Jupiter is an Electron - The Reality Scale Constant S & The New Theory on Relativity and Gravity - The Unification of Physics & Theory of Everything

[88Tys]

Nice

[titubakom]

You know i've thought about something like that, but object of similar mass and density do not repel each other in fact they do the opposite... and the way you derive your values is borderline numerology... but still this would add a dimention of depth to the universe... thats what ive thought about...

[mainframexi]

@titubakom Many others have also thought of this mainly because of Rutherford and Bohr. I don't believe how I derived this matches any definition of numerology because I used a logical process for selecting Beryllium and I'm not assigning arbitrary values to things but using well known existing radii data for Br atom and the Solar System and deriving a scale value ratio. This video is old. My latest work explores the topological mechanism for gravity.

[mainframexi]

I still adhere to the postulation that gravity, in analogy between atomic and cosmological, that mass and gravity acts like charge and electromagnetism at the cosmological scale, but does not require the arbitrary sign of positive or negative charge or mass to define attraction or repulsion as a description of a characteristic that is perhaps more understandable as in objects of different density react with each other differently than we currently believe, perhaps more so at the planet scale.

[mainframexi]

What is known is that there is an attractive mechanism between masses but there is also repulsion as in photons/quanta/energy expelled from all matter/planets and which collide with other matter/planets which cause a repulsive force upon collision. My contention is that gravity is more topologically is more complex than what we think. Also, the Cavendish experiment does not use iron spheres of the same size or spheres of the different densities to determine the full spectrum of interaction.

[mainframexi]

My theory is a unification theory between cosmological physics and quantum physics. This is my claim.

[mainframexi]

Just a quick post, my theory is not a theory of everything. I included this in the title only because there is an exuberant interest in theories of everything. I believe a theory of everything can never be achieved. A theory of everything would have to explain why I like music and hot Italian sandwiches plus explain what the mysterious dark matter/energy is in a simple and elegant fashion. I do believe all of science will evolve to a better state of understanding from where it is now.

[BarryDread123]

This looks very interesting indeed. How far have you got with incorporating General Relativity into this? I have tried but you seem very much better with the complex algebra. I think it would be interesting to consider the differences in the system due to the fact that information can travel nearly instantaneously across the radius of the atom, but would take some time to cross the radius of the galaxy.

[mainframexi]

@BarryDread123 in my reply to @andybrimmer529 I state a possible relation to GRT. The key is the realization that all matter expels energy in the form of various scales and velocities of quantized energy, or quantized matter, which manifests as heat and light across the full spectrum. This expelled energy exerts an inertial thrust in all directions if a planetoid, which is a push against space itself which manifests as a warping of space as the spatial pressure differential attracts objects.

[mainframexi]

@BarryDread123 in regards to speed of information, my theory states that as an objects approaches the speed of light, it contracts and scales down to a quantum object where the passage of time for this object accelerates considerably from our reference point but unnoticed the object itself; physics the same in all inertial frames of reference. If this object were a star, it's expelled light photons will travel much, much faster than what we consider photons because they'd also be scaled.

[andybrimmer529]

your theory is enlightening. i always knew that objects of the same mass repelled eachother, well done.

[mainframexi]

@andybrimmer529 actually the theory states that objects that have the same mass and density would repel each other topologically, adhering to a topological wave theory. The exact mechanism is unknown, as it is somewhat for gravity, but I suspect that expelled energy from the matter objects with the similar or exact mass and density overcomes gravitational attraction of warped space, from classical GRT. This defines a form of cosmological charge interaction, akin to quantum charge.

[mainframexi]

@yaoyuan12 I am way past the material in this video. Just to clarify, it was a scale value between Beryllium atom and our Solar System that derived a simple density equ that further derived Jupiter's mass to the value of an electron charge, not c and e. The math is extremely simple, so simple in fact that a 8th grader could do it. In my latest work I've mapped all gas giant masses to the value of an electron charge. Also modern quantum mechanics is not negated by this...

