• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

String Theory is Doomed - offshoot from Null Physics thread

MainframeX said:
You're right. At the time I wrote my book, I wasn't sure where rock planets fit exactly, but my book is much older than my paper almost 2 years older. Since then, and it was so obvious I don't know why I missed it, by scaling rock planets mass by my mass equation S^2 it gave a clearer picture that rock planets where neutrons because the resulting numerical value was so small that it basically could be considered neutral. So my educated guess was that protons composed the construct of the Sun (star). In regards to neutrons, the layman could automatically assume that neutrons have no charge at all but that's not true. Research shows that neutrons have a very small charge small enough to be insignificant that it's omitted from most physics books.
Click to expand...
Citation please.

There is research on the internal charge distribution of neutrons due to the quarks that it contains. But the neutron overall is neutral as far as I can find out.
For example: Measuring the Neutron's Mean Square Charge Radius Using Neutron Interferometry (http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0509018v1)

MainframeX said:
Now, negative and positive are relative terms. Negative and positive objects only relate to each other through the force of attraction or repulsion. So if gas giants are electrons, two gas giants would repel each other. Let's skip over the exact why except to say they are very similar in characteristics (size and density). So repulsion is considered negative. Now get 4 protons (the Sun) or 1 proton (1/4 the Sun), and the gas giant and celestial proton attract. This interaction is considered "positive". Now my theory basically states that 1/4 Sun of the Sun is similar in mass to Jupiter, but because they'd attract eachother the 1/4 Sun celestial object has to be significantly different in size and density. It's all a matter of perception. The current mass of the Sun, 1/4 of it, is still much greater than Jupiter's. So what's the deal here? Note the Sun's mass was calculated using classic Newtonian mathematics. This isn't to say the math is wrong, but consider the event that would need to take place in order to split the Sun into 4 pieces. It would be immensely catastrophic which would lead to the following question, " Would the Sun's internal nuclear reactions stop due to such as destructive event?" I'd say they would at least temporarily making 1/4 pieces "cooled" in comparison and resemble the characteristics of a celestial proton and comparative to the mass of a gas giant. According to Einstein and E=mc^2, energy is mass so if there nuclear reactions stop does the perceived release of "mass" reduce? And how about the large volumes of of debris along with the 4 larger pieces. Now that portion is your "crackpottery" because that hypothesis is completely non-supported by any data because we haven't see a our Sun split into any pieces and most likely wouldn't live to analyze it anyway. I've been looking at supernova research in order to support this hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about here. The mass of the Sun is 1000 times that of Jupiter. So 1/4 of this is in no way "similar in mass to Jupiter".



Now you only have a few questions to consider
  1. How does squaring a scale factor results in negative values in one case (gas giants), zero in another case (rocky planets) and positive values for celestial neutrons (in the Sun somehow?).
  2. Why does the scale factor not state that the Sun is 332,837 neutrons, i.e. 332,837 equivalents of the celestial neutron that is the Earth.
  3. What happens to the mass of the planets and the Sun when converted? Are all celestial particles massless ? Then they are not electrons, protons and neutrons!
  4. Why do Jupiter and Saturn not have the same mass so that they have the same charge.
  5. If you are going to keep with your "But I have mentioned that Uranus and Neptune are relative valence electrons in a possible mass-sharing (equivalent to charge-sharing based in my mass-charge equation) relationship "bond" with another star system(s) in a celestial molecular bond which would account for the significant mass difference between Jupiter/Saturn and Uranus/Neptune" idea then why are the gas giants where they are?
    Shouldn't they be about 2 lightyears away so that they are shared between us and Proxima Centauri?
  6. The modern description of atoms (real atoms not the obsolete Bohr model) has the positions of electrons "smeared" out into orbitals not as objects in classical orbits.
    Why are the gas giants not smeared out into celestial atomic orbitals?
  7. Why are Jupiter and Saturn not in the same orbital as required by the electronic structure of Be.
  8. Why are Neptune and Uranus not in the same orbital as required by the electronic structure of Be.
  9. Why do Jupiter and Saturn not have opposite spins are required by the Fermi exclusion principle and observed in the Be atom.
  10. Why do Neptune and Uranus not have opposite spins are required by the Fermi exclusion principle and observed in the Be atom.
  11. How can a decision by a committee on Earth change the Solar System from one celestial atom to another?
  12. What happened to the Solar System on the day that Pluto was reduced from a planet to a dwarf planet?
  13. And what will happen if someone on Earth decides that the real definition of a planet is all Sun-orbiting bodies over a certain mass, e.g. that of Pluto? That is 10 planets including Eris.
    In fact I will do it now (thinks hard):D. What happened?
 
