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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:33 AM
Have you read David Wilcock's Divine Cosmos? It seems to correspond with some aspects of your work. I'm not a science guy but I stuck with it nonetheless and have to say I was impressed. I think there are MANY new scientific breakthroughs that have yet to tip the paradigm. Good work.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by MainframeII

Thanks for sharing. It's to late for me to read this right now,3:33am,
but I will tomorrow. I read all the replies...looks very interesting..

I used to think our atoms were mini universes..and the universe was a big atom..

Anyway, I copied your link just incase this thread is gone....I know how quickly things disappear around here.


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I don't want to burst your bubble, but if this was the case I wouldn't be finding out about it here, but through other circles I run in where this type self-promotional advertising (I call it the "look-at-me!" factor) doesn't get you far.

uhhhh... isn't that statement a "look-at-me!" factor?
The circles you run in...
Could one not say that if you ran in circles that high then we wouldn't see your post here on ATS?

Just saying...

Anyway, to the OP, thanks for sharing. I love reading about Quantum Physics and such. Will give this a good read through tomorrow.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:29 AM

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Nice advertisement. Anyway.......

Many professionals I've shared this with are blown away to put it mildly. They include many scientists and engineers. Many of these individuals call it the missing piece to the unification of physics and it comes from the misconception of Einstein's theories.

Just read that one aloud to yourself. "Many" scientists and engineers (you left out theoretical physics doctors and a few other professions that would make your stuff seem important) are calling it the missing piece of the most sought after thing in physics (unification). I don't want to burst your bubble, but if this was the case I wouldn't be finding out about it here, but through other circles I run in where this type self-promotional advertising (I call it the "look-at-me!" factor) doesn't get you far.

But, what the heck. I'll ignore the screaming feeling in my gut (which is a very reliable bs detector) and give your breakthrough scientific discovery a quick read through.

so basically you come in here...bash the OP for what he feels he solved...continue to talk c**p...then say your BS DETECTOR is going off...and conclude that your going to read it anyways?
sorry to say it but i feel YOU are the only ignorant bs one here, not the op.

who seriously talks c**p, and then still goes and reads it? haha
people these days on ats i swear

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Jon Quinn
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.

Adding to this, why select Jupiter? Because it's the biggest planet in our system? There is nothing inherently special about it's size, there are gas giants much, much more massive than Jupiter in the universe. You can take two numbers and find a mathematical relationship between them. You could have use the mass of Neptune and created a system where the mass equaled the charge of an electron.

Again adding to Jon Quinn's later post, atoms don't actually look like the solar system models we are shown. There is nothing circular or 'solid' about them. It's like describing space-time as sheet. That's not really how it is, but it's hard for us to interpret four dimensional structures in our three dimensional minds. So we create a close example, same with the atom.

Celestial protons? What evidence is there to support this? Is this just an idea or something you derived after pouring over the last thirty years of data on the sun?

The thing is, you've only created a 'constant' for this solar system. It's like me flipping a coin 100 times and getting say 60 heads and 40 tails, so I now say that the constant for the ratio of heads to tails in this example should always work. So that no matter how many times I flip, I'll get a constant ratio of 60/40. When viewed only on that specific 100 flips, yes, it works, but when applied else where it does not. For this to have any validity it would have to be applied to many other solar systems. What happens when one doesn't match up? How would you account for the difference when compared to our beryllium system?

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:54 AM
How do you account for the following?

The planet around 70 Vir orbits the star in an eccentric, elongated orbit every 116 days and has a mass about nine times that of Jupiter. Using standard formulas that balance the sunlight absorbed and the heat radiated, Marcy and Butler calculated the temperature of the planet at about 85 degrees Celsius (185 degrees Fahrenheit), cool enough to permit water and complex organic molecules to exist. The star 70 Vir is nearly identical to the Sun, though several hundred degrees cooler and perhaps three billion years older.

55 Cancri

The second discovery of a jovian-mass planet orbiting very close (0.11 AU) to its primary star. Geoff Marcy also announced at the Workshop on Planetary Formation in the Binary Environment at Stoney Brook (June 16-18, 1996) that they believe a second jovian exists in this system with a mass of ~5 Jupiters in a 15-20 year orbit. These planets orbit the G8V star 55 Cancri A. Orbiting further out from A and its planets is an M5 dwarf (55 Cancri B) which lies ~1150 AU away.