[mainframexi]

@yaoyuan12 ...why because dealing with speeds near, at and possibly past c from our frame of reference, our visual and instrumental comprehension of the quantum world, still requires a large level of probability hence current modern quantum mechanics. All my work does is slow it down. To point out a simple fact, quantum particles exist in space at extreme velocities, rotational and linear, and marco objects, you or the planet, exist a very low velocities in nature. This is actuality and fact.

[SatansShockTroop]

When I was a child, I had a dream about an atom bomb being detonated. i looked up and in the night sky, I saw in the distance a super nova. I've always found it extremely odd the similarities. what if you took a look at something at the quantum level, then slowed it by s based on our solar system. would we now see the erratic behavior calm and slow and smooth until the theory of general relativity and quantum physics matched? in other words, does the fly really see us in slow motion?

[TheUFOeffect]

Thats awesome. I guess by substituting in the electron charge in place of the theoretical charge(1.56^-19) you could find a new theoretical mass of juipiter.

[wiseyeffect]

So does this mean the photon cloud that is entering our solar system and cause strange activity to all the planet will increase the frequence of everything(evolutionary jump)?Or will Jupiter be released from the system and become a star to it's moons(early forms of planets). Cymatics should be applied to current pyhsic!

[Tapecutter59]

Are all these "coinicidences" simply due to the fact that the strength of both gravity and the EM force are proportional to the sqaure of the distance?

What about the things that don't scale such as dumbell shaped orbits for p-electrons compared to elliptical shaped orbits for planets?

Don't take the questions the wrong way, I think your vid is interesting and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought.

[mainframexi]

@Tapecutter59 my recent work maps all celestial objects to their quantum counterparts mathematically. The framework that initially came from these first set of coincidences is now a predictive model and it's based on velocity dependent scaling. One or two coincidences can be prematurely dismissed, but dismissing a whole series of mathematical results would be ignorant (not saying you are).

[mainframexi]

@Tapecutter59 one obvious result of my work is that time passes extremely fast at the quantum scale from our perspective (the velocity scaling framework I developed from the initial coincidence). This means that collective rotation and wobble of a star system along with the elliptical orbits and changes to those orbits over billions of years must be considered. The p and dumb-bell shaped orbits can be easily computer modeled in my framework. They are very elliptical orbits.

[SatansShockTroop]

@mainframexi

this is what i was thnking. what appears erratic is probably just that we are seeinf a frame rate at which we can only get a snapshot like once every billion years or something. not a math person you do it

[mainframexi]

@Tapecutter59 They are very elliptical orbits that change over billions years if a star system, but in a billionth of a second at the quantum second. Charged objects produce magnetic field in motion, so the quantum equivalent of the heliosphere must also be considered. The structure/formation of the nucleus effects outlining cloud of orbiting electrons and their energy levels. We've never instrumentally seen an atomic nucleus up close without extremely disruption or destroying it.

[SundayScientist]

Cool stuff! Thx for posting.

[Silhouette93]

Furthermore a coulomb is 6.241 509 629 152 65 × 10^18 the charge of a electron. Its a arbitrary number, the two numbers you describe being close to each other at 4:49, are simple coincidences.

[mainframexi]

The numbers in the video are old. They are actually much closer. Also something labelled arbitrarily coincidental is dismissive terminology but takes on a different meaning within Chaos Theory especially considering when it was derived from a logically sound (application of scaling) and simple mathematical process. My latest work has revealed several more coincidences, so I'm very far from dismissing this. I don't have all the answers, but I have some and I really do think I'm onto something.

[Silhouette93]

The solar system was a analogy for the structure of a atom. Neils Bohr never ment that they had the same underlying laws....

The general theory of relativity dictates the structure of the solar system, quantumn electrodynamics dictates the structure of atoms.

[mainframexi]

My model is the actual solar system and the current atomic model. The research I've been working on is to find connections between the two within this framework, which includes scaling. There are too many assumptions when we look at our solar system and the atom. I'm trying to spot assumptions and misinterpretations of data that have become popular without much evidence and I don't have to rewritten physics to do it. I just have to look at the data and try to see it from different perspectives.

