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.


Scientific Discovery with profound implications!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:40 PM
So does the third neutron from proton really have the secrets to life in the cell. Seems the third rock from the sun has the secret of life in this solar system.

If our cell structure is based on S and matched to this solar system. Does that mean each solar system would have there own cell structure.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by JBA2848]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:05 PM
Although I haven't read your work (and I won't even bother- I am unfortunately VERY ignorant in physics to even have a chance of understanding your work).

But don't you think it is not a very strategic move to post something as important as your work (assuming it is correct) in a social board, where it could potentially be stolen by professors or scientists who might be members of this site?

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by newworld

He seems to have his copyright's in order.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:40 PM

Really Cool stuff, I mean it.

I just keep thinking about what it means haha. New things keep coming to mind.

You might like the papers here:

Some paper titles when I search fractals:

Fractal dimension of interstellar clouds: opacity and noise effects

Dust coagulation in protoplanetary disks: porosity matters

On the reliability of the fractal dimension measure of solar magnetic features and on its variation with solar cycle

Via Aristotle, Leibnitz and Mach to a Fractal D=2 Universe

Minivoids in the Local Volume

Gravitational Field of Fractal Distribution of Particles

Halos and voids in a multifractal model of cosmic structure

This one is pretty nuts, can't understand the math stuff but it reminds me of those equations that Romanek guy was pitching...

The Fractal Structure of Matter and the Casimir Effect


The zero-point radiation is an electromagnetic form of energy pervading the universe. Its existence is granted by standard quantum theories. We provide here an explanation based on deterministic classical electrodynamics, by associating to particles and nuclei a series of shells, made of constrained photons, with frequencies decaying with the distance. Such photons are part of a pre-existing background, evolving in vacuum even at zero temperature, and are captured by stable subatomic particles to form very distinctive quantized patterns. The evolving shells bring, for instance, to the creation of a fractal-type structure of electromagnetic layers around a conductive body. This property is then used to justify, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the attractive Casimir force of two metal plates. The analysis is carried out by standard arguments, except that here the surrounding zero-point energy is finite and, albeit with a very complicated appearance, very well-organized.

pdf: pdf

[edit on 3-9-2009 by beebs]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:52 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:11 AM

Originally posted by MainframeII

Many professionals I've shared this with are blown away. They called it the missing piece to the unification of physics and it comes from a misconception of one of Einstein's equation pertaining to relativistic time, mass and the application of scale.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by MainframeII]

wow, can you provide links to forums where professional physicists are discussing how "blown away" they are by your paper?

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by MainframeII

I've just completed a quick introductory skip read of your hypothesis and will try to go through the maths in greater detail later on.
I can understand the analogy you're making between the quantum realm (nucleus, electrons) and the cosmic realm (inner rocky planets, outer gas giants) and that there may be a correspondence between the two based on your formulation of a scaling factor linkage.

I have a few questions for you that hopefully you'll be able to provide an answer to and it's regarding photon absorption by outer shell (valence) electrons followed by photon re-emission.

As you're aware, in standard quantum electrodynamics, the energy level of a valence electron can be increased or decreased by the electrons absorption or emission of a qanta of electromagnetic radiation (photon).

My main question is how does that translate (or scale up) from the quantum level to your cosmic level ? In other words, if we assume (per your hypothesis) a correspondence between the beryllium valence electron and in this case, the planet Neptune ... then how would the quantum process of quanta absorption/emission translate to a similar physical process but using Neptune as the analogue of the beryllium electron ?

Also, related to the above question:

Q1. What would play the role of the incoming quanta that Neptune would "absorb" ? An asteroid ? Another planet ? Something else ?

Q2. But an electron can only absorb discrete quanta of energy ... does this mean Neptune could only absorb or be hit by only an object of a certain size/mass ? Seems unreasonable and illogical ... but correct me if I'm mistaken, isn't that the analogy you're making betwwen the quantum and the cosmic levels ?

Q3. Would this "absorption" directly result in a corresponding increase in the radius of Neptune's orbit ?

