Scientific Discovery with profound implications!

Originally posted by MainframeII
- There are many reasons that GPS satellites have their clocks can slow down though not fully as per Einstein’s theory. The one reason, I’ll take it from argument explaining why spacecraft clocks have increased in time passed. It is possibly due to the stresses of space travel that have adversely affected the clocks. Essentially space radiation damage these clocks or interfere with the normal operation of these clocks. Another explanation is that these clocks are badly built. Another explanation is that it is a combination the two prior reasons and there’s more reasons. I can argue this indefinitely. You just have to consider all conceivable and inconceivable possibilities in order to find the truth. Take for example your wrist watch. Continually accelerate it at enormous forces and then put it under an X-Ray machine for several hours and I can assure you it will not function correctly. Radiation, depending

[edit on 4-9-2009 by MainframeII]

That is plausible, but still unsupported by your theory right? if your theory requires a new mechanism for the clocks to slow down, then you need to find this mechanism conclusively, otherwise you have a more complicated theory than the one we had before. Given two, equally effective theories, and given that none is an absolutely true description of reality, then the theory with the least number of ad-hoc parts is the most useful.

Your reasons for clocks slowing down is plausible, but ad-hoc until supported conclusively by data.

And, dare I say, if atomic clocks work by counting the number of, say, alpha particles or some other type of particles bombarding a detector, then exposure to excess radiation would be expected to make them run faster, not slower. right? I would think that those clocks are shielded against stray radiation for that very reason, if a guy with no nuclear physics background (me) can think of it, surely a NASA team of scientists thought of shielding those clocks.

-rrr

[edit on 4-9-2009 by rickyrrr]

Originally posted by Penumbra
reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts

 

It is my understanding that what the current model is called is an electron cloud and that the electrons are at times in random places in this electron cloud and the only way to determine where they are is through probability. That is, you can tell where they will most likely be and not be. The fact of the matter is. is that they do orbit around the nucleus in some way. Now by no means am I saying that this is how the planets act but I would think that if you are going to shoot down half of the people on this forum you should explain how it actually works.

www.universetoday.com...

I totally agree. The fact of the matter is that the current thinking of an atom is that the electron's form a cloud and appear in one spot and then another and we can only guess where they will be by using probability theories and math. I've even heard before that the cloud it self is more like a vibrating mass of energy that surrounds the nucleus. Either way, if we were to call one of the protagonists that make the cloud an electron and give it a physical characteristic at all (square shape, circular shape, hell make it look like a clowns face if you want) and not just an electrical charge, it still does not pass thru the nucleus. The only way to get to the other side of something, to me at least, is to go around it if you do not go thru it. It may not be a perfect orbit like our planets, but im willing to bet that it has at least a parabolic shape as far as the line it takes to go around the nucleus. This all of course if it has an actual "physical mass" more than just a negative electric charge. Either way, we will probably never know since we can not just snap our fingers and have an atom's cloud stop vibrating by slowing it down to view the "orbit" of how it gets from point A to point B for a second or two to take a picture.

The OP might be saying something that everybody has been "feeling" for years (anybody who has seen men in black and then read this would say they believe the same thing lol), but like he said, he is challenging people to think outside of the box and challenge the "authorities" of physics. Where would we be right now if Gallileo had not done the same thing and gone back and revisited previous observer's thoughts on things and challenged them? Would we still be thinking that everything revolves around us? Right or wrong, he may just be on to something just as far as going back and revisiting Einsteins theory and challenging it. Einsteins theories are obviously not the end all be all for physics, if so we wouldnt need to expound on anything else and use hist theories for every model that comes about. Since they are not, we must find ways to improve upon them in some fashion or another. Maybe the op's theory is flawed, why not find ways to make it work and solar systems where it would work? If you can find where it will work, maybe you can find out why it wont work in others? Either way, people shouldnt be so dissmissive of something new.

