String Theory is Doomed - offshoot from Null Physics thread

[Dancing David]

I suspect that our Solar System is a stable ⁹Be atom bonded in a celestial molecule to other star systems. I say this because of the inclusion of our Moon and the dwarf planet of Ceres.

Yowsa, um there are many dwarf planets, you are forgetting Triton. Sorry but it seems to be a posteriori fine tuning.
What was it before something the size of mars slammed into the earth and tossed out the moon?

QM is very hard to ignore, it is very accurate, even Bohr dumped planetary orbitals quickly.

This is very cool:
http://daugerresearch.com/orbitals/index.shtml

 

[big-E]

Those who are interested in the shortcomings of the Bohr model and how these were overcome by the Schrödinger solution should read up on the Zeeman effect (splitting of emission lines in a magnetic field).

Slight derail, but thanks Evilgiraffe, that was indeed a very interesting little diversion. It's exactly these sorts of little discoveries that eventually (despite initial puzzlement) tie together in a neat, elegant and above all mathematically sound way that shows the difference between real science and crackpottery...

 

[Reality Check]

...sniped...
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.

...snip...

BTW, if you read my paper rocky planets are neutrons not protons.

BTW I read your e-book. and you are not sure (page 161):
"My inclination is that these inner system objects, akin to rock planets such as Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are better suited to be labeled inner-system electrons, or possibly neutrons due to their ability to absorb ζ vibrations at higher amplitudes much more readily than gas giants."

But the diagram on page 160 definitely has labels "Electrons/Gas Giants", "Protons/Rock Planets".

You stll have the problem that you are out by a factor of 1.56*10^-19 since you state that the celestial charge of gas giants is positive when electrons are negative.

Now a crackpot will say: Lets throw away all the mathematics behind my scaling factor and just make it negative. Then I will get the right sign for the gas giants.

But then apply the same scaling factor to rock planets - that also makes them negatively charged! (not protons or neutrons).

 

[sol invictus]

You stll have the problem that you are out by a factor of 1.56*10^-19 since you state that the celestial charge of gas giants is positive when electrons are negative.

Now a crackpot will say: Lets throw away all the mathematics behind my scaling factor and just make it negative. Then I will get the right sign for the gas giants.

But then apply the same scaling factor to rock planets - that also makes them negatively charged! (not protons or neutrons).

And of course it's much worse than that - the only way to relate a mass to a charge is via a parameter with dimensions of mass/charge, as in M= c Q. Mainframe has simply chosen units so that for Jupiter and the electron, the numerical value of c is something he likes.

Of course he could attain that value of c for any M and Q, by changing units. Or to put it another way, given a numerical value of c in some units, change from kg to grams and c changes by 1,000.

In other words, the relation is completely and totally meaningless.

 

[Tubbythin]

In other words, the relation is completely and totally meaningless.

And as any good scientist knows, most of physics can be explained by the Georgi-Glashow model which absolutely has to be right since the derived grand unification coupling constant = 1/meaning life (at least to a reasonable approximation) and that simply cannot be complete chance.

 

[MainframeX]

BTW I read your e-book. and you are not sure (page 161):
"My inclination is that these inner system objects, akin to rock planets such as Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are better suited to be labeled inner-system electrons, or possibly neutrons due to their ability to absorb ζ vibrations at higher amplitudes much more readily than gas giants."

But the diagram on page 160 definitely has labels "Electrons/Gas Giants", "Protons/Rock Planets".

You stll have the problem that you are out by a factor of 1.56*10^-19 since you state that the celestial charge of gas giants is positive when electrons are negative.

Now a crackpot will say: Lets throw away all the mathematics behind my scaling factor and just make it negative. Then I will get the right sign for the gas giants.

But then apply the same scaling factor to rock planets - that also makes them negatively charged! (not protons or neutrons).

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.

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.

 

[MainframeX]

And of course it's much worse than that - the only way to relate a mass to a charge is via a parameter with dimensions of mass/charge, as in M= c Q. Mainframe has simply chosen units so that for Jupiter and the electron, the numerical value of c is something he likes.

Of course he could attain that value of c for any M and Q, by changing units. Or to put it another way, given a numerical value of c in some units, change from kg to grams and c changes by 1,000.

In other words, the relation is completely and totally meaningless.

