Scientific Discovery with profound implications!

yeah its good to see someone thinking about these things

to steal a quote, "imagination is more important than intelligence"

OP only answers questions from people who seems to (even partly) agree with his theory.

So many very interesting questions simply ignored. Why is that so ?

OP are you afraid to think outside of YOUR box ?

Originally posted by centurion1211

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]

Simply because there hasn't been a celestial chemical reaction within our lifetime with our system. 1 second for us is about 3472 years passed at the quantum scale. Considering we live on average 75 years, we're not even close to passing celestial second and that depends if our system is already part of a celestial molecule and if not then it depends on when it would react with another system to have gas planet sharing. Also some reactions are not instant. In the theory the ones that would fly off are Uranus and Neptune as they are valence electron equivalents.

Originally posted by rickyrrr

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]

That is plausible, but still unsupported by your theory right? if your theory requires a new mechanism for the clocks to slow down, then you need to find this mechanism conclusively, otherwise you have a more complicated theory than the one we had before. Given two, equally effective theories, and given that none is an absolutely true description of reality, then the theory with the least number of ad-hoc parts is the most useful.

Your reasons for clocks slowing down is plausible, but ad-hoc until supported conclusively by data.

And, dare I say, if atomic clocks work by counting the number of, say, alpha particles or some other type of particles bombarding a detector, then exposure to excess radiation would be expected to make them run faster, not slower. right? I would think that those clocks are shielded against stray radiation for that very reason, if a guy with no nuclear physics background (me) can think of it, surely a NASA team of scientists thought of shielding those clocks.

-rrr

[edit on 4-9-2009 by rickyrrr]

Theory doesn't require to be modified to account for space radiation explicitly just as Einstein's didn't account for it. This plausible argument was an argument told to me in response to why some data shows that clocks speed up in space, data that favours my theory. This counter argument didn't say, "well Einstein's theory needs to account for space radiation." That was beyond the scope of the theory. A unification theory is not a theory of everything, though they are closely related, and even the theory of everything in a fractal universe scope will have complex and random variables to consider using that theory but applied outside the theory to any give scenario.

There is radiation that cannot be shielded and at best just reduced. Some radiation pass though us everyday here on Earth. In space, that radiation is more intense and less diluted. Our shielding technology uses lite metals in order to keep the spacecrafts lite. But again this is just one possible explanation of many others and it's not even my own explanation.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by MainframeII]

reply to post by MainframeII


I don't disagree with the premise that the universe does have a structure that seems fractal. I recommend a book called Everything Forever, which explores related ideas.

But for a theory to be useful, one has to be able to make testable predictions with it.

If one of the predictions of your theory is that clocks speed up when accelerated to relativistic speeds, and this prediction is unsupported by the available data (as they appear to slow down), coming up with an incomplete excuse for why this is so doesn't exactly help the theory. Einsteins theory does not need such an excuse to explain the degree by which clocks slow down. To bring up radiation as a cause for clocks slowing down is, in my mind, an excuse. Like when a child says, there is a monster under my bed, but it's invisible. Now, the excuse *may* be valid, but it's not a valid justification unless it's better supported.

To be more than just an excuse, there needs to be more behind it, such as a detailed description of the mechanism that accounts for the contradiction in your theory, along with the math to precisely quantify the discrepancy. Otherwise, why would somebody want to believe a theory that 1. doesn't explain observed phenomena and 2. there exist no good understanding as to why this disagreement exists?

I hope my point is better expressed this time.

