Star Systems are Atoms?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by MainframeII, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. MainframeII checkout Registered Senior Member

    This is in reply to the older thread "Are stars a map of atoms?" which I came across today.

    I've been working on this very subject for sometime now and my conclusion thus far is yes. Star systems are atoms at the cosmological scale.

    My work is based on a simple scale factor between star systems and atoms (specifically our Solar System and the Beryllium atom due to 4 gas giants in the star system = 4 electrons in the atom). After doing this, I literally stumbled on equating Jupiter's mass to an electron's charge exactly using a simple and initial mass scaling equation. Since then I've mapped all gas giants masses to the electron charge, mapped the proton to a 1/4 of the Sun's mass neutrons to rock planets, and asteroids to photons.

    This year I also presented my work to a group of international scientists who received my radical work much better than I'd expected.

    Anyway my work and videos can be found here:

    There are two main aspects that generally some scientists have difficulty with until I go into detail about my work and this perhaps I've experienced some level of success presenting my work to scientists on a radical and difficult theory:

    1. First is the perception of the electron and electron cloud, due to certain presumptions in quantum mechanical theory about the electron cloud. I show them my simple scaling math with undeniable results and the probability math that the electron cloud is nothing more than electron's traveling around a the tiny nucleus near c; infinitesimal circumference and radius vs. enormous velocity. To predict an electron's position at any given moment is very difficult and with the generation of a magnetic field around a moving charge, from our perspective its all a blur (haze or cloud).

    2. The is about the metric (SI) Coulomb and Kilogram unit being interchangeable in my framework. I example that you have to fully understand that if the same thing, same object, and its mass are perceived differently at large differences in velocity, such as between low velocities and those near, at and beyond the speed of light, than Coulomb and Newton (the men) themselves did not have insight into the possibility that they were defining the same thing by two different units by defining characteristics of mass and charge and that is why we inherently developed two separate units for the same physical quality experienced differently due only to a difference in velocity. This has baffled me why people have a hard time understanding this. Its because current dogma is so ingrained.

    Here is a list of my works: www(dot)gpofr(dot)com/library.aspx
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Maybe, on the entire structure of the universe, if someone was lucky enough to be sitting just outside it (which is impossible) the universe might look like a stable atom.

    But the internal structure of the universe do not act like atoms, they act like planetary star systems.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    So you think that every atom and particle in the universe is configured to reflect our solar system? A touch egocentric.

    Do you even know the 'usual' relativity? Or are you just claiming you've somehow superseded it because you've come up with some waffle about time and space?

    Given we know that special relativity accurately describes the mechanics of objects moving at high velocities relative to one another if you disagree with special relativity by more than a fraction of a percent then you're wrong. Likewise for general relativity within the solar system.

    How do you explain how atoms do not radiate all of their electron orbital energies and collapse?

    The electron 'cloud' has nothing to do with blurring due to high velocities, that's a perceptual artefact of how our eyes and brains process images. The structure of orbitals in atoms are not worked out as something physical, they are probability and energy distributions.

    Atomic orbitals differ from gravitational orbits because gravitational orbits are planar, the planets or stars move in ellipses whose planes are set. If a satellite is put into a geostationary orbit about the Equator it will stay there, the only ways to change that involve using fuel to push it into a different orbit (like a polar one) or colliding it with something. Electrons don't behave like that, they can be found anywhere in the orbital, which is not a 1d circle in a 2d plane but a 2d surface in a 3d volume (or more generally a region of volume).

    I seriously doubt that. Your previous comment seems to be implying you think that the issue with probabilities in quantum mechanics is due to the difficulty in measuring small fast moving objects. That's false, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not due to measurement problems or difficult in doing calculations, its viewed as a fundamental thing in the subatomic world. In fact your entire approach doesn't agree with quantum mechanics. You can't simultaneously say how you agree with the established stuff and yet claim to have turned it over. As I just explained, gravitational orbits and atomic orbitals are quite different on even qualitative levels.

    Where and to whom? A conference? A reputable conference? A university? A symposium? Have you submitted your work to a reputable journal? If so, what did they say? If not, why not and do you intend to?

    If you're getting things like 4 metres = 2 seconds = 10 kilograms then the work is nonsense. Units must match. Though mainstream work using natural units might seem to disregard dimensionality of quantities this is not the case, they are essential.

    Newtonian mechanics does not apply to high velocities, it is only an approximation to relativity. No one for 100 years has thought Newton's work is valid at near to the speed of light. Likewise Coulomb's work in electromagnetism was improved upon into electrodynamics, which includes relativity's ability to hand high velocity phenomena and that has been pushed even further in quantum electrodynamics, applying to the world of the very small and the very fast. It's the most accurately tested bit of science ever. You're more than a century behind the times.