Just to make this clear. I "intentionally" make no unit conversion. I wouldn't submit a paper like that. I continue using Kg and state that the "numerical" (numeric) value is very close, so close that if you round it off it is 1.6x10^-19 which is exact. The value of S = c^e is also equal to scale difference between our Solar System and the Be atom from the "kuiper" belt to the researched edge of the Be atom (the stable isotope). That fact the number c^e = this scale difference is coincidence but I believe very important that I made note of it. Now using my old S value the one I which I admitted was "roughly" calculated (since then I've calculated S values closer to c^e supporting this "coincidental" relationship) Saturn's "quantum" mass is using Mq = Mo/S^2 is 1.75x10^-19 Kg. Do you see that the values are very close to 1.6x10^-19. This is more than just coincidence especially as it pertains to my hypothesis.

 

[MainframeX]

And as any good scientist knows, most of physics can be explained by the Georgi-Glashow model which absolutely has to be right since the derived grand unification coupling constant = 1/meaning life (at least to a reasonable approximation) and that simply cannot be complete chance.

What!?!

 

[MainframeX]

Yowsa, um there are many dwarf planets, you are forgetting Triton. Sorry but it seems to be a posteriori fine tuning.
What was it before something the size of mars slammed into the earth and tossed out the moon?

QM is very hard to ignore, it is very accurate, even Bohr dumped planetary orbitals quickly.

This is very cool:
http://daugerresearch.com/orbitals/index.shtml

I'm not ignoring QM at all. I believe QM can be used to predict celestial mechanics by supper imposing it on Astrophysics and vice-versa. This is why I think this theory is very big. It is a fundamental unification theory coming out of left field.

The dwarf planets in the system are at different locations with in the Solar System but there is only 1 (Ceres) beyond Mars in its orbit around the Sun. The others are beyond Neptune. What does that mean? Basically why? What makes Ceres so special to be closer to the Sun? The fact the scientific community have classified these planetoids "sub" planets means they have a big enough difference between "full" planets that it was notable enough to even make Pluto a "sub" planet on official paper. So we're left with 4 rock planets, Ceres, Asteroid Belt, 4 gas giants and several dwarf planets and the Kuiper belt. 4 and 4 is what caught my eye and then I formulated this theory and consequent found a mass-charge relationship. I believe QM is very important.

Thanks for sharing that link. Very cool indeed.

 

[MainframeX]

Then MainframeX is also inconsistent.
The full e-book on his site has Chapter 15: Quantum & Celestial Relativity on page 160 that starts with a diagram where the nucleus is the inner solar system, electrons are gas giants, protons are "rock planets", electron shells are outer planetary orbits of gas giants and 4/5 neutrons are the Sun/Star.

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?
MainframeX: FYI Beryllium (you obviously need to read something about Be) has an electronic configuration of 1s² 2s² (2 shells of 2 electrons each)

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.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I will stipulate:

• I am not a physicist or a mathematician. The furthest I got in my mathematical career was trigonometry.
  
• I am, however, pretty good at language.
  
• I'm also pretty familiar, just by reason of a good general education, with the scientific method.
  
• I'm also pretty familiar with academia.

That being stipulated:

Yes Dr Smolin is respected. That was my claim to begin with until Sol counter argued me so I went with it to prove a point. Sol called him a liar. I called him overzealous and not well informed with some of his claims against string theory but not a liar.

I haven't bought Mr Witts book and will not so thanks Reality Check though I'd still like to see it for myself and give it an objective review. DON'T EVER ASSUME ANYTHING! Assuming tells me you are easily prone to subjective biasness.

Another point is that quantum gravity theory is more radical than string theory as perceived by some mainstream physicists but string theory horribly lacks in any form of verification over 40 years. What's horribly wrong with this picture? I can argue that all physicists that are "crackpots". Mainstream physicists that refuse to question the norm are "crackpots" since the purpose of science is to evolve, find flaws in the current model and fix it. And then there are "crackpots" that reject the norm all together without any analysis. I for the record don't reject the norm just a couple of small things I've found wrong that needs fixing. We are all "crackpots" to varying degrees. All of us have theories. I have theories about you and with all my assuming and you have theories about me with all your assuming. Well are any of them correct? I don't know you and you don't know me so they'd have to be tested. Right? But you can argue that interpersonal theories about people isn't scientific in nature and isn't required to follow scientific method. Why? As it pertains to psychology it should. Everything is science but there's a problem...the human nature. We assume things, jump to conclusions, act bias, presume conclusions, act with ill intent, find pleasure in demeaning a fellow human and so on...why? I say it's fear. Fear of being less, being left behind, not meeting the standard, not being accepted and so on. Out of fear arrises ill intent of varying degrees. At the less degree, we ignore. Slightly hirer, we respond with verbal action. A little higher, we respond physically. A little higher, we affect the livelihood of the individuals causing us fear. An example, someone at work is promoted ahead of you. You think he doesn't deserve it so you cause rumors, ignore him, put glue in his coffee. Why? Because your feeling of self entitlement and fear of being left behind. Now what if the person is promoted because he has skills you don't but you've been there longer? Oh ill intent just bubbles to the surface. This is human nature at its finest. Oh and how about taking credit for the work of others? What are the psychological implication revolving around that as it pertains to human nature. Opportunity or action due to fear? You decide.