F=MA
FEMA
(Isaac Newton)

Before I start, I'm not trying to make this personal and I don't want this to seem like an attack. This is basically a low level peer review, which if you've ever had something peer reviewed it can be brutal. And it should be like that. If you are entirely genuine then take this as an opportunity to test, expand, or modify your theory.

Originally posted by MainframeII


First off there is a lot of “anomalous” evidence favouring this theoretical model beyond the simple and intuitive nature of the theory.

1. What is the other anomalous evidence beyond the GPS and Astronaut items you mentioned? And why do these examples fit your theory better than theories?

- Solar system diagram in the paper is just a simplistic snapshot in order to concey the hypothesis, much how many textbooks portray it. In this theoretical model, the star system is in concept accelerated in the passage of time so that 1 second our velocity frame of reference = 3x10^8 seconds passes the quantum frame of reference. That’s 3472 years passed at the quantum scale for 1 second or ours (Neptune gas planet would have orbited the atomic nucleus 24 times in that second – inner gas giants many more times).

Here, you've taken the speed of light and transposed it onto the solar system. It doesn't mean anything, you can take that value and apply it to whatever you like. It doesn't reflect reality, it's just you placing numbers somewhere and giving them a definition.

Speed of light= 3x10^8 m/s

So you eliminate the distance, and say that this is how time relates between the two levels. This is just number matching, it's not backed by evidence. You have equations in your paper concerning this, but that doesn't mean anything. I can sit here and make equations all day with known constants of physics, and if incorporate other constants I made up it's going to come out to something.

Within that 1 second, accounting for unknown forces, influences like stray objects or gravitational waves (or our observational electron telescopes – equivalent being gas giant planet bombardment)

When you say unknown forces are you saying physics, the universe, is accounting for these?

Within that relative minute or second, try to pin point it any electron. You can’t using classical mechanics unless you accounted for all unknown factors as described in this theoretical model by tying in Newton and Einstein with quantum mechanical theory.

I assume you're referencing Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. I'm not sure how what you've said above supports your paper, you're just stating that locating the position of an electron can be difficult, impossible if you know the momentum.

- Other matching atoms and systems scale relationships within this framework would also derive S constant.

Ok, here is one of my big problems with your theory. You can't just say, well this theory works for solar systems when they look exactly like ours or similar enough to an atom. It's like playing a guessing game from one to ten, where I always guess seven. Then I say, well my theory of seven is correct when the person happens to think of seven. To be a constant, a constant, a foundation upon which the rests of physics can safely use in almost any scenario knowing that it will reflect reality, it cannot be limited to instances where it seems to work. Pi is always 3.145159, the speed of light is always 'c'. Your value of 'S' is only based on numbers within this solar system, you have yet to show it apply to anything outside of this confined area. A constant is universal.

This considering and compensating for gravitational lensing. Our observational data can derivate from actuality the further an object is due to gravitational lensing, or what I call space-time refraction of photonic light.

Ok, here's the first strike of the BS detector. "Photonic light". Light is made of photons, photons are the fundamental unit of electromagnetic radiation. All light is made of photons. Photonic light doesn't mean anything.

What do you mean it derivates from actuality? It appears that you took the term gravitational lensing, and just called it spacetime refraction of photonic light.

- Different compositions of star systems currently observable can be explained by the variety of states any element and molecule can take such as plasma and ionic states. Essentially chemistry can be interchanged in this model between atomic/quantum and celestial objects/systems.

No, it can't. You can't just say well it's all going to match up. You appear to have not researched much astronomy or astrophysics. I gave you four or five specific examples of discovered star systems, which directly invalidated a portion of your conclusions.

"Essentially chemistry can be interchanged." No, it can't. You can't get away with saying things like essentially. You have nothing to support that statement. Nothing about those star systems essentially matched your model. A Jupiter sized planet orbiting it's star at 0.11 AU, one tenth of the distance from the Earth to the Sun, does not fit. There are no inner rocky planets, 'S' is calculated using the radius of our solar system as a factor. You can't merely say, it's a hydrogen atom/ion because the planet is far too close to fit within your model and constant. You also can't say, well this theory doesn't apply to that sort of system, because if that is the case then 'S' isn't a constant. It's a number you get when you take solar systems measurements and pair them with chemical measurements. That's it.

