It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


General Principles of Reality

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:10 PM
Hey Guys!

This is a link to my theoretical physics paper/book I've been working on for sometime. Hope you enjoy it and please feel free to pass it along to friends who might find it interesting. Its still very much a work in progress and my first attempt at writing an ebook.

I've already shared it with a whole bunch of people with hopes of getting it published, but ultimately I just want to share it so that everyone takes from it something positive and a new perspective on reality.

Just a quick summary:
This book is an initial attempt at aggregating a collection of theories derived by this book's author over the course of a decade through numerous thought experiments surrounding the notion of relative realities into a clear list of interrelated Universal principles. This collective theory is a possible candidate for a true theory of everything physical. The accumulative drive of these theories and principles pushes a very real underlining revision on the perception of everything and is a must read for anyone truly interested in understanding our Existence. Throughout this book, you will be introduced to many new concepts, all with the same common underlining link, such as:

* defining realities and relative realities
* defining a new concept of dimension
* defining the true effect of gravity and charge
* redefining Newton's Gravitational formula and introducing the Q transform
* defining Space-Time Density and its New Universal Law
* show a new perspective on most known physics
* defining charge and neutrality
* detailing the relation between Quantum and Celestial realms
* defining Space-Time Buoyancy (anti-gravity)
* detailing Space-Time Buoyancy (anti-gravity) applications
* defining the formulation of Space-Time Distortion
* detailing the link between Electricity and Distortion
* defining Electro-Distortion equations
* redefining Light and Electromagnetic Waves
* detail that the Speed of Light (c) is not constant or a limit
* detailing Faster Than Light speed applications including Quantum Radio
* redefining Einstein's Relativity equations
* redefining Einstein's Energy equation
* attempt to explain zero and its relation to dimension and realities
* detailing the true effect behind elementary and molecular bonds
* touch on entropy, aging and its link to Earth
* touch on evolution
* explain Existence

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:43 PM
Man, I haven't read your ebook yet, but as an existentialist with interests in the nature of reality, I am stoked.

A few years ago I had shingles, and put together the foundations of something I call dimensional mechanics. Just reading your topic list reminds me of it. I'll get it put on line and send you a link to it.

Thanks for sharing!

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:49 PM
Looks very interesting. S&F for you.
I hope somewhere in your work the concept of infinity is incorporated.
It has always stumped my existentialism, and pushed me into a non-dual understanding of the "universe".
Hence my avatar.
I shall delve into it in the next few days.
Thanks for sharing your work though.

[edit on 8/2/2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:01 PM
Thanks. Do hope you all enjoy it.

And regarding infinity, it does touch on it throughout the book. Essentially all of reality, space & time, matter (all including dimension) and several other aspects are infinitely self-defining. To better explain, space-time is infinitely homogeneous thus not porous at any scale. Also, one reality may contain or support the next reality infinitely and the only limitation to perceiving this is a barrier of perception which includes scale and relative passage of time between realities as it pertains to space-time "substance".

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by MainframeII

Man, my brain is stretched just from the first couple of pages. Are you working on a Phd?
Are you a scientist? Could you tell us a bit about your background?
In any case, I think I will just buy the book so I can support you and so I can take my time with it.

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 01:19 PM
Thanks for compliment. No I'm not working on my PhD and my background is in engineering. One of my passions throughout life has always been physics and truly understanding it physically, being able and wanting to envision how things actually worked in my mind since early childhood. The more abstract something was the more I studied it and not only in regards to physics but how people actually think and perceive things which I believe is meshed with actual, tangible reality. I got into engineering because of this insatiable desire to understand things truly and then apply them. To just understand something and then not apply it defeats the purpose of understanding it hence engineering. So I developed a hypothesis that if a number of people were to develop conceptual tools, aids, in order to envision abstract physics tangibly that ultimately all of us would eventually arrive at the same conclusion or results. These conceptual tools have to run of the premise of relativity, as all things in out minds relate to each other, so that we can relate the abstract to something tangible and easily understood which then we would extrapolate the actuality of the abstract physics from the conceptual tool. For some of us this process might take longer and for other perhaps not so long. Essentially, I believe all of the scientific and non-scientific community have been heading towards the same conclusions and results, the only unfortunate thing is that certain existing theories are too complex and presented at a level of complexity that to understand it tangibly requires much more effort thus much more time before resulting at the same conclusions. This is not to say physics is simple, but the underlining concepts and approaches don't have to be complicated. Many of us focus strongly on the mathematics in hopes that it will enlighten us, which is good so don't misunderstand me such as it did for Einstein with E=mc^2, but we must be careful that the mathematics doesn't give us an imaginary representation on the actuality of physics. We are all physicists because we are all physical and live in a physical environment thus can understand it, to a certain level, tangibly and also be able to manipulate it tangibly. If we all use this underlining understanding of physics then we can derive our own theories which based on my initial premise will eventually result at the same conclusions and results.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by MainframeII]

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 08:02 AM
Just to point this out for those interested, the new relativistic mass equation presented in the book equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter to the value of an electron charge which is 1.6x10^-19 C. It was something I did not expect to find but the new equation was the one that gave me insight into this relationship which was the catalyst why I wrote this book. The new relativistic mass equation was derived using the Reality Scale value of S which remarkably related to the speed of light and Euler's mathematical constant and was further derived from a new relativistic mass-density equation. Essentially mass-gravity at the celestial scale is equal to charge at the quantum scale. To understand how this derived, download a copy of the ebook which is absolutely FREE.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 05:11 PM

Is this you second thread on this? I saw the other yest and downloaded your pdf, I m ust say, incredible. You seem to come to similar conclusions as myself, yet you show equations etc, physics, I can only offer my opinion, but for me that is enough. I am half way through your paper, I will continue reading and get back to you. P.s you state that you don't agree with the bg bang theory, have you seen Hawking's new theory on it? Probably not right, but I feel he is getting closer. Anyway, he states that all possibilities and eventualities were created on the initial burst of the singularity and in the next billionth of a nanosecond, all but our reality had 'disappeared' as ours has the most potential for life. I agree up until 'they all disappeared', I think they all settled into their own frequency, seemingly dying from our perspective. EMM

I'm replying to another thread that is now closed.

Thanks. Like I said I believe most theorist have been heading in the same direction for sometime, each using their own approach (conceptual tools/aids), so if my theories are similar to yours I don't think its just random coincidence.

You're right, I don't "necessarily" believe in the Big Bang theory. I haven't read Stephen Hawkins new theory. I'm sure, like all of us, he's somewhat right if not more than most, but I personally don't believe we should be trying to quantify a starting point for the Big Bang theory and perhaps we should be looking at an infinite series of existences and that ours is just one of an infinite many. The begining of our existence happened when we realized we, possibly collectively, existed (at the celestial, quantum, sub-quantum, etc... levels). This is very abstract, but think about this, your existence happened when you were given birth by your mother who existed before you. Perhaps this is how this whole thing started but on an abstract, unimaginable level, though still relative to something we can tangible understand.

I will look at Mr Hawkin's theory now that you have mentioned it so thanks telling me.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by MainframeII]

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 08:38 PM
I've looked into Mr Hawkins' new theory and its definitely interesting but I don't agree with it fully.

posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:44 PM
Here is a discussion I had on another forum you might find of interest:

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 01:03 PM
This is an answer I recently gave someone which I'd like to share:

Anyone who calculates the age of the Universe to be 14 billion years old, and those that blindly believe him, are just as bad as those who blindly believe my theories. 14 billion years old is a theory as well based on what they can see and measure currently in the cosmos which is not conclusive by any means.

Planck meter and second are also conventional "theories" that we have blindly accepted. I very strongly believe that they're completely wrong. Plank himself believed there was more to it.

You're a conscious entity and you have mass. Mass is a perception and can only be measure relatively to another piece of mass. Everything is relative, including the way we think.

Large animals have more mass, doesn't mean they have more consciouness or are smarter. The collective make up of our bodies, our brains, the actual structure, is what gives us our unique personal consciousness (be it with denser neurons or not). The more the mass with an less evolved brain is not the same as smaller mass and much more evolved brain. BUT all animals have the "potential" to evolve and surpass their current level of consciousness.

Quarks, neutrinos and tiny particles all become abstract to us and our means of observation because of their size. Read chapter 12 and 15. It explains my theories in forces and quantum particles. Protons and neutrons are miss classified in conventional theory as stated in my theory.

The theory that space-time is infinite was derived from my underlining theory that realities are relative separated by a barrier of perception which involves space and time. If you read the book, the first few pages stipulate that I give credit to classical and modern day science but I take nothing as factual thus to start from fresh perscpective. So whatever is currently accepted, as part of good science, be constantly questioned and reanalyzed. People of faith are sometime critized for blindly following doctrine, the same can be said for scientists blindly following established science. I don't believe my work is pseudoscience at all because that would imply all proposed scientific theories are pseudoscience. The current science establishment unspokenly requires that anyone with a theory take very small steps in the claims of their theories, I unfortunately didn't do that which automatically labels it all under pseudoscience. I released a book with all my theories for many reasons. I already knew this is how it was going to be blindly percieved by some and I'm not calling you out. The fact you logically refuted my theories is admirable, though I don't think you read my book.

