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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:48 AM
Very nice. Even as a kid I saw the similarities between atomic systems and celestial systems. Just didn't know enough to describe it as the referenced paper. Sadly while I enjoy math I am not so brilliant with it. Again, congratulations, a very nice read. Best of luck trying to get that through the current scientific establishment. We all know how cranky they are, relatively.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:53 AM
It appears that a lot of people saw the same similarities between the solar system and the diagrams of the atoms we saw years ago in science books.

From the spiral shape of galaxies and hurricanes to the spiral motion of your toilet bowl water when you flush it; from the solar system to atoms, All demonstrate a common designer behind everything, and that is the most significant factor in all me anyway.

[edit on 4/9/09 by John Matrix]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:53 AM
old news.....


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by MainframeII

It's interesting. What if the very big and the very small are indeed the same in every sense, the only difference being the size difference between the observer and the observed. How would an enormous conscious being (bigger than us to the same extent that we are bigger than objects in the quantum world) see us. Would we seem to behave like the quantum world. Would their consciousness seem to have an influence on our behaviour?

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:11 AM
Hi OP,
Thank you for sharing your work here.
I was just wondering if the theory you are applying to our star system and beryllium can be applied to other celestial bodies and other elements and their atomic number?

Have you look at that already?

Great thread S and F.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:20 AM
Thanks for the post. S&F

Do you remember the movie "Animal House" when the guy is describing to a woman he is trying to seduce his theory on the universe. Very similar

I am curious to hear from our math experts!

The Tao of Physics is a great book along with the Chaos Theory. As above so below. Best wishes!

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:28 AM
This is good work, OP.
I wonder if IgnoreTheFacts ever read through it. I wonder what his opinions are now after reading it.

I need to look at it again when I'm not feeling as ill as I am now. Damned swine flu! Or something. Anyhow, my head feels like a cottonball.

Basically my post is much to do with nothing other than to say I object to ignorethefacts comments and I needed to post here to put this on my queue so I can look at it again later.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by Silenceisall

Time would also be rescaled for a being who tried to observe us from the outside.

Our entire universe would come and go in less than the blink of his/her eye, more like twitch of their eye.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by MainframeII
I'd like to share with you my work below. Don't dismiss it because I know you'll find it interesting.
Many professionals I've shared this with are blown away.

I too was blown away after reading your paper. But "blown away" can be subject to multiple interpretations.

I see your theory makes some bold and interesting predictions. Let's look at one of them:

My question is, have you examined your prediction that "Gravity between two gas giant planets would be repulsive" versus the extensive observational evidence we have of gas giant planets in our own solar system?

You say objects of a similar mass and density will repel each other, any idea how similar it needs to be? Let's look at Uranus and Neptune for example:

Characteristics of Uranus and Neptune

Both of these planets are gas giants with diameters about 4x that of Earth. They are near twins in terms of size, rotation rates, and magnetic fields.

-The density of Uranus is almost the same as that of Jupiter at 1300 kg/m3 while Neptune is denser is at 1600 kg/m3.

So if Uranus and Neptune both had the same density as Jupiter at 1300kg/m^3, then Uranus and Neptune would repel each other according to your theory? And is the difference in their density enough to instead create a gravitational attraction?

Do you have a mathematical formula that would describe how 2 gas giants of the same mass with density as a variable would shift from repulsive force to attractive force as the density difference changes? If so it seems like your theories can be tested versus the observational evidence available for our solar system.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
Thanks for posting a link to your work.

There are a few here that can review it and actually understand it. Which, I believe, they currently are. So far, they have yet to reply in contradiction to your theories, though some already took it upon themselves to pre-dismiss your 2 years of work as "BS" before they even read the first sentence of your paper. I hope the rest of the science and physics industry doesn't operate like this. If so, it's no wonder that we've been stifled over the past century. I hope your peers are more open minded. It appears that they are sine they're actually reading your work before they openly dismiss it with negativity.

So, what I gather from skimming the pages thus far is that theoretically, long distance space travel would actually be possible if we were able to travel at the speed of light (or beyond) because we wouldn't be limited by our mass from traveling at such speeds. Also, it would allow people from our own time to "travel" into the future (by traveling the speed of light away from and back to Earth)? I may be completely wrong by what I've gathered from simply skimming the four pages of the thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions of what this theory could mean toward application in the future.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:01 AM
I have just a few comments to make - the point about the equivalence between the Solar System and Beryllium is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. For example, comparisons between the inner rock planets (i.e. inside the asteroid belt) and neutrons; neutrons don't orbit in the atom - they're part of the nucleus. Whilst we're on the subject of neutrons, they have mass but no charge - how does this square with the hypothesis of mass-charge equivalence?