    Electrodynamics includes Lorentz invariance, both from the point of view of Maxwell's equations and from the point of view of space-time symmetries. The equations and structures are consistent through all possible velocities. Boosting a charged particle to high velocity doesn't alter its charge, that's one of the most basic properties of electromagnetism, else charge conservation would be violated all the time.

    The equations \(F = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_{0}}\frac{q_{1}q_{2}}{r^{2}}\) and \(F = G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}\) are similar in form but they differ in important ways. Charges can be opposite, ie \(q_{1} = -q_{2}\) while masses cannot, \(m_{i}\geq 0\). Both of them are low energy and low velocity approximations to more general equations, with Coulomb's equation being deducible from the quantum electrodynamics Lagrangian while Newton's formula comes from the Einstein field equations. The former is quantised, the latter is not. Yes, its nice that they both take similar forms because it means you can do a lot of gravitational stuff if you know some electromagnetism and vice versa but once you get past the high school level material and into the actual models used in present day research the simple similarities between electromagnetism and gravity rapidly evaporate into superficialities.

    No, its because it works and its passes experiment and people took the time to understand it. If someone can come along with superior models and can justify their claims with experiments and reason then it'll replace the current models. Something tells me that if you're coming at it from the point of view of "Those expressions in high school textbooks look similar" then you're a touch naive about just how far from research level physics you are.

    This reminds me of Myron Evans, a nut who thinks that because his site gets traffic (which is almost entirely made up of people going there to look at how detached from reality he is) then his 'theory of everything' has replaced the standard model and relativity as the topics of research done by the mainstream. He too lists site traffic and mentions occasionally when someone from a particular IP address looks at his site.

    Its dishonest and a bit desperate if you're listing all those companies and institutions simply because someone with an IP address registered with them has been to your site. How many have actually contacted you to do work? How many have done research into your 'work' and written papers on it? How many published articles on your work have arisen from all those visitors? If you were producing viable science and having an impact on the community you'd not need to have such a daft list on your website, you'd have a link to something like SPIRES or ArXiv listing all papers published on your 'theory'.

    Whose initial estimates? Yours? What are you basing those numbers on? How many people who have a copy actually read any of it? How many are actual physicists? How many have gone on to do research on it? How many papers in reputable journals have come from all those hundreds of thousands of readers?

    If those figures are accurate (which I very much doubt anyway) then the complete lack of any impact on the scientific community demonstrates how lowly regarded your claims are.

    I suggest you concentrate on getting your current 'work' published before wasting time writing more nonsense no one wants to read.

    Unless of course you're doing the same as Aether Wizard and writing crap to peddle merchandise to con laypersons out of money. Real scientists do the research, submit to and pass peer review and then maybe write a book on it if its something huge. The sign of a science hack is going the other way, selling crap related to their 'theory' before getting it published (or, more often than not, because it got rejected).
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. MainframeII checkout Registered Senior Member

    No I don't. Read what I wrote carefully. A scale factor was derived between our Sol system and the Beryllium atom based on count match between electron's and gas giants.

    Yes, very well in fact. Do you? I have no doubt that you do, at least the text book material, but to understand special or general relativity, in fact any theory, you have to also understand how it's been validated and not just blindly believe what a book or people tell you. I can't stress this enough, understanding the absolute fundamentals of science and questioning every aspect of them continously can only develop a better version of any fundamental theory.

    In elementary particle physics, relativity is validated by moving short lived particles, particles that decay typically in an explicit amount of time when "fairly" stationary, to speeds closer to c which delays its decay a bit longer. Fact is, quantum particles are never stationary and no experiment to date make them so. Even if any given quantum particle could be set absolutely stationary, remember the small scale of quantum particles, there is no way to detect their rotation movement. And then there is the issue of using decay of particle as a measure of time. Time in its most fundamental definition is a t=d/v and not an entropic property of a particle. Entropy is not a measure of time. The problem with elementary's validation of relativity using decaying particles is that the particle may very well still decay in the direction of acceleration but its fragments still remain relatively close upon detection due to momentum and the confinement of the intrumentation.

    My point here is that preaching that Einstein's Special Relativity is fact other than a very good approximation is wrong (at least philosophically wrong). Everything should be challenged starting from the most fundamental and nothing should be assumed as fact..ever! Human interpretation of data and the subsequent semantics of its definition introduces a degree of human error that can subsequently distort the validity of experimental data for others, possibly for generations. Did you know that Einstein himself flopped several times publicly on the definition of the aether after he published his famous papers? Did you know that Einstein himself published his papers with mathematical errors he later corrected. He wasn't perfect. In my opinion, Einstein's greatest contribution was to critical thinking and not his theories. He never received a Nobel prize for his theories, because they were and remain theories with very little supportive data. Even GPS scientists publicly claim not to use SRT in their calibration of GPS satellites (check out Ron Hatch).

