Breakthrough in Physics

  • Here is the Abstract;


    Quote

    Einstein's theory of special relativity was incomplete as originally formulated since it did not include the rotational effect described twenty years later by Thomas, now referred to as Thomas precession. Though Thomas precession has been accepted for decades, its relationship to particle structure is a recent discovery, first described in an article titled "Electromagnetic effects and structure of particles due to special relativity". Thomas precession acts as a velocity dependent counter-rotation, so that at a rotation velocity of 3 / 2 c , precession is equal to rotation, resulting in an inertial frame of reference. During the last year and a half significant progress was made in determining further details of the role of Thomas precession in particle structure, fundamental constants, and the galactic rotation velocity. In this article, these discoveries are described and proofs are provided, with results matching experimentally determined values to between eight and thirteen significant digits. Among the discoveries described and proven herein are 1) the observed galactic rotation velocity and elementary particle spin interact due to Thomas precession, 2) the basis for Planck's constant and quantized energy levels is Thomas precession, 3) the fine structure constant is a function of galactic rotation velocity and the maximum value of rotation velocity minus precession velocity. Also discovered and proven is that, due to the inertial frame of reference resulting from Thomas precession, distance and time, with units meters and seconds, within three dimensional space are sufficient to describe the structure of particles and their interactions. Einstein showed that energy is dependent on frame of reference with his equation E =γ mc2, and he formulated E = mc2 as rest energy. Proven herein is that particle mass and rest energy are functions of rotational velocity due to Thomas precession. These far reaching discoveries are all interrelated, and based in Thomas precession. The theory, models, and equations give results that match experimental data to very high precision.

  • Shit!


    Yeah, ok. That is actually a good question and should be answered;


    1. It would imply that the mass is just a pseudo thing and is depending from our rotational velocity around our galaxy; Vg= −221677.92498 m/s.

    This accurate value is calculated in this paper. (EQ 26)


    It explains exact values how from this velocity can be calculated ie. following things;


    2. Electron / Proton mass-ratio (EQ 36)


    3. Fine Structure constant "Alpha" (EQ 32)


    4. Gravitational constant "G" (In another paper)


    ..... for example....


    So you only need this velocity and speed of light, and you can have everything in physics we know.

  • Following this model what could you suggest to do an antigravity device ?


  • Following this model what could you suggest to do an antigravity device ?


    How do you come to this question? That the reason for Gravity is found, doesn't mean it cease's from existing.


    It's like if you change from geocentric model to Heliocentric. The huge orbital speed of earth doesn't start do you any blow jobs (pun intented) at the moment you understand that the Earth rotates around the sun.

  • Have you seen Miles Mathis work - everything is light there as well.

    I have seen his work. But It's over complicated, and doesn't really have predictive power as I understand it.

    The ideas behind his work might be correct, but when I as an Engineer compare it to this piece linked here there is huge difference.




    I've now went through these papers and done the reality checks I need, and I can confirm that this written text below summarizes very well the value of this discovery!




    To me this paper fullfilles the requirements of being declared "right";

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8JgYHcjZmQ

  • Do not forget also the rotation of the planet's core (composed of cold nuclear fusion plasma) and its geospheres, leading to continental drift (plate tectonics) and the gravitational field of the planet Earth!

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • 2. Electron / Proton mass-ratio (EQ 36)


    The problem with some equations is the fact that they are not indepent of what they claim to calculate. Thus from a mathematical point of view they must be changed to exclude the possibibilty of self defintion...

    Nevertheless the approach with Thomas precision is very good as it is a first step to map 4D physics back to 3D to explain complex relations. I will check some details when I'm back home.

  • I have now completed this checking.

    The value in EQ (28) which practically defines the Galactic velocity is purely mathematical construct, which can be derived with the presented mathematic.

    It gave me roots;


    −0.608309

    OR

    0.608309

    OR

    −0.91592

    OR

    0.91592


    So, as the EQ (32) uses only v_g, v_m and c, (k_2 is just "units-cleaning") it's a pretty solid path with no circular reasoning involved.


    That's it.

    My only question is now only "How long does it take that mankind is able to correct it's approach?"

    With Galileo it took > 100 years.

    With Einstein it took 14 Years.

  • I documented the math here;


    https://physics.stackexchange.…ation-velocity-calculated


    And those who might like to visualize these equations;


    https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/grapher-equation.html


    And there copy paste this to the Equation line;


    (4^(1/3)-1)^3/x^2-4-1/(1-x^2)+4/(1-x^2)^(1/2)=y


    To me this looks pretty much like the atomic propulsion attraction thing...

    The same line can be copied here to get it solved;

    https://www.dcode.fr/equation-solver


    note that x = v/c

    so x^2 = v^2 / c^2

  • I have now completed this checking.

    I checked two formulas. The alpha value and the proton electron mass equivalence.


    The later one is complete nonsense and the alpha formula is not working after about 6 digits....


    Nevertheless the approach is interesting.


    By the way: In physics there is no way to do a unit corrections... Even for man/woman complex surgery is needed...

  • With alpha you mean the Equation 32? I have presented it also here;

    https://physics.stackexchange.…cture-of-matter-and-space


    There is

    2; in my excel with this accuracy;

    2.00000000000000000000000

    Pii;

    3.14159265358979000000000

    Term "1" V_g/ (Sqrt2 V_m)

    SQRT 2


    1.41421356237310000000000

    v_g

    v_m

    -221677.92498800000000000

    Term 1 Result;

    134965504.6377600000000000

    Term 2 result;

    0.00116140760870036000000

    Alpha; Result;

    0.00000000212371568617288

    Alpha; wiki is the same with said 11 digits;

    0.0072973525693


    I consider this is right. The values are copy paste's from my Excel sheet.



    0.00729735256633185000000


    This was btw even said in the paper;

    Quote

    The value calculated for α using Equation 32 matches the CODATA recommended value to eleven significant

    digits7. The calculation using only the first of the two parenthetical terms would match six significant digits.

  • I checked some derivations (vm) with maple and they are correct (but not minimal).


    The problem with the overall derivation is the fact that it is not physical, as energy and mass are mixed. But for me it is interesting to see that a logical path brings up correct values. Of course formula 51 is wrong as many other things like the proton radius that has never been seen. The derivations mix known physics with an intuitive unit correction to get a value match at the end.


    But I never throw away a solution that is simple without looking for an alternative explanation. The model has many odds as the author does not discuss why there should be a single differential velocity what only works for point masses. Thus the model needs a rework to show the real physics behind the numerical calculations. There is a good chance that he hit on something hidden.

  • Thus the model needs a rework to show the real physics behind the numerical calculations. There is a good chance that he hit on something hidden.


    I may write more later, but to me this was very easy to recognize, as I have been seeking this kind explanation. The problems we have in physics are all related to mass, and I noticed that mass might not exist at all, I mean total mass of universe is Zero, and we only feel mass because we are a part of rotating system. I have seeked similar model by my self, but my problem was that I concentrated only to our solarsystem. But obviously the matter creation needs galagtic scale. This is, now when it's said, somehow obvious, and I wonder why I couldn't figure it out before.

    This Thomas Precession was also a new issue for me, but I don't feel it has been prevented me to find this solution. As I have been able to create solutions from scratch all my life...


    Maybe these papers from me helps you to enter this new massless physics. Please note that they should be rewritten, and now merely show the evolution of my thoughts up to here. This is the one to start with;

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…vity_Theory_of_Everything

  • I may write more later, but to me this was very easy to recognize, as I have been seeking this kind explanation. The problems we have in physics are all related to mass, and I noticed that mass might not exist at all, I mean total mass of universe is Zero, and we only feel mass because we are a part of rotating system.


    If you want to propose a new model for physics then it must be self consistent and be able to explain experimental facts. The Thomas precision work finds an interesting result based on incorrect assumptions e.g. one being the fact that the used formula only works in the non relativistic rest frame or at low velocity. Thus it can be applied only to cosmological dimensions not to atomic masses.


    As a dedicated researcher you now have to find the physical meaning of what the formula suggests as obviously some connections are missing. Having a good solution is always a nice starting point for further investigations. But in real physics there is no way to apply the proposed unit corrections...