Hello Phaedrus,
I checked out your theory and can't get too interested, I'm afraid. Seems like a solution in search of a problem, if you see what I mean. Gravity is already explained pretty well (although there's room for improvement, undoubtedly).
Main problem, you don't explicitly account for known issues with such a theory like ether wind. There are many facets to the issue. No turbulence or "fringes" have ever been detected anywhere in space. It's very hard to believe such hydrodynamics could operate so smoothly. Gravity is detected locally in labs also; this fluid has to be running around everywhere, into chairs and cats ... with no noticeable effects. Furthermore it's doubtful your theory could explain the precession of Mercury, for instance, and many other details. It may be possible, but no one wants to do the work to figure it out. You'll have to do it yourself, then I'd look at it.
Notice I'm not even mentioning, or caring, about ontology issues such as "what's your ether made of?" "What causes the pressure pushing it into planets?" "Where does the sink drain to?" If the math worked out those are minor details.
Let me make some general comments ... I myself have been in the "crackpot" role a few times over the years, in physics and other topics. The best technique is to hang around and get interested in other people's ideas as well. You'll learn a lot and establish yourself as someone worth listening to, that people want to help. It's a lot of work reading 80 pages of theory, especially when I have to fill in holes myself. Being a successful crackpot (or, let's call it "layman", sounds better :-) is not as easy as you think! You can't just make pronouncements "ex cathedra" and expect us to drop everything and listen. Ask specific questions related to your idea. When you see a post where you can make a point, slide it in. After a while (as little as a week, or month) people will be more willing to listen.
The other approach - as Schmelzer emphasizes - is to have all the math in place already. It's still tough to get them to listen but you stand a real chance then. Of course if the math's not correct, that's the end of it. But that way I'll put some time into it because I can actually resolve the issue one way or the other. Without the math, endless pointless debates about nothing result.
I hope Schmelzer doesn't mind if I point out: he's not what you think. He's got a rigid point of view, but it's justified: he wants to see the math, who can blame him? But he's open-minded, willing to listen. Tells you straight out what he thinks, but never gets sarcastic or perturbed. Many people you run into want only to shoot you down. In fact if they fear you really have something they'll hit you even harder, they hate new ideas! That's NOT Schmelzer. But it takes a while to realize it.
I know how you feel - been there done that - it's a worthwhile exercise, even if no Nobel results. Recommend you stop pushing so much, relax, look at other ideas, keep this one in the back of your mind. Either you'll realize yourself what's wrong with it, or (as a year or two goes by) develop it to where it's worth my valuable time! Anyway, good luck.
I checked out your theory and can't get too interested, I'm afraid. Seems like a solution in search of a problem, if you see what I mean. Gravity is already explained pretty well (although there's room for improvement, undoubtedly).
Main problem, you don't explicitly account for known issues with such a theory like ether wind. There are many facets to the issue. No turbulence or "fringