It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Scientific Discovery with profound implications!

page: 10
84
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
scientific endeavour,in any field,will evolve,through open minded challenging of the old school theories that seem to become "factual"
over time.it wasn't very long ago that the earth was flat,and now we
have evidence of humanity 1,800,000years old.nobody will ever know
everything,but without investigation we'll know nothing.




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


Pretty cool. Myself as well have been thinkin about this since I was taught what an atom was. When I saw a picture in a book and learned how the elctrons revolve around the nucleus, the very first thing I thought was "WHOA, what if the solar system is a tiny atom inside a giant!" The comparisons are quite strong. I love the idea a lot. Great find



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Would this mean that Gravity and Strong Force are somehow related? From what I thought, Gravity is a much weaker force than what holds the nucleus together. I mean, if the forces are relative to size, then wouldn't that make the strong force of an atom the most powerful force in the universe? Also, since gravity is what binds all celestial objects; where does strong force relate to the Solar System? The inner planets (Nuetrons) are bound to the Sun (Protons) with the same gravity strength relative to the size and distance from the Sun. Also, I'm curious as to why in an atom, the electrons are so much smaller but in the solar system theyre larger than Nuetrons? Just very curious as to your thoughts on this. Keep up the great ideas man. I'm diggin it.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
nevermind.

second line....

[edit on 10-9-2009 by dna42]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I have a Samhain birthday, born a few years before you and since a child have shown natural interest in 'paganism', spirituality generally, stars, the sky, ancient learnings and other universes and 'beings' from such places, as well as math, physics, psychology, philanthropy etc and have had abduction experiences (though generally I don't go around saying this and only talk about such things anonymously as on here, for fear of ridicule or unwanted 'abuse') often, and from a very young age with witnesses.

I grew up in Scotland in a druid area (though I didn't realise it until a teenager) and (though I didn't realise it at the time) 20 years ago moved to the south west of England famous for stone circles, crop circles, UFO's, etc. and have been naturally inclined to study everything from the runes, buddhism, egyptology to astronomy etc.

All these things have always just seemed the natural order to me and have been learned, experienced and studied as they appeared and now being older and wiser, I am able to see the picture a lot clearer as to how all these areas fit together in a sort of mesh of universal truths, all basically aspects or ways of humanity quantifying such aspects of 'godness', totality, 'that which is ultimate' and to which all universal laws comply and are part of the same structure.

There are many ways of trying to explain how the universe became and operates from all disciplines and thankfully now humanity is 'binding' these aspects to realise there are links to these disciplines and is gradually 'joining the dots'.

Interestingly there is such a major flux of knowledge and awakening near to the projected pole shift, and are we not all magnetic beings in the first place.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigenous equity


This is the basic founding principal of Alchemy, as one post stated "as above so below".

I remember one article the author felt that the more we learn about physics the more we will realize that ancient writings were far more advanced than we realize.

We just did'nt understand simplicity masked intelligence. Anyone can complicate a given subject, but true genius is in simplifying to its basic form.


Hermetic principles have been cropping up on my radar very much recently, and as I read this paper I did actually mutter out loud "As above, so below".

Very interesting read, and a thought that has occured to me many times. I was able to see the zoom from one fractal frame of reference to the next, outwards as it were, while on mexican mushrooms. This probably explains why I would NEVER be able to put such an idea into any kind of readable form, let alone accompanied by corroborating mathematics.

Well done!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by radarloveguy
scientific endeavour,in any field,will evolve,through open minded challenging of the old school theories that seem to become "factual"

theories are frameworks of facts, they aren't facts themselves, please learn what theories are.

over time.it wasn't very long ago that the earth was flat,

people have known the earth was round for nearly 3000 years, at least people who know anything.
most people didn't have any knowledge of the earth, nor did they really even care.

and now we
have evidence of humanity 1,800,000years old.nobody will ever know
everything,but without investigation we'll know nothing.

uh no, homo georgicus is not human, its an ancestor of humans. i do agree with you that no one will know everything, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GerhardSA

