08-08-08, 02:19 AM #1
General Principles of Reality - new theory
This is a link to my theoretical physics paper (ebook) I've been working on for sometime. Hope you enjoy it and please feel free to pass it along to friends who might find it interesting. Its still very much a work in progress and my first attempt at writing an ebook.
I've already shared it with a many people and continue to promote it strongly with hopes of getting it published, but ultimately I just want to share it so that everyone takes from it something positive and a new perspective on reality hence my unconventional means of promoting it.
I believe its very significant. Why?...Just to point this out, my new relativistic mass equation presented in the book equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter to the value of an electron charge which is 1.6x10^-19 C. It was something I did not expect to find but the new equation was the one that gave me insight into this relationship which was the catalyst why I wrote this book. The new relativistic mass equation was derived using the Reality Scale value of S which remarkably related to the speed of light and Euler's mathematical constant and was further derived from a new relativistic mass-density equation. Essentially mass-gravity at the celestial scale is equal to charge at the quantum scale. To understand how this derived, download a copy of the ebook.
Let me know what you think?
08-08-08, 02:27 AM #2
How do you equate mass and charge?
Charge wouldn't be possible if electrons didn't have mass as well; just the right amount, as it turns out.
That's two things, and you say they're "equal". Not been my observation, dude.
08-08-08, 07:41 AM #3
Again my new relativistic mass equation was the one that gave me insight into this quite sometime ago which gave me time to group all my theories together as they relate to this discovery and my preexisting theory of relative realities.
08-08-08, 08:16 AM #4
Demonstrate that your 'theory' explains the following things :
The precession of Mercury
Hydrogen emission spectra
08-08-08, 08:50 AM #5
08-08-08, 08:55 AM #6
Can you or can you not derive physical predictions for those systems?
If not, how can you claim to have explained them?
08-08-08, 08:58 AM #7
I've skimmed your book. I think it's an excellent approach and I believe it contains some very, very important ideas. Especially your use of viscosity space tensors.
Have you approached any journals or academic departments with your work?
08-08-08, 09:26 AM #8
I have approached several journals and book publishers but honestly I just want to share it with everyone. My motives for sharing is genuine in hopes of advancing physics and the sciences.
08-08-08, 09:52 AM #9
08-08-08, 10:16 AM #10
08-08-08, 10:40 AM #11
In other words you have no justification for claiming your ideas can model anything. Without quantitative justification you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
08-08-08, 10:59 AM #12Just to point this out, my new relativistic mass equation presented in the book equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter to the value of an electron charge which is 1.6x10^-19 C.
Electrons are fundamental, Jupiter is not. you do know that we have discovered larger (and smaller) planets in this universe?
08-08-08, 11:12 AM #13
yea mainframe, havent you heard?
Weve figured everything about the universe out already, so stop trying a new theory, we wouldnt want you to win a nobel prize or anything. /sarcasm
08-08-08, 11:43 AM #14
08-08-08, 11:46 AM #15
08-08-08, 11:50 AM #16
08-08-08, 11:51 AM #17True, 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.
Are you predicting that these planets should all have the eact same masses as jupiter?
08-08-08, 12:47 PM #18
08-10-08, 01:11 PM #19
This is an answer I recently gave someone which I'd like to share:
Anyone who calculates the age of the Universe to be 14 billion years old, and those that blindly believe him, are just as bad as those who blindly believe my theories. 14 billion years old is a theory as well based on what they can see and measure currently in the cosmos which is not conclusive by any means.
Planck meter and second are also conventional "theories" that we have blindly accepted. I very strongly believe that they're completely wrong. Plank himself believed there was more to it.
You're a conscious entity and you have mass. Mass is a perception and can only be measure relatively to another piece of mass. Everything is relative, including the way we think.
Large animals have more mass, doesn't mean they have more consciouness or are smarter. The collective make up of our bodies, our brains, the actual structure, is what gives us our unique personal consciousness (be it with denser neurons or not). The more the mass with an less evolved brain is not the same as smaller mass and much more evolved brain. BUT all animals have the "potential" to evolve and surpass their current level of consciousness.
Quarks, neutrinos and tiny particles all become abstract to us and our means of observation because of their size. Read chapter 12 and 15. It explains my theories in forces and quantum particles. Protons and neutrons are miss classified in conventional theory as stated in my theory.
The theory that space-time is infinite was derived from my underlining theory that realities are relative separated by a barrier of perception which involves space and time. If you read the book, the first few pages stipulate that I give credit to classical and modern day science but I take nothing as factual thus to start from fresh perscpective. So whatever is currently accepted, as part of good science, be constantly questioned and reanalyzed. People of faith are sometime critized for blindly following doctrine, the same can be said for scientists blindly following established science. I don't believe my work is pseudoscience at all because that would imply all proposed scientific theories are pseudoscience. The current science establishment unspokenly requires that anyone with a theory take very small steps in the claims of their theories, I unfortunately didn't do that which automatically labels it all under pseudoscience. I released a book with all my theories for many reasons. I already knew this is how it was going to be blindly percieved by some and I'm not calling you out. The fact you logically refuted my theories is admirable, though I don't think you read my book.
In the book I state that 1 space-time density is the space-time density as we percieve it being expelled at the Earth's surface. Its not the same as the density of space-time being expelled by Jupiter or the Sun, but would be measured relative to the Earth's space-time density. It's a reference point.
08-10-08, 01:45 PM #20
You don't even know what a Planck length or time is. It's the only natural combination of G, h and c which give units of length and time. They aren't theories, they are new units of length and time. It's equivalent to you saying "Anyone who works in imperial units is wrong, you should work in metric units!" as if the answer "The distance is 30 centimeters" is more correct than "It's 12 inches".
By Roman in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 12-06-11, 02:42 AMReplies: 35
By Tim Brewer in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 11-24-08, 10:47 AMReplies: 37
By Cortex_Colossus in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 11-10-07, 11:13 AMReplies: 36
By humansave in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 11-05-07, 07:03 PMReplies: 8
By Reiku in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 10-02-07, 08:02 AMReplies: 5