    Have you seen any planets fall into thier stars lalely, or ever. There is no data of this therefore speculation that planets would fall into their stars over time if that's what you're claiming that I'm claiming atoms should do. BTW I'm not. My point is that if atoms do what they do and how they do it, than star systems do the same thing at a cosmological scale and vice-vera. Its that simple.

    Well I'm claiming that atoms and electrons are physical and quantitative. How we go about determining their position using energy distributions and probability is only necessary because our instrumentation still lack the ability to see any quantum particle up close, close enough to see their surface in an instant snap shot of time. Perhaps you don't understand, probability is necessary with quantum particles, such as electrons, because they naturally travel, in their natural states, at velocities near the c. Physically, you cannot take out a stop watch or measuring tape and calculate it's next position. Why? Because you're slow, and so is your instrumentation (you have to really understand that experimental limitations play a large role on why we do physics in the current way that we do), therefore the use of probability and energy distribution is necessary.

    You’re thinking is too limited. Relatively, not SRT but the base definition of something relative, if star systems are atoms, than time passes faster for them for the simple reason that electron’s orbit the nucleus near c. I calculated this time difference (a factor) to be about 9.10^26. That’s about 2.9x10^19 years for 1 second at the cosmological scale. This number is huge and applying it to any star system then you must take into account the system’s entire rotation over time. The planets’ orbits might somewhat remain planar over time, but compounding that with the whole system’s rotation over large periods of time allows the planets to move everywhere in relative space around the star’s position. I have a computer simulation on my website demonstrating this. It’s all a matter of perception incorporating time.

    Also, if you are assuming that all star system are planar by nature, where’s your data? We’re only realizing that most star systems being analyzed for planets actually have planets. This is something I actually predicted 3 years ago, but that’s besides the point. The point is, you and no one else has data “not” supporting highly elliptical orbits (those close to 90 degrees) of planets on other star systems. There is data supporting moderately elliptical orbits.

    It doesn’t violate QEM.

    Also, I am not claiming “to have turned it over”. You’re saying that, not me.
    All I’m really claiming is that I calculated gas giant masses to the value of an electron charge using a very, very simple scale factor and derived math equations. The numbers match. This is all I’m claiming.

    17th annual NPA Scientific Conference held at Cal State University, Long Beach. I was invited to participate in this conference after submitting my paper and after presenting it online via video conference to an international forum of scientists. The conference was attended by physicists from a few journals including Physics Essays and Galilean Electrodynamics, and including physicists who flew in from Europe from whatever Institutes or Universities they are from.

    I don’t hide the fact my work is radical which makes it hard to get “reputable” scientists to take interest, but the fact is some are willing to hear me out. I try to be transparent to everyone without putting my personal safety at risk.

    If it wasn’t for the simple calculations about gas giant masses equating to the electron charge, I probably would have given up on this research a while back, but I can’t because the math speaks volumes that I’m onto something. Plus the more I research the more I reveal. I figure I will be working on this for a long time to come and ill thought critiques will not stop me from continuing my work though they are good in strengthening my arguments.

    No. I claim that mass and charge are the same thing experienced differently due to a large difference in velocity.

    You missed my point completely.

    I’m not disputing charge conversation or Maxwell’s equations, though I would say that I am trying to add a physical explanation, in physical actuality, to Lorentz invariance.

    I use Coulomb and Newton as an example on why the SI units for charge and mass were developed independently historically if in fact they were defining the same property (which I believe they did) but did not have insight into the possibility that mass is experienced differently at large differences in velocity.

    Also, it’s more than just coincidence that these two equations have similar form and to disregard this is tragic. Similarly, F=ma has a similar form to F=qE where "E" and "a" are acceleration fields and in my work m = q qualitatively. So in fact there are 2 sets of equations that are coincidental in physics between mass and charge. Yes, they are generalizations of other equations, but even those other equations have the same similarities.

    No. My point is understanding my perspective on this subject, not that current established theory is better or not. When I explain that in my work mass and charge are the same property without further explanation, people remain puzzled until I go into the history of how charge and mass were derived relating to the context of my work. People instinctly think, because of it being taught in school, that mass and charge is completely different. Any other perspective, like mine, has not been introduced to most people. This is the dogma I'm referring to.

