Breakthrough in Physics

Dear Sirs,

Check this out. This is a breaktrough! Even bigger than Einstein's idea.

"Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space"

from Preston Guynn

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

This means that everything is light! And that I was on right path with my own crappy papers, ie;

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

Best Regards,

Jouni Jokela

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.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

What would that imply?

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.

Quote from Cydonia

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.

Quote from Max Nozin

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!

Quote

The theory and models herein are based either directly on Thomas precession, or are logical extensions to Thomas

precession. The theory herein is far more than a replacement for a previous theory. The theory herein describes

the basis for particle structure, the basis for mass, the physical structural basis for what were previously

considered fundamental constants, and the physical structural basis for characteristics such as quantized angular

momentum that previously could only be labeled as intrinsic.

Because a point particle approach was used for decades, it is useful in motivating study of the theory and models

described herein to briefly discuss some failings of the point particle approach. Beyer et. al. write12 "[QED] has

served as a template for all subsequent quantum field theories. A serious conceptual drawback of this

development is not only that our description of nature has become more complicated but also that a parameter was

introduced, the dimensionless fine structure constant α ≈ 137, in order to account for the observed fine structure

of hydrogen spectral lines. Since we do not know any way to calculate fundamental constants, such as α, from

first principles, the additional constant alpha reduces the predictive power of theory." In contrast with QED, the

theory presented herein gives the physical basis for α. Rather than complicating the theory herein, the equations

for α give insights that illuminate a single cohesive theory connecting the structure and dynamics of matter from

the particle scale to the galactic scale. While α reduces the predictive power of QED, for the model herein α gives

deep insights into the electrostatic force.

Beyer gives an interesting perspective into tests of QED which reveal the "proton size puzzle". For example "A

recent measurement of the 2S-2P3/2 transition frequency in muonic hydrogen is in significant contradiction to the

hydrogen data if QED calculations are assumed to be correct." Beyer describes a discrepancy between

experimental measurement of proton radius and QED prediction, detailing use of a transition frequency in muonic

hydrogen and electron proton scattering experiments. Beyer states "The discrepancy persists and QED is no

longer consistent with experimental data".

Because QED predictions deviate from experimental data, it can be said that QED, without predictive power, fails

as a theory. Further, if QED served as a template for all subsequent quantum field theories, then those subsequent

theories are likewise flawed. A case in point is QCD. In a paper titled "Puzzles in Hadronic Physics and Novel

Quantum Chromodynamics Phenomenology", Brodsky et. al. describe13 "the proton spin problem". The problem

involves the fact that "empirically, quarks carry only a small fraction of the proton’s spin." Continuing with "The

total spin carried by quarks is reduced from the naive 100% down to ≈ 25% of the total spin of the nucleon. This,

of course, raises the question of where the remaining 75% comes from." QCD does not explain, and did not

predict, the source of 75% of proton angular momentum. In contrast, the theory presented in this article explains

proton angular momentum, and also explains why electron and proton have the same angular momentum. A point

particle approach has "intrinsic" as the basis for electron ħ/2 per axis angular momentum, and is now searching

for a corrective mechanism to QCD to explain proton ħ/2 per axis angular momentum. The theory and model

presented herein gives the basis for each particle's angular momentum, and goes further to explain the

commonality of ħ/2 to both particles.

Display More

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

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

I think I want to do a full scale Excel-sheet about this paper. It does two (2) things, it tests the correctness of the results and it also shows the logical paths of how these results were produced. Excel doesn't aloud circular reasoning.

This was an issue also here;

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

Proceeded with this quite a bit. Until now it's remained solid for me.

You need the EQ (21) from the First paper from Preston Guynn, other vice this last paper has a logical gap if you wan't to build it up from every step.

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

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

Quote from Wyttenbach

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....

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

Display More

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;

Pii;

Term "1" V_g/ (Sqrt2 V_m)

SQRT 2

v_g

v_m

Term 1 Result;

Term 2 result;

Alpha; Result;

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.

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.

Quote from Wyttenbach

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