Originally posted by MainframeII
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


not to attack you man..i like the theory, just an observation on my side. BUT... 3*10^8 = 300,000,000 seconds. which is 5,000,000 minutes which is 83,333 hours, which is 3472 DAYS passed, not years. Simple math.
I hope you didnt make these silly mistakes throughout your paper my man.... publish or submit the paper to a science institution for review


The calculation I posted here was incorrect, but it was completely done off the top of my head and given as a general example of the theory in order to present it. The velocity frame of reference my paper refers to is that of the entire solar/star system. As the whole star system approaches the speed of light, as the theory depicts, from its current velocity in reference to the rest of the Universe, what I call the universal static frame of reference, the inner velocity of the planets will also increase in direct proportion to the increased velocity frame of reference of the whole system. Basically, if the entire system is traveling at the speed of light, the inner orbiting planets/particles will be traveling faster than the speed of light making them appear to be in more than one place at the same time. My theory and math is not wrong I can strongly assure you and it is currently under review and has been for sometime.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by MainframeII]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Would this mean that Gravity and Strong Force are somehow related? From what I thought, Gravity is a much weaker force than what holds the nucleus together. I mean, if the forces are relative to size, then wouldn't that make the strong force of an atom the most powerful force in the universe? Also, since gravity is what binds all celestial objects; where does strong force relate to the Solar System? The inner planets (Nuetrons) are bound to the Sun (Protons) with the same gravity strength relative to the size and distance from the Sun. Also, I'm curious as to why in an atom, the electrons are so much smaller but in the solar system theyre larger than Nuetrons? Just very curious as to your thoughts on this. Keep up the great ideas man. I'm diggin it.


Actually, all forces are caused by the same effect, but the difference is in passage of time which directly affects the strength of the force because force has a time component squared in its acceleration variable. With regards to size, the size of the neutrons and electrons have absolutely never been directly observed (close up). All our instrumentation can "see" are the effects these particles have on each other and other substances as a whole. Because we've never directly seen a neutron or electron (again up close), there are many, many factors we may have failed to consider. My paper explores one such possible failed consideration in regards to the current invariant mass of these particles

[edit on 11-9-2009 by MainframeII]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MainframeII
Actually, all forces are caused by the same effect, but the difference is in passage of time which directly affects the strength of the force because force has a time component squared in its acceleration variable. With regards to size, the size of the neutrons and electrons have absolutely never been directly observed (close up). All our instrumentation can "see" are the effects these particles have on each other and other substances as a whole. Because we've never directly seen a neutron or electron (again up close), there are many, many factors we may have failed to consider. My paper explores one such possible failed consideration in regards to the current invariant mass of these particles


Congrats, this probably the best thesis you have wrote. =)



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


Wow, thats a mind bender. I realize that we cant literally see an atom to definitely say what the sizes of the subatomic particles are, but we do have a knowledge of their mass and their weight as a whole. It's due to this that we now know of the Neutron. At first, science couldnt explain why the atomic weight wasnt making sense. The neutron was deduced to explain this and its mass was relative to the proton. The elctrons are so much less in weight than either of the other 2 particles which can be proven with simple mathematics. Now I realize one object can be heavier than another object of the same mass, but isn't it safe to assume that electrons are much much smaller considering the data?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


Obviously I'm nowhere near as educated as you are and I'm generalizing to "dumb the context" down so I understand a bit better, but certain things I don't understand concerning the time element. I'm not a physicist so can you try to explain in laymans terms how time is relative to the subatomic particle in the way that it is concerning celestial objects. I'm not dumb, just not as knowledgeable as you are by a long shot. Thanx man. Very interesting stuff.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Call me a skeptic, but it is a very interesting theory. Can this be applied to all the other solar systems that that appear to extend out to eternity? In our human life time compared to the time it takes to create and deconstruct a solar system our view of the Milky Way solar system is only a snapshot, at best. So, to extrapolate a theory that will rock-the-world from a handful of planets that ultimately will change size and shape as the solar system collides with another or is sucked into our black hole seems...,well, not the magic bullet.


I certainly am not a mathematician, but, that's my two cents.
Thanks for reading...
Dmend



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Right let me kinda put this "theory" in perspective and point out its flaws ..