[Cashify]

So if we just made cars all the same exact weight we wouldn't need airbags. There would never be a head on crash!

[Cashify]

oh wait...even if they were SUV's they would be gas guzzlers but not gas giants.

Hey. I'd love to hear your interpretation of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results from 2007. Kind of gives an interesting "spin" to particle field relationship dontcha think?

[mainframexi]

Duality in quantum particles maybe something completely different as observed by a quantum observer. There are many possible theories or perspectives and without giving too much detail, all matter maybe alive and connected. Rocks of course being of the infinitely less intelligent as we understand intelligence, but whose to say that sister planets or objects don't have an ability at light speeds of beyond to communicate which affects the other respectively just as animals mimic one another.

[mainframexi]

Wave theory applied to free floating sources of space-time vibrations (such heat and light). Wave theory is the key to the interactions between identical objects and groups of objects along with their distances. Simply wave theory is the answer. Constructive interference attracts, destructive repels. All objects are hotter than empty void space so they produce and expel energy, communicators, that interact in wave fashion with wave communicators or other objects or groups of objects.

[icoson]

Hi, cool video. Say, if Jupiter becomes a sun (like in the movie 2010) what kind of element would our solar system be then? Jason

[mainframexi]

It would be very different because for it to become a Sun it's mass will have to increase greatly. My best guess would be a dual atom celestial molecule.

[icoson]

Cool, what might you call it? DISOLIUM?

[RazielKain]

But you still havent explained why the electrons (gas giants) have different energies....maybe the rotational energy adds to the mass and circular movement to equal it out ^^

[mainframexi]

I believe that to be fairly correct. Total kinetic energy includes rotational and linear velocities.

[RazielKain]

Okay First of all: You do realize that Bohrs model of atoms is outdated and proven wrong? (Google Atomic orbital of molecule orbital)

Secondly why should two objects of equal size repel each other? What is equal size and mass? You will never find 2 planets which have the same size and mass

Just because you got a close match between mass of one object and charge of another one using false values doesnt mean they are related

If jupiter is an e- what is neptun?

[mainframexi]

I've mentioned this many times. My model isn't the Bohr model, it's the actual solar system/star systems by directly taking its characteristics and superimposing them on known atomic data by using my S value and related equations. Take a look at my paper and ebook. All gas giants in my theory are electrons and all are equal to an electron charge at the quantum scale through my equations because they travel at different velocities.

[RazielKain]

Yeah but you are still comparing the universe to Bohrs model of atmoic structure which is outdated

+ you are comparing it to Beryllium because you have 4 gas giants and make the inner 4 planets the core but Be has 9 particles in the core (5 neutrons)

[mainframexi]

Once again, I'm comparing the data on solar/star systems to known atomic data like electron charge by using S and related equations. It's not Bohr's model which didn't have S to work with. Bohr said there was a similarity but nothing exact. Both systems have 'quantifiable' objects circulating and inner core. They are the only two systems in nature with this similar make up. Unless electrons travel through the core/nucleus, they orbit the nucleus at various orbits/inclines - Pauli Exclusion.

[mainframexi]

Beryllium has various isotopes and the question is which one matches our Solar System. There are 4 electrons/gas giants, 4-5 neutrons/ inner system rock planets (is the moon or Ceres considered the 5th?) and 4 protons making up the Sun (most difficult to decipher). Remember velocity plays a large part in kinetic energy of planetoids including the Sun. Their equivalent charge, through my transform relativity func(v)'s give them different charges based on their v. I'm working on alot.

[RazielKain]

If your theory were correct charge = mass then the sun should have the mass * 4 of a gas giant (the giants have different masses but electrons all have the same mass and charge)

Even in Bohrs model the neutrons didnt circle the protons

and the isotop 8Be is highly unstable (T1/2=6,722 · 10^−17 s)

[mainframexi]

You didn't read everything I posted.