-rrr

Originally posted by Parabol

I don't take anything as an attack. Been at this too long and I've almost heard it all. First off the "anomalous" evidence does exist. Second, you've dissected my responses not my theory and outside the context of the theory. Some of the points you mentioned are explained in the paper. The "arbitrary" use of 3x10^8 to time is taken from the velocity frame of reference since quantum particles in an atom travel near the speed of light thus their starting time reference is from that point onward (that's the modification to Einstein's work). I ask you to apply your reasoning to Einstein's theories and my beloved, and unjustly over popular, string theory. String theory has existed in several incarnations for 40 years unverified so your argument of me, in tort, dismissing the many scientists that have worked on the same problems as I have is mute if the best they have has gone 40 years unverified. My theory is about 3 years old and I have "anomalous" data supporting it. Honestly that isn't much of a point. The point would be why should string theory (40 years with nothing to show) deserve more attention than my very intuitive theory with quite a lot to show right from the start (Jupiter to an electron charge relation)? My theory may not be fully complete, and I grant that it isn't, but it will never have the powerhouse of the scientific community behind it adjusting it like string theory unless it's known (and starts somewhere). Like I've mentioned, I can argue this indefinitely but I'd rather save my best arguments for when it's truly needed.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by MainframeII]

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by MainframeII

 

I don't disagree with the premise that the universe does have a structure that seems fractal. I recommend a book called Everything Forever, which explores related ideas.

But for a theory to be useful, one has to be able to make testable predictions with it.

If one of the predictions of your theory is that clocks speed up when accelerated to relativistic speeds, and this prediction is unsupported by the available data (as they appear to slow down), coming up with an incomplete excuse for why this is so doesn't exactly help the theory. Einsteins theory does not need such an excuse to explain the degree by which clocks slow down. To bring up radiation as a cause for clocks slowing down is, in my mind, an excuse. Like when a child says, there is a monster under my bed, but it's invisible. Now, the excuse *may* be valid, but it's not a valid justification unless it's better supported.

To be more than just an excuse, there needs to be more behind it, such as a detailed description of the mechanism that accounts for the contradiction in your theory, along with the math to precisely quantify the discrepancy. Otherwise, why would somebody want to believe a theory that 1. doesn't explain observed phenomena and 2. there exist no good understanding as to why this disagreement exists?

I hope my point is better expressed this time.

-rrr

A much easier experiment is testing to see if objects with similar mass densities repel each other. This includes various objects of different densities.

A time experiment is to sync 3 high caliber watches on your car. One in front and the other in the back of the car and one at home and leave them there for about a week of driving around and especially highway driving. And record the discrepancies. Do this many times.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by MainframeII]

Originally posted by waveguide3
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

Take a look at page 23

Originally posted by Jim Scott
How do you account for the "lattice" structure of atomic particles that is not found in the universe in large objects?

In Sub Atomic terms, this lattice structure covers a HUGE distance.

You could be in the middle of it and not even see it.

Originally posted by Parabol
Neither does yours. You just assigned ideas to them. Einstein, Feynman, Oppenheimer, all of these guys were interested in the same things you're talking about. If you think you can just say that rocky planets are neutrons, suns have celestial protons inside of them, and that gas giants are electrons and that you've solved it, you are sadly mistaken. There is no physical, empirical evidence to suggest any of those thoughts are true. You also speak of quantum celestial matching as if it's a given, testing and accepted by scientists. That's like me saying there are many women who have a faulty model for selecting men to date because they don't match up with my Parabol-Beautiful Women matching. It doesn't mean anything.

I would argue that it does. Intuitiveness has been overly undervalued. Take Chaos Theory, a beautiful theory in its simplicity describing infinitely complex systems. To me, imaginary strings are not intuitive. I've never seen one, at any scale, to even suggest they exist, and no scientific experiment has ever detected one.

BTW, on a separate point, a true theory of everything must include Chaos Theory explicitly or implicitly.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by MainframeII]

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
OP only answers questions from people who seems to (even partly) agree with his theory.

So many very interesting questions simply ignored. Why is that so ?

OP are you afraid to think outside of YOUR box ?

I've been dealing with a nasty cold and I can't reply to everyone.

Originally posted by Parabol
No, it doesn't favor the theory. Scientists, much more educated than all of us here, spent their time designing these experiments under rigorous examination. They don't just throw this stuff out there to see how it works. I'm not saying there couldn't be flaws, I'm saying you can't just state they could be wrong so it supports your theory. There is no correlation, and your guesses on why they may be poor do not stack up against people who actually carried out an experiment to test for this specific property of relativity.

