An independent, executable check of G's 420 Code — the unified theory that claims to derive the fundamental constants, and a terminal ethic, from a single axiom.
For G. Either the best fraud and conman I've ever met (I've met my fair share) or a man that should be mentioned alongside Bohr, Einstein, Tesla. I can only thank you by sharing the tools I built to check if your theory holds, to understand which one of the two you are. Sawubona. I see you.
This repository is not G's theory. It is the work of someone who is not the author, who read the corpus, did not believe it could be true, and built a machine to find out. It re-derives G's five headline numbers from a single measured input and tests each against the published experimental value — and indexes his entire falsification registry so the claims can be queried and checked.
G's theory is at the420code.org. It is © G / Studio G, CC BY 4.0. This repo fetches it on demand and never re-hosts it — see NOTICE.md.
Run from one axiom and one measured input (the fine-structure constant α), with zero fitted parameters, all five headline predictions reproduce inside G's stated tolerances:
| Part | Prediction | Residual | Tolerance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Proton/electron mass ratio | 0.010 ppb | 0.017 ppb | ✅ |
| II | Gravitational constant G | 0.69 % | 1.0 % | ✅ |
| III | Neutron–proton mass difference | 2.2 ppm | 5.0 ppm | ✅ |
| IV | MOND acceleration a₀ | −0.67 % | 5.0 % | ✅ |
| V | Dark-sector DE/DM ratio | −1.3 % | 5.0 % | ✅ |
And the reconstruction matches G's own published verify.py (Ø Predictions, Appendix B) to
machine precision — relative Δ of 0.0 — so the check is faithful to his arithmetic, not a
re-interpretation of it.
git clone https://github.com/ajgreyling/the420code-proof
cd the420code-proof
./run.sh mirror # fetch G's corpus from the420code.org (his site welcomes it)
./run.sh build # extract → ingest → gate → report (free, local, offline)
./run.sh scorecard # the table above, with the formulae and the measured sources
./run.sh parity # prove this reconstruction == G's own verify.pyNo API keys. No paid services. No dependencies beyond Python 3 (stdlib only) and pdftotext
(poppler-utils) for the one-time PDF text extraction.
Be precise about the claim, because overclaiming would dishonour the work:
- It proves the theory is internally coherent and reproducible: from G's stated axiom and his one input, his published numbers fall out, by his own arithmetic, within his own tolerances. The derivation is not hand-waving — it computes, and it computes what he says it does.
- It does not prove the theory is true. Reproducing a derivation is not the same as nature agreeing with it. Several of the numbers (e.g. G at 0.69 %) sit close to, but not dead on, the measured values; G discusses why, and publishes the conditions under which he would be wrong.
- "Validation" here means reproducibility + internal consistency + a fully-published falsification surface — the things that separate a serious theory from a crank's fortress. It does not mean experimental confirmation. That is for instruments and time, not for this repo.
What makes the corpus unusually testable: G publishes 549 "kill switches" — explicit, numbered conditions that would falsify specific claims, including the math for each. He hands you the weapons to destroy his own theory. This repo indexes them so you can wield them.
The four axioms S (Selection), B (Break), R (Accumulation), C (Coupling) — derived from the single premise "at least one record exists" (deny it, and you have just made a record) — plus the one measured input α, generate the corpus. The 42 Artist's Proofs climb from that premise through spacetime, quantum mechanics, the forces, cosmology, and — by the same machinery — to a terminal ethic. Every claim is tied to one or more kill switches.
ingest.py lays all of this into a small SQLite graph and gate.py does the thing that makes this
a prover and not an archive: it checks the reconstruction still matches G's script, runs the
five predictions, and fails (exit 1) if any prediction leaves tolerance or the graph is broken.
engine/
verify.py — re-derives G's 5 predictions from α (the executable oracle)
verify_g_original.py — G's verbatim Appendix B script, for parity
test_verify_parity.py — asserts reconstruction == G's script to 1e-12
parse_registry.py — the Master Kill Switch Registry → structured switches
parse_proofs.py — per-proof bodies → richer switches (type, verbatim trigger, moral flags)
ingest.py — builds the canon DB from the fetched corpus
gate.py — fidelity + execute predictions + audit (exit 0/1/2)
report.py — scorecard / proofs / switches / axiom / depends / stats
ollama_enrich.py — OPTIONAL local-model switch classification (offline; not on the prover path)
canon/
schema.sql — the canon DB shape
ks_descriptions.json — curated repairs for a few PDF-mangled rows (durable overlay)
mirror/
fetch.sh, manifest.txt — fetch G's corpus from the420code.org (PDFs are git-ignored)
A kill switch is more than id + status. The parse recovers G's own structure: his published
type (EMPIRICAL / HARD / STRUCTURAL / NON-NEGOTIABLE / …), the verbatim trigger
sentence, and weight flags — including the four moral / non-negotiable switches that are the
conscience of the theory (e.g. the one that voids the entire justice derivation if it is ever used
to classify a race, class, or disability as "destabilizing").
./run.sh switches --moral # the NON-NEGOTIABLE switches — "here is how it must NOT be used"
./run.sh switches --sharpest # the switches G flags as a proof's sharpest test
./run.sh switches --paper AP32 # one proof's switches, weightiest first, with G's verbatim type- The author of this repo did not write, and had no part in, the 420 Code. All credit for the theory is G's.
- The check is deterministic and offline; anyone can reproduce it and is invited to find where it is wrong. That invitation is the whole point — it is the courtesy G extended first, and this repo returns it.
- If the theory is ever confirmed, this repo changes nothing about that. If it is ever falsified, the kill switch that does it is already indexed here, published by G himself.
One axiom. One measured input. Zero fitted parameters.