[RazielKain]

If you mean the "Charge relates you kinetic energy or speed" Ekin=1/2mv^2

But the speed of the sun relativly to the solar system is zero

[mainframexi]

kinetic energy also refers to rotational kinetic energy which for the Sun is not zero.

[RazielKain]

Ok you got me there as a reward I will help ypur theory a bit

in the newer orbital model of atoms (which succeeded bohrs model) the first 4 electrons are placed in s-orbits in a sphere around the core

the 5th electron is placed in an p-orbital which is farer away and is not round

Could pluto (counting him as a planet) be said 5th electron in a p-orbit making our system an Boron?

[mainframexi]

The theory of equal mass-density objects repelling each other is directly due to wave theory. Free floating sources of equivalent vibration will repel each other while significant differences in frequency will attract. All objects of matter produce quantized gravitation waves thus they vibrate the surrounding space-time making wave theory dynamics inseparable from any gravity theory. Again take a look at my ebook and paper where I elaborate on this idea much more.

[mainframexi]

Also I used absolutely no false values. Anyone can look them up and do the simple math themselves. S is the scale value between Beryllium of 105pm (measured) or 112pm (calculated) and the average distance from the Kuiper belt to the outer edge of the scattered disc (objects orbiting the system) which is from 55AU to 100AU = 77.5AU.

[mainframexi]

Using any of these values in whichever scale equation combination you decide will closely match my derived value of S and remarkably also S=c^e. This is some few realize until they do the math. All my subsequent equations are based on S and thats how I discovered the direct Jupiter/gas-giant mass to electron charge relation. I think this is very significant. If others dont thats their loss.

[LloydChristoph]

you're onto something here.. not the whole men in black/orion belt thing (sorry), but i mean the relationship between sizes.. it seems as though those particular sizes and scales are self replicating. the "golden ratio" found in sea shells on earth is also found in the shape of our spiral milky way galaxy, so it seems that the universe has blueprints that are followed at many different scales.

[zerotensor]

Perhaps you should do a Cavendish-style torsion-balance experiment with equally-sized interacting masses and measure the overall displacement (in addition to the frequency of oscillation).

[mainframexi]

it's part of the work i've been doing.

[Burnz2much]

lol

[heratioalundi]

in the end you say that "objects of similar size and density would repel each other"

hence the question, then why are Earth and Venus the closest planets, even closer then mercury is to the sun? from nearest to furthest - Earth Venus, Venus Mercury, Mercury Sun, Earth Mars

[mainframexi]

The question should be have Earth and Venus ever collided due to our current understanding of gravity? Will they ever? As far as we can tell the answer to both is a high probability of no. Why? Currently their orbits are close but in the future they might be the furthest apart. Planet orbits over time wobble. Again why? A simple answer is wave theory and the formation of gravity wave nodes forming constant orbital valleys where planets exist produced by the mass-density of the Sun and planets.

[mainframexi]

Another more classical interpretation is that the attractive force of the Sun between itself and the rock planets is much stronger than the repulsive force the planets exert of themselves combined with the centripetal forces produced with the Sun's spin and latency of the propagation of gravity as depicted by the speed light would put the two heaviest planets closer to each other around the Sun. Envision flat dish rotating with a magnet in at its center and varied mass metal balls on the plate.

[mainframexi]

Does he have a website?

[WeAreTheStreet]

Objects of similar size and mass don't repel eachother though, if you have two 100 tonne lead spheres floating in space they will have experience a force equal there masses by the gravitational constant divided by the distance squared.

[mainframexi]

Actually all experiments in gravity force have been variations of the Cavendish experiment involving a big and small sphere of the same density. There is also the fact that large planets are hot expelling radiation similar to the Sun. Two equivalent jets of radiation will repel each other. And then there is modern wave theory which is what I've been using in my work.

[mainframexi]

There is evidence that two free floating vibration sources with same frequency and amplitude in a liquid medium repel each other while different frequency and amplitude attract each other. My point is that all matter radiates heat and/or energy that propagates as waves so the same correlation applies even if the medium is space itself (the electromagnetic medium)

[WeAreTheStreet]

hmm i guess if their waves were in phase and collided with eachother, there might be a repulsive effect, hmm that could be interesting. But not all electrons experience the same fluctuatiing frequency and yet they repel.