I need to comment on this for a couple of reasons. First off, scientific experiments are subject to something I'm every familiar with and a very human factor. Budget limitations, especially the expensive ones. Before any number of experiments can be carried out it must be worked out which experiment covers as many possible angles to verify or disprove any give theory and to fit within budget. So if experiment A covers 80% of X possibilities than experiment B, then A is selected and financed. But what if X possibilities is actually wrong and it's more like X*50 possibilities becuase something wasn't considered. What if the falsification experiment of that theory was outside the scope of A and of X within X*50 possibilities? My second point is that over time of inability of falsify a theory, say Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, grants and budgets for such experiments will be less approved leaving a series of untested possible falsification experiments and allowing faulty or incomplete theories become established. And then there is the Human hierarchy and something a friend of mine calls the herd factor. The Human factor can never be fully removed from objective science.



[edit on 5-9-2009 by MainframeII]

OP, if you don't mind me asking, and forgive me if you've already answered this, but is there any way we could see some credentials? Big words and fancy language are a sure-fire way to impress some (including myself at times), but I was wondering if I could have some backround info on you. What is it that you do for a living? Where do you work? Where did you go to school? Etc... Not trying to call you out on anything, it just helps me to have some extra intel on things. Thanks!

Just curious about this, as I've not had the time to go through your paper, but does it in any way relate to the Haramein-Rauscher Scaling Law?

www.theresonanceproject.org...

:R:

Simply because there hasn't been a celestial chemical reaction within our lifetime with our system. 1 second for us is about 3472 years passed at the quantum scale. Considering we live on average 75 years, we're not even close to passing celestial second and that depends if our system is already part of a celestial molecule and if not then it depends on when it would react with another system to have gas planet sharing. Also some reactions are not instant. In the theory the ones that would fly off are Uranus and Neptune as they are valence electron equivalents.

I don't know if that's entirely logical. Yeah, the average American life is about 75 years, but why don't we have evidence of this occuring in the past, or in other visible systems? And if we are already a part of a celestial molecule, where are the other systems that are also a part of that molecule? I acknowledge that I can't exactly comprehend the universal scale, but one would think that a system in the same celestial molecule as us would be a bit closer than 4.2 light years, or however close the Alpha Centauri cluster is.

interesting theory

so by your theory there may be life on some electrons within an atom but we could never confirm this because their whole civilization would only last a nano-second.

The ending to Men In Black the movie.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
OP only answers questions from people who seems to (even partly) agree with his theory.

So many very interesting questions simply ignored. Why is that so ?

OP are you afraid to think outside of YOUR box ?

It is difficult to discuss something complicated when people are not really trying to receive the information and are simply trying to discredit it.

I'd ask that you address the questions I had concerning the variables used in your equations, how you counter for planets much more massive than Jupiter, and stop giving vague generalizations about things you seem to know little about, i.e. the cost of experiments and how it influences their data compared to yours. You can't say, oh well, peer review is bias and doesn't work so I won't use it. Oh those experiments the other scientists were flawed because I think there are probably budget concerns and shortcuts. Yeah, budgets, they had money... to do experiments, unlike yourself. They were able to test their theory. How do you plan on testing yours?

Speaking of peer review, you didn't address these concerns either. You nitpicked the three most ambiguous topics I mentioned and skipped the direct stuff.

Quote from MainframeII/Demelo that I've continually seen used to hype his paper: "Many professionals I’ve shared this with are blown away. They called it the missing piece to the unification of physics and it comes from a misconception of one of Einstein’s equation pertaining to relativistic time and the application of scale."

WHO??? If accredited professionals have reviewed, supported, or made statements like this, who are they? Names, institutions, qualifications. You are a fraud unless you back statements like this up.

Here is the same statement again made at another site: "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."

You said yourself on your site that you don't want to submit your papers to peer review!