- String theory vs. this theoretical model. This model makes quantum and celestial objects interchangeable and gives a good reasonable framework to work with. The reference objects in this theoretical model are the very comprehensible celestial objects we’re all familiar with and not some an imaginary string that was invented. Physically understood objects, quantum and celestial, are the building blocks in this theory. Not something imaginary.

1. Quantum and celestial objects are not interchangeable. They are not subject to the same levels of forces or factors. There are so many differences in the quantum world that it isn't even worth listing.

2. It is not a good, reasonable framework because it shows no application outside of the solar system. You say it does, but you have yet to offer any proof of this claim.

3. Physically understood objects? Beyond the way you've defined the quantum world, you make no mention of quantum particles or forces. No mention of quarks, leptons, hadrons, or the like. No mention of super- symmetry, super-imposition, or the other strange properties of the quantum world. You can't tie the quantum and newtonian universe without addressing all of these concerns. If there is a constant, then it must take all of that into account.

Radiation, depending the intensity and type, can obliterate normal matter ... it slows down not speeds up making the evidence of clocks speeding up even more interesting and favouring this theory.

No, it doesn't favor the theory. Scientists, much more educated than all of us here, spent their time designing these experiments under rigorous examination. They don't just throw this stuff out there to see how it works. I'm not saying there couldn't be flaws, I'm saying you can't just state they could be wrong so it supports your theory. There is no correlation, and your guesses on why they may be poor do not stack up against people who actually carried out an experiment to test for this specific property of relativity.


continued...




[edit on 4-9-2009 by Parabol]

you do know we just found a planet going in the wrong direction right?

my problem is that people misunderstand 2 things scale + why

math on its own is both applied and also created you in its nature resulting in a mirror effect, the only reason for this is YOU.. life as a function of the universe results in pattens, your reality / life is the odd number, but here is the twist, you came from chaos / fractal and in order for the universe to self replicate requires you to ask why =]

you are the grand unification the start and the end.. you complete the loop

no you = no nothing kinda obvious

=] no need to say thank you

--the Universe is revolving because of you.---

this was a comment not made by me but another fellow ats member take note of it.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

- Currently there is no theory, not even the fabled string theory, that explains what electrons, neutrons or protons truly are and in addition gives a model to work with for other quantum-celestial matching.

Neither does yours. You just assigned ideas to them. Einstein, Feynman, Oppenheimer, all of these guys were interested in the same things you're talking about. If you think you can just say that rocky planets are neutrons, suns have celestial protons inside of them, and that gas giants are electrons and that you've solved it, you are sadly mistaken. There is no physical, empirical evidence to suggest any of those thoughts are true. You also speak of quantum celestial matching as if it's a given, testing and accepted by scientists. That's like me saying there are many women who have a faulty model for selecting men to date because they don't match up with my Parabol-Beautiful Women matching. It doesn't mean anything.

- There is currently no theory that explains what force fields truly are. They are a product space-time wave interaction between wave sources (objects) adhering to wave theory. Quantum observations show clearly that electrons vibrate the surrounding space in a wave pattern then so must Jupiter…we just don’t readily see it with the naked eye.

"Then so must Jupiter". No! That doesn't mean anything, it's just you relating two concepts. There is no evidence to prove Jupiter or gas giants behave like electrons.

Force fields, I'm assuming pertains to electromagnetic and gravitational fields. You feel no one has explained this, and you have by stating that they are the result of particles interacting?

"Space-time [What the entire physical universe is apart of] wave interaction [two waves meeting] between wave sources [every particle in the physical universe] adhering to wave theory [an already established portion of science."

What you said = "Scientists have not explained what force fields are, but I know that they are the result of two particles interacting." This does not support your theory, it states the obvious and is a contradiction to your statement that science doesn't understand energy fields.