[mainframexi]

That's the beauty of wave theory and how complex gravity really is. Essentially based on this theory, electric force and gravity force are one in the same therefore the characteristics of electric force can be superimposed on gravity. Checkout my paper Realitivistic Relativity.

[Ziplocbags]

Interesting thought, if for instance this theory is correct... Perhaps the 'Big Bang' happened due to advanced beings playing with particle colliders *poof* our universe came to fruition. heh This does seem to help connect the dots of old skool Tibetan Monks beliefs--of which are hundreds of years old--that our universe is just a particle of yet a larger universe of a larger universe, etc etc. Personally it has been my understand since I can remember that this is all truth. Nice work, btw.

[mainframexi]

I have recently contacted by someone knowledgeable in ancient Indian texts and the correlations are surprising though I believe the fractal scale levels of the Universe are infinite.

[ahaitsrob]

hmm you raise some fascinating points

[ahaitsrob]

2 bodies repelling each over? if one was traveling at the other at speed... they would collide and maybe a substantial part of 1 would join 2, are you meaning if they were both like drifting to each over of something?

[mainframexi]

The whole premise is that celestial objects are direct scale relatives to quantum objects (fractal universe). If that is the case, then we all know electrons repel each other due to similar charge. Well in my theories, charge is mass at the quantum scale so similar celestial objects (mass and density) would repel each other. That means two Jupiter's would repel each other perhaps due to their similar radiated energy (ex light, heat).

[mainframexi]

The theory is a bit radical, but many already have and others are starting to see the possibility that the Universe, or existence itself, is fractal in nature. My theory is just more specific on the symmetry between celestial and quantum objects in regards to scale and subsequently in regards to mass and charge.

[mainframexi]

Actually yormato666 is correct. The infinite number of star systems in any scale (celestial, quantum and sub-quantum) mathematically allows for all Earthly variables, the position of every atom in and on the Earth including you and me, to have equivalents somewhere in the universe thus a parallel world. The same can be applied to known and perceivable universe, thus parallel universes.

[gayglue]

I find it very hard that this theory be accepted widely, but good luck to you. But I can see you're going somewhere with this.

[yormato666]

So we are living on an atom of something else, which in turn is itself living on an atom of something else, which in turn... etc.

Hm... maybe this is where the parallel universes come from as there would be an infinite number of them.

[gayglue]

lmao, thats true. but I'm pretty sure that the equations for paralell universes and this would contradict each other.

[emaspapa]

In a sense, Dr. Seuss was on the right track with his Who world.

[mainframexi]

LOL, I believe he was!

[kamalmichael]

The universe is fractal in nature and so it is likely we live on a celestial molecule and part of a bigger system. Life is also able to manufacture matter from scratch which complicates he issue further .

[kamalmichael]

berylluim is interesting. It is used on the nozzle tips of rockets because of it high melting point. But do you think that our solar system will "react" with other sytem similar to a chemical reaction ?

[mainframexi]

More analysis of our neighbouring stars are needed, but I suspect that we are already part of celestial molecule. Naturally common molecules are Bertrandite (Be4Si2O7(OH)2), Beryl (Al2Be3Si6O18), Chrysoberyl (Al2BeO4), and Phenakite (Be2SiO4).

[mainframexi]

Also another interesting characteristic of Beryllium is that it is very toxic to living organisms (carbon-based organisms).

[skippingrocks]

mainframexi,

What about binary star systems? Duel nucleus?

[mainframexi]

Binary stars and multi-star systems are celestial molecules. Binary stars in particular are very common and so is the HO molecule so perhaps they are relatively one in the same. More data is needed, but if our Solar System is a beryllium atom then molecules are the next logical step.

[KosmynC64]

now waht about dual galaxyes?Yeah this looks like my theory but I think the galaxyes are the atoms.

