Star Systems are Atoms?

Robert DeMelo

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

Have your read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Nottale ?

Yatima (not verified) | 05/30/11 | 01:49 AM

Link

Unfortunately I only recently came to know of Dr. Laurent Nottale and Mr. Robert Oldershaw. Both of which have been working on fractal cosmology for many years, and both of which should be respected for the level of commitment, and ridicule they've endured, perusing a line of research that maybe fruitful in one way or another.

With the little I know of Dr. Nottale and his scale relativity theory, his approach is strictly dimensional along with fractal analysis. It is a very interesting model and is a model scientists should definitely explore more thoroughly.

Mr. Oldershaw's approach was the formulation of a discrete scale and primarily focused on exo star systems and not so much on planetary/quantum particle relations. It too is unique and brilliant. In fact I recently spoke to him and we assessed our perspective models. We mutually agreed that our models were very distinct and to continue researching separately.

My framework, thus far, is both a discrete scale value, derived by the observation and method described above (is and was derived differently from that of Mr. Oldershaw's) , and more importantly, a velocity dependent scaling framework, in respect to all movement through space. The total kinetic energy of the object is used to extrapolate this velocity. The discrete scale value is best applied against the core system object, the star, and the velocity framework against the planets (ratio-ed between the inner and outer system velocities).

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 17:08 PM

Link

Unfortunately I only recently came to know of Dr. Laurent Nottale and Mr. Robert Oldershaw. Both of which have been working on fractal cosmology for many years, and both of which should be respected for the level of commitment, and ridicule they've endured, perusing a line of research that maybe fruitful in one way or another.

I am not sure one follows from the other. If I insist Hitler is holed up in an Antarctic fortress plotting the Fourth Reich and he intends to use Relativistic Relativity to summon an army of Mayans wielding strangelet-based weapons from the LHC in 2012, and I do so for a long time, will that get respect because I persist in it?

Plus, the second one was a sanctimonious asshole who wouldn't take any constructive criticism - and knew nothing about actual physics and instead engaged in speculative gobbledygook - so when he attacked people for constructive criticism he got the un-constructive kind until he descended into a paranoid rant about how we were all conspiring against him, finally becoming one of only 3 people ejected from the site in 5 years. It's not really a model to emulate.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 05/30/11 | 17:19 PM

Link

Of course I see your point. Plus I didn't know this about the latter.

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 17:25 PM

Link

Interesting. This reminds me a little of that idea in some science fiction stories (okay, I'll admit it, from Men in Black) that our universe is simply a fundamental particle of a 'next level' universe. Of course, this would cause an infinite regress where each universe is a building block for the next, and so on. Nevertheless, this connection between the star system and atoms is pretty cool. Is this also applicable in other star systems?

... ... | 05/30/11 | 03:46 AM

Link

This reminds me a little of that idea in some science fiction stories

That's usually a bad sign, right?

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 05/30/11 | 10:10 AM

Link

probably, but most science fiction is either based on existing scientific theories/ideas or later becomes reality in one form or another, whichever fits best. again this can all be wrong, but it's worth exploring.

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 17:08 PM

Link

It can.

The first rule of thumb in RR when linking star systems to their postulated atomic counterparts is distinction between the inner and outer systems and number of planets they contain. This can be done by examining the composition of orbiting planets, specifically their density, to distinguish the inner and outer system.

The second is the size of the star itself and the application of the discrete scaling value (S) to that of the relative atomic nucleus in order to attempt to classify a range.

Under these quidelines, Gliese 581 (3 inner, 3 outer) is assumed to be relative to Li and Kepler-11 (2 inner, 4 outer) is relative to Be. Unfortunately much of the data is unconfirmed and perhaps not complete. Data on other systems is also incomplete, though RR can be use to predict from quantum data.

The unknown is the very high orbital rates of these exo-planets in direct comparison to our own system along with their very short (tight) orbital radii. In the RR framework, increased velocity increases the matter density of the planetoid which could increase the gravitational pull perhaps shortening orbital radii and increasing orbital velocity. This is something I'm working on and far from conclusive.>

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 17:33 PM

Link

One invariant scale fractal Robert goes, another fractal invariant scale Robert comes. There must be a nest somewhere. It is sad; at least, if you guys were to understand quantum mechanics, you could believe that there are a few of you maybe successful in some parallel world. But since you are convinced of the infinite repeating on all possible scales, you are equally badly wrong on all the infinite levels. That must suck.

Sascha Vongehr | 05/30/11 | 05:14 AM

Link

quantum mechanics doesn't exclude the possibility of a scaled fractal Universe.

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 16:36 PM

Link

wait, what? Some questions immediately come to mind:

1) why is numerology allowed here?
2) assuming what you say is correct, how can it possibly be self consistent that Saturn Jupiter Uranus and neptune could all have their mass equate to "the electron charge"?

PTabor (not verified) | 05/30/11 | 11:38 AM

Link

We write about numerology all of the time. Usually, it is to make fun of it, certainly. Plus, the audience decides the value and quality of contributors and content. That's the Science 2.0 way.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 05/30/11 | 15:23 PM

Link

I don't see how this can fall under the definition of numerology.

The second point from the original replier makes it evident that this framework was not fully understood. It is a velocity dependent scaling framework (non-discrete), derived from an initial discrete scaling value (S).

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 16:56 PM

Link

... and a partridge in a pear tree ...

Gerhard Adam | 05/30/11 | 11:54 AM

Link

?...four mocking birds...