The fact is WE are unaware of a BIG part of this question "hence quantum physics"

but on the other hand the connection in of its self is apparent so i do in fact give kudos to the OP for his awareness but that is nothing NEW or ground braking as has been pointed out.. this theory IS NOT NEW as i show with my own picture see page 3 or something..

but If and i do mean IF the atoms are planets.. and it would seem logical in order for it to be so were do the basis of the question "ie chaos" fit in to your equations?

this my friend is the million dollar question

it does not factor into ANY of your calculations does it?

No

you base you model on LOGIC but you can not tell me or even describe were this LOGIC comes from in relation to the formation of the atoms / solar systems can you?

pointing out the obvious is one thing but showing WHY is another..

So No your theory is Wrong .. it may be logical but then you was created via chaos

; ]

shall i tell you what the "grand unification theory is"?

YOU

without the prime parameter there is NOTHING

im sure you understand this by now if not then i would get a better math teacher

[edit on 14-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
no offense but the "general" theory I think you are proposing is our solar system is just an atom in a larger being, creature, tree, universe, whatever, has been around a long time, at least I have whimsically thought about it that way for a long time because my 8th grade science teacher actually proposed something similar. Our universe could just be another being in another larger set of universes, etc. I am not agreeing that is the case but it definitely shows the order of the universe when solar systems resemble the so called basic building blocks of life (atoms).

If you have come up with some equations to prove this then that would be something.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Arrogant don't you think? Your basically saying that one random guy can't discover the unifying theory! (Although it is a hypothesis) Wouldn't that contradict how every other theory / law came about?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
thankyou

i will take a run at your material.

I am close to having a paper published that will be of some interest to you.

Have you published this paper?

arclein



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
from an earlier post of mine -


the only similarity between and electron and jupiter is that they are made of matter and posses mass;
and electron does not spin around its nucleus it occupies all possible positions simultaneously, it does spin around its own axis but "not as we know it Jim" it requires a 720 degree spin to return to the same state - its like you or I spinning around twice to get the same view of the room. The list goes on but please don't think that you should take my word for it and certainly not Dementos, go and read up on physics then develop your own theories.


Now some breaking news for you


WASHINGTON -- For the first time, physicists have photographed the structure of an atom down to its electrons. The pictures, soon to be published in the journal Physical Review B, show the detailed images of a single carbon atom's electron cloud, taken by Ukrainian researchers at the Kharkov Institute for Physics and Technology in Kharkov, Ukraine. This is the first time scientists have been able to see an atom's internal structure directly. Since the early 1980s, researchers have been able to map out a material's atomic structure in a mathematical sense, using imaging techniques.

Quantum mechanics states that an electron doesn't exist as a single point, but spreads around the nucleus in a cloud known as an orbital. The soft blue spheres and split clouds seen in the images show two arrangements of the electrons in their orbitals in a carbon atom. The structures verify illustrations seen in thousands of chemistry books because they match established quantum mechanical predictions.
source


want a second opinion from a chemist?


At atomic scales electrons cannot be thought of as points; instead they are smeared out probability distributions. They don't exist at any given point, there's a chance for a given electron to be found throughout a whole region of space, and the probability of finding it at any given point is given by a probability distribution. These probability distributions are called wave functions, and given an electron's wave function you can calculate the likelihood of getting different results when you take a measurement of the electron. It is a strange aspect of quantum mechanics that you can't calculate exactly what you will measure, you can only establish the probabilities of each possible outcome.
...
source


Ok now what about whole molecules?


The detailed chemical structure of a single molecule has been imaged for the first time, say researchers.
Source



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Robert Demelo, the author of the paper "Relativistic Relativity" is not a physicist, he is a physics philosopher. He discovered some coincidences between numbers in the quantum world and in space. So what? this is nothing more than coincidence.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pixanomaly
 


Thanks for posting this mate ... this is very cool and should have a thread of it's own

OP ... I would love for you to address this directly ... This is exactly the kind of information that you need to take into consideration when considering your hypothesis ... especially the pic of the electron cloud in arrangement "B" which, to me, has no characteristics that are similar to a solar system.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join