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: 9
84
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted 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]


agreed. that would eliminate the variables that are kind of questionable at the moment, such as how gravity (proximity to mass) affects time, versus how speed affects time. a car would be just as close to earth as a home.

The tricky part is finding clocks accurate enough and insensitive enough to temperature variations in the two environments, car and home. or conducting the experiment long enough to overcome the inaccuracies of the clocks.

-rrr




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I found the 192 page version of your theory.



Quick note: macroscopic objects will be referred to as celestial objects throughout this paper and atomic objects will be referred to interchangeably with quantum objects.


First, find me a physicist who is ok with saying that atomic and quantum objects are interchangeable in the manner you have laid out.

Second, why is there no bibliography??? You have a 192 pages of material and you didn't cite a single source. Which amounts to plagiarism because there is no way everything you learned going into that paper came from your head. Even the known equations used or widely accepted scientific knowledge needs to be cited. You didn't read anyone elses papers? You studied no books? You learned from nothing? Obviously not, though you don't mention the work or studies of other scientists with similar ideas. You don't attempt to specifically criticize anyone or a paper they wrote. It's just, wow... you have to cite your sources, you have to.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Cant help myself as I know most of you on this site have a capacity to think laterally. Alas when I state something I like to back it up ...

Who is the OP
Mr Robert Demelo a.k.a mainframex (disambiguation from the one in ohio)
proof of pseudonym here scribd

and here www.mainframex.com

"Worked with him during the mid 90s for several years at a place called Ziggys. We were good friends during that time. Purchased one of his first, if not the first, Cleavage demo tapes years before they won "Best Unsigned Band" in 2000. I asked Lukas for a copy of his music for sometime, so he pieced together a demo tape and I paid him for his trouble. I loved his stuff, so I helped convince another friend that the band was amazing, which eventually lead to an article in one of our local newspapers."

-Robert Demelo
a.k.a. MainframeX


Now read this thread - remember robert is mainframex
randi forum
for those of you who are a tad too lazy to read the entire thread let me quote the interesting part.

ETA
I also had a look at www[dot]gpofr[dot]com. All I had to do is look at the first few pages to see that it is a usual crackpot web site (even worse than Witt's book!).
Quote:
Using the new relativity mass equation derived in this ebook, Jupiter's relativistic mass (1.898x10^27 kg) is EXACTLY equivalent to the charge of an electron (1.6x10^-19 Coulombs) which validates the author's initial hypothesis with undeniable accuracy.
Quote:
Neils Bohr was the first to postulate that there was a similarity between atomic systems and star systems, and his theories gave rise to quantum physics, but never did he detail, nor anyone else, an exact relative link between the two until now.
and the more obviously crackpot bits from its list of concepts:
Quote:
* Touch on Evolution, Entropy, Aging and its link to Earth.
* Explaining Existence.
* Detailing The Possibility of The Existence of God.
But perhaps I am wrong. I am sure that you can point me to a list of peer-reviewed papers by the author on his theory !


Now the crux of it
People were debunking “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt even with statements such as Please do not waste your money on Witt's crackpot book.
So the penny drops for Robert that obfuscation of facts behind a veil of pseudo science with a great claim will drive publicity - and who knows how stupid publishers can be when all this traffic is being driven to his site and so many are proof of a market for such drivel [a plausible theory].

There is still hope as a lot of you who have posted for substantiation via peer reviews on his claims. Then again there are a lot of people who will not even read the previous posts and take his claims at face value, I know you are looking for something to believe in but for heavens sake the only similarity between and electron and jupiter is that they are made of matter and posses mass;
and electron does not spin around its nucleus it occupies all possible positions simultaneously, it does spin around its own axis but "not as we know it Jim" it requires a 720 degree spin to return to the same state - its like you or I spinning around twice to get the same view of the room. The list goes on but please don't think that you should take my word for it and certainly not Dementos, go and read up on physics then develop your own theories.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
I found the 192 page version of your theory.



Quick note: macroscopic objects will be referred to as celestial objects throughout this paper and atomic objects will be referred to interchangeably with quantum objects.


First, find me a physicist who is ok with saying that atomic and quantum objects are interchangeable in the manner you have laid out.

