General Principles of Reality - new theory

M

MainframeII

checkout www.gpofr.com
Registered Senior Member
Hi Everyone,

www(dot)gpofr(dot)com

This is a link to my theoretical physics paper (ebook) I've been working on for sometime. Hope you enjoy it and please feel free to pass it along to friends who might find it interesting. Its still very much a work in progress and my first attempt at writing an ebook.

I've already shared it with a many people and continue to promote it strongly with hopes of getting it published, but ultimately I just want to share it so that everyone takes from it something positive and a new perspective on reality hence my unconventional means of promoting it.

I believe its very significant. Why?...Just to point this out, my new relativistic mass equation presented in the book equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter to the value of an electron charge which is 1.6x10^-19 C. It was something I did not expect to find but the new equation was the one that gave me insight into this relationship which was the catalyst why I wrote this book. The new relativistic mass equation was derived using the Reality Scale value of S which remarkably related to the speed of light and Euler's mathematical constant and was further derived from a new relativistic mass-density equation. Essentially mass-gravity at the celestial scale is equal to charge at the quantum scale. To understand how this derived, download a copy of the ebook.

Let me know what you think?
 
How do you equate mass and charge?
Charge wouldn't be possible if electrons didn't have mass as well; just the right amount, as it turns out.

That's two things, and you say they're "equal". Not been my observation, dude.
 
Vkothii said:
How do you equate mass and charge?
Charge wouldn't be possible if electrons didn't have mass as well; just the right amount, as it turns out.

That's two things, and you say they're "equal". Not been my observation, dude.
Click to expand...

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

Again my new relativistic mass equation was the one that gave me insight into this quite sometime ago which gave me time to group all my theories together as they relate to this discovery and my preexisting theory of relative realities.
 
Demonstrate that your 'theory' explains the following things :

The precession of Mercury
Hydrogen emission spectra
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Demonstrate that your 'theory' explains the following things :

The precession of Mercury
Hydrogen emission spectra
Click to expand...

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

If not, how can you claim to have explained them?
 
I've skimmed your book. I think it's an excellent approach and I believe it contains some very, very important ideas. Especially your use of viscosity space tensors.

Have you approached any journals or academic departments with your work?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Can you or can you not derive physical predictions for those systems?

If not, how can you claim to have explained them?
Click to expand...

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

I have approached several journals and book publishers but honestly I just want to share it with everyone. My motives for sharing is genuine in hopes of advancing physics and the sciences.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Where's the calculations I asked for then?
Click to expand...

My theories relate quantum to celestial realms...unifies them under a common link that my equations elude to the actuality of physics. I haven't tried to derive any of the calculations your asking for yet, what I've been trying to do is give insight into this relation. I don't specifically describe the cause and effect of every observable phenomena but the underlining theory can give insight into those phenomena.
 
In other words you have no justification for claiming your ideas can model anything. Without quantitative justification you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
 
Just to point this out, my new relativistic mass equation presented in the book equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter to the value of an electron charge which is 1.6x10^-19 C.
Click to expand...

Why should the two be related?

Electrons are fundamental, Jupiter is not. you do know that we have discovered larger (and smaller) planets in this universe?
 
yea mainframe, havent you heard?

Weve figured everything about the universe out already, so stop trying a new theory, we wouldnt want you to win a nobel prize or anything. /sarcasm
 
AlphaNumeric said:
In other words you have no justification for claiming your ideas can model anything. Without quantitative justification you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
Click to expand...

That's just rude and yes I have calculated and verified many, not every, observed results and they do match. Read my book objectively and then conclude if its "blowing smoke". You completely have the right to disagree with all my theories and I actually expect that many people would. There is a lot of work put into these theories I didn't pick them out of thin air and many of the derived numbers validate this such as the value of the reality scale S.
 
BenTheMan said:
Why should the two be related?

