MainframeX has a crackpot theory that the solar system is a celestial atom of beryllium (Be) where gas giants are celestial electrons, rocky planets are celestial protons and neutrons somehow are included in the Sun. He thinks that you can put mass equal to charge just by multiplying by a scaling factor.
He ignores little things like:
- Planet is not a scientific term. It is a description that was just resently codified. Thus Pluto used to be a planet and now is not. So before that the solar system must have been an atom of boron!
- Gas giants are heavier than rocky planets but electrons are lighter than protons.
MainframeX:
- From GPofR: Gas giants are celestial electrons. They move at a low velocity and so we can use a simplified version equation on page 81: S2C = 1kg.
For Jupiter (if we ignore basic physics and make a value in mass equal to the same value in charge) the result is your Jupiterquantum = 1.898*1026kg/S2 = 1.56*10-19kg.
This is of course nowhere near the real value of the charge on an electron which just happens to be negative, i.e. -1.602176487(40)*10-19C.
The next problem is that Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have much lower masses than Jupiter (which is 317.8 Earths), e.g. Saturn has a mass of 95.152 Earths. This means that they are even worse matches (ignoring the sign problem above) than Jupiter.
Thus your theory fails its predictions and is false.
I will not even get into the way off values for rocky "planets" considered as protons.
- Exactly how many neutrons is the Sun and how did you calculate it?
- 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? FYI Beryllium (you obviously need to read something about Be) has an electronic configuration of 1s2 2s2 (2 shells of 2 electrons each).
ETA: Since your scaling factor converts all of the mass of the planets to charge does this mean that electrons and protons do not have any mass?
You're good Reality Check which makes this much more assuming. I "think" I have a theory and it's a pretty good one compared say to string theory. Why? Think for second my "theory" is correct, which the very simple numbers validate as much as you'd like to argue against it (which is a
huge coincidence if anything at all). But just for sec think I'm right. Let your mind open to the possibility which I know you're capable of. So follow me on this. What would that mean? That clearly means there is a difference in scale between Solar System and Be atom. Scale pertains to the concept of "space". So there is a difference in space. Awesome! So what?! But electrons in are a hazy cloud around the nucleus. Why? Because they travel very, very fast. So you mean along with a difference in space there is a difference in the passage of time? Interesting. So there's a difference in space-time at the quantum scale in reference to our space-time frame of reference. Taking space-time as a pliable substance that can be distorted affecting size (space) and the passage of time then it can be considered a form of space-time density. So space-time density is "denser" at the quantum scale compared to the celestial scale. So a system that appears completely unrelated to our Solar System is not. It's all a matter of perception.
Now, not all gas giants are equal in mass. Based on Newtonian mathematics? First off, size is not indicative of mass and to think that is down right stupid. For example, compare a clay ball to a lead ball to see what I mean "tangibly". But lets go with the current mass of gas giants. Neptune and Uranus are similar in mass and significantly different than Jupiter and Saturn. Grant that so ok. But accounting for the possibility that our Solar System is member atom to a celestial molecule, you'd have to consider how molecular bonds work. You're adept in physics so you should know. Valence electrons are shared with other atoms. But how are they shared exactly? Do you know all the research pertaining molecular bonds? Their "charge" is shared between systems. Charge in my theory equates to mass. So perhaps...just maybe...Neptune and Uranus are in a mass sharing bond with another star system. Which means their masses are somehow split (and this is what I'm currently working on) between other star systems.
If I'm wrong kukos to you, but really doubt it. At least you can visual conceptualize my theory. Try doing that with string theory. Oh wait I can visual conceptualize string theory too...that's right I worked with string theory. I almost forgot that.
Yes I'm being sarcastic if you couldn't tell. I mean no malice. If you dish it, I'll make it pretty and give it back. Buddy I've dealt with all kinds (in and out of physics) and to me this becomes a sport in the psychology of others which I totally find amusing. We can reason each other to death, but honestly I don't have the time. To me this forum is a form of entertainment which I do at my leisure. I'm usually very busy. By applying a negative connotation to me by frivolously calling me a "crack-pot" is a cop-out. I expect better from you and the term is so relatively subjective it's unreal. Yes I've called others "crack-pot" too. No where in physics does it say implicitly that the atom is not relative to a star system. Am I going against the current paradigm? No. I make no claims of that. Even if I was I wouldn't care but the fact remains that I'm not. Give me some credit I'm a lot smarter than you may think. Yes now I've left myself opened to attack by anyone in offense to me gloating on my intellectual capacity. There's no need to reply regarding that and if you do it just proves my point. The fact is, Neils Bohr makes a the initial hypothesis and analogy that the atom and Solar System were alike. Yes, Mr Bohr was the god-father of quantum physics. So in physics there is room for such a theory.
I like you reality check. From the stuff I've read I actually tend to agree with most of what you write. You have a powerful mind its obvious so put it to some powerful use...not on this forum. Forum's are for chumps. I mean in the real world.
BTW, if you read my paper rocky planets are neutrons not protons.