    And no again, I do not come from the point of view of “Those expressions in high school textbooks look similar”. I come from the point of view that star systems and atoms fundamentally look similar. Two unique structures in nature that have an undeniable similarity; a limited number of quantifiable objects orbiting a core.

    No again. I track everyone on my website and it’s not dishonest. It’s smart. All websites do this. I give away my work for free so at least I’m entitled to keep tabs on who visits and downloads. I do not reveal who specifically downloaded my work just the network they came from. You cannot download anything off my website without registering.

    Also, keep with the times. Old paper directories are antiquated. The Internet is free to all and I am more than capable of running my own database much less a simple website. Social networking is changing the how science collaborates significantly now much less in ten years. Also I have listed my work with my country’s national archives, catalogue and the world science database ( has listed my work. Yes I have not approached the release of my work in the most traditional way but I do not find how I’ve done it wrong. I guess I’m not a traditional guy. Perhaps it’s my youth.

    I think you’re confusing me for an old established physicist with a long history in the field with many published papers and references to it. I am young and my work is only a few years old since I initially released it.

    Also, my work is not a “theory of everything”.

    My estimates and they’re based on those who probably have a copy of any piece of my listed works. They are the best estimate I can deduce. Also, would you highly regard a radical theory solely independent of anyone else’s opinion? Would you solely or be one of the first to champion my radical theory even if you saw merit or potential in it? Or would your potential worry of being rejected by what you deem the “reputable” scientific community be a hindering aspect to pursue this research? I have no such hindrance since I like to question everything. Also I have not promoted my work the same way or as much as others have like buying ads spaces in newspapers. I have taken my time focusing on and enjoying my research with the occasional post here and there.

    From reading your style of writing I conclude you are a skeptic by nature. What you should know about me is that I too am a skeptic by nature which is why I question every aspect of existence including any fundamental and established theory, much less people’s individual theories.

    Fact is I have been contacted by a few people and the future will tell how my work will ultimately be received. Again I make no qualms about the nature of my work. It’s radical and not finished but I strongly believe I’m on the right track.

    Also I am not selling anything besides my ideas. My ebook is a FREE download based on my very initial work 3 years ago (buying a hard copy is optional). All my papers are also FREE. I personally find it unjust that scientific journals require very expensive subscriptions to read the latest and greatest. Most journals are not accessible to the general public which I think is unjust. I think my approach to be the most fair.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2010
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Yes, I have a PhD in theoretical physics.

    You think that's the only way its done? That's just one approach done decades ago. And I find it funny that you comments about not knowing beyond books and yet your "This is how relativity is tested" example is the very first example given in a great many introductory special relativity books or pop science books. There's more to it than that, every particle accelerator experiment depends on special relativity. Not in the explicit way you have described (which was done for muon showers formed by cosmic rays) but that Lorentz invariance allows physicists to boost to a frame where the mathematics is easer, say centre of momentum frame, and then calculate differential cross sections. Once the calculation is done you use special relativity to boost back to the frame you were interested in. If SR weren't very accurate then this double application of it would lead to errors. Given such predictions are experimentally tested into parts per trillion the errors in SR are no longer than that.

    You have failed to do your homework, you haven't bothered to find out the myriad of different experiments which test special relativity. Even the one you talk about doesn't suffer from the problems you claim. There's things like 'decay width' in quantum field theory which account for particle decay rates. They don't need the particle to be stationary. And do you honestly think physicists don't take into account such things as experimental error and practical limitations of apparatus?!

    Models which break Lorentz invariance get published occasionally. About 2 years ago the hot topic in theoretical physics was Horava gravity, which doesn't have special relativity as a symmetry. Perhaps if you bothered to find out what actual researchers were doing, rather than getting your information from pop science sources or books decades out of date.

    Proposing a model which violates special relativity is going to mean you need to produce a hell of a lot of justification for your position. This is not because people mindlessly say "SR cannot be wrong" but "SR has so much experimental justification you're going to have to demonstrate an awful lot of evidence before people turn away from it for good", as it should be with any area of science.

    And? Many times I've said here that people shouldn't canonise Einstein. He didn't believe in the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. He didn't like black holes. So what? No one is perfect. But the fact remains that some of what he did was been examined, tested, developed and understood by a great many people since then. Errors, both conceptual and mathematical, are reduced and removed as time progresses.

    They automatically set the clocks to run slower by design so that once in orbit they run at the required rate. It saves having to do any calculations on the fly.

    And that does nothing to negate the fact relativistic effects are seen in a great many systems by a great many researchers. Something as simple as the colour of gold is due to relativistic effects.