Sol, I've been at this for may years...with this one specifically for two years. I've asked myself the same question 2 years ago and researched it extensively. Couloumb is derived from force measurements using mass through electric force experimentation over the course of several hundred years...since Coulomb himself. The introduction of the Metric system derived a coulomb charge elementary charge that would fit into the Metric system and have kilogram as a derived unit.

What you guys are missing is how this whole value of S was derived and how "magically" it resulted in 1.6x10^-19. Nothing was magical or massaged in order for this number to be derived. S is a scale value. Sphere's density and volume equation are as old as time and from them 1.6x10^-19 came out validating the initial hypothesis that Jupiter is an Electron because an electron charge has the same numerical value. Units aside that is one big coincidence!

First, there is no such word as "biasness." It's "bias," pure and simple.

Second, why are you publishing this ground-breaking work on an Internet forum (oh, yes, and on your website) instead of in a peer-reviewed mathematical or physics journal?

Third, purely on a linguistic level, I don't think you can equate a word describing the measurement of one thing ("coulomb") with a word describing the measurement of another completely different thing ("kilogram"). That would be like my saying that the Spanish word "fresa" translates to "chartreuse."

Fourth, you have not adequately dealt with the difficulty presented by the recent change in Pluto's status in the solar system.

Fifth, what about other solar systems which are not configured like ours? Several people have asked that question in this thread and you have not answered it.

Sixth, whether you are in this for personal glory or not, you must admit that receiving the Nobel Prize in physics would be an almost inarguable validation of your theory.

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.

So, your original concept having been pretty much knocked to pieces (not by me, but by Sol, Reality Check, and others), now you are dragging in the idea that the solar system is actually an atom in a molecule? Is that what you are saying? Do you know what it means when a theory needs to add more and more assumptions to make it work? Especially off-the-wall assumptions?

ETA: I forgot to ask: since you mentioned several times that you have studied string theory extensively, would you list your academic credentials, please?

 

[jsfisher]

The value of S = c^e is also equal to scale difference between our Solar System and the Be atom from the "kuiper" belt to the researched edge of the Be atom (the stable isotope). That fact the number c^e = this scale difference is coincidence but I believe very important that I made note of it.

You are using a meaning for "equal" with which I am unfamiliar. Your calculated value for S wasn't at all close to c^e, the later being 96% larger than the former. Quite the discrepancy.

You might also explore how your exact values all fair under the CGS variant of the metric system, it having all the consistency properties you claim for the MKS version.

On the plus side, at least you are now calling it the kuiper belt (but what's with the quote marks?).

 

[MainframeX]

You are using a meaning for "equal" with which I am unfamiliar. Your calculated value for S wasn't at all close to c^e, the later being 96% larger than the former. Quite the discrepancy.

You might also explore how your exact values all fair under the CGS variant of the metric system, it having all the consistency properties you claim for the MKS version.

On the plus side, at least you are now calling it the kuiper belt (but what's with the quote marks?).

I've went over this before. Kg is a derived unit from C (coloumb) in the metric system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb. This in turn would make C a derived unit of kg. There is a symmetry between the two units in the metric system that the engineers of the metric system manufactured or stumble on. Ampere is a derived unit of C and continuing Ampere and C derive Kg. So there is a symmetric relationship. Also, Coloumb himself and all electric charge experiments use charged mass object to calculate the elementary charge so mass is intrinsically meshed with charge from the start.

Two of my reference materials refer to Kelper belt. I unfortunately followed that trend.

 

[jsfisher]

I've went over this before. Kg is a derived unit from C (coloumb) in the metric system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb. This in turn would make C a derived unit of kg.

The truth of this would be equal for the gram and the abcoloumb, also from the Metric System.

There is a symmetry between the two units in the metric system that the engineers of the metric system manufactured or stumble on. Ampere is a derived unit of C and continuing Ampere and C derive Kg. So there is a symmetric relationship. Also, Coloumb himself and all electric charge experiments use charged mass object to calculate the elementary charge so mass is intrinsically meshed with charge from the start.

