Before Einstein few realised that light was packet of energy with a fixed speed that can be solid, wave-form or gaseous in an instant...
Not gaseous, so far as we can tell, and the description 'solid' is somewhat misleading interpretation of 'particle', but... in principle, yes.
I know because it fits into the Grand Unification of the Universal Field Forces.
Or, at least, it might, if we get one - currently we don't have a grand unified theory, because we can't make gravity play nicely with the other fundamental children.
and it all fits into the Holy Bible.
You're going to need to a whole lot more work that just throwing that tidbit out to be able to hold on to the claim that bronze-age middle-Eastern fairy tales and their post-Roman sequels have anything informative to say about quantum gravitational theory.
In its purest form it is an invisible, superabundant, indestructible, dynamic energy, not to dissimilar to dark energy and dark matter combined, that is squashed into atoms via some very special mechanics.
What is? How can you suggest anything compares to dark energy or dark matter when those terms are used because we know nothing about them - they are placeholder terms for highly theoretical possibilities to explain current gaps in our understanding. As to the rest... all energy is invisible (with the exception of photons?); given that energy and matter are variant forms of the same thing and that thing is everything, then by definition it's 'superabundant'; what does 'dynamic' mean in relation to energy?
Mechanics which reverberate through the entire book of science and through every book in the Holy Bible...
By 'book of science' do you mean the various books which relate the findings of scientific enquiry? I'm afraid I strongly suspect any interpretation of the Bible you have that involves advanced field theories says more about your interpretation than it does about the work itself.
Now, it would be a pointless exercise to tell those who are saved...just at the moment...but those who are unsaved at this moment in time might just benefit from what I have to say.
Except that you don't seem to actually be saying very much - you make claims, but can't support or justify them. You can throw in as many post-nuclear science buzzwords as you'd like, but in the end you have the same faith claims as the Catholic Church, but with more syllables in your glossary.
O.