    Looks like basic electromagnetism and the history of quantum mechanics isn't something you're up to speed on.

    When a charge is accelerated it emits radiation and loses energy. An electron going around a nucleus like a planet around a star is constantly being accelerated and yet it doesn't radiate energy. The atom is not possible in classical electromagnetism. And as it happens in gravitational systems there's a similar effect but on a much much lower level. Any orbiting planet emits gravitational waves and loses energy. Its very very small, the Earth does about 1000W of emissions, but its been observed in binary pulsars. So in fact if you aren't predicting that then you have failed to correctly model orbital mechanics.

    You should really learn some quantum mechanics before trying to tell others about it. Maybe you're just used to peddling your crap to people who don't know any better but some of us did and continue to do quantum mechanics.

    I suggest you learn about Bell's theorem and the associated experiments. What you're saying it that there are 'hidden variables' which exist but which we can't measure due to ineptitude or bad technology. Bell's work sticks a fork in that one.

    Yes, must be all that time I spent learning rather than just making shit up like yourself. At least it means I don't have to lie about topics I don't understand when presenting my work.

    Each individual orbit is planar. A single planet or asteroid will, in the absence of gravitational interactions with other objects, move within a single 2d plane. Its basic mechanics, such as conservation of angular momentum. Having multiple planets moving in different planes doesn't alter that. This is fundamentally different from the orbital shells which electrons reside on. In a Hydrogen atom, with a single electron, the electron doesn't move in a plane, it's position is defined by a spherical shell. If atoms were like solar systems there'd be a plane within which the electron were found.

    You've failed to understand even the qualitative stuff.

    The previous paragraph says otherwise.

    Wow, you and Aether Wizard are following the same path, as he's talked to people from the hack journal Galilean Electrodynamics too. Finding joke journals to get your joke work published in is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Have you got your work published in a reputable journal?

    'Personal safety'? Are you worried about the mainstream physics death squad kicking your door in one night?

    I know hacks love to fantasise that their work has physicists running scared and there's some international conspiracy which crosses borders, languages, religions and ideologies which is suppressing their work but the fact is physicists don't always get along and if a good idea is presented they'll jump on it. Hence things like Horava gravity recently. If your work fails to get any attention despite years of trying try looking a little closer to home for the problem.

    Experiments say otherwise. Neutrinos move faster than pretty much anything other than light and they have no electromagnetic charge.

    Then explain it.

    Except that mass and charge are not related precisely because of the invariance of Maxwell's equations. Either you disagree with them or your claim is not true.

    You keep trying to simultaneously say "I don't disagree with the mainstream on X" and "But the mainstream is wrong and I've got the answer". You can't have your cake and eat it.

    The concept of what a 'charge' is is qualtitatively the same as what a 'mass' is in gravity so by construction their equations will be similar. Gravity and electromagnetism are both forces so they accelerate things (that's part of what a force is). When you then quantify the effect on two different objects in the same situation you can label them with notions of 'charge' in the same way. Physicists in years gone by approached the problems in similar ways and its important not to be too caught up in how a thing is represented.

    And your passing comment of "Yes, they are generalizations of other equations, but even those other equations have the same similarities." clearly demonstrates you're just talking out of your backside. If you'd ever done quantum electrodynamics and general relativity (and yes, I have) you'd know how much they differ from one another. The construction of Coulomb's law as an effective theory of QED is markedly different from the construction of Newtonian gravity in the Einstein field equations. It's quite straight forward once you're competent at the relevant calculus but the differences are much much much more than in the \(F \sim \frac{1}{r^{2}}\) case of their approximations.

    Here's a tip, you get more credibility if you're up front and honest about what you know or rather don't know.

    Whose this 'people' you talk of? Physicists? Or do you mean laypersons? If you're using the views of layperson's to determine how physicists think then you're using a very flawed line of reasoning.

    The formulation of gravity and electromagnetism can be put into very similar settings on a high level. To be more specific both the Riemann tensor in GR and the Yang-Mills form in quantum field theory can be regarded as curvature forms on fibre bundles and they have the same tensorial structure and symmetries. This is a fairly well known result in theoretical physics, particularly in areas which work with both of them, such as string theory.

    Ah so not "These two textbook equations look similar" but "These two textbook pictures look similar.". Do you think no one else has considered that before?

