Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Robert L. DeMelo About
World Science Database Profile
Independent Researcher
Interests: Cosmology Fractal, Scaling, Self-similarity, Relativity, Electrodyamics, Gravity, Expansion Tectonics, Non-linear Dynamics, Grand Unification Age: 41

Robert is an independent researcher, amongst other things. He is a perpetual student and has been actively pursuing the study of physics for over 15 years. Professionally he has a background in engineering and has worked in technology also over 15 years developing systems for multiple industries. Personally, Robert enjoys open debate where one of his personal goals is to challenge and demonstrate different perspectives to promote critical thinking. He believes that a complete theory of everything physical will never truly be achieved, and if one is that it should be continually questioned and reanalyzed in order to find a better theory. He also believes that certain theories have diverged from well founded intentions into extreme, contextually imaginary mathematics and are unjustly popularized. He is an advocate for world peace through free universal education. He lives by a strict code of relative ethics defined by the Golden Rule. 

My current research is in fractal scaling, discrete, self-similar cosmology and dynamics using an explicit framework I've slowly evolved based on my simply derived scale factor S between macroscopic and quantum systems (between star systems and atomic systems) and its subsequent transformation equations. My hypothesis is that macroscopic and quantum cosmological systems are self-similar separated by a scale factor of S and a significant difference in the passage of time, factor T. These differences in scale and time, if indeed true, signify that the Universe (the space and time continuum) is intrinsically, both materialistically and dynamically, fractal constituting a fractal space-time continuum. This research is not simply the falsification of this initial hypothesis, but an attempt to resolve all disparaging differences through critical scientific analysis between the two scales if possible in order to develop a better framework for continual testing. The process of resolving remaining disparaging differences between the two scaled cosmologies is a process in falsification which ultimately will invalidate or validate the framework through probability. Currently the framework has evolved into a fairly robust predictive platform, never losing touch with its simple foundations and physical context, by deriving many undeniably fascinating results through mathematics and computer simulation. These results indicate that this framework is definitely on the right tack and a possibility in truly uniting relativistic astrophysics and quantum physics. Ultimately, fractal scale cosmology of this framework may be proven invalid, but the importance as a scientist lies in exploring all possibilities in order to unravel the truth. If the truth is that the Universe and the space-time continuum are not fractal, then that is just as important as finding that it is. As of right now, the probability is that this framework is indeed partially correct considering its results. And the research continues. For more on my research and the technical specifics of this framework, get a copy of my recent research at http://www.gpofr.com/GPRAREPMES.aspx.

Though I maybe an independent researcher, from my studies and research over many years, here are my conclusions regarding the state of physics:

  • Newtonian physics is correct to a point
  • Rutherford-Bohr model is correct to a point
  • Einsteinian special and general relativity is correct
  • quantum physics is correct (specifically the application of probability) 
  • a Higgs field does exist (a form of ether)
  • a particle similar to the Higgs boson does exist

All this is true, but each have limitations in regards to a fractal topology linking them all together. Given these limitations, our current set of physical laws are not the true core fundamental invariant. If they were, there would be no unknowns. 

I also believe that the lack of contemporary acknowledgement of the reemergence of classical physical theories and concepts in modern theories (ex. Higgs field as a form of ether) is unjust to all those scientists that came before. It is also unjust not to acknowledge the research of contemporaries for reasons beyond science. Modern scientific culture must be truly impartial, objective and critical, void of the politics and socio-economic interests that drive almost all subjective thought, in order to do proper research and actual science.