It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MainframeII
- 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]
Originally posted by Penumbra
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.
Originally posted by MainframeII
First off there is a lot of “anomalous” evidence favouring this theoretical model beyond the simple and intuitive nature of the theory.
- 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)
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.
Radiation, depending the intensity and type, can obliterate normal matter ... 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.
the problem is determining what question it answered.
Radius of Be Atom = 105 pm [picometers]
Kuiper Belt ranges from 50 AU to 100 AU
Radius of the Solar System = 75 AU
S = radius of the Beryllium atom / radius of the solar system
S = Solar Radius (m) / Beryllium Radius (pm)
S = c(0)^2.71858....
Why should the two be related?
Electrons are fundamental, Jupiter is not. you do know that we have discovered larger (and smaller) planets in this universe?
[MainframeII]: True, but are some of their masses equal to Jupiters which would then equate to the same value? And perhaps Jupiter like planets, just like electrons, are common to star systems as electrons are to atomic systems.
First off I understand the need for a form of peer review but peer review is innately faulty for many reasons. It is inherently subjective even though reviewers try to keep things objective, those who actually try. ...
That’s just one problem that bleeds into the next problem with peer-review. Peer-review makes absolutely no business sense!! ...
Take the business analogy to the next level and market the theory essentially selling it to any audience you decide on that otherwise peer review would restrict you from.