Here is a summary of some results:

  1. Jupiter’s mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using only a scale value (S) between star system and atom (2007).
  2. It subsequently was discovered that S = (c)^e = (3.0E8)^(2.71828), two Universal constants! This is numeric only omitting dimension but latest work explains this and does not omit dimension strengthening this relation.
  3. Saturn’s mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
  4. Uranus’ mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
  5. Neptune’s mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
  6. Average of derived charges for all inner rock planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon and Mars) is 8.7E(-24) = 2 explicitly derived charge values for Venus and Mars.
  7. 1/4 Sun’s mass equates to an electron charge (1.6022E(-19)) using derived scaling framework.
  8. Calculated passage of time difference factor between the quantum and cosmological realms = 9.25E26 = (c)^pi = (3.0E8)^(3.14), two Universal constants again! Once again, this is numeric only omitting dimension but latest work explains this and does not omit dimension strengthening this relation.
  9. Force comparison between quantum and cosmological, electrostatic vs. gravity force, in this framework derives Avogadro’s constant. What’s the significance of this? Currently unknown, but it does give insight that many universal constants are interrelated and that RR is exposing these relationships.
  10. Photon energy (E=hf) results in a derived cosmological mass in the range of asteroid masses found in the Asteroid Belt.
  11. The numeric square root of c = 17315 which is the orbital velocity of asteroids in the Asteroid Belt. The Asteroid Belt is notably a mysterious and unique formation which this framework contends to be a common characteristic found in most star systems, primarily stable systems.
  12. The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Jupiter results in a charge very close to e (1.6022E(-19)).
  13. The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Saturn results in a charge of e (1.6022E(-19)).
  14. The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Neptune results in a charge of 15.9e.
  15. The total macroscopic kinetic energy of Uranus results in a charge of 4.9e. Both
    are almost whole numbers.
  16. Force strength comparison between electrostatic and gravity in this framework results in difference of 2.3E39, which can be used to directly derive the currently accepted rest mass for an electron (9.1E(-31) kg) and proton (1.67E(-27) kg).
  17. Prediction in 2007 from initial work (on file with the national archives for reference) that most star systems to be discovered will have gas giant planets which is being validated with every new exo-planet discovered (Kepler satellite and others).
  18. F=ma equation is similar to F=qE, where “a” and “E” are acceleration fields and m=q in this framework.
  19. F=GMm/r^2 equation is similar to F=kQq/r^2, where r is invariant and mass = charge in this framework.
  20. The structural similarity between 2 natural systems (star systems and atoms) which have a finite number of objects orbiting a core.
  21. The scaling equation (space) and time equation (time dilation) are inherently anisotropic due solely to the comparison between star systems and atoms in regards to scale (spatial difference) and time (difference in the passage of time). This is becoming a very popular idea in science and this framework is inherently anisotropic from its most fundamental basis.
  22. The framework is directly dependent on velocity, which supports Einstein’s results in one scenario, but extensively expands on it in other scenarios.
  23. Fairly recently (2011), it was discovered that using the same FSC mass and length velocity dependent transform equations, the mass and radius of all rock planets increase to the mass and radius of gas giant class planets simply by decreasing the orbital velocity of the rock planet (like Earth). This also worked vice-versa. This further strengthens and validates that FSC framework is on the right path. It also gives insight into the possibility that changes in planetary orbital velocity can result in significant geological changes.
  24. As of 2012, FSC framework derives the Perihelion Precession of Mercury of roughly 43″ / century not using General Relativity. This solidified that FSC was definitely on the right path.
  25. As of 2013, FSC framework derived a very explicit relation between charge and inertial mass of quantum particles. This explicit relationship essentially unifies gravity into the quantum realm in a most unexpected way. This relationship defines quantum gravity.
  26. A very early and fundamental prediction of FSC Framework is that the quantum medium (underlining material mechanistic cause for space-time that mediates gravity) propagates wave/pulse velocity at c, and the sub-quantum medium (mediates electric force, self similar to quantum medium) propagates a wave velocity of 9E16 m/s (or value of c squared), which is essentially instantaneous if you think c is the limit. This prediction has been recently partially validated by recent research and paper “Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Fields” ( This is exciting.

The conclusion of this list is obvious. There is a definite scale connection between star systems and atoms. To dismiss this, as described by obvious observation and the results of this framework, would be unfortunate.

Though I very strongly believe this research, and research of this type, is on the right track, it could ultimately be wrong, and that’s ok. What is ultimately important, what no researcher should ever lose sight of, is the unravelling of the truth, and in order to find the truth all possibilities most be fully explored even the ones that are “out there”.

And the work continues. There are more interesting results emerging from the FSC framework especially around points 23 to 26 on force and gravitation.