Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: opportunity on 23/12/2018 12:18:44
-
It's probably hard to judge, the Nobel prizes in science (physics etc, and yes not just physics) should be a guide, yet everyone has their own opinion, and everyone likes to hear everyone's opinion, ideally. Who wants to have a go? Consider it a 2018 wrap. Merry Xmas :D
-
It would be a wonderful thing to localise the theory candidates to all the posts here this year, to give ourselves a bearing, for those who remember ( ;D), maybe a mix ::). Its up to you. It's like an event, 3-2-1.....it gives an idea of the race we're running ;)
-
The recent history here = the New Millennium only....the last 18 years....where are we headed, where's the edge?
-
New Theories goes back to page 123 & 2nov2004. There are 80,409 postings on 3067 threads, thats a lot of reading needed. I read them back to page 40 or something when i first joined here a few months ago, & i resurrected & posted on the best ones, & they will be found somewhere in pages 1 to say 6.
Unfortunately the naked scientists provides 13 categories to cater for standard science, but only 1 category (New Theories) to cater for non-standard science. Therefore New Theories can include almost anything, religion, home medicine etc etc.
I am mainly interested in physics, eg gravity, light, radiation, atomic theory, electricity -- all of which involve aether -- & all of which involve Einsteinian dogma (SR & GR) -- & all of which impact on the bigbang, expanding universe, blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, equivalence, bending of light, speed of light, spacetime, gravity waves, nuclear atom, E=mcc, ticking dilation, length contraction etc.
So i will have a think & report back on my picks in my favorite areas.
-
Aether is my favorite topic. A search shows 9 pages of hits for aether which is 242 postings. Ether has 16 pages & 473 postings. My own postings are of course the best, but i will ignore thems. I did see a few postings re aether that made much sense & helped the cause, but i aint sure whether any deserved special mention.
MichaelMD -- How physics came to wrongly discard the aether -- has some goodish stuff.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66642.0
It mainly mentions quantum entanglement -- but doesnt i think explain the aetheric roots of QE very well.
-
My favorite favorite topic is the centrifuging of aether. Centrifug gives one hit, it is for......
Centrifuging aether – is dePalma correct (by mad aetherist). I mention it here merely for background info.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75539.msg560753#msg560753
In #4 of https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.0
Re: Have gravity modification experiments been conducted (by mad aetherist)(split off from main board),
......... alancalverd makes a comment that to me is the most memorable of all the postings that i have seen in New Theories, alluding to a possible effect of the centrifuging of aether. This effect is that aether is sucked in at the equator of a spinning body, & spat out axially near the two poles, the velocity of the aether inflow & outflow adding or subtracting from the background aetherwind, & hencely affecting the ticking of clocks near the axis of the spinning body, the V kmps of the aetherwind being what needs to be inserted in the equation for the Lorentz gamma, to calculate ticking dilation.
#4 might be the most important posting in all physics forums in 2018 worldwide.
It starts the way that most good new theories start, with a puzzle. I dont see how Einsteinians could offer any sort of GR explanation. And i doubt that anyone could offer a good electromagnetic explanation. Centrifuging of aether explains it very well. Anyhow, it looks like clocks should be well clear of gyros. alancalverd says...........
The rate of a clock will be altered by the proximity of any mass. The question is whether it changes if the mass spins. There is no obvious reason why it should.
But it does at least explain a phenomenon that has puzzled me for years.
The instrument panel of a light aircraft contains all sorts of delicate machinery which seems to work for years and years despite being boiled, frozen, vibrated, bounced around, flown to silly altitudes, subject to loads of g in all directions, kicked as you get in the plane, sneezed and vomited over, and parked on the grass in all weathers. Except for the clock. Probably the simplest, most robust, most mature piece of kit on the panel, and they never work. Electric or mechanical, all certified airworthy, and I've never known one to actually tell the time.
Now I understand why - there are at least three gyroscopes on the same panel!
-
Although I'm a firm proponent of space and time as the fundamental reality platform, the idea of "aether" to me is always the idea of how "something" can come from space and time doing their dance. To me space time as one is "aether"....yet how is space and time joined? I consider it to be via a golden ratio algorithm for time, how the idea of time via fundamental geometrical calculation with space arrives with the idea of a golden ratio algorithm. Then that presents space with an "intrinsic" feature of performance suggesting "aether".
I think the aether theory is a strong contender, as it describes reality as a goo in a way conventional scientific wisdom can't. Who's to say that such a goo is not in fact the idea of time as the golden ratio in association with space? I say this because light travelling through space could be explained as a singular medium in itself, and my theory promotes the idea of time and space as energy and space that harbours the ever present potentiality of matter. Why does matter come into and out of existence, through a transaction with space or time or both as one, or a specific balance? There's the idea of aether.
I like what you said here:
The way the ether works in the vicinity of the earth has nothing to do with waves or fluid-like behavior in the atmospheric medium near the earth. Rather, a drag-like effect is produced by the ether entirely via a process involving electrical resonance, between the elemental ether units in the space around the earth, and the (identical) elemental ether units from the earth itself. -Being an effect produced by elemental ether units, this effect would not be detectable by any of our technologies. So physics should not continue automatically assuming an ether does not exist.
From <https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66642.0>
I agree with the idea of electrical resonance being like the aetheric goo. Yet I've never used the term "aether" in my writing. My 8th paper could present the possibility, perhaps should, if it can demonstrate how EM resonance can produce gravity-effects, and thus mass. Yet the idea of aether on its own is something science "does" wrestle with....its the "forest" within which science aims to chop each tree....seriously....when there's so much chopping in that aether forest, there's no forest, no aether model.
But I am for the idea of aether, it will never go away as a description of what science tried to chop down....on its own it has its own unique role and deliverance of scientific justice.
What about the third option.....there's a few rogue ideas out there I like re. how a universe expanding everywhere at once can be quantified with light from the stars....especially the most distant ones, presumably the oldest, and why they appear compact (and perhaps that's why there is discussion in this forum section regarding gravity and spiral galaxies to keep that phenomena together.....so hard to explain that convincingly).
So close. I'm looking at second and third. Is mine first? Mine is very out there (who would use an golden ratio algorithm for time, right?), yet it brings all the known equations of physics together, and it hasn't broken my logic as a self-sustaining human. Does tht make it first? I don't know.
I'd like to see a few more contenders. Aether is there, as presented, yet lets let this roll a little longer.
-
This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for
THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE.
It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes.
Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.
Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0
-
This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for
THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE.
It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes.
Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.
Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0
I don't see why. It's easy to understand why we see the Sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago and relativity isn't even needed to explain it.
-
This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for
THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE.
It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes.
Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.
Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0
I don't see why. It's easy to understand why we see the Sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago and relativity isn't even needed to explain it.
I found it difficult to visualize the moving (orbiting) plus spinning stuff. Plus i took it to the next level. I will post on that thread to explain.