In the book I state that 1 space-time density is the space-time density as we percieve it being expelled at the Earth's surface. Its not the same as the density of space-time being expelled by Jupiter or the Sun, but would be measured relative to the Earth's space-time density. It's a reference point.

posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 06:33 PM
Another reply I thought would be interesting to share:

It doesn't negate the general theory of relativity, just reverses it on some points. There is alot to explain, so it best you download a copy of the book and flip around though I'd recommend reading from the beginning.

I'll try to explain light. Light, all measurable light, is a space-time vibration produced by excited atoms, but electrons changing orbits cause photons to leave the atomic system. What is actually happening is that these electrons fluctuate/vibrate space-time "substance" medium as they flip orbits in the excited atom. All "known" photons are generated in the same fashion. In my book I talk about space-time vibrations/ripples/fluctuations that are caused by "any" mass moving/accelerating from point A to point B. When it moves it distorts space-time, just like an excited electron. The only difference, the bigger the mass causing the vibration the slower the vibration. The smaller the mass the faster the vibration. Because the source of all measurable light is the same, all currently visible light travels at c. What if the vibration was caused by an object smaller than an electron or off the surface of an electron? First off we couldn't measure or even see this light, but it would still exist and in my book I call this quantum light and sub-quantum light and this light (space-time vibration) is much, much faster than c (I calculate the it speed in the book). You have to download the book to see how this was calculated and described in more detail.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by MainframeII]

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 11:54 PM
Here is another response I gave someone questioning portions of my book explaining the existence of God:

I'll try to explain my reasoning for the existence of God here. Just the other day I explained it to an elderly woman in the same way and she just smiled and agreed. I was happy she understood.


You have 2 locations A and B and they are a distance away from eachother say 10 feet.

What are the things that will happen when you move from A to B? There actually a few things.

1) traverse distance
2) time passes moving from A to B

That's where current science stops and says that it! But its not. There is 1 more things that happens and it can be broke up into:

3a) The person (you) have to want to move from A to nots a given you still have to want it thus conscious will
3b) You have to understand that you are moving from A to B.

If what was moving from A to B was a object you can neglect #3a but #3b still remains because you "the observer" see the object moving from A to B and understand that its moving or undestood that it moved. There is always conscious involvement.

So the 3rd thing to a moving object is:

#3 conscious awareness that understand that it is moving

Even the smallest of life on this planet have basic "instinct" to know is something is moving in front of them, crossing their path.

So dimension, redefined, is space-time-consciousness.

Now what does this say?

Basically, if consciousness is part of space and time, then it must have properties similar to space and time. The one property that both space and time have are that both are infinite. They can start off very small and end up enormously huge to infinity.

So consciousness must be the same. It too must be infinite, where it can start off very small and go to infinity. This means small animals, insects, are a lower level of consciousness compared to a cat or dog. Cats and dog would be less than us on the consciousness meter. Consciousness meaning awareness, understanding, knowledge and enlightenment.

But there is one more thing consciousness eludes to. Anything that is conscious is alive!

Thus at the infinite level of consciousness, that entity is infinitely aware, infinitely understanding, infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely enlightened.

So since consciousness is part of space-time and space and time is everywhere so too is consciousness and since our existence contains all of infinite space-time-consciousness, this makes up the largest single entity with all of space, time and consciousness as its makeup, body or being.

Since this Existence we all live in gave us life, nurtured us and raised us, then this Existence is God.

And God is only one because Existence is only one.

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:39 AM
This addressing the "Einstein's spooky action acts at 10,000 times the speed of light" in regards to my theories:

Here one way to think of it. Star systems are bonded together due to two cause and effects which are relative equivalents to molecular bonds between atoms. The difference is that molecular bonds have a higher concentration of space (space-time density) which effects its relative passage of time to be much faster than our passage of time because more "space" is packed into a portion of our perceivable space (quantum space-time is denser or consider it higher energy). My theory is that atoms and star systems are "relative " equivalents ( These two "cause and effects" that lead to bonding of systems are much faster at the quantum scale...essentiall y c times faster than c (c^2), thus forces at the quantum scale are stronger and cover unimaginable distances c times faster than c. This explains the "spookiness " of this observation. I believe we have to start thinking outside the "box" especially on this one. The "box" is old and decaying...its isotopic half-life is up.

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:50 AM
Checkout "Jupiter is an Electron" video:

Not my proudest vid for being rough & quickly done, but its the content that matters.

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by MainframeII

wonderful work!! i'll definitely have to read more of this later! of all the fields to study for a career, i've been interested in particle physics the most lately.

it sounds like this is gonna be a promising read!
thank you for your effort!

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:05 PM
Thanks for the kind comments. It was a lot of work.

Show the video directly here:

Jupiter is an Electron & the Reality Scale Constant S - Explains how the Reality Scale Constant S was derived and how Jupiter's mass equals an electron charge.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by MainframeII]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by MainframeII]

top topics


log in