Q4. Comparable to the electron dropping to a lower energy level, would this mean that Neptune would eventually return to it's previous orbital radius by "emitting" mass or energy or "something" ?
And would this"emission" again be quantized in nature and extent ?

Q5. Emission of a photon by the raised energy level electron is completely spontaneous and random ... would the same apply to Neptune randomly and spontaneously "emitting" something comparable to the photon emitted by the electron ? Why would it do this and what would be the underlying mechanism ? That's like assuming that Earth could randomly eject into space a chunk of it's mass !

Ok, that's enough to go by for the moment, though I can certainly think of lots more questions.
I'd certainly appreciate some feedback on the above based on the concepts of your hypothesis ... thanks.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:25 AM
It sounds great. I'm not a technical professor or even one who went beyond highschool physics. But a couple of things came up.

1. I'm not the only person to think to myself when first shown the basic dot version of the setup of an atom, to look like a cell (living organism) or even to look like the universe.
2. The setup of comparing barium to the solar system, but on a different scale of course, is an ingenius way to correlate, but the thing that came to my mind was "as above, so below"
3. I see this more and more each day, in relationships. And so are others. As above, so below.

but I'm not with a bachelor, phd, or masters, doctorate, or went to ivy league or prestigious schools, but my guidance on things if I have so asked about, has been top notch. And this is in line with the general thinking of a chemist. "Make it easy on me will you? Shorten it up. I hate writing equations."

sometimes big things come in small packages. That's a pun.

[edit on 9/4/2009 by mynameisjuan]

[edit on 9/4/2009 by mynameisjuan]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:35 AM
It has already been proven that time SLOWS for the moving observer.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:45 AM

Originally posted by vita eternus

Excellent questions that I asked myself about two years ago. Its part of a paper I've been working on for the last 2 years about the nature of light within this theory which I haven't completed so I'm not yet willing to discuss it in detail. All I can say is that no assumption is preposterous if logically thought out. The interchanging of celestial mechanics with that of quantum theory in this new theoretical model will answer and give insight to unconceived physics and possibly celestial events.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:51 AM

Originally posted by gsf1200
It has already been proven that time SLOWS for the moving observer.

Sorry but that's incorrect. Spacecraft clocks speed up while traveling at high velocities. Time changes due to gravity fields and time changes due to velocity frames of reference are distinct effects. The stronger the gravity field the slower time passes unless the objects velocity increases within that field. But besides time dilation, it was also predicted that mass should increase as velocity increases, but there is absolutely no proof any quantum particle traveling near the speed of light increases in mass.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by MainframeII]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:01 AM
Particles traveling near the speed of light do increase in mass, as is seen in the large colliders. They have to account for the increased mass to keep particles on track.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:31 AM
I'm not at all fluent in the language of quantum physics but I am a student of Engineering, Aerospace. I have come across allot of physics, especially, energy systems and mechanical systems. I have one question, you say atoms are the quantum equal of celestial systems, therefore by your logic this solar system in a quantum state would resemble an atom, atoms are not singular there are countless atoms in existence, therefore a countless number of solar system exactly the same as the earth's must exist, so why haven’t we found them? What of systems with no terrestrial planets at all?

Also, take uranium, it has 93 electrons, 93 Jupiter’s to be precise at a celestial scale. Given this massive amount of Jupiter’s no 70 AU system could keep this many planets in a stable orbit.

You also say that similar atoms of similar density will repel, why doesn’t a perfect diamond blow itself apart, why don’t the oceans simply blow up?

It doesn’t make sense, there are allot of mathematical analogies in nature, Coloumb’s laws and gravity being but one of them. There’s too much out of place here, like I say I don’t know enough Physics to get too into this, but overall it seems too outlandish, perverse and against simple logic to be true.

Not to have a personal go at the OP but you have used 3 References in your work, including Physics from Wikipedia. This is a no-no in academia. Wikipedia as a reference is like signing your own legitimacy death warrant.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Jon Quinn]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:34 AM
I found the Tao of Physics originally written in the 70s to be outdated, even with revisions.