Yes, all that is true in the MKS version. It is also true for the CGS version. Heck, it is even true in some non-Metric System system of measures.

Two of my reference materials refer to Kelper belt. I unfortunately followed that trend.

Yes, I know. It casts some serious doubts on the quality of your references, though, doesn't it?

By the way, did you correct your pronunciation of "Euler" in you video?


I also noticed you completely passed over any discussion of your novel usage of the term, equal. Surely just an oversight. I'll repeat the observation, here for your reference: You are using a meaning for "equal" with which I am unfamiliar. Your calculated value for S wasn't at all close to c^e, the later being 96% larger than the former. Quite the discrepancy.

 

[MainframeX]

I will stipulate:

• I am not a physicist or a mathematician. The furthest I got in my mathematical career was trigonometry.
  
• I am, however, pretty good at language.
  
• I'm also pretty familiar, just by reason of a good general education, with the scientific method.
  
• I'm also pretty familiar with academia.

That being stipulated:





First, there is no such word as "biasness." It's "bias," pure and simple.

Second, why are you publishing this ground-breaking work on an Internet forum (oh, yes, and on your website) instead of in a peer-reviewed mathematical or physics journal?

Third, purely on a linguistic level, I don't think you can equate a word describing the measurement of one thing ("coulomb") with a word describing the measurement of another completely different thing ("kilogram"). That would be like my saying that the Spanish word "fresa" translates to "chartreuse."

Fourth, you have not adequately dealt with the difficulty presented by the recent change in Pluto's status in the solar system.

Fifth, what about other solar systems which are not configured like ours? Several people have asked that question in this thread and you have not answered it.

Sixth, whether you are in this for personal glory or not, you must admit that receiving the Nobel Prize in physics would be an almost inarguable validation of your theory.



So, your original concept having been pretty much knocked to pieces (not by me, but by Sol, Reality Check, and others), now you are dragging in the idea that the solar system is actually an atom in a molecule? Is that what you are saying? Do you know what it means when a theory needs to add more and more assumptions to make it work? Especially off-the-wall assumptions?

ETA: I forgot to ask: since you mentioned several times that you have studied string theory extensively, would you list your academic credentials, please?

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.

 

[temporalillusion]

Mainframe, since you worked on string theory, answer this - what's the content of the right-moving ghost sector of the E(8)XE(8) heterotic string?

I'd like to see your answer for this Mainframe, in case you missed this before.

 

[MainframeX]

Your calculated value for S wasn't at all close to c^e, the later being 96% larger than the former. Quite the discrepancy.

Here is my latest calculated value of S.

Be radius = 105 pm (measured radius)
Sol radius = 55AU to 65AU (taking the outer max so 65AU)

1 AU = 149597870691 m

Thus
S = Sol_R/Be_R
S = (65AU)(149597870691) = 9723861594915 m
S = 9723861594915 m / 105pm = 9.261e+22

Percentage similarity = (c^e / 9.261e+22)(100%) = 83.84% similarity.

This would equate S= c^2.7092520201259363621191188795264

Get the picture?

If you want more read my book or paper at http://www.gpofr.com

 

[jsfisher]

Here is my latest calculated value of S.
...
Get the picture?

Absolutely. You settle on some arbitrary value because it agrees with your baseless hypothesis, then claim it to be evidence of the same.

If you want more read my book or paper at http://www.gpofr.com

Your paper and your book haven't kept pace with your confirmation bias.

 

[MainframeX]

Absolutely. You settle on some arbitrary value because it agrees with your baseless hypothesis, then claim it to be evidence of the same.



Your paper and your book haven't kept pace with your confirmation bias.

The paper on my site is actually a "light" version of the one I actually submitted for good reason.

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

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. 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 and far more the just mere coincidence. Of course, you don't have to believe it's nothing more than mere coincidence. I'll continue believing there's more to it.

 

[sol invictus]

I've went over this before.

And it was pointed out to you why you are wrong.

Kg is a derived unit from C (coloumb) in the metric system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb.

Your own reference contradicts you. I suggest you read it.

This in turn would make C a derived unit of kg.

No.

There is a symmetry between the two units in the metric system that the engineers of the metric system manufactured or stumble on.

Gibberish.

Ampere is a derived unit of C and continuing Ampere and C derive Kg.

Nope. Amperes are coulombs PER SECOND. Where do seconds appear in the quantities you're comparing?

Electric charge and mass are two totally different physical quantities. One could have a universe in which everything had zero charge and non-zero mass (or even zero mass and non-zero charge). In fact in nature we know there are other kinds of charges, all of which are independent of both mass and electric charge.