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: 6
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

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.


My point exactly. Clearly, atoms are not destroyed by chemical reactions, so according to this "theory" neither should solar systems be destroyed.




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 
To me this still does not work, as to fact if look out thru univese you do not see groupings of identical solar systems, which should be if so.

Also that with the diverse number of solar systems, that would mean thousands of different elements.

This could be possible be not at level being spoken of.


[edit on 4-9-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   


... 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 ...


Very kewl. I watched a show on fractals the other day and they showed how it related to everything in nature... From clouds to trees... well, everything...

So I believe you are bang on with the atom's structure being equated to a solar system albeit on a smaller scale...

But, this begs a humble question from me...

I'm not very smart, but I did look up a atom's structure to help understand this.

If Gas Giant = Electron (Jupiter'ish), which are whirling around a nucleus...
& Quarks combine to form protons/neutrons which have electrons whirling about their nucleus...

Question #1
What is earth, and the moons... and could we factor in meteorites, comets, asteroids... wow, just occured to me... what about space dust? as all being different sub-sub-sub atomic? Sounds neat if so!!

Hmmm. If they can split an atom and create a A-Bomb, and if things can be fractualized down to space dust... I hope we never learn to split the smaller stuff.... Sorry, off track...

Question #2
So, does this mean there are smaller objects than quarks... sounds like several levels still yet to be discovered....??

ahhh. another thought... If asteroids can pop in and out of our local solar system, I wonder if sub-sub... particles come and go from the atomic structure.... Fractals will drive you mad....


Loved your post... WAY over my head, but it got the mind thinking... So thanks very much!! S&F!

From Wikipedia... (I know, its a piss poor source, but it sounded right )


"Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the best-known of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei." (Quark subatomic particle. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008-06-29.)



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
oh boy...


grand unification "theory" lol to wat?

what is it you are trying to unify? the fact you have no clue why you are here?

it is looking right at you


lifes job is to self replicate the universe.

nothing new =] you live inside a mind get use to it

your mind has no shape, nor does the universe


you is what connects both


higgs partical = you

made this ages ago



[edit on 4-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I see this thread has taken a life of its own.

I’ve been dealing with a nasty cold for the last day, but I’ve tried to read through as much of what’s been posted in order to comment and reply. Critiques and constructive counter arguments are needed with any theory including the existing established theories and the highly theoretical mainstream theories that have such huge followings. They all must be questioned continuously.

First off there is a lot of “anomalous” evidence favouring this theoretical model beyond the simple and intuitive nature of the theory. There are spacecraft clocks whose time have increased and astronauts that have aged faster in space travelling at high velocities over prolonged periods. I will address the GPS satellite argument below.

Here are some points I’m addressing:

- Solar system diagram in the paper is just a simplistic snapshot in order to concey the hypothesis, much how many textbooks portray it. 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). Within that 1 second, accounting for unknown forces, influences like stray objects or gravitational waves (or our observational electron telescopes – equivalent being gas giant planet bombardment), the uniform formation of the planetary orbits are uncertain at uncertainty value X. That’s for 1 second passed. For 1 minute passed, uncertainty is X*60 as simple representation of uncertainty with a reference of X uncertainty. Within that relative minute or second, try to pin point it any electron. You can’t using classical mechanics unless you accounted for all unknown factors as described in this theoretical model by tying in Newton and Einstein with quantum mechanical theory.

- Other matching atoms and systems scale relationships within this framework would also derive S constant. This considering and compensating for gravitational lensing. Our observational data can derivate from actuality the further an object is due to gravitational lensing, or what I call space-time refraction of photonic light.

- Different compositions of star systems currently observable can be explained by the variety of states any element and molecule can take such as plasma and ionic states. Essentially chemistry can be interchanged in this model between atomic/quantum and celestial objects/systems.

- String theory vs. this theoretical model. This model makes quantum and celestial objects interchangeable and gives a good reasonable framework to work with. The reference objects in this theoretical model are the very comprehensible celestial objects we’re all familiar with and not some an imaginary string that was invented. Physically understood objects, quantum and celestial, are the building blocks in this theory. Not something imaginary.

- There are many reasons that GPS satellites have their clocks can slow down though not fully as per Einstein’s theory. The one reason, I’ll take it from argument explaining why spacecraft clocks have increased in time passed. It is possibly due to the stresses of space travel that have adversely affected the clocks. Essentially space radiation damage these clocks or interfere with the normal operation of these clocks. Another explanation is that these clocks are badly built. Another explanation is that it is a combination the two prior reasons and there’s more reasons. I can argue this indefinitely. You just have to consider all conceivable and inconceivable possibilities in order to find the truth. Take for example your wrist watch. Continually accelerate it at enormous forces and then put it under an X-Ray machine for several hours and I can assure you it will not function correctly. Radiation, depending

[edit on 4-9-2009 by MainframeII]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Radiation, depending the intensity and type, can obliterate normal matter and since these craft are in space less protected than us down here from the many types and intensities of space radiation, then stresses on these clocks are beyond normal. Usually when a clock malfunctions due to radiation wear and tear or just normal wear and tear, it slows down not speeds up making the evidence of clocks speeding up even more interesting and favouring this theory.

