Note: I guess the lepton scenario is flawed, and an anomalous tier group separation would result in muons instead of hadrons.





1H hydrogen isotope (stylized). The arms are situated in a vortex swirl shape and both the fermions are simplified.



Now that you've studied these you will probably realize that an atom is mostly made out of string-connected and brane-bound biracial W bosons and the fact that these can become neutrinos. In addition to the particles that have already been named neutrinos this answers the enigma of why there are so many neutrinos whizzing around out there when very few other sub boson or boson articles are not. Note 1: This also explains why many particles are either not evident at all or for very long outside of a nucleus.

Note 2: you should be able to correctly conclude that neutrinos are not quarks, baryons, mesons, or gluons.

Quarks are three biracial W bosons, a baryon is three quarks, a meson is two quarks, a pion is four W bosons and a gluon is two W bosons.

Now I have said that a W boson can be a neutrino in another dimensional state. Why then does it have no charge? Answer: A neutrino can also be a dimensionally displaced quark, gluon and pion which delivers four flavors. Even though they would have differing wave function -under the old paradigm-*; two will probably be confused with each other and two will have a fundamental perturbative charge and a perturbative penta-boson neutrino is not out of the question. All of these will have varying wave function and they are able to combine weakly and tentatively. These are trion strings that I theorized earlier which reach a limit of stability. In other words neutrinos are just dimensionally shifted bits of destroyed fermions. Note: The antiparticles are just the same boson arrangements with opposite chirality as well as probably variant fundamental charges.

If you ever read the inept description of reasons for variable wave function in what are supposed to be fundamental particles you will find the analysis full of non phenomenological assumptions regarding--- I'll let you see for yourself on this free to air blog post originally posted on 'Wiki'---


Neutrino oscillation arises from a mixture between the flavor and mass eigenstates of neutrinos. That is, the three neutrino states that interact with the charged leptons in weak interactions are each a different superposition of the three neutrino states of definite mass. Neutrinos are created in weak decays and reactions in their flavor eigenstates[nb 1]. As a neutrino propagates through space, the quantum mechanical phases of the three mass states advance at slightly different rates due to the slight differences in the neutrino masses. This results in a changing mixture of mass states as the neutrino travels, but a different mixture of mass states corresponds to a different mixture of flavor states. So a neutrino born as, say, an electron neutrino will be some mixture of electron, mu, and tau neutrino after traveling some distance. Since the quantum mechanical phase advances in a periodic fashion , after some distance the state will nearly return to the original mixture, and the neutrino will be again mostly electron neutrino. The electron flavor content of the neutrino will then continue to oscillate as long as the quantum mechanical state maintains coherence. It is because the mass differences between the neutrinos are small that the coherence length for neutrino oscillation is so long, making this microscopic quantum effect observable over macroscopic distances.


This is from someone who hasn't even got a phenomenology for the fundamental cause of mass! I mean; what is a 'mass eigenstate'? Disappearing neutrinos are the ones they have the real problem with . Note: I have highlighted the gross assumptions

*Wave function could well apply to boson statistics but -as we have just determined- not electrons.




THE G-THEORY MODEL OF ELECTRON ORBITALS AND THEIR DERIVATION consistent with Hund's rule and the energy laws.


Because I have a different model for electron spin mechanics which doesn't involve actual spinning that necessarily involves angular momentum*, I am by necessity required to provide a different model of electron behavior in captive energy states as well as fact fitting models for electron electrical and magnetic behaviors.

*This is just as farcical as the idea of electrons orbiting. Show me the mechanics!


First I will rewrite the Pauli Exclusion Principle with specific regard to electrons in orbitals. "No electron can WILL choose to be in the same quantum spin state within the same energy shell without being in a different q-magnetic state."

This all comes about by electrons choosing to occupy the relevant shell positions according to Hund's rule entirely by the shape shifting dynamics of the atomic system. I will explain.

In order to show cause for this I must first make the assessment that according to the engineering principles of my model, electron positions become dynamic hover points at various 'energy' positions around the (at parity and alone) 'spherical' positional geometric space.

These positions have nothing at all to do with the electron's energies which are all similar. It all has to do with the nucleon structure theorized in a previous section. This will have variability which is consistent with the nuclear structure of various elemental atoms and isotopes (to a much lesser extent). This will also be reflected out into higher order crystalline materials as will be explained.

The physical shape of the nucleus is not necessary round and the electron geometry; ditto. In some cases such as helium and isotopes of hydrogen it is very angular which can go a long way to explaining many things, most of which have been covered in previous sections, but for now we will consider greater elements with outer nucleus shells that are full to a lesser and greater extent.