    The internet is changing things, including the scientific community but it doesn't mean that putting work on your website makes you a scientist or means you're having an impact on the research community. now allows pretty much all physicists and mathematicians access to one another's work free and instantly. That's a huge change from the days of expensive journals (which are still around mind you) but this doesn't mean that hosting your work on your website has any impact. Getting your 'work' into a national archive says nothing about its scientific merit, works of fiction are included in them! By looking at ArXiv you can get a very real and very recent snap shot of what the current areas of research in mathematics and physics are. I haven't met a single person in the theoretical physics academic community who doesn't put their work there so if your work isn't mentioned anywhere there then your ideas are not being worked on by any serious academic in theoretical physics.

    And your comment about youth shows how little you know about the community. Typical postgrad and postdoc ages are 22~30. I'm 26. Do you think we're not familiar with the internet?

    No, I most definitely am not since I guessed you are young and certainly I didn't think you have any published work and you are definitely not a physicist. You just like to tell yourself you are.

    I asked you if you'd submitted your work to a reputable journal. You ignored the question. Have you? What happened? Turn around time for a competent journal is under 3 months typically so if you're serious about your work you should have heard back from many different journals by now. The fact none of your work has been published in a reputable journal shows either they all turned you down or you haven't submitted your work, which brings into question whether you believe your own claims.

    'A few years' is more than enough time to gauge what the reaction from the community is. As you said, this is the age of the internet, we don't have to wait 10 years for work to filter around the globe, it happens instantly. I can read today what someone in China put on ArXiv yesterday (well actually Thursday, they don't update on weekends). 'A few years' is long enough to do a PhD, which is enough time to get your work to the attention of enough people to obtain another research position at the end of it if your work is good enough.

    Like I said, if you have all those people and companies and organisations interested and yet not a single bit of published work has come from any of them on your ideas then it counts against you. You count someone downloading it as interest, rather than someone just wanting to see how nutty your work is. I read Myron Evans' website occasionally for laughs, not because I think he's doing viable science.

    No, because unlike the hacks who claim they've been rejected by the community I've actually got experience of being in the community. I know the various attitudes and views of a great many academics, I could speak to people face to face to gauge their reactions to certain things or to bounce ideas of them. When you know a group of people well enough you can generally guess their reaction to certain things. The people who whine "OMG the mainstream orthodoxy is suppressing me!!!" are almost without exception people who've never been in the mainstream or have any clue about how to present a justified logical argument for a position.

    If I could knock over special relativity tomorrow, really provide concrete absolutely undeniable evidence its not valid, I'd LOVE to do it. It'd be the biggest thing to happen to physics since relativity was introduced! It'd mean rewriting pretty much all our understanding of the universe. But I'm also aware I'd need a hell of a lot of evidence to do that, because it would, if true, draw the attention of every single theoretical physicist in the world and they'd all want to check what I'd be presenting. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I have yet to see a single hack presenting their work on this or any other forum who can even present ordinary evidence, never mind extraordinary evidence.

    You included.
  9. skaught The field its covered in blood Valued Senior Member

  10. MainframeII checkout Registered Senior Member

    Then I respect your education. Mine is in engineering.

    What is your current line of research? Where can I read your work?

  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Referring to the opening post: the major problem with picturing atoms as miniature solar systems is that electrons in atoms do not have well-defined trajectories around the nucleus. They do not "orbit" the nucleus in the same way that planets orbit the Sun. And that has nothing to do with high speeds and the like.
  12. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Alpha u missed one I think

    Orbital energies ARE evaporated in planets. The earth loses 200 watts of gravitatonal energy as it orbits the sun, so planets do radiate orbital energy.. tiny tiny bits of energy.

    And you ignored the fact about supernovas.. could you imagine a uranium atom going supernova in an atomic bomb??? haha no atoms are not suns if they were then maybe we shouldn't have purified fissile material!! don't worry folks bombs won't just spontaneously combust.
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this analogy occur to every ten year old child who doesn't suffer from learning difficulties?

    The only difference between that and Mainframe's approach is that he has found a numerical coincidence between a property of atoms and the properties of planetary systems. Given the number of properties that could be considered, such a coincidence is almost certain.

    That leaves us with a big fat nothing.
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    My PhD area was compact dimensions in string theory and also gravity/gauge duality. I'm now out of academia and work for a private research company doing a variety of things (depending on what contracts we win) currently ranging from quantum mechanics through to machine learning and fluid mechanics.

    As for where you can read my work its on ArXiv and in 2 journals. I don't give my name out too often as there's a few vindictive hacks here I'd prefer don't know who I am since I seriously question their sanity. If you aren't reading ArXiv now then there's no point in seeing my work, as with most research its extremely niche.

    Then you haven't bothered to do enough reading to get a proper view of the physics community. You're making a strawman but not bothering to find out what the community and research actually does.