Second, why is there no bibliography??? You have a 192 pages of material and you didn't cite a single source. Which amounts to plagiarism because there is no way everything you learned going into that paper came from your head. Even the known equations used or widely accepted scientific knowledge needs to be cited. You didn't read anyone elses papers? You studied no books? You learned from nothing?


You can usually find at least 1 or 2 people in their field who don't agree with the 99.999% of other professionals in their field, so finding one physicist to agree with him wouldn't impress me.

I thought some of these ideas were quite original, so I certainly hoped he didn't get them anywhere else. If any of these ideas are published by anyone I'd be shocked as they seem to be lacking in an understanding of the observational evidence currently available to us which would affirm or disprove these ideas. Therefore I'm not surprised at the lack of a bibliography.

Lastly I saw no evidence the author has any understanding of quantum mechanics from the article he posted in the OP. Therefore I don't see how he can show his theory explains the observational evidence better than the theories currently in use in quantum physics.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:31 PM
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). It's more complex then this one sentence. 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 charge which is a fundamental value in physics. Basically, the "concept" of scale is unchanging between quantum and celestial objects, or what we call invariant. This concept isn't new, but my exact hypothesis is and so is the value of S. From this basic model and for the fact that value of S is velocity dependent (in one equation), I've "adjusted" Einstein's work.

Just clarify, I don't like saying Einstein was wrong. He was more right then everyone before him and especially after (after part bugs me because so many were involved reviewing his work), but he just not "absolutely" correct. And that's how I see myself also. I think I'm closer to the actuality of physical nature but not absolutely correct as I predict someone else in the future will make my own work better. That's my hope.


i apoligize for not seeing this in your work, or maybe you don't have it in there...but how does dark mass and dark energy fit into your theory. also, where does the massive "star" producing nebulas fit in to a quantum state?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MainframeII
 


I liked the Space-time density part the best.
I wonder if Bob Lazar could comment on this subject.
I wish i had his email address.


Bob Lazar owns United Nuclear and can be reached there...

United Nuclear Scientific
P.O. Box 373
Laingsburg, MI. 48848


United Nuclear Scientific
239 E. Grand River Rd.
Laingsburg, MI. 48848

Sales & Order inquiry email: uncustomerservice@gmail.com

Technical Support email:
unitednuclearscientific@verizon.net



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I'm still partial to John A. Wheeler's quantum foam theory and a Planck scale roiling sea of virtual black holes. The atomic scale is many orders of magnitude greater than the Planck scale. How does your theory address the theorized Planck scale?



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I read a bit more (of this thread) and now see your after the math of light, and I see that you attempted to compare and unify different principles in order to take predicate steps.


Originally posted by MainframeII
Just clarify, I don't like saying Einstein was wrong. He was more right then everyone before him and especially after (after part bugs me because so many were involved reviewing his work), but he just not "absolutely" correct. And that's how I see myself also. I think I'm closer to the actuality of physical nature but not absolutely correct as I predict someone else in the future will make my own work better. That's my hope.


Let's clarify this a bit more because there is some assumptions made that aren't being made by Einstein. To base any correctness on those assumptions wouldn't make Einstein wrong or right. Einstein presented a general way to understand, yet his more explicit equations were never published (by him). Since he didn't publish his explicit equations, we can't say that he concluded any absolute correctness about them.

Let's take the famous one, for example: E=mcc

The assumption in E=mcc is that light is constant. If we remove that assumption, his equation still works. I'm sure you wonder what is actually constant, then.

It is m that has constance, and that is a given n-dimension. In general relativity, we know n=3. In other words, if you measure mass only in 3 dimensional, then the equation works for general relativity. It doesn't matter what c equals; however, c is assumed to be constant when m is considered not to have constance. If one measures mass by ionic energy, then we can't assume m has constance. This is why you noticed the differences because people do make those assumptions.