Last edited:
Which leads to another question for MainframeX: How do "electrons" (gas giants) in their separate orbits duplicate in any way the electronic structure in the Bohr model (or real atoms) which has multiple electrons per shell?
Click to expand...
MainframeX said:
I'm not following the Bohr model at all. My model is the Solar System and star systems as data becomes more prevalent. But I have mentioned that Uranus and Neptune are relative valence electrons in a possible mass-sharing (equivalent to charge-sharing based in my mass-charge equation) relationship "bond" with another star system(s) in a celestial molecular bond which would account for the significant mass difference between Jupiter/Saturn and Uranus/Neptune. Look at the picture above to note the size difference. Again for the record, size is not indicative of mass.
Click to expand...
Are you following real atoms?

You need to supply some maths about your "possible mass-sharing" idea.
Classically there is no "charge-sharing" on molecules. Electrons belong to one or other atom. I expect you will have to make your theory into a quantum mechanical theory before you can predict anthing (see you in about 20 years:D!)

However the point about valence electrons are that they are the outer shell electrons. This still leaves you with the Jupiter/Saturn mass difference.

So Point 4 in the previous post should just apply to Jupiter and Saturn.

For the record: Everyone knows that size is not indicative of mass.
 
MainframeX said:
The paper on my site is actually a "light" version of the one I actually submitted for good reason.
Click to expand...

Then why did you refer me to it as if it was authoritative?

How are the scientifically measured radii of the the Be atom and of our Solar System arbitrary?? Seriously how?
Click to expand...

How indeed! I mean, it is not like there are two different radii commonly cited for beryllium - say 105 and 112 pm. That would never happen. And it is not like there are qualification after qualification on the meanings of those values. No, wait, there are.

But still, the radius of the solar system is precisely known, right? And per your hypothesis, it can be precisely set at the orbit of Neptune. No, wait. That doesn't work so well. How about Pluto. No, darn! Too obvious we're being arbitrary, what with Pluto not being a planet any more. Well, the Oort Cloud! That completely covers the solar system and all the things in orbit around Sol. No wait...that doesn't work. Much too big. Well, what does work? Kuiper belt! Its sort of fuzzy, too, so we can use any distance that fails within it...hopefully, no one will notice the measure we use was arbitrary and it excludes lots and lots still part of the solar system. So what! It proves the hypothesis.

And my proof is the "mathematical coincidence" of the numerical values of Jupiter to electron (mass to charge numerical values) as it pertains the context of my hypothesis which initially states that Jupiter is an electron.
Click to expand...

...thus completing the circle.

To subsequently find out that Jupiter's mass after plugging it into an equation which as logically, algebraically and simplistically deduced equates numerically to the value of an electron's charge which again was the initial hypothesis is mind blowing
Click to expand...

Yeah, how'd that work for your other electron planets? You remember, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. Or are they all the same size as Jupiter?

and far more the just mere coincidence.
Click to expand...

I'd never call something so precisely engineered a coincidence.
 
MainframeX said:
First off, it's apparent your knowledge of physics is non-existent but you said that so granted. I'm not here for validation. I'm here to discuss a possibilities. This is entertainment for me and I do like discussing things with with intelligent people.