Physics in the past 10 years has changed so much.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by MainframeII

This may have nothing to do with anything, but I'm just curious: How much do you make a year and what is your salary based on (i.e. do you have a quota to reach or what)?

I've always been interested in quantum physics and theoretical math but I never had the grades for it, and instead of trying to prove myself academically I decided to rebel and drop out of school.

Are you saying that you have found a way to explain the relationships of space and other dimensions through math? Or should I go back to school and learn the basics of what you're talking about? Forgive me, but I think I need to have it illustrated for me, lol.

I have another theory of my own that I would like to explore, but like I said, I don't have the academic background for it. I might IM you on that.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by sumgai]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Retikx
Its funny because aside from all the math involved i came to the same conclusions as a kid, when i first saw drawings and animations of atoms and nucleus's i thought they looked precisely the same and acted in the same way as our system..

Well, when Niels Bohr described the stucture of the atom, he did it with the knowledge of that time, the structure of the solar system...

So it is quite normal that you find analogies. But the problem is that the structure of the atom IS NOT the same as one of a solar system. Bohr model was too simplistic. It is IMPOSSIBLE today to correctly represent an atom in an animation or a drawing.

You cannot determine the speed and location of a particle of an atom. They are NOT following elliptic courses. You refer only to the old (and incorrect) atomic model if you think otherwise. This is why general relativity and quantum theory are not so easy to reunite.

But you are correct that the universe is fractal. But this is not big news, this is common knowledge. Since we haven't yet found the smallest building block of the matter, and no biggest structure of the universe, the universe IS fractal when you look at different levels. You find it anywhere in nature : Plant structure, coastlines, cosmology, etc...

[edit on 4-9-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:05 AM
To clarify on the Bohr model also, Electrons can appear in any location when connected to an atom such that we cannot tell where it is going to be but rather we deduct the probability of the electron being in a certain place based on its energy levels or something along those lines. We dont see Jupiter dancing around the solar system, scientists guessing essentially where it will turn up. Like the previous poster said, an atom is nothing like a solar system, that model was made up to represent it easily.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:15 AM
How does this compare/relate to Nassim Haramein's ideas?

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:19 AM
I also made a significant scientific discovery fairly recently. I haven't worked it out yet, but have witnessed a working model in action! I'm talking about the powerdrive. This topic is a heated debate on and you can visit there if you want to talk more about it.btw you may have to do a search for the thread "The Powerdrive", but once you have posted I will see your post and respond promptly. tah

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:27 AM

Originally posted by FT1980
I also made a significant scientific discovery fairly recently. I haven't worked it out yet, but have witnessed a working model in action! I'm talking about the powerdrive. This topic is a heated debate on and you can visit there if you want to talk more about it.btw you may have to do a search for the thread "The Powerdrive", but once you have posted I will see your post and respond promptly. tah

"I was ablt to use my cigarette to make a piece of ash on the edge of the tray hover and twirl."

"I have since the discovery emailed several scientific entities about so they would have detailed information involved in this, but have not since received any replies"

"Were you by chance, smoking any weed or doing drugs at the time of this 'discovery'? Maybe you caught bird flu and were hallucinating? Who knows?"

"The only problem with reality though is that it won't serve myself for instance. I was taken by the system over 7 years ago and condemned for something that if I were to try to explain it would be that it wasn't my fault, but there was no way for me to be able to convince a single soul the otherwise."

"So if the Powerdrive kicks the system in it's butt, then I say go ahead cause in "reality" mainly mine, it deserves it!!!!"

"By the way. I'm not a Satan worshiper. I've always planned on going to heaven. My brain damage says otherwise to these guys though.

If there is even any brain damage.

It's actually a deformity to me.

Put there when I was young and I have lived beside it ever since!

So what does That say about my sins owe Wise and Informity.

LoL... Welcome to the nuthouse...

Now you have all the attention you wanted

[edit on 4-9-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in