    This is a little deceptive in what you try to imply. Very very few physicists think Einstein was right on everything, he had plenty of well known mistakes and dead ends so you're not being a maverick by saying "I don't think his work was perfect". My reply to a statement like that would be "Of course not, GR isn't quantised, his attempts at theories of everything didn't know about the nuclear forces and his views on quantum mechanics were wrong".

    As for physicists who think he's 'wrong' you need to be more precise. Most, if not all, think he's not perfect and his work will some day be improved. This is quite different from the very small group who say "GR is wrong, it shouldn't be taught or researched, its dead". The science community is very large so by using words like "many" you can still be talking about a very small minority. You should be more precise with your statements else it seems like you're being deceptive.

    If I spent my time trying to work with every hack I come across on the internet I'd never have got my PhD.

    Do you really think that if the GPS network violated relativity no one would say anything? Experimentalists are desperate to find errors in quantum field theory or relativity because it would mean they'd get a lot of attention, a lot of funding and really make a difference to our understanding of the universe.

    The GPS network uses general relativity, because 2 effects are important, the clock slowing due to their relative velocity with the Earth (a special relativity effect) and the clock speed increase due to being in a region of weaker gravity. When you work out the resultant time change that is what they set the timer to run slower by, as the slowing outweighs the speeding up.

    This mixture of two different time dilation effects is a standard homework problem for students to demonstrate how its important to factor in all effects, you can't assume certain things can be ignored until you've demonstrated as much.

    You're seriously asking for the experimental testing relativity has undergone? Have you not looked it up on Google or Wiki before? Surely you'd check before denouncing various things about it? You said you lean in the direction of Einstein being wrong but you haven't bothered to see what experiments say?!

    All particle accelerators involve testing quantum field theory. Quantum field theory is special relativity + quantum mechanics so all particle accelerators for the last 100 years have tested SR. The GPS network tests general relativity. Then there's Gravity Probe A, Gravity Probe B, WMAP, Planck, the classic tests done for GR involving photon redshifting, neutron orbital decays. All of these are mentioned in introductory books on GR or even the Wiki pages on GR. It seems you haven't done your reading.

    No, another branch of science to test Einstein's work. If a model is right then it should be right in all areas where it can be applied, so the fact other areas also test relativity is a good thing, as it means we've tested its applicability as wide as possible.

    You can say this about anything. I don't believe the Earth goes around the Sun, it could be explained some other way. I don't believe in germs, illness could be explained by some other way. I don't believe in electricity, lights could be explained some other way.

    The fact is that relativity, which should be consistent with such phenomena as the colour of gold, is. Newtonian mechanics is not. Thus from the huge list of possible things which might be taken to model the mechanics of real world phenomena we can definitely remove Newtonian mechanics but not special relativity.

    Your approach is not scientific in that you aren't exercising healthy skepticism, you appear to have the attitude "I don't like relativity so surely there's some other explanation as I believe there must be". This is different from the proper approach which should be "This model has not be falsified so it appears to be a good model for this phenomena but we shall continue testing.".

    You seem to not understand the difference between 'trying to falsify something' and 'trying to prove something'. No experiment can prove a model and no experimentalist would say otherwise. Experiments are meant to exclude models until we're down to a small list of explanations. This doesn't mean the true explanation is on our list but we can at least be confident that the explanations on our lists apply as wide as possible. Over the last 150 years plenty of explanations for electromagnetism, gravity and the nuclear forces have been put forth. Right now there's dozens of different models for high energy particle interactions at the electroweak scale which are waiting for data from the LHC. 99.99% of them will be very quickly falsified and thrown aside, in favour of the ones which survive, which will go on to be developed further.

    If you don't understand the point of experiments, to exclude not include, then you haven't really understood even the basics of the scientific method.

    And the fact you've gotten no one to do any work on it and failed to be published in any reputable journal says a lot.

    Oh please, you were only just saying that the issue with uncertainty and probabilities was to do with things moving too fast to properly measure, which is in direct contradiction to Bell's work and the notion of no hidden variables.

    At least have the decency to admit when you're wrong else all you'll do is make people think you're even more of a hack. For instance, even if I had been willing to perhaps help you a dishonest comment like that would make me decide you're not worth working with since you obviously haven't got any interest in being intellectually honest.

    Intelligence and social graces are not known to go hand in hand. Besides, am I not allowed an opinion simply because I have a particular qualification? Do all the people who come out of university act much more polite than those who didn't go? As for ego, which one of us is proclaiming to have ground breaking work? Cranks call me egotistical in the threads they start about their 'amazing' work. I'm short with people because I've been on the internet long enough to know when the chance of honest informed discussion is slim, as your comment on Bell's theorem just confirmed.