Second if you knew scientific method well at all, you wouldn't assume Sol, Reality Check and anyone else on this forum is correct at or understands physics at all especially since you don't know physics yourself. You're assuming they know anything at all. It's my word against them or vice-versa. Based on my own knowledge of physics which is extensive, I can reasonably ascertain who knows physics and to what level by the replies I've been getting. But again, it's my word against them if they choose to go against me either by deep disgust of my theories or to play the devil's advocate. Either or is fine with me. And how you refer to my assumptions is incorrect. My assumptions in a theory is my hypothesis as it pertains to scientific method.

Third, how I write, typos and all, on a forum means nothing to me if the context isn't lost. I'm not an English major that's obviously apparent.

Fourth, it's again very apparent you didn't read everything or understand or can logically deduce much (at least by skimming this thread not in general since I don't know you). If I said that our Solar System is a Be atom, then other systems of different configurations are other types of atoms. Perhaps you need some knowledge of chemistry.
Click to expand...

I did not say I knew nothing about physics. I said I was not a physicist.

So you're ignoring my questions about the changed status of Pluto and how it relates to your theory, the complete weirdness of suddenly introducing the concept of the solar system as part of a molecule (rather than a free-standing atom) to account for inaccuracies in your calculations, your lack of journal publication, your attempt to essentially make the vara equal to the candlepower, and your academic qualifications, then?

And if validation of your theory means nothing to you, why are you even discussing it? Why don't you just sit and quietly calculate to yourself?
 
Reality Check said:
Now you only have a few questions to consider
  1. How does squaring a scale factor results in negative values in one case (gas giants), zero in another case (rocky planets) and positive values for celestial neutrons (in the Sun somehow?).
  2. Why does the scale factor not state that the Sun is 332,837 neutrons, i.e. 332,837 equivalents of the celestial neutron that is the Earth.
  3. What happens to the mass of the planets and the Sun when converted? Are all celestial particles massless ? Then they are not electrons, protons and neutrons!
  4. Why do Jupiter and Saturn not have the same mass so that they have the same charge.
  5. If you are going to keep with your "But I have mentioned that Uranus and Neptune are relative valence electrons in a possible mass-sharing (equivalent to charge-sharing based in my mass-charge equation) relationship "bond" with another star system(s) in a celestial molecular bond which would account for the significant mass difference between Jupiter/Saturn and Uranus/Neptune" idea then why are the gas giants where they are?
    Shouldn't they be about 2 lightyears away so that they are shared between us and Proxima Centauri?
  6. The modern description of atoms (real atoms not the obsolete Bohr model) has the positions of electrons "smeared" out into orbitals not as objects in classical orbits.
    Why are the gas giants not smeared out into celestial atomic orbitals?
  7. Why are Jupiter and Saturn not in the same orbital as required by the electronic structure of Be.
  8. Why are Neptune and Uranus not in the same orbital as required by the electronic structure of Be.
  9. Why do Jupiter and Saturn not have opposite spins are required by the Fermi exclusion principle and observed in the Be atom.
  10. Why do Neptune and Uranus not have opposite spins are required by the Fermi exclusion principle and observed in the Be atom.
  11. How can a decision by a committee on Earth change the Solar System from one celestial atom to another?
  12. What happened to the Solar System on the day that Pluto was reduced from a planet to a dwarf planet?
  13. And what will happen if someone on Earth decides that the real definition of a planet is all Sun-orbiting bodies over a certain mass, e.g. that of Pluto? That is 10 planets including Eris.
    In fact I will do it now (thinks hard):D. What happened?
Click to expand...

The gas planets also carry rather too much orbital angular momentum.
 
MainframeX said:
Second if you knew scientific method well at all, you wouldn't assume Sol, Reality Check and anyone else on this forum is correct at or understands physics at all especially since you don't know physics yourself. You're assuming they know anything at all. It's my word against them or vice-versa.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, they're right and you are wrong.

Based on my own knowledge of physics which is extensive, I can reasonably ascertain who knows physics and to what level by the replies I've been getting.
Click to expand...
You don't even understand dimensions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom