General Principles of Reality - new theory

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by MainframeII, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    Hi Everyone,

    www(dot)gpofr(dot)com

    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?
     
  2. Vkothii Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    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.
     
  3. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    The same effect that generates the effect of gravity, which we use to perceive and relatively calculate mass, is the same effect that generates charge force also used to calculate the value of charge. essentially the same effect is causing both forces which relativistically relates mass-gravity to charge. The cause and effect is due to space-time vibrations (imperceivable by us at least it wasn't obvious what that vibration was...it's visible and invisible light BTW) & applying wave theory superposition (constructive and destructive -> attraction and repulsion), except at the quantum scale, quantum relative time is faster than our own passage of time by a factor of c, thus the same cause and effect is stronger at the quantum scale.

    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.
     
  4. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Demonstrate that your 'theory' explains the following things :

    The precession of Mercury
    Hydrogen emission spectra
     
  5. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    Take a look at my theory on quantum light and gravity with Q transform. Essentially light is generated by the rotation of electrons around the nucleus of an atom, causes fluctuation in space-time at every orbit but only a specific range is observed by us. The smaller the orbit the "faster" that fluctuation/vibration in space-time is thus the more intense and stronger the emission. Exciting the atomic system by applying "energy" creates more of these fluctuations (neutral to plasma states vice-versa). Q transform helps, perhaps not completely yet, on explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit -> mercury generates as all matter does a level of space-time "density" that is denser than the Sun's thus Mercury as all planets are floating on the space-time density of the Sun's (via the visible and invisible light the Sun expels) so destructive interference along with the attraction that is constructive interference. My Q transform is currently still evolving, but in its current state it explains gravity and charge force fairly well as it pertains to the actuality of the effect. Newton was very close except here didn't incorporate wave theory. All matter vibrations space-time from infinitely high frequency and infinitely low amplitude to the density of space-time at its surface. Thus the all matter vibrates space-time in an infinite range of frequencies and amplitudes.
     
  6. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Can you or can you not derive physical predictions for those systems?

    If not, how can you claim to have explained them?
     
  7. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,054
    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?
     
  8. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    I've calculated and derived currently observed results using my equations so my theories don't negate current physics at all, just changes our perception of the phenomena behind physics and gives insight into yet unknown physics (which we've always known just never related or pieced together).

    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.
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Where's the calculations I asked for then?
     
  10. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    My theories relate quantum to celestial realms...unifies them under a common link that my equations elude to the actuality of physics. I haven't tried to derive any of the calculations your asking for yet, what I've been trying to do is give insight into this relation. I don't specifically describe the cause and effect of every observable phenomena but the underlining theory can give insight into those phenomena.
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    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.
     
  12. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,966
    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?
     
  13. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    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
     
  14. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    That's just rude and yes I have calculated and verified many, not every, observed results and they do match. Read my book objectively and then conclude if its "blowing smoke". You completely have the right to disagree with all my theories and I actually expect that many people would. There is a lot of work put into these theories I didn't pick them out of thin air and many of the derived numbers validate this such as the value of the reality scale S.
     
  15. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    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.
     
  16. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    I don't care about winning a nobel prize stuff like that doesn't interest me. My theory isn't a theory to everything but might give insight, progress our understanding. I ask everyone for objective consideration, be opened minded.
     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,966
    How "equal"? I would guess probably not, but given enough solar systems, the likelyhood increases.

    So far we have mostly discovered "jupiter-like planets" because they're easiest to discover, but let's assume that it's true that solar systems contain jupiter-like planets.

    Are you predicting that these planets should all have the eact same masses as jupiter?
     
  18. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    If I was to predict on this idea, based on relative similarities between the atomic and star systems, I'd say for the most part yes. The masses of these jupiter like planets should be "roughly" equal to each other. Size is not totally indicative of its mass.
     
  19. MainframeII checkout www.gpofr.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    17
    This is an answer I recently gave someone which I'd like to share:

     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    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". :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page