- There is currently no theory that unifies two distinct paradigms of physics together so seamlessly, with small modifications to Einstein’s work, than the theoretical model presented in ‘Realitivistic Relativity’ and as remotely as simple.

1. There are a million seams in this thing, you choose to ignore them or make statements like 'essentially' it will work this way, which offers no explanation.

2. It appears simple, because it is. It appears simple in the way that a child's drawing appears simple when placed next to a talented artist. There are so many things you did not cover. Your paper is less than 20 pages (taking out title page, pictures, etc.) and in no way could cover enough ground to unify, to UNIFY physics.

3. Your calculation of S is arbitrary and has no basis in the physical laws of the universe outside of the fact that the numbers used reflect the solar system we live in. Using the mass of Jupiter as a basic standard for the charge of an electron is pointless.

So when we see a gas giant that is 10 times the size of Jupiter how do you account for that? Electrons, protons, and neutrons do not change size. An atom of oxygen looks exactly like every other oxygen atom. They weigh exactly the same (not getting into ions and the like here, just a basic atom).

Every electron in every atom has the same charge, how do you account for the variation in size of gas giants when Jupiter's mass is supposed to be relatively equal to the charge of an electron? If you cannot answer this question, your entire paper is without merit.

Thank you all for pondering my work. I could hope for nothing less from all of you. I will continue to ask you continue sharing this paper with friends, colleagues, teachers and professors. Let’s break in a new era in science, if by nothing else then to make people think outside the box.

Can you give us the names of scientists or engineers, and the universities or institutions they work with, who have reviewed or supported this theory?

Can you give us your specific qualifications concerning science and engineering? Your website contains no information about schools attended or graduated from. While I will be the first to say that you can self educate without getting a piece of paper from a college or university, it is also much more difficult. Scientists are not robots incapable of thinking out of the box. The same curiosity you hold is in them too. The concept of dismissing (i'm not saying you have) their work because they are following established science is pure ignorance. They are aware that certain theories may be incorrect or incomplete, but you have to work with the best information you have. It is not for the scientist to concern with why things occur, but experimenting to see how they do. The universe always gives you the correct answer when you test it, the problem is determining what question it answered.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Parabol]

Original poster is clearly interested in cosmology and the quantum world, and is willing to sacrifice time.

Be bold and go study them in university (or something) if you can.

reply to post by Parabol

the problem is determining what question it answered.

the problem is not the answer but indeed the question.. this has took mee over20 years

the question IS the answer and guess who is asking? You are =resulting in self replication of the very universe its self

but then again he died lol

I wanted to break down some of the math you used in your paper and I had a few questions/converns.

Radius of Be Atom = 105 pm [picometers]
Kuiper Belt ranges from 50 AU to 100 AU
Radius of the Solar System = 75 AU

1. The selection of the solar system radius is odd to me. There are many variables you could place here depending on how you define it. If the radius of the solar system is from the Sun to Pluto, then the radius is 39.5 AU. Calculated from the sun to the last gas planet, Neptune, is ~ 30 AU. If you calculate the radius from the sun to the known extent of the Kuiper belt then it's about 50 AU, using the scatter disk ~ 100 AU.

Now the question is, why include the belt and disk? What in the atom is analogous to these random icy objects which require this calculation to take them into account?

If the number for the atomic radius of Beryllium only extends to the electrons, which it does, then why does the value of the solar system used extend 40 AU beyond the last gas giant? I don't see how the Kuiper Belt or Scatter Disk are worth doubling the value used for the radius. What is the purpose of this?

You state later in your paper than the difference in size for Uranus and Neptune may be the result of valence electrons being shared. So why not extend the solar system radius to half the distance between our solar system and the closest one? If we are bonded and not a free atom floating about then we could use the measure from our star to the next as a way of determining the radius of the solar system, which is how they uses bonds to measure the radius of the atoms to supply your figure of 105 pm for Beryllium.