Upsilon Andromedae

The fourth "epistellar jovian" discovered, with mass (0.60 jovian masses), period (4.61 days), and orbital radius (0.054 AU) values that are nearly the same as 51 Peg b's.

Rho Coronae Borealis

As the first announced extrasolar planet discovered by the AFOE/Whipple Observatory group, Rho CrB b has proved once again that Jupiter-mass planets may exist in close orbits to ordinary stars. The parent star, Rho CrB A is a ~10 billion year old analog of our sun (similar in mass and spectral type) lying roughly 55 light-years from our solar system. Its planetary companion has a minimum mass of 1.13 Jovian masses, and orbits the primary star once every 40 days at an orbital radius of about 0.25 AU; closer in than Mercury orbits in our own solar system.

I assume you'll be familiar with a few of these because there aren't many known extrasolar planets, and if you were writing a paper concerning the formation of solar systems, you would have researched discovered solar systems.

It seems that there will be some solar systems which appear to be structured like the examples of atoms we use. Yet, it seems there could be many which do not. How do you account for all of these differences?

All star systems have gas giants orbiting an inner planetary system with an equivalent number of rock planets.

Based on current research, this appears to be highly improbable if not completely false.
[edit on 4-9-2009 by Parabol]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Parabol]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:05 AM
What about Heisenberg?
I think everyone would agree that the study of astronomy over the last few centuries has allowed us to understand the mechanics of the solar system. We know where everything is at any paricular time. We can predict where the planets will reside in the future. Our maths can tell us about the locations of Jupiter's moons a thousand years from now. All this can be done with absolute certainty. We know the exact position of everything at the exact time we wish to know it. We also know their energies. We know the exact masses of the planets and we know their orbital velocities relative to the sun and relative to the Earth. We can therefore calculate their kinetic energies relative to any datum we care to select. We know everything about the mechanics.
The quantum scale is totally different. We may know the energy level of an excited electron, but we can never know its location at the same instant. If we use an instrument to locate a sub-atomic particle, we cannot know its relative energy because the very act of locating it changes the energy level relative to the observer. All this is contained within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which as far as I'm aware remains a foundation stone of quantum mechanics.
The correlations raised in this thesis are an attempt (in my personal view) to rationalise what we all wondered about in childhood. Why is the world of the atom and the world out there so similar? The important question is are they? And I'm afraid the answer is similar, but not the same.
Rather than offer this 'profound' theory to a bemused ATS following, surely a more fruitful course would be to ask someone like Steven Hawking to review it.


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:57 AM
Mainframe thanks for your work.

Can you please tell us more about , extreme matter condensation as on your web site? Most of the concepts your talking about I can understand, but not this. How would this look like to us practically? What kind of items (for lack of term) would this produce? Are we talking about condensing metals and other such things like compression?

Thanks, and welcome to ats!

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Longchenpa

Originally posted by MainframeII

Many professionals I've shared this with are blown away.
[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?

quoted , in the hope that its addressed - i too want to know who has reviewed this - and thier 1st hand opinions

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:14 AM
reply to post by Retikx

What "system" are you referring to? And how does a virus relate to this topic? I'm interested in what you've said, I just don't understand how it related to the topic at hand. Either people are starring you because they caught something I've missed, or they're starring you because you were the first response. I hope it isn't the latter.


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:19 AM
If this hypothesis is mathematically and physically sound, then rigorous peer review will bear that out. As a layperson, I can neither criticize nor confirm/embrace this work. We'll find out of it pans out based on its peer reviews.

I like what one professor of physics in a documentary on the history of cosmology I watched recently stated, which was that all scientific hypotheses regarding cosmology are incomplete attempts at perfecting the imperfect understanding on the part of humanity of the universe, "maybe making up for the fact that any ONE of us is just too dumb to figure it all out."

No one has ever been 100% correct, as OP stated. Even Einsten's hypotheses and observations led to conclusions which he was LOATH to accept. Maybe this theory is meritorious and maybe it isn't, but I leave that up to others far more intelligent than I to decide. Regardless, it's pretty interesting!