- Currently there is no theory, not even the fabled string theory, that explains what electrons, neutrons or protons truly are and in addition gives a model to work with for other quantum-celestial matching.

- There is currently no theory that explains what force fields truly are. They are a product space-time wave interaction between wave sources (objects) adhering to wave theory. Quantum observations show clearly that electrons vibrate the surrounding space in a wave pattern then so must Jupiter…we just don’t readily see it with the naked eye.

- There is currently no theory that unifies two distinct paradigms of physics together so seamlessly, with small modifications to Einstein’s work, than the theoretical model presented in ‘Realitivistic Relativity’ and as remotely as simple.

Thank you all for pondering my work. I could hope for nothing less from all of you. I will continue to ask you continue sharing this paper with friends, colleagues, teachers and professors. Let’s break in a new era in science, if by nothing else then to make people think outside the box.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


Thank you for your post. Keep them coming.

I think we will discover the "Big Picture" soon.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


you are it lol

www.ted.com...

enjoy



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Nice article, interesting read, but with these 3 being your ONLY references, you are going to get torn to shreds by anyone in the scientific community.

Bibliography
Encyclopedia, F. &. (1988). Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (Vol. 1). (L. L. Bram, Ed.) New York City: Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia.

Hans C. Ohanian, R. P. (1989). Physics Second Edition, Explanded. Markham, New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Penguin Books Canada.

Physics. (n.d.). Retrieved 2007, 2008, from Wikipedia.org: en.wikipedia.org...

We learned on day one in school to never, ever, cite Wiki. A textbook and an encyclopedia are in the same vein. If you are to make claims such as this you have to multiple concrete references to back you up.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Cliffs notes for us inedumucated sorts?




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tarheel997
Nice article, interesting read, but with these 3 being your ONLY references, you are going to get torn to shreds by anyone in the scientific community.

Bibliography
Encyclopedia, F. &. (1988). Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (Vol. 1). (L. L. Bram, Ed.) New York City: Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia.

Hans C. Ohanian, R. P. (1989). Physics Second Edition, Explanded. Markham, New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, Penguin Books Canada.

Physics. (n.d.). Retrieved 2007, 2008, from Wikipedia.org: en.wikipedia.org...

We learned on day one in school to never, ever, cite Wiki. A textbook and an encyclopedia are in the same vein. If you are to make claims such as this you have to multiple concrete references to back you up.



I reference wiki so anyone who reads this can look up values and also see if they've changed by checking the history. There are benefits to referencing wiki, but I assure you I also referenced other sources before using wiki data.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
If you read the conclussion he recons that two gas giants teh same as each other such as two jupiters would repel one another. i tend to disagree though.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
MainframeII,
Sir, I asked a relevant question on Page 3 of this thread which you have ignored, but is key to my acceptance of anything you are theorising. So, I'll ask it again.

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.

Please will you comment on why the Heisenberg Principle doesn't seem to apply in the case of the celestial objects? If in fact it does apply, can you explain how and why?

WG3



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Take a look at our own galaxy. The Milkyway is right now fusing with the galaxy closest to us, i believe it is called Sagittarius dwarf galaxy if im not mistaken. Where exactly does this come in to play with all of this.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I feel like alot of you are forgetting another major part. We can only see very limited amounts of space when it comes to our universe. In fact apart from out own solar system we have only been able to "see" around 350 other planets. The fact of the matter is, is that every star that we can see from planet earth is its own solar system in a sense. And we can only see the tiniest amount of stars that are in space. I'm having a difficult time understanding how people are so quick to deny this due to the fact that we can not "see" it happen in outer space. These people are, to me, outrageous due to the fact that humans can pretty much only see one pixel that is a 52" widescreen television of our universe.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Penumbra]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


Hi there... I found your paper fantastic and really potentially explains a lot of things however, how would you explain other bodies like the moon... would you be able to assume that there is a body that orbits the third electron in a Beryllium atom?

or that black-holes exist at an atomic level as well?

How about the Strong force, what would be its equivalent in a cosmic level?

Star and Flag!! Great Post!



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
If you read the conclussion he recons that two gas giants teh same as each other such as two jupiters would repel one another. i tend to disagree though.


DaRAGE, It's nice to see a post like yours that shows some people can think for themselves. There are way too few such posts in this thread.

I asked him for more information about that topic and he didn't address my question (though he does have a lot of questions to answer), but I think you and I already know the answer to that question.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Penumbra
 


its called Andromeda

2nd



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


Hey Mainframe II,

Just a quick few lines to say, you are one clever person. I say that because even though i haven't read your hypothesis yet, the image of you i'm getting from just reading the comments through, and your responses to them, tells me you are as sharp as..something very sharp indeed.

And nice, too.

Thanks for being here, on ATS, and sharing your ideas with the rest of like minded people here. We need more genuine people such as you, who defy the usual and embrace the unusual. The type of person who will 'put it out there', and allow the world to react as it will, and not fear the deluge..dogma, it's such as backwards commodity isn't it.

I wish you well, and fully intend to read your paper after the comments, i just hope i will understand where you're coming from, but the gist will do.

All the best.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Longchenpa

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.


Oh yeah, sorry, didn't mean to derail a science thread with such nonsense as experimental data.

-rrr



new topics




 
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join