What if what we thought, and held most dear, about the fundamentals of physical science was wrong? That atoms and quantum particles were not what we believed them to be. That planets, star systems and the Universe itself had a far more intrinsic correlation to the material structure that fundamentally constituted those systems. What if our most cutting edge mainstream theoretical theories were completely off track? What if? This is what my own research in science has lead me to strongly question and it has been an interesting journey.
Some years ago while playing with physics, fractals and comparisons, out of sheer curiousity, I came across a scale relationship between star systems and atoms based on a comparison between our Solar System and the Beryllium atom. The demotion of Pluto was the quintessential insight needed in choosing the Be atom. Why the Be atom? What Pluto's demotion made evident was that our Solar System had a unique case of 4 rock planets in the inner system and 4 gas giant planets in the outer system (by classification). The number 4 was curiously interesting, so much so that it was assumed to match the atomic number of an atom, or a cosmological atomic number. The atom with an atomic number of 4 was Be. This yielded a scale value (1.1025E23) based on average measured radii of our Solar System (77.5AU) and Be (105pm). It was subsequently discovered that this scale value was equal in value (not dimensionally) to c^e which only added mystery and compounded curiousity to this scale relationship. It was assumed that velocity played a role in this scale relationship "somehow"and that at the velocity of v=c, the 1.1025E23 scaling factor was achieved transforming a star system into an atom. From this scale value alone several simple transform equations were derived (length, matter density and mass). A time transform equation was derived some time after using object velocity ratios between the two scales. Stressing the equations were easily derived (so elementary anyone could replicate the results), from the mass equation, Jupiter's cosmological mass became extremely close to the numerical value of an electron charge (1.6022E-19) with a margin of error of 2.6%. Since then many more amazing results have emerged, many of which are exact. This was the start of my trip down the rabbit hole and my personal quest to discover what's at the other end.
In order to classify and distinguish this work, the bulk of it has been titled “Realitivistic Relativity (RR)” (paper RR 2.0 on www.gpofr.com), which stands for "real" Relativity, under the project title of GPRA. It is a unique cosmological fractal relative scaling framework. All this research has been nationally archived and is available to all to reference and do their own research.
The current framework was derived using a very logically clear process, is very simple and is extremely predictive. It is still a work in progress and is being extended to include all known associated physical phenomena, but as it stands currently, there are many remarkable results derived from this framework. The following is a clear list of these results along with some classic analogies between the cosmological and quantum realms as expressed by scientific icons such as Rutherford, Bohr and even Heaviside. To clarify, this framework is not based on the Rutherford or Bohr model, but on actual star systems, including our Solar System, and all their associated characteristics.
Here is a summary of some results:
Jupiter's mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using only a scale value (S) between star system and atom (2007).
It subsequently was discovered that S = (c)^e = (3.0E8)^(2.71828), two Universal constants! This is numeric only omitting dimension but latest work explains this and does not omit dimension strengthening this relation.
Saturn's mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
Uranus' mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
Neptune's mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
Average of derived charges for all inner rock planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon and Mars) is 8.7E(-24) = 2 explicitly derived charge values for Venus and Mars.
1/4 Sun's mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
Calculated passage of time difference factor between the quantum and cosmological realms = 9.25E26 = (c)^pi = (3.0E8)^(3.14), two Universal constants again! Once again, this is numeric only omitting dimension but latest work explains this and does not omit dimension strengthening this relation.
Force comparison between quantum and cosmological, electrostatic vs. gravity force, in this framework derives Avogadro's constant. What's the significance of this? Currently unknown, but it does give insight that many universal constants are interrelated and that RR is exposing these relationships.
Photon energy (E=hf) results in a derived cosmological mass in the range of asteroid masses found in the Asteroid Belt.
The numeric square root of c = 17315 which is the orbital velocity of asteroids in the Asteroid Belt. The Asteroid Belt is notably a mysterious and unique formation which this framework contends to be a common characteristic found in most star systems, primarily stable systems.
The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Jupiter results in a charge very close to e (1.6022E(-19)).
The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Saturn results in a charge of e (1.6022E(-19)).
The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Neptune results in a charge of 15.9e.
The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Uranus results in a charge of 4.9e. Both are almost whole numbers.
Force strength comparison between electrostatic and gravity in this framework results in difference of 2.3E39, which can be used to directly derive the currently accepted rest mass for an electron (9.1E(-31) kg) and proton (1.67E(-27) kg).
Prediction in 2007 from initial work (on file with the national archives for reference) that most star systems to be discovered will have gas giant planets which is being validated with every new exo-planet discovered (Kepler satellite and others).
F=ma equation is similar to F=qE, where "a" and "E" are acceleration fields and m=q in this framework.
F=GMm/r^2 equation is similar to F=kQq/r^2, where r is invariant and mass = charge in this framework.
The structural similarity between 2 natural systems (star systems and atoms) which have a finite number of objects orbiting a core.
The scaling equation (space) and time equation (time dilation) are inherently anisotropic due solely to the comparison between star systems and atoms in regards to scale (spatial difference) and time (difference in the passage of time). This is becoming a very popular idea in science and this framework is inherently anisotropic from its most fundamental basis.
The framework is directly dependent on velocity, which supports Einstein's results in one scenario, but extensively expands on it in other scenarios.
Recently (2011), it was discovered that using the same RR mass and length velocity dependent transform equations, the mass and radius of all rock planets increase to the mass and radius of gas giant class planets simply by decreasing the orbital velocity of the rock planet (like Earth). This also worked vice-versa. This further strengthens and validates that RR framework is on the right path. It also gives insight into the possibility that changes in planetary orbital velocity can result in significant geological changes.
The conclusion of this list is obvious. There is a definite scale connection between star systems and atoms. To dismiss this, as described by obvious observation and the results of this framework, would be unfortunate.
Though I very strongly believe this research, and research of this type, is on the right track, it could ultimately be wrong, and that's ok. What is ultimately important, what no researcher should ever loose sight of, is the unravelling of the truth, and in order to find the truth all possibilities most be fully explored even the ones that are "out there".
And the work continues. There are more interesting results emerging from the RR framework especially around point 23 on force and gravitation.
Comments