The absence of calculus is also a little odd.

Interesting work though!

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by tyranny22

There are many more potential applications here. Many more.
Wormholes here we come!
Amongst others.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:08 AM
This is interesting, I have thought of this myself but could not make it work.
This would make Oppenheimer, Shiva the destroyer of worlds of the universe.
To us this would be occurring very fast but to those in that universe it would be occurring over eons.

I hope no one decides to split our universe in the next 100 billion years.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by googolplex]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:09 AM
S&F and fascinating. I have always noticed the correlation between the atomic, the quantum, and the celestial. When I saw this thread, my eyes popped out and I thought, "Hey, someone smarter than me actually noticed this and acted on it!" I haven't read your study because I'm at work (lol), but when I get home I will read your paper. So I have a question. We know that gravity is quite mysterious. I don't think anyone really knows exactly how gravity works. Einstein's theory seems incomplete on gravity, to me. So my question is have you made any discovery that gives more insight into the workings behind the gravitational force? If so, you may really be close to a unified theory.

EDIT: After reading your theory, I can't agree with you on many things. You seem to have your ideas all wrong

[edit on 4-9-2009 by OrphenFire]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by MainframeII

There is only one tiny problem, your proposal contradicts experimental observations of clocks inside satellites, such as the GPS satellite constellation.

I do realize that those satellite clocks also have a small discrepancy that shows something is incomplete about relativity, but overall, the clocks do run slower, just not precisely at the rate predicted by relativity.

Since your theory proposes that the clocks should run faster, it is in disagreement with experimental data. How do you resolve that?


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur
question why would gravity between two gas giants be repulsive? Are you talking abuot gravity or mageitic attraction, because if it's gravity you are talking about it would seem you have discovered anti gravity.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by googolplex]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by googolplex]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by rickyrrr

Since your theory proposes that the clocks should run faster, it is in disagreement with experimental data. How do you resolve that?

don't confuse the poor guy, he's having fun.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:02 AM
Mainframe II;

Don't know how to be gentle about the subject but we get taught the following at A-Level physics in the UK the relationship between [permittivity of free space, the square of the speed of light and the permeability of free space] E0 = 1/(c^2 * u0) if you really do have a professor I would ask him why he has misguided you, assuming you aren't just trying to peddle your book on UFO interest sites.

If you really are in the dark about it.
a) Break it down to its SI units and you will get a number of relationships

b)The reasoning for the fractal nature you describe is that permittivity (dielectric constant) is a complex constant.

Note: someone said it before me on this post about using a scalar constant to tie any two quantities where they are both known, and furthermore someone else asked about applying the constant to other planetary bodies as proof of theorem.

If you really want expert advice on the matter just post your paper on or newscientist they may help you further.

For the layman:: This is Norton finds a who + existing physics + "a number"

I hope you take this constructively along with other advice given on this thread.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:10 AM
This is bull#

Neutron do not orbit proton, they are fused with them via the strong nuclear force.

Also, your are wrong about the atomic radius of Be. You said its 105pm, while the thruth is 112pm.

Lets say for a second that we indeed are inside a beryllium atom.
Well then where is our bivalent sister? Why is neptune only in orbit around the sun? It should be in orbit around both our sun and another Be atom (or anything with a chemical bound to it)
Well I use the term orbit, but in reallity electron do not orbit 2 nucleus during a chemical bound, they rather stay in between.

Well I suck in english, so I hope other people with chemistry knowledge understand what I mean. ( you know... H2, Cl2, O2, Be2)

Oh and before you ask, Im a science guy (Biochemistry + nanobiology) but I have a huge deficit in explaining my thought in english

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Jigore]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Jigore]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:16 AM
The General is a layman, however "As above so within so without...struck a chord in me. I had simply forgotten the paisley like fractal universe until I read this thread. The first thing that popped into my head was a great poem.....

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, --and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of --Wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air...
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark or even eagle flew --
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

S & F It's refreshing to read something that makes me ponder the universe and my place in it again....Thank you.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in