Imagine the charge eigenspace to be somewhat reflective in a vector related way of the spatial positioning of the protons in the nucleus specifically because of their +ve charge; and also note that they have the greatest magnetic dipole of the two nucleons.

Now electrons choose positions for themselves which are as close as possible to the nucleus as they can get, and because most atoms have a patterned charge eigenstate matrix; this is reflected out as the position of the apacenter relative to any possible electron's position. The only possible positions that an electron will chose are the Z-axis 'troughs' in the orbital charge eigenspace pattern.

Since we have noticed that the proton positions are according to a defined icosahedral matrix shape which reflects isometric charge patterns into the orbitals. This means that the electron positioning will tend to be according to a shell relevance number relating to 3 orbital quantum states not including the first which is the principle quantum number which relates to the actual nucleus charge less the shadowing charges. This presupposes that the shell positions will also change as the electrons fill the outer shells and orbitals. However by then the quantum states of seated electrons is sealed and they will just adjust their positions with overall charge eigenstate relevance.

This creates a position of next desirability which will be vied for and then protected by 'seating'. The new most desirable position is now related to a matrix charge change related to the –ve charge from the first shell electron. This spreads the second shell so the points of equal interest are positioned away from it but with the positions not exactly equidistant from it and the position which is furthest way from the seated electron will now be the most desirable at any given instant.

Once that electron is seated and because of this charge sharing effect and loss of some more +e attraction in the second shell, the third shell then has a prime position of the highest +ve effective charge azimuth and that best position in the third shell gets filled before the one remaining in the second shell. Now the positioning for an electron in the second shell is become more attractive than the positions remaining in the third shell and so forth. Having stated that, the vector relationships producing positions in the higher order shells are becoming less obvious and are being diffused by the vectors of all the electrons below.

Going back a little; we found that the second shell position was becoming more attractive than the next position in the third shell but only if the electron already is viable or is able to undergo a transformation of q-state to achieve that status. This it done in the manner described earlier in this assertation and once achieved the next electron is able to take up position in the second shell which fills it. Note: Remember that the higher level shells become attractive because of the rising negative charges in the lower shells being caused by the increasing umber of seated electrons in those lower shells. This negative back fill reduces the theoretical number of positions available in the outer shells and allows for some noted anomalies.

This seating causes a shift in the charge state of the third shell positions to more negative, and the best position in the fourth shell becomes prime and so forth. This means that an electron by q-state morphing can only 'manufacture' a slightly more desirable positions in the third than the next fourth shell position but because it can do it for a better result it does so. Electrons will demonstrate energy state position preference. Once seated the filling of the outer positions and shells relegates the inner electrons to a less dynamic state (not energy state  which is a misnomer) and they are pretty well set for life in the slow lane.

This means that the outer shells are far more dynamically relatable to external electrons and forces and the inner electrons have reached a dynamic equilibrium with the nucleus.

How are they dynamic? If they don't have spin and angular momentum and thus create magnetic relationship with the nucleus how then can the electrons keep their positions and not accelerate towards the positive charge?

Both the electrons and nucleons have dipoles which project basic principle-q-number shells into the 3D electron field. This gives a static framework but the electrons are elastically volatile yet strictly held in place which allows the overcoming of many external forces with only some fine structure effects until at such time forces are able to cause a migration of electrons out of the shells beginning at the outer and descending in reverse order unless the event is catastrophic. The magnetic field effect can't possibly be enough to hold them in place or they wouldn't be able to overcome the outer shell magnetic field in order to enter lower shells in the first place.

Good point: The dynamics of the system comes from the nucleus which emits a patterned array of emr pulses which have duration time and azimuth reach restrictions dependent upon the nuclear matrix form. This effectively punches all the electrons upwards and they then bounce in their hover positions at a high frequency (magnetic resonance) in a concerted and charge position relative pattern where they are elastically but strongly held by the previously analyzed force frame drag phenomenology. This can be likened to a nucleus conducting an orchestra and the electrons are playing the music. Note: under the mechanic described electrons must accelerate in at high velocity in order to be seated in the first place. This will occur when the charge and magnetic conditions are right. Not all electrons will be viable for positioning. And even outer valence shells will not receive unviable electrons that are just making there way slowly between unbound atoms. Thus the valence shell will remain as required by the nuclear arbitration.

The energy for all this comes from the laws of thermodynamics and motion.

When the subject comes to molecules an chemical behavior I must draw the line but suffice it to say that when atoms bond the interaction of the nuclear factors creates a variety of interference patterns which will result in a proportional reflection in the associated atomic orbitals. The electrons will continue to do what electrons do. They will choose the best positions by opportunism and a spin state whenever required. This is a strong departure from traditional understanding of there being a variety of different electrons to try ft one after another: Ridiculous!