[mainframexi]

Relatively, I suspect that quantum galaxies, large clusters of atoms, are natural formations that occur in fluids of mixed elements. Remember all things including rocks are fluids with different degrees of viscosity modulus. So in a naturally formed rock of mixed elements, quantum galaxies are most likely natural formations over time where lite atoms orbit heavy atoms galactic core. This hypothesis can be easily tested by examining naturally formed rock or analyzing fluids of mixed elements.

[urpeite]

this makes very little sense.... Bohr's model of the atom was proven to be incorrect.... maybe I am misunderstanding but you seem to jump to the conclusion of mass=charge because of some impresice conclusions that seemed to fit what you were looking for (i.e. bad scientific method)

[mainframexi]

My model isn't the Bohr model but the actual existing Solar System and all its characteristics. I understand why you'd think it makes little sense, but read my paper. I never actual say in the paper that kg is coulombs...actually is more correct to say it becomes coulombs if space-time density is increased. The curious part is the mathematical coincidence in the numerical values.

[mainframexi]

especially as it pertains the initial hypothesis. My video states that mass is charge at the quantum scale and so does my website based on this mathematical coincidence that also coincidentally correlates to the hypotheisis. The Be atom is 112pm in radius and the Solar System upt o the Kuiper belt is 55 to 100AU. The ratio between the two equates S value which is very close to S=c^e.

[3DEVIANT]

Interesting. For as long as i can remember ive made the connection between atoms and solar systems, but only in the crudest structural sense, basically in that they look similar and have similar behaviours.

Does this mean every time we split an atom we are setting off a miniature supernova? and if atoms are miniature solar systems can we ever hope to detect independent light from them?

[boxa888]

nikola tesla did something like this 100 yrs ago, he talked of the unverse and atoms as being similar. looking at the universe like one picture makes all of the planets and moons really close like atoms! i put up work on when tesla said this, even electrostatic charges were pulled away after the big bang meaning that the planets and all matter in space has a charge like atoms!! its amazing , he said this in his english lectures !!

[MalificusEman]

saying something without any physical proof is like saying u are breathing tiny particles of many elements (not air fire water and earth) to people in the middle ages.

[Krawnikal]

That's funny, I've always thought as solar systems as sub atomic particles as well.

Awesome idea dude.

[gregrutz]

There are hundreds of sub atomic particals.

[Krawnikal]

Seriously I don't see what you're trying to get across by telling me that I know that already?:-S

[mainframexi]

Systems with no gas giants, if we've absolutely confirmed they don't have any, would be considered celestial ions. Neutrons, in my theory, are rock planets. Download my ebook and paper for the rest.

[mainframexi]

Jupiter isn't special in of itself, but it's mass is the one equating to an electron charge using the equation here. The other three come close using these equations. Infact using my init value for S Saturn's mass becomes 1.78X10^-19kg. Some of my research has been trying to deduce how the gas giant masses were derived & if there's room for error & what I've found its very possible all three giants have similar mass w/dif only in their mass-density. Size alone is not indicative of it's mass.

[dungeonmunky]

Why is Jupiter so special in comparison to any of the other gas Giants? If mass and charge are comparable, then how are Jupiter and the other three gas giants compared to the same particle, when the mass of the smaller three combined is about a third of the mass of Jupiter?

How are binary star systems, and systems with no gas giants explained? What about neutrons, isotopes, and chemical bonding?

And why is Euler's number (pronounced oyler) significant in this case?

[ae7272]

so- according to your theory, then stars of various sizes will produce planets of corresponding sizes.. can you prove this by looking at other star systems?- does you theory account for planetary systems?, how does also will your theory of correspondence also affect the number of stars with planets- ie. Would we find most single planet system out there that correspond to the hydrogen atom ?, do you find two bare nuclei orbiting each other as do binary star systems.

[alliswel]

Very interesting. What does this all entail?

[kripto22]

this seems very interesting

i wanna inquire more lol XD

do u have anymore information? it doesnt have to be about this but u seem like u know alot ,,

reply =]

[Tel98765]

Very interesting.