Electrons are fundamental, Jupiter is not. you do know that we have discovered larger (and smaller) planets in this universe?
Click to expand...

True, but are some of their masses equal to Jupiters which would then equate to the same value? And perhaps Jupiter like planets, just like electrons, are common to star systems as electrons are to atomic systems.
 
EndLightEnd said:
yea mainframe, havent you heard?

Weve figured everything about the universe out already, so stop trying a new theory, we wouldnt want you to win a nobel prize or anything. /sarcasm
Click to expand...

I don't care about winning a nobel prize stuff like that doesn't interest me. My theory isn't a theory to everything but might give insight, progress our understanding. I ask everyone for objective consideration, be opened minded.
 
True, but are some of their masses equal to Jupiters which would then equate to the same value?
Click to expand...

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

And perhaps Jupiter like planets, just like electrons, are common to star systems as electrons are to atomic systems.
Click to expand...

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

Are you predicting that these planets should all have the eact same masses as jupiter?
 
BenTheMan said:
How "equal"? I would guess probably not, but given enough solar systems, the likelyhood increases.



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

Are you predicting that these planets should all have the eact same masses as jupiter?
Click to expand...

If I was to predict on this idea, based on relative similarities between the atomic and star systems, I'd say for the most part yes. The masses of these jupiter like planets should be "roughly" equal to each other. Size is not totally indicative of its mass.
 
This is an answer I recently gave someone which I'd like to share:

Anyone who calculates the age of the Universe to be 14 billion years old, and those that blindly believe him, are just as bad as those who blindly believe my theories. 14 billion years old is a theory as well based on what they can see and measure currently in the cosmos which is not conclusive by any means.

Planck meter and second are also conventional "theories" that we have blindly accepted. I very strongly believe that they're completely wrong. Plank himself believed there was more to it.

You're a conscious entity and you have mass. Mass is a perception and can only be measure relatively to another piece of mass. Everything is relative, including the way we think.

Large animals have more mass, doesn't mean they have more consciouness or are smarter. The collective make up of our bodies, our brains, the actual structure, is what gives us our unique personal consciousness (be it with denser neurons or not). The more the mass with an less evolved brain is not the same as smaller mass and much more evolved brain. BUT all animals have the "potential" to evolve and surpass their current level of consciousness.

Quarks, neutrinos and tiny particles all become abstract to us and our means of observation because of their size. Read chapter 12 and 15. It explains my theories in forces and quantum particles. Protons and neutrons are miss classified in conventional theory as stated in my theory.

The theory that space-time is infinite was derived from my underlining theory that realities are relative separated by a barrier of perception which involves space and time. If you read the book, the first few pages stipulate that I give credit to classical and modern day science but I take nothing as factual thus to start from fresh perscpective. So whatever is currently accepted, as part of good science, be constantly questioned and reanalyzed. People of faith are sometime critized for blindly following doctrine, the same can be said for scientists blindly following established science. I don't believe my work is pseudoscience at all because that would imply all proposed scientific theories are pseudoscience. The current science establishment unspokenly requires that anyone with a theory take very small steps in the claims of their theories, I unfortunately didn't do that which automatically labels it all under pseudoscience. I released a book with all my theories for many reasons. I already knew this is how it was going to be blindly percieved by some and I'm not calling you out. The fact you logically refuted my theories is admirable, though I don't think you read my book.

In the book I state that 1 space-time density is the space-time density as we percieve it being expelled at the Earth's surface. Its not the same as the density of space-time being expelled by Jupiter or the Sun, but would be measured relative to the Earth's space-time density. It's a reference point.
Click to expand...
 
You don't even know what a Planck length or time is. It's the only natural combination of G, h and c which give units of length and time. They aren't theories, they are new units of length and time. It's equivalent to you saying "Anyone who works in imperial units is wrong, you should work in metric units!" as if the answer "The distance is 30 centimeters" is more correct than "It's 12 inches". :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top