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: 5
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MainframeII

Originally posted by earthship35
Could you explain in laymens terms what this is or means please i am completetly in awe of this but am not a science guy..i am jealous of your brain..lol


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).


Question:

If the planets such as Jupiter are like electrons in an atom, why don't we see them "fly off" to join other stars and have other planets show up to replace them as actually happens with electrons in atoms during chemical reactions?

[edit on 9/4/2009 by centurion1211]




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Dear OP, you state this:

objects of similar mass and density will repel each other, objects of significantly different mass and density will attract each other
My question is this: Does there have to be space to define object parameters, and why? I ask this because gravity occurs between everything. If I stand next to another male of (almost) identical mass, there is gravity between us, calculable using the universal gravitational constant. Being of (almost) identical size, why do we not repel each other? Similarly, a cubic kilometer of earth in the ground could repel the other cubic kilometer of earth next to it. If we put an imaginary line down the centre of earth, why are the two equally massive halves not repelling?

Lets say we cut through the centre of the earth, right in two with a giant space scalpel. Now two massive space-towing-ships, going in exact opposite directions, slowly pull the two halve spheres apart. At what point would the two halves start to repel each other? Would 1cm of space between them cause them to repel, or should we give them more, say 1Km, or 100 000Km?Why did they have to be separated to even start repelling?

I don't understand how gravity could become a repelling force based on comparative size of objects.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I'm a completely lay person and very new to the site - but this just doesn't stack up right to me.

It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.

Also if dark energy drives our universe apart at an ever accelerating rate, wouldn't this mean that atoms would be exploding - or expanding all over the place. Who knows - maybe they are - but I don't think they are.

I think its right to challenge accepted norms and I think its good to have a theory, but to try and improve upon the work of Einstein, when the last few decades have seen the work of Hawking and the emergence of String theory - it seems to me to be like locking the gate after the horse has already bolted.

Good luck with it - I hope someone finds something in it that's useful, but for me personally - trying to rationalise and bully a universe which is probably made up of many dimensions, back into a two dimensional model - seems to be a bit retrospective - almost neanderthal - a bit like trying to fix a delicate swiss pocket watch with a sledge hammer.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.


Exactly. Electrons don't orbit the nucleus. They exist in a probability cloud. Unlike a planet, you can not say where they will be at any given time.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.


Yes I was about to edit my post to include this fact! Thx for pointing it out.

Electron do not orbit nucleus like planet orbit star. This is only a simplification of the theory we teach to the kid so they can imagine it.

Most people keep this image of the atom because they stopped science at high school. In my first chemistry class in college, the teacher told us to forget everything we knew about atoms.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


Good job sherlock.

Eternity is All.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by _You_]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I'm curious as to how any of this is actually feasible, as opposed to simply a novel idea. And don't get me wrong, it is solely because of novel ideas that we have modern science as it exists today. But what other evidence do we have that this could be true? The only way I could see this to be true, is if there is a limit to how "big or small" things can be. If we can witness certain events happening at our atomic scale, should those same events not be happening at "our scale?" Just as other posters have mention: why do we not witness our planets speeding off to join other systems during reactions? Our is our solar system some lone atom wandering throughout space-time, never meeting another like atom, or any other atom in general? Or are we the maximum limit as far as how "big" things can get? Is there some other being in some other universe looking at us as if we are an atom under a microscope? Or are we at the zenith of space and time? And if that's the case, how could we expect our universe to behave anything at all like the ones that WE observe through our own microscopes (microscope is a term I'm using lightly, mind you)? I like the phrase "as above, so below," but what is "above" us?

That may seem simple-minded, but it's the best I can do, as I'm definitely not a physicist. And these things usually don't make sense to me anyway, even in the best of circumstances. But this just seems a little too mystical for me. Also, can someone explain to me how this would provide evidence for faster than light travel and communications?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jigore

Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.


Yes I was about to edit my post to include this fact! Thx for pointing it out.

Electron do not orbit nucleus like planet orbit star. This is only a simplification of the theory we teach to the kid so they can imagine it.

Most people keep this image of the atom because they stopped science at high school. In my first chemistry class in college, the teacher told us to forget everything we knew about atoms.


