Is There a Hidden Universal Constant that Affects All Branches of Science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter microedit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nobel prize
microedit
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Although I can't nominate myself for a Nobel Prize, I was wondering I any distinguished scientist would oppose such a nomination.
Here are the scientific propositions.

Astronauts are able to float when in space are but inside their space shuttle. But they are also able to breath oxygen. Sea divers also must use a set amount of air pressure to receive proper amounts of oxygen. When high mountain climbing one of the first physical systems to change in the body is the amount of oxygen one gets while breathing. Vacuum "space" is an unseen constant evident by particles able to go thru other forms of matter such as glass. Well, there are other forces such as magnetism that also go through matter with this unabstructed nonlimitation. In works of classical and modern scientists such as Newton and Einstein they make no references to these facts as a universal constant. So by defining this physical vacuum that is able to go through all of matter and giving it mathematical value and meaning because it affects all branches of science I am humble (as the researcher and discoverer).

Please note that energy, matter and forces as a byproducts of matter or energy have been ruled out as this universal constant. The date being 02/10/2012. My name Adam Luis Hugo 0667. I would also like to add that physical evidence show offset of energy and matter by this constant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I nominate... you!(I mean me!)
 
Last edited:
P.S. I haven't named this constant yet although I have done the research of its abstraction from eliminating known science related variables in their own branches of disciplines. I have acquired "Preponderance of the Evidence" of such a constant or physical variable or previously unknown scientific principle. And now I'm publishing publicly on this forum with this thread.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't think you're going to get your Nobel. You won't get the Nobel Prize for a, as you put it, "scientific proposition". You get the Nobel Prize for making an important contribution to science.

Speculative posts like this are anyway not allowed on this forum. So keep rocking, but somewhere else.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top