This does bring up another subject which I will have to address unless  ant to stay wit 'ridiculous'; and that is the case of the proposed electron spin state and other quantum state changes. Weird I like; ridiculous not so much.

This is difficult to say the least and I could go with an assumptive copout like, "Oh that's all relativistic." And just replace the last word with multiplexive; but I won't, and even as I am writing this I feel I've put myself out on a limb to find a solution which is not that forthcoming.

There's been a while between that last paragraph and this one: The clue was in the proposal that the electrons themselves make the choice and they achieve that by force frame dragging effects which invariance couldn't allow. It's not a static decision for them to make and there is not a static answer.

Electrons have multiplex status as well as nucleons and as at first stated; "---dimensions' strings and branes don't cause anything by provision of a force but they do facilitate actions when placed in a state by a force. The force is the switch to any prescribed dimensional state. This is performed without energy because no motion of particles is considered. Any component of energy you might wish to convey on them is not going to be argued here. We can just reckon it gets used as a component of the corresponding action and it would relate to entropic losses subject to conservation law.

When the electron arrives at the desired position, its spin status is determined by the eigenstates of charge and magnetism which is fully dependent upon the actual charge and actual magnetic flux existing at the time when the electrons factors finally catch up with the nucleus' factors. It now gets a split second chance to comply with the requirements of the state which it has just received as data from the nucleus via its factors as well as the other nearby seated electrons.

If a higher energy position had been more attractive it would never have ventured this far in, it would have been stopped by the sufficiency of the factors at the higher energy level. That didn't occur and we have what we have. The requisite forces have been applied at the exact moment for the magnetic dipole to move with relationship to the required state. The x-y rotational state is simply a function of the resultant eigenvector of the position which will possibly change slightly when other electrons fill other positions. However once seated---

Now we should be able to see that there is no magical string that comes out of the nucleus and unties the dipole and moves it around. The action is performed by the charge, magnetic and emr forces necessary for the result* and it is all a logical patterned interaction of relational forms and structures. Chaos would be unable to perform this, only structure and order. If you think this is problematical in the philosophical sense then consider the data transfer and the subsequent actions taken for an atom to obey the commands of the DNA in a living organism. How do they communicate information to form the structures of living organisms if data is not involved? Go figure!

*I did say that nuclear electro magnetism was different than the classical expectation. We have combinations of varying electrical and magnetic fields as well as a high frequency emr wave function. Who'd have expected that? This aligns with the contention that fields and emr are two different things. The first are virtual forces, the latter is by particle propagation. There's that energy we suspected but it's not from multiplex actions per se.






In conclusion we should be able to see that the standard model is just as improbable as the Bohr model. We still have angular momentum producing magical outcomes and we have the idea of multiple co existing electrons states without energy difference!

So of course as we have previously discovered when you consider the wrong model which doesn't fit the facts you end up having to stoop to relativistic magic to try and explain it all. It didn't work for the Bohr model and it won't work for the standard model.

Jus walk in and tell the kids that their physics books have been changed again. They won't mind; science is always changing its mind. If it did that in a timely manner without hanging on to ridiculous notions it might actually get somewhere. Scientific discoveries are one thing; mathemagics is quite another.








The first postulation fails under the test of the laws of thermodynamics. It proposes auto-sustained wave function which is perpetual motion. It's not wrong; it's forced to an assumption that's all.

The second postulation is not faulted.

The third: I find fault with the arbitrarily derived quantasized state and the fact that the complete set of eigenstates are not asymptotic.

Also the changing of wave functions upon measurement is not necessarily true because of the first objection. Note: This assumes non disturbing measurements.

Four is OK

Five is fine so long as it never degenerates to four vectors or a $3j$ function. Schrodinger's equation is fine but it is only relatable to quantum mechanics and should never be extended to find statistical possibilities in the classical physics with that exclusion being extended to astrophysics as well.

Number six is great. This provides the possibility of timely and predictable behavior. We discovered the reason for the Pauli asymmetry in the previous section.








Now I am going to broach a subject with some philosophical overtones. This might sting a bit but it must be said.

E=mc2 declares that all particles must have 'mass'. Either that or they have no 'energy' and can do nothing. Yes they can! They could of course be deemed not to actually exist, which would then place physics firmly in the metaphysical and quasi-physics camp.