    So were you published in a journal? I notice you didn't answer that question.

    Most people from MIT doing physics would not make the claims and assumptions and state the nonsense you have. There are people on this forum who are researchers in physics, not at MIT, and I play nice with them because they make it clear from their posts they are honest, know what they are talking about and none of them post their work here.

    You have posted things and presented yourself in a certain way and its a style common to internet hacks so I treat you as such. Your attempt to infer that's how I treat everyone is wrong, as not everyone presents their work like you have. Presenting your work on an internet forum and not in a journal (or in your case, because you've not got into a journal) is a classic sign of a hack.

    Anyway, I don't have time to reply to the rest of your post, I have to go to work.
  15. mitcheljh Registered Member

    In my opinion, anyone, even scholars which are familiar with the current theories, that are not open to new ideas and theories are like those pre-copernican scholars who argued against Copernican ideas. In those times, very complex math (involving epicycles) was used to explain observed events, to keep the earth in the center of the universe. It didn't matter that it made no sense that planets actually behaved this way, the motion of the planets followed the contrived mathematics which was created to explain their behavior, so the theory 'had to be right'.

    I think the state of QM is in the same state as those involving epicycles. It doesn't matter that everything about QM is unbelievable. The model fits the math, which was built on measurements, so it has to be correct.

    If MainframeII wants to deviate from the accepted norm and present some new ideas, I say more power to him! Over 99% of the smartest scholars of the day ridiculed Copernicus for his ideas.

    Although I don't agree with all of the ideas that MainframeII presents, I think many of them are plausible, and believe there is a connection, or symmetry between the atomic domain and the astronomical domain, which goes on forever.

    Argument is good for such discussions, because it brings out faults in theories which can be corrected. Ridicule, though, has no place in the scientific community.
  16. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    The date stamp to the thread was from 2010, there are many problems with a theory of "microcosm's ad-infinitum", for instance:

    what would a photon be in Astronomy terms? (Seen any giant ones floating from the Universe?!?)

    This is one of the main reasons why the theory fails and is seen as Pseudoscience. However that doesn't means that it's a million miles away from a potential theory that's similar but slightly more realistic.

    It takes into consideration that the universe is made up of Virtual "bubbles", simulated/emulated volumes built by parallel universes. A virtual "bubble" could be made by thousands of computers creating that volume (which in turn would apply a neo-Moore's Law to increasement of processing power over time). The "bubble" itself could represent a finite volume a single SI unit like 1cm[sup]3[/sup]. If an observer could exist within the volume and attempt to look out, it wouldn't see that it was a simulation/emulation because other "bubbles" would surround it and interconnect with it, so the boundaries between such bubble volumes would be transparent. This would give the appearance that everything exists in one linear plane, ... a universe.

    There are many potential points that could prove this hypothesis, for instance:

    The amount of available energy in 1cm[sup]3[/sup] of vacuum space would be a representation of all the systems used to simulated/emulate the volume (which incidentally would be far larger than 1cm[sup]3[/sup] (There might be rather special circumstances where a large amount of energy can be produce from a small volume, on demand and outside of standard fission/fusion practices)

    When molecules are comprised of both "Weak" and "Strong" forces, this could be caused from the difference of being simulated/emulated in a "bubble"(Strong) or being comprised from multiple "bubbles"(Weak).

    In programming the concept of "Class Instantiation" would potentially derive that every "bubble" could inherit universal "constants" from it's prototype(The parent constructor class), which means controlling the prototype would allow for localised alterations of constants. In essence the very make-up of the universe could be malform, distorted and rewritten.

    I would go into greater detailing, however as you can tell my write-ups are no where near the level that I would like to present my findings and postulations, so I'm going to have to either work out how to make a more professional level of case representation or find some hidden pot of gold to pay for some "ghost writers".
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2013
  17. mitcheljh Registered Member

    In astrological terms, I believe light is propagated by gravity waves of stars/star systems.
    In microscopic terms, I don't believe the concepts of 'photon', but believe that light is propagated by the collective movements of atomic and virtual particles.
    The concept of 'photons' is far from being proven, and is still just a theory, although very popular one.
  18. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    To the OP; I wonder if you've read Ouspensky .. 'A new Model Of the Universe, Tertium Organum', etc, all readily downloadable for free. His philosophy is replete with 'worlds within worlds' concept along a similar vein. His contemporary Rodney Collin, 'The Theory Of Celestial Influence' is also very interesting and along the same line.
  19. Anthony_ Registered Member

    NO, atoms behave very different than planets, the difference between quantum phisics and relativistic phisics is the best proof

Share This Page