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:58 AM
OMG !!!!!

I almost fell off the chair when I read your post !

I joined in pretty late but do you know that this concept is EXACTLY me and a friend of mine were discussing just the other day !!!
I SWEAR it's true - which is why I find it startling to read about it in less than a week.

I always have felt that the - as you say - ''System'' in the universe
must be the same.
Yes perspectives may differ, but the scale stays the same. It's something like the 'Phi' (No,Not the greek Pi or 22/7) concept.

The Golden ratio of 1:1.6, also mentioned in the da vinci code book.

But coming back to the subject, As I said - Ive suspected the universe to be operating on a similar design but simply a difference in scale.

At the micro level, the formula is the same - i.e a central body - around which is rotating a mix of electrons and neurons.

Now take the same phenomena on a different scale.
The orbits of most celestial bodies shows the remarkably similar principle.

WE may not be able to observe them owing to our small perspective, but the orbits of the bodies surrounding a central core are accordingly huge too ! So, I thought that if the distance or space between the electons in an atom is simply scaled up to the amounrts our near celestial objects have, one would see the ratio will more or less the same.
Also in Astronomy, if we begin to track them (other stars) based on this theory -
Would it not also be possible to judge WHERE the 'electron or neuron'
(which we call planets or stars) we are tracking - will be ?

Given the ratios, I believe it would be possible to locate unseen stars or planets which are having such gigantic orbits - but also similar in scale to the universe' atomic structure!! No ?

I think it just might.

If verified as true - there can be stunning insight into how the universe functions and its key elemental structures at a fundamental level.

You are absolutely correct - THIS HAS ENORMOUS POSSIBILITY !!

Whilst I don't have the mathematical acumen to prove this theory mathematically, I am glad that at least someone does !

I think it makes perfect sense. So much so that I've often wondered why isn't it a more popular theory.

Time and space are as Einstein said - relative - but the structure around which they are based is the same. Space time can/may be altered and bent (at least theoretically) but the basic system remains the same.

Could it be possible that every atom is a star system in itself - so miniscule and yet displaying the same characteristics and rules inside it..? round off all I'll say is watch the last scene of MIB movie - which shows our planet and then zooms out to include our system,galaxy,and untimately is zoomed totally to show that what our universe is - but a speck on a small ball in an aliens hands on his world..

Sheesus Christ..! Makes one feel almost insignificant!! No?

But a wonderful idea and I wish you luck at proving it to ther worlds science community.
Best of luck.

Oh ! And a star and flag !

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:13 AM
Just referencing a few of the posters about the main ideas of your work (havent read the paper...probably couldnt understand it anyway)... Your saying our solar system (and all cosmic systems?) is structured like that of an atom...(if I am understanding correctly)

What about the sun/ stars? Stars turn into supernova and even black holes (as the theory goes...and I believe has been poven due to the latest colliders) does your theory account for this?

Are you saying the nucleus of atoms explode in similar fashion and/ or die out?

If you have an answer, I would have no idea if your explanation is even relative to the question unless you explained it in laymens terms. Someone else would have to assess it...but thanks for sharing!

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:44 AM
Very interesting read, it is somewhat along the lines of a podcast I did some time back about time being relative but not entirely in the way we normally think of it.
I think there are more factors to the equation that most realize.
Here is the ats video if you would like to hear my thoughts on this subject.

(click to open player in new window)

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:48 AM
If i read the initial post correctly, it's saying that as someone approaches the speed of light that time passes faster for them?

This is interesting because in the Aliens (movie with the xenomorphs
) universe, at least the comics, stated that when those ships did that takion-jump thing that the occupants had to use those cryo-freezers to slow-as-much-as-possible accelerated aging caused the jump. Sort of a weird coincidence right lol (o and ya... later in the comic, one of those evil corporations figured out a way to do the jumps without freezers

[edit on 4-9-2009 by FocusedWolf]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by ashestoashes
OMG !!!!!

I almost fell off the chair when I read your post !

I joined in pretty late but do you know that this concept is EXACTLY me and a friend of mine were discussing just the other day !!!