Ionic energy is multidimensional. This is proven by the law of conservation. If you apply and measure force that can only be of 3-dimension space, then you'll notice this phenomenon when the resultant energy is different than actual energy. People tend to mistake this part of measurement because they may have simply calculated rather than actually measure by a 3 dimensional tool. This is where specific gravity is a critical measurement. Measurements taken by specific gravity should result in 3 dimensional mass, yet this principle is often ignored over the last hundred years since specific gravity didn't make sense to use when one can more quickly calculate a result. Here is the ignorance one should not deny.

Peace & Love

[edit on 5-9-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Woow. Let me address the indication of plagiarism very, very clearly. There is no plagiarism in my work for two specific reasons. First, someone mentioned a lack of modern quantum mechanics in my work and there's a very good reason. I approached all my work from "classical" physical mechanics not modern mechanics or theory. I approached it from the stuff that's been around for 100s of years and "very" well established and that's why my physics is so simple (why should it be complicated). Unless you're expecting me to cite Newton's "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687)" and Einstein's work, which I mention all over my work, it makes no sense. In my paper, which contains the work in my ebook (both created in 2007) in shorter version, I cite three specific references which are the exact references I used and more than I needed to come up with a simple intuitive theory. The bulk came from the book Hans C. Ohanian, R. P. (1989). Physics Second Edition, Explanded. The references are these:

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...

I also refer to wave theory in my work which is more than well established for over 50 years.

The second reason is at the beginning of my ebook which I state "This collective theory is meant to compliment Newton’s, Einstein’s, Plank’s and Bohr’s theories with a fresh new perspective". In addition, my ebook is not a formal scientific work and was not meant to be. I made it for myself (for documentation of all my theories), but after a few of my friends started sharing it online I decided to share it FREELY.

With regards to my own credentials, I have 5 years of formal physics education in electric engineering excluding my own studies at two academic institutions and I do not need to share this with anyone here.

Also the people I refer to that were "blown away" are professional friends of mine who are well versed in physics including a nuclear engineer. There have also been a few asking for collaboration including with degrees in physics or mathematics and some in academic positions. I will not share their names and because I will not, that's my credibility. People can be assured I will never reveal my contacts and put them in awkward situations with their employers by association to me because my theory, work and how I go about presenting it is very radical. I am not employed in academia so the deterrence of personal reputation does not phase me.

Also, I agree with some on this thread that all theories should be scrutinized and dissected. All theories. My intentions was to make people think on some interesting "coincidences" which is obvious I have. Please keep sharing my work.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts

Originally posted by ashestoashes
OMG !!!!!

I almost fell off the chair when I read your post !

I joined in pretty late but do you know that this concept is EXACTLY me and a friend of mine were discussing just the other day !!!

At the micro level, the formula is the same - i.e a central body - around which is rotating a mix of electrons and neurons.

Now take the same phenomena on a different scale.
The orbits of most celestial bodies shows the remarkably similar principle.


Yeah, I had the same idea 20 years ago when I was a kid. How incredible !

Again ; the old nuclear model with the electrons orbiting the nucleus is for SIMPLIFICATION ONLY !

Do you really believe an electron is placed on a circular orbit around the protons and neutrons like this ?


Geez, if it is the case, you shouldn't try to reunite quantum physics with general relativity before starting with the basic class...


Well in chemistry class we learned about some theory that electrons are placed on a circular orbit around the protons and neutrons like the image you suggest. I believe it's also what Spintronics is trying to exploit.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by FocusedWolf]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by MainframeII
 


I'm not saying you literally plagiarized in terms of cut and paste, but if you don't cite your work it will be considered as such by the scientific community. It also helps to show what was original and what was built off of previous ideas. For all I know you basically did a report and didn't include original information. Plus if you're trying to distribute this to a non-scientific audience, they are going to need even more sourcing than scientists.

I still find it hard to believe you cited less than ten sources. If I read through something, even without directly quoting, I'll still cite it because of it's influence on my understanding of the topic in general.

How do you account for planets much larger than Jupiter? Why did you use 75.5 AU as the radius of the solar system? Why not calculate from the orbit of Neptune, the last 'electron'? What in an atom would account for the extra 30+ AU's after Neptune that was used?