My Peer Review Critique - 9/1/2009 5:02:02 AM

First off I understand the need for a form of peer review but peer review is innately faulty for many reasons.

So, you haven't had it peer reviewed, but to put it mildly, scientists and engineers are blown away calling it the missing piece of physics and the key to unification?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
OP only answers questions from people who seems to (even partly) agree with his theory.

So many very interesting questions simply ignored. Why is that so ?

OP are you afraid to think outside of YOUR box ?

It is difficult to discuss something complicated when people are not really trying to receive the information and are simply trying to discredit it.

First, it's not complicated. Strip away the vocab and numbers and one of his main problems is that it is too simple. It doesn't account for so many things. He takes the 'atom looks like a solar system' and plays the what if game for the rest of the paper.

It's called review. If my best friend sent me his paper to read I would do everything I could to tear it apart. There shouldn't be simple logical errors, errors in writing out the form of equations, errors in grammar which contradict previous statements. That's why you have friends, teachers, colleagues, and whoever you can get to review your information. I have a degree in psychology, which even though it is not a hard science, i've taken two years of chemistry, a year of biology, a year of physics, and a semester of astronomy. Not to include the amount of personal time I spend learning and researching about science.

Am I trying to discredit him? No, if anything I'm pointing out errors that would be noticed by any trained scientist. I'm giving him the opportunity to counter what I see as flaws or miscalculations. He could go through my points and explain why I am wrong. I am willing to listen, but he does not address the key factors (masses larger than Jupiter, variable used for solar system radius). Those two things, that's what I want an answer on. If they aren't errors or flaws it should take him five minutes to tell me why I'm wrong.

He is unwilling to participate in peer review, which is a shame, because you learn a tremendous amount from it. Ever thought you knew something, even as simple as the definition of a word, and someone asks you to explain it and you're like... "damn, I know what it means and how to use it but I can't quite explain it." Peer review is like making you sit down and precisely figure out how to explain it, you may know it, but if you can't put it into terms that others can understand it's not very useful. While I may seem like the bad guy in this thread throwing out a bunch of problems I see, I'm actually helping him more than anyone else. As a scientist publishing a paper, you should be able to counter and deal with the types of questions and queries which have been presented by myself and others in this thread.

It is not an attempt to discredit, the burden of proof is on him, if he puts out a theory he should be able to handle problems that people see. Because if someone with my credentials sees logic and processing errors then you better believe that PhD's reviewing it will see the same things and more. If he refuses, or cannot address this, then it is his loss.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Parabol]

MainframeII, I was reading your site and had a question concerning one of your blog posts. The following is the beginning of the post...

G=EM - 5/7/2009 3:30:42 AM

It’s beautiful! This is an equation I never expected to stumble on ever in my life time. It means Gravity = ElectroMagnetism. It is an equation of two forces and how they are relative to each other (conceptually). They are spawned by the same space-time effect essentially the same thing but yet perceived differently. They are two sides to the same coin. What I honestly realized today, and it has nothing to do with physics, is that it also spells out the word gem. It is definitely a pearl of unparalleled beauty and it torments me daily. The likelihood of such a discovery is staggering. I would say it’s almost improbable. Why was I the one to stumble on this of all the possible people in the world.

You show no proof or evidence of this equation. You literally just wrote abbreviations for Gravity = Electromagnetism. How did you stumble upon this? I don't even know what to ask, it's like me saying I made a major discovery and revealing that "Strong Nuclear Force = Weak Nuclear Force = Electromagnetism = Gravity" I've unified physics!

The equation needs components to make sense, the equation is supposed to show how, not what you think it is. You can't just say Gravity = Electromagnetism, and I'm done. Just because you believe that to be true means nothing if you can't show how. Einstein spent the last half of his life working on that problem. He published some of his most notable work in his 20's, including his papers on the photoelectric effect and general relativity. I'm saying you can't claim to have united gravity and electromagnetism without the math to back it up. This type of reasoning does not help your credibility.