2. From wikipedia: "The Kuiper belt (pronounced /ˈkaɪpər/, rhyming with "viper"),[1] sometimes called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is a region of the Solar System beyond the planets extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 55 AU"

The Kuiper belt does not range from 50 to 100 AU as you stated. To say this makes it seem as if the solar system extends to 50 AU where the belt begins, which it does not.

S = radius of the Beryllium atom / radius of the solar system

That is it. That is all S equals, it says nothing about the rest of the universe, about electrons, about rocky planets or gas giants, nothing. All this value states is the mathematical relationship between the numbers used. No reason or worth has been shown to apply this calculation elsewhere.

S = Solar Radius (m) / Beryllium Radius (pm)
S= 1.042x10^23

First, the way these equations are presented is horrible. The time was taken to convert AU's to meters, but not to convert picometers to meters. And then once the equation was finished, the unit of meters was left off. The value taken for S here should be in meters, which was not labeled. That is basic high school science to label your units, it is a very important piece of information to know about a value.

S = c(0)^2.71858....

1. The symbol for the speed of light is used, but the value of 'e' is written to 31 decimal places. Completely unnecessary, it clouds the equations and has no purpose or place other than to make it seem more complicated. It would be one thing to use the first 5 or so, but to take it 31 places out is ridiculous. It is an irrational number, it doesn't end, it would be like writing pi out to that many places.

2. Why present the value of a constant like 1 AU at the beginning but not do the same for c and e? It's confusing to see the numbers used and then to tell the reader what those numbers stood for.

Even if this is all correct you really need to rework that section. The type of people who would peer review something like this would put it down upon seeing that kind of organization. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I have a degree and wrote many papers, as well as taking courses which the entire focus was learning the proper way to write papers. Your paper needs to be in format with the rest of the scientific community. To someone who doesn't write these things for a living it looks professional but I see a ton of errors. I know something like having the abstract on it's own page seem trivial, but when you're looking through a ton of papers it really helps to have them all formatted the same. When you get to one that isn't, the reader doesn't feel motivated to move beyond the abstract because they can already tell the person hasn't been trained well or at all. Your paper could be great but you just gave them a reason to move on to the next one. I know it seems dumb but if you want to increase your chances of being read and reviewed every little bit helps, and it will.

This thread could be titled: "What atom # is our Solar System?"

I just did a quick skim and didn't notice if there was a point beyond that question. Maybe someone can help summarize or point where to start if there is one (in the pdf).


[edit on 4-9-2009 by dzonatas]

How do you account for the "lattice" structure of atomic particles that is not found in the universe in large objects?

So I thought I would see if you had posted this on other forums and had similar discussions there. Nothing crazy, you seem genuine, but I found a question you answered which sums up my problem with this paper and your theory.

Why should the two be related?

Electrons are fundamental, Jupiter is not. you do know that we have discovered larger (and smaller) planets in this universe?


[MainframeII]: True, but are some of their masses equal to Jupiters which would then equate to the same value? And perhaps Jupiter like planets, just like electrons, are common to star systems as electrons are to atomic systems.

What you just said was this: "I'm willing to look at the instances which support my theory, but do not address those which do not." You said "some" of them may be the size of Jupiter, what about those that are not? How do you explain those? If you can't address or answer that question, it invalidates everything else. That would have been a stopping point for me, if I couldn't find a way to solve that.

You're resting the entire paper on the hopes that maybe planets exactly the size of Jupiter are common, even though the range of data collected on extrasolar planets does not support this. Obviously we don't have much data compared to what is out there, but either way, that's a pretty big supposition. The whole paper is one leap like that to the next, well then maybe this could work that way, which means this would do this, and so on. The initial equation based off seemingly arbitrary choices is the only thing holding any of this up.

EDIT:

You claimed that people are looking at it, many "scientists and engineers" are loving it, but you haven't had it peer reviewed. Your site states the following as to why...

First off I understand the need for a form of peer review but peer review is innately faulty for many reasons. It is inherently subjective even though reviewers try to keep things objective, those who actually try. ...

That’s just one problem that bleeds into the next problem with peer-review. Peer-review makes absolutely no business sense!! ...