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FocusedWolf
Well in chemistry class we learned about some theory that electrons are placed on a circular orbit around the protons and neutrons like the image you suggest. I believe it's also what Spintronics is trying to exploit.
[edit on 5-9-2009 by FocusedWolf]


That is the old, simplistic theory, AKA "atomic theory" Atomic theory

The new accepted theory, quantum mechanics, is what is causing so much trouble to reunite quantum physics and relativity. It is also the theory that describes the best the nature of the atomic reality as we experience it today with our new technologic tools (at a smaller scale).
Quantum mechanics

In this theory, electrons are not located on orbits, but in "probability clouds".

The atomic theory is sufficient to explain chemical reactions, but not to explain what happens at a smaller scale.



Also, I quickly looked for Spintronics name and I couldn't find information relating to the orbits of the electrons, but rather to their spin. And the spin of an electron is a parameter from the quantum mechanics.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Interesting, your theories are very similar to those I posted a few years ago on my own myspace which I deleted a few years ago.

Additionally you are around the same age range and star sign, I was wondering have you ever experienced 'alien' / abduction type experiences.

I have theories around fractals, dimensional realities on communication and ability to 'know' sacred knowledge.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MainframeII
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


not to attack you man..i like the theory, just an observation on my side. BUT... 3*10^8 = 300,000,000 seconds. which is 5,000,000 minutes which is 83,333 hours, which is 3472 DAYS passed, not years. Simple math.
I hope you didnt make these silly mistakes throughout your paper my man.... publish or submit the paper to a science institution for review



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Almost as good as his e-mail address is his facebook page send him a message there. I am 100% sure that he is on there.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Americanist
 


Interesting, your theories are very similar to those I posted a few years ago on my own myspace which I deleted a few years ago.

Additionally you are around the same age range and star sign, I was wondering have you ever experienced 'alien' / abduction type experiences.

I have theories around fractals, dimensional realities on communication and ability to 'know' sacred knowledge.


please share them so they can be discussed...obviously in a new thread...dont wanna hijack this one now would we



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Why the heck is this in the "Aliens and UFO" section of ATS, and not in the "Science" section?

Should be moved.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 



In addition to my star sign I landed on All Hallows Eve for a birthday. I guess 1974 wasn't such a bad year either. The research I did I stumbled across or attracted somehow. It truly presented itself to me. I hadn't even heard of Rodin, Haramein, or Cantor at the time... In a matter of 30-45 days I had most the information I needed to weave things together though. The model, the game... The intent of some financially savvy people out there. I used more of a reductive process for reasoning. Eventually I put myself in a position to be a problem solver, and out came a plan to structure society within a united consciousness. The goal being to evolve our way out (do a search on the 100th monkey).


The Universe is God, a machine that functions on energy from God, and/or a design that emulates God to achieve advancement. If you're anything like me, you're sitting on some pretty solid instincts. I'd expand on those... Perhaps put your thoughts out there again, and see what happens.


–Thomas



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GerhardSA
 


Get one started, and I'm sure we'll have at it!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GerhardSA

Originally posted by MainframeII
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


not to attack you man..i like the theory, just an observation on my side. BUT... 3*10^8 = 300,000,000 seconds. which is 5,000,000 minutes which is 83,333 hours, which is 3472 DAYS passed, not years. Simple math.
I hope you didnt make these silly mistakes throughout your paper my man.... publish or submit the paper to a science institution for review


Good observation mate ... I am a bit surprised that it took 9 pages before someone noticed that ...

Another thing to point out is that his math on Neptune's orbit is also wrong ... it should be 21 orbits and not 24 orbits ... if it were years we were talking about and not, in fact, days.

3472 years/165 days is 21 orbits

Now, I am not saying this is the piece of information that means that his entire hypothesis is incorrect and it may seem a petty point to harp on about, but it does call into question the general standard of the whole paper ... Not to mention that using data derived from a simple mistake will compound into a bigger mistakes down the road.

And, not to harp on again as I know that others have said this repeatedly, but there is very little similarity between the physical configuration of subatomic particle and a solar system ... that similarity is what could be called - "Lies to Children"* - lies used in order to communicate complex ideas in a simple way ... but lies none the less.

* The Science of Discworld - Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, Jack S. Cohen**

** Used in order to avoid being given the label of "plagiarist"



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join