BUMPing this because it seems too few people read the complete thread before posting.

So many people saying "OMG I knew it !!! I had this idea a few days ago also !!!!", but no one replying to what is repeated all over the thread :

Repeat after me : Electrons do no orbit around the nucleus like planets.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MainframeII

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]


I think when the matter/antimatter reactor is online the mass
of the spacecraft is reduced from its natural value say 40 tons
down to an artificial zero. -Spacial Deterioration of Mass-
It also allows the spacecraft to travel in nonlinear time.


-Food for thought -



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Any answer to this, question why would gravity between two gas giants be repulsive?

Another thing what real proof do they have with this time difference in space, I don't believe it.

I know they use two atomic clocks, sent one into space and when it returned there was a difference in time, but couldn't this just be effect of gravity mass on atomic clock.

It would seem a better test, would be to send atomic clock to planet near as possible to size of earth, then retrieve this clock and see what time it is.

As to the GPS of course it would be draging time, radio waves have to travel thru space which takes time, you don't receive info at same instance you send it, there is time lapse.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Bout time someone figured it out.

I know I have put out the hint here that things need to be looked at in the opposites/mirror image.

I guess it's one small step for man..... one giant leap for mankind.

Bravo OP



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Simply amazing. Your theory seems to "click" with me. If only I knew back in Algebra that "e" was a constant to the secrets of the universe



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by googolplex
 


I have an easier solution.
2 rack mount atomic clocks. Synchronize them .
2 jets take off at the same time.
1 atomic clock in gulfstream jet traveling at 30,000 feet.
The other atomic clock in another jet traveling at 30,000 feet.
One flies straight. The other flies a parabolic curve to simulate zero
gravity. The NASA Vomit Comet does this to train astronauts.
Land both jets and compare clocks.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts
 
That's why I said I myself could not get it to work, It's good ideal but I can't see it as being so.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts
 


It is my understanding that what the current model is called is an electron cloud and that the electrons are at times in random places in this electron cloud and the only way to determine where they are is through probability. That is, you can tell where they will most likely be and not be. The fact of the matter is. is that they do orbit around the nucleus in some way. Now by no means am I saying that this is how the planets act but I would think that if you are going to shoot down half of the people on this forum you should explain how it actually works.

www.universetoday.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
I don't know if results would register over that short of time period?


Dae

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts

Originally posted by Jigore

Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.


Yes I was about to edit my post to include this fact! Thx for pointing it out.

Electron do not orbit nucleus like planet orbit star. This is only a simplification of the theory we teach to the kid so they can imagine it.

Most people keep this image of the atom because they stopped science at high school. In my first chemistry class in college, the teacher told us to forget everything we knew about atoms.


BUMPing this because it seems too few people read the complete thread before posting.

So many people saying "OMG I knew it !!! I had this idea a few days ago also !!!!", but no one replying to what is repeated all over the thread :

Repeat after me : Electrons do no orbit around the nucleus like planets.


Im not sure who said what first but I will repeat after them.

Electrons don't orbit!

The reason so many posters are saying "Yeah I thought this as a child" is because we are teaching our children wrong things.

I would like to see the OP answer some pertinent questions raised here. Or has the OP hoped that ATS readers wouldn't be asking such questions. Start answering them and a nice dialogue could happen.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
I don't know if results would register over that short of time period?



Don't be so sure.
Check out Wiki Atomic Clocks. We are getting better at making them.
The Atomic clocks are getting even more accurate.
The Discovery Channel could give it a try. Mythbusters?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
If the planets such as Jupiter are like electrons in an atom, why don't we see them "fly off" to join other stars and have other planets show up to replace them as actually happens with electrons in atoms during chemical reactions?


A chemical reaction on this scale would destroy the whole solar system...

The bigger the weather the less often it comes.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


I haven't read your paper yet but I read your post.


This very thing jumped out at me when I saw the movie "Powers of Ten".

I went looking for anything on this coincidence that I found, but could find nothing.

I began to develop some language around the different layers of commonality within the "fractal universe" as you put it. I refer to these as dimensions, and the basic principles I discovered I termed "Dimensional Mechanics". If you are interested, U2U me and I will send you the link.

Thank you for your efforts on this!



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join