At the micro level, the formula is the same - i.e a central body - around which is rotating a mix of electrons and neurons.

Now take the same phenomena on a different scale.
The orbits of most celestial bodies shows the remarkably similar principle.

Yeah, I had the same idea 20 years ago when I was a kid. How incredible !

Again ; the old nuclear model with the electrons orbiting the nucleus is for SIMPLIFICATION ONLY !

Do you really believe an electron is placed on a circular orbit around the protons and neutrons like this ?

Geez, if it is the case, you shouldn't try to reunite quantum physics with general relativity before starting with the basic class...

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by MainframeII
Basically, I calculated a value called "S". It's a scale constant between quantum and celestial systems. My hypothesis in the theory are that atoms are simply star system in a different space-time density (or velocity frame of reference). It's more complex then this one sentence. In this theoretical model, gas giants are electrons. From the value of S I've been able to derive Jupiter's mass to the numerical value of an electron charge which is a fundamental value in physics. Basically, the "concept" of scale is unchanging between quantum and celestial objects, or what we call invariant. This concept isn't new, but my exact hypothesis is and so is the value of S. From this basic model and for the fact that value of S is velocity dependent (in one equation), I've "adjusted" Einstein's work.

Well said, even I understood it

As mentioned, the As above so Below concept does replicate your perception. This is for a good reason we may suspect.

Weird but relevant stuff follows....

Okay, so I am one who 'journeys' firstly in astral density layers and beyond using awareness projection in which you move within the influence of your total awareness in all scales. So this provided me with some unique observations and insights as you might imagine.

Many years ago I found our physical universe had a membranous boundary, which has a spherical shape. Outside of that membrane was something that surprised me, and I don't get that often over these 35+ years exploring.

It was simply that all I could see was multitudes of bubble-verses, everywhere. I found this amusing as it represented the concept As Above So Below, while at the same time I was very much aware of how this would be the same view from a subatomic level.

I then wondered about the space between each apparent "solid" at both ends of the Scale Spectrum and how each effects the other via their energetic interplay. Being in this frame of mind I became aware that at a sub-atomic level reality is very hazy given that there really are no Solids.

From this I began to see that only Energy exists, in a variable dance of forming and deforming through forces at play. I then had to ask what the driving force was behind these things being observed. All I could see to answer this questions was Awareness.

While observing the macro-like multiverse I saw two bubbles within it gently touch. This sparked a massive amount of energy which I saw as a Big Bang scenario. I also saw is as another bubbleverse being "born".

Now, I know all that sounds absolutely crazy. But that is what I observed and after all these years I can regard myself as a being a passive observer with a high degree of clarity.

Thanks again for sharing your work, and your patience with us all.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:08 AM
Theres nothing new in the idea of reality being fractal in nature, but if you have managed to prove it scientifically then it IS BIG. Lets wait and see how this plays out.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Tayesin
It was simply that all I could see was multitudes of bubble-verses, everywhere.

Now, I know all that sounds absolutely crazy. But that is what I observed and after all these years I can regard myself as a being a passive observer with a high degree of clarity.

Why does that sounds crazy ? It is just the "bubble universe theory"...

nothing crazy about that...

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:46 AM
A rather distinguished scientist, Stephen Wolfram,
posits just that sort of theory in his very large 1000+ page book
A New Kind of Science (It's a big book to read through - I bought
when it first came out) which basically says the whole universe
can be described in a few lines of code as an Iterative Numeric
Attractor Series using an initial sequence of numbers and
about 4 lines of iterative and probably recursive fractal-like

It also says that since the universe is an iterative system
there is this thing called Computational Equivalence which
basically means one can simulate ANY computing system on any
other computing system in the exact same way even if the result
requires a slower/longer computation time
on said other computing system.

It basically means we CAN simulate the human mind with
all of it's intelligence and emotionality on a hardware
based computer system and on a more general note we could
simulate entire UNIVERSES using a very Fractal-like iterative system.
This has the implication that humanity and it's environment
may be nothing more than a simulated system running on an
unimaginably large computing system using fractal-like
iterative code...aka...You're Living in a Dream World Neo!
...or...This is The Matrix!!!!!!!!

See the Wolfram books and his bio:

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in