Take the business analogy to the next level and market the theory essentially selling it to any audience you decide on that otherwise peer review would restrict you from.

Complete bull. The process of peer review is so that other scientists can read it, knowing that the paper has been at the least checked for errors in data, format, intelligibility, and understanding. It's like doing a background check on the paper. They don't have to agree with the conclusions or interpretations if the data they use and means to manipulate it fall within the basic rules of physics and logic. If this is how you feel about peer review then your understanding of the scientific world and the process are incorrect. If you feel confident in your theory and it's accuracy, it should be difficult for someone to counter it. You can't argue with the truth, if it's there, peer review will see it. Honestly, I think a PhD would tear this apart and I think you're scared of that.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Parabol]

www.crystalinks.com/sg.htmlreply to post by MainframeII


Some years ago when contemplating the nature of the universe and beyond, having studied lots of forms of religion, academically, including 'alternative', as well as studying physics, psychology, biology, chemistry, history, anthropology etc, I came to the conclusion that fractals, holding the most basic shape in existence and being geometric, which again holds the mathematical keys, chemical keys etc etc holds the 'universal key' to comprehending 'universal truths and realities' There are direct correlations between all these areas where fractals are the link.

I posted on my myspace account some pictures and a link the the sacred geometry site which also contains some fractals.

Interestingly you seem to conclude something similar.

www.spiraloflight.com...

www.crystalinks.com...




[edit on 4-9-2009 by theabsolutetruth]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by theabsolutetruth]

Parabol - mind if I ask what school you went to, your degree, and what your occupation is now? Just pure curiosity on my part....nothing sinister

Well done for offering honest opinions and good advice. I hope the OP (who should also be congratulated for his efforts, of course!) addresses your points - even though I won't understand a lot of what you're both saying

let me add

proton
neutron
electron
?

what am i missing?

and why be obsessed with fractals? jeeessus

talk to walls why dont i


[edit on 4-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

Nope.
Atoms don't "revolve around like mini solar systems". This model has been disproved decades ago.
If it was even remotely so, I sure wouldn't want to be in a solar system going through a state change---it may just get a tad bit chilly or toasty.
"As above, so below" just didn't cut it----that's why we have quantum theories to try to explain why classical physics don't work on the very small.

Study more and keep thinking out of the box, but theories that have a possibility of of being proven as fact need to be based on fact in the first place, or a new fact has to be proven to base it upon.

reply to post by MainframeII


Dear MainframeII

Ok lets see if I have this right.

Light speed is no barrier.

SETI is totally looking in the wrong medium.

All this according to your theory anyway. Am I missing something else???

Time and space are functions of torque. In the case of our Universe… It’s continual torque in two directions (+ flow/ - flow). Here is the theory in its complete form:





Unified Theory for the Universal Structure: System of Truth



blog.myspace.com...





Here’s my main profile: www.myspace.com...



Research Dale Pond - Keely and SVP
Marko Rodin - Coil and Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry


All minds think alike...

I think unification can only come by adding the 5th dimension.

Both Light and Gravity are waves, waves that can affect each other and are known to be related.. what ocean are these waves being made in? we can see light everywhere, in the darkest void of space, in a shoebox with a flashlght lol

anyways, this ocean is another dimension, one laid over the current 4 we live in.

Now that we know where to look for those gravitons at, lets get cracking


speaking of cracking, anyone know how much light it would take to crack into the 5th dimension?

Hi Mainframe

Firstly well done for actually thinking and doing! I don't approve of your tabloid thread title however.

I won't waste my time to point out the holes in your theory. This has been done more than adequately by others in this thread. When you produce a paper you should include a section that points out the known flaws of your theory. Also this is the first time I have seen a reference from Penguin Books in a physics paper!

What journals have you submitted this paper to? I ask because there are now a lot of "journals" that take your money and thats about it.

However, you and the other posters may be interested in the articles here:

NewScientist Link

You may need a membership to view the whole of some articles.