 A whole arm of 'funny' physics has grown up around E=mc2. It requires that fermions have half integer spin (and full spin for an electron to transit the Fermi layer), and other particles to have spin to a varying degree in order to assure the conservation of 'energy' through angular momentum, which is only declarable by a contradiction of the definition of spin but I guess 'spin' can be whatever is required by the situational ethics. It all appears to sort of make sense, except that The electron volt (eV) is supposed to be the kinetic energy of an electron being forced to move by an emf (which is actually declared to not be a force after all) and this would only confer 'mass' on the electron and not actually be a measurement of anything other than kinetic energy. Somehow the force to 'energy' transition comes easy when 'mind gaming' the folks.

Like any other vibrating sub particle, an electron is subject to E=hf because such particles do not have intrinsic kinetic 'energy'. They have potential 'energy' as matter content of force particles. So they apply force only when they move spatially with either elastic or inelastic ac/deceleration or their internal particles move spatially or cause virtual forces.

I may appear to not be fair at times and even rather droll at others. The idea of, spin not actually being rotational spin in no way affects any of the mind numbing arrays of calculations and formulas which successfully utilize that assumed phenomena. However to draw the conclusion that this is proof of the idea is similar to assuming that gravity pulls rather than pushes without realizing the other possibility at all! In the case of the electron and other particles; many propose that the spin is rotational which causes the spinning point of charge to magically create a magnetic dipole which then becomes a spinning electric charge to another reference frame. Would you want to be a passenger on that frame?!

Calculations and assumptions of the eV 'energy' state of quantum and fundamental particles has been an evolution beginning with an arbitrarily connected relationship between electron motion and the supposed affect (by miraculous cause) on the size and spin moments of these particles and there appears to be the magical ability to call 'energy' 'mass' and 'mass' 'energy' at will. By G-theory this whole idea is purely hypothetical and firmly ensconced in the 'miracle' department because it factually demonstrates many anomalous and weird results by a marriage of weird physics and weird mathematics.

Of course the whole mish-mash is glossed over with a high degree of technical finesse and finally gouached over with a liberal dose of 'physics speak' highlighted with a mind boggling array of equation, technical diagrams and graphs.

I will give the deserving scientist credit where it is due, for stating the obvious and attempting to find answers to the many dilemmas evident in those postulations.

Spin may well be a twist of semantics, but the real problem though is that once the 'energy' values have been fudged to fit the formula E=mc2 (which by the way can only be accurate for a photon in a real universe at zero k), a form of science can be presented which interrelates fairly comfortably, albeit with artful rounding off and cheeky interpolations and this then allows it to somehow evince credibility. Of course this might be vehemently denied by anyone who just learned stuff in college and hasn't actually studied the centuries-long evolution of the science.

My main objection is that (whether by design or not) physicists have ended up creating a closed system with various laws, assumptions, mathematical formulas and algorithms that only apply to substantiate that system. Such a self supporting system can't really apply to the world of empirical physics which disallows objects from 'walking around with no mass on' or even worse existing only as virtual reality! I contend that virtual reality can never exist as a non real particle of matter unless it has been mistakenly for a virtual force, which in itself is a misnomer because 'virtual' forces are real; they just have no matter content.

Science seems to be caught in a bind of its own manufacture and the whole load needs to be dumped and the useful pieces recovered. This may actually turn out to be the whole lot. I suspect this might just be the actual case; however we should bear in mind the idea that all may not be as currently assumed. I myself believe that as far as the magnificent science has ventured, it has lost its way and is now thrashing around in the jungle and wandering endlessly in the circles of proving its own self by itself. Has the rescue team arrived yet?

This might seem to be a rather strange observation to make considering the massive scientific and technological advances being made in what generally appears to be great strides.

This tech boom is very obvious to anyone with half a brain (myself included) but dare we allow ourselves to miscomprehend without the unintended consequences of limiting those advances to just strides? Why not leaps and bounds? Technology has shown its ability to streak ahead of the scientific knowledge pool but there are limits.

I won't put all scientists in the same basket but there'll be some who think that somehow their mathematical prowess is conclusive evidence in itself of the soundness of their theories. This is elitism of the worst kind and can only end in academic stalemate if someone doesn't cry out very loudly and often. "The Emperor has no clothes!!"

Of course this is going to be countered by--- "But your own theory contains miraculous and inexplicable forces and causations as well" I will readily admit that, but (in common with all theories), at the basement level there are the expected unknowns and many steer well clear of such a contentious area of thought because the idea of God comes to mind as the creator as well as the sustainer of the fundamental processes even. Please also consider the fact that 'unknowns' are not magical unless they defy known laws of physics.

This of course brings me back to relativity. If you think that relativity is the 'locked in stone' theory for going forward, then after having studied this thesis I fully suspect that you will by now, be engaged in reassessing that opinion.

We would all like to know the truth I guess but some of you might be afraid of where the search may end up. In any case how can we arrive at anything approaching the truth if we don't question existing theories with boldness and forget our petty antes?