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 16:57 PM

Link

1. Jupiter's mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using only a scale value (S) between star system and atom (2007).
2.It subsequently was discovered that S = (c)^e = (3.0E8)^(2.71828),

S = c^e = 1.102523045 X 10²³.

Jupiter's mass = 1.8986 x 10²⁷kg

Aside from the conceptual leap and disregard for fundamental units, on a purely numerical level, how do the above two numbers produce the charge of the electron which equals 1.60217646 × 10^-19C ?

Enrico Uva | 05/30/11 | 18:27 PM

Link

RR length transform is

l'=l/S

which due to S=c_o^e=1.1025x10^23 it was assumed that c_o is in ratio to another velocity in order for dimension to be correct. this is RR relative model.

S becomes a function of velocity

s(v')=(v'/v)^e

where v = initial velocity and v' was the final velocity in and around c as it approaches quantum velocities.

but going strictly on S alone,

the following matter density equation was derived under the hypothesis that as macro objects shrank, their density would increase in proportion. this included any hypothetical matter density quantum particles may have if in fact the Universe is materially fractal. the distance between internally structured particles, including within these particles themselves, of the matter object would reduce by a scale of S.

p'=Sp where p' was the resulting spatial matter density of the object and p was it's initial matter density.

using the standard density equation

m'/V'=S[m/V]

V'=m'/((4/3)pi*(r')^3)

substituting length transform

r'=r/S

m'/((4/3)pi*(r/S)^3) = S * m'/((4/3)pi*(r)^3)

results in

m'=m/S^2

by applying this formulation to Jupiter's mass

m'=(1.8986x10^27 kg)/(1.1025x10^23)^2

m'=1.5619x10^(-19) kg

where q = 1.6022x10^(-19) C

and numerically the two values are

[1.5619x10^(-19)/1.6022x10^(-19)] * 100% = 97.49% or diff of 2.51%

this is the reason for my contention that perhaps mass (kg) and charge (C) are one-in-the-same, a property perceived differently due the difference in the velocity spectrum the object and observer are in - total level of movement through space the object exists in separating that from which the observer is in.

Robert DeMelo | 05/30/11 | 19:46 PM

Link

Hank (the Grunter): "Plus, the second one was a sanctimonious asshole who wouldn't take any constructive criticism - and knew nothing about actual physics and instead engaged in speculative gobbledygook - so when he attacked people for constructive criticism he got the un-constructive kind until he descended into a paranoid rant about how we were all conspiring against him, finally becoming one of only 3 people ejected from the site in 5 years. It's not really a model to emulate."
---------------------------------------------------------

You may one day regret these intemperate comments and the misleading interpretation of what actually transpired.

If honesty, objectivity and open-mindedness define a scientist, then you most certainly do not qualify as a scientist.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity; Fractal Cosmology

rloldershaw (not verified) | 05/30/11 | 20:55 PM

Link

While I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful analysis, I feel compelled to simply ask: "Why wouldn't there be?"

Ken DeLoria (not verified) | 05/30/11 | 21:03 PM

Link

perhaps I don't fully understand your question, but we could also ask why should there be? we assume that the two systems are very distinct and unrelated, but where one literally makes up the other, and until data arises to cast doubt on this existing assumption there is no good reason to think otherwise (scientific process without hypothesis - hypotheses non fingo). this current belief that the two systems cannot be the same type of system is mainly due to extreme difference in size and other difficult questions that would arise if they were, therefore they cannot be related, but this is not fully correct. the two systems share a similar structure in the sense that they are the only two systems in nature to both have a core object circled by a discrete (limited) number of other quantifiable objects. in QM these quantified objects are electrons existing in a cloud in standing waves around the nucleus yet are still quantifiable, and for star systems they are planets around the star which are obviously quantifiable. skeptically, the two still appear mutually exclusive enough to not warrant any claim of structural correlation, though I disagree with this mainly due to my own research and the data it has produced which for me has cast some doubt that the two systems are in fact mutually exclusive.
the benefit to us if these two systems are in fact the same type of system is a new approach to researching cosmology and quantum mechanics. there is enough still unknown in the two respective areas that finding a common link could open new ways to approach existing problems. personally i think that my Realitivistic Relativity (RR) framework offers some link between the two, where the amazing and very accurate framework of QM could in essence be applied through the existing limited RR framework to help solve some of the problems found in astrophysics and cosmology and vice-versa if in fact the two systems are actually the same.

Robert DeMelo | 06/02/11 | 01:15 AM

Link

Sascha V: "One invariant scale fractal Robert goes, another fractal invariant scale Robert comes. There must be a nest somewhere. It is sad; at least, if you guys were to understand quantum mechanics, you could believe that there are a few of you maybe successful in some parallel world. But since you are convinced of the infinite repeating on all possible scales, you are equally badly wrong on all the infinite levels. That must suck."

Discrete Scale Relativity predicted in 1987 [Astrophysical Journal, 322, 34-36] that microlensing research would reveal a huge population of unbound planetary-mass objects in our Galaxy.

Did you see what was published in the 5/19/11 issue of Nature?
200 billion unbound planetary-mass objects that almost no one expected.
Suck on that one pal.

Have you ever successfully predicted anything?

Or do you just repeat what the celebrity prophets tell you is right, like a good yeshiva boy?

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

rloldershaw (not verified) | 05/30/11 | 21:06 PM

Link

Comments

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here

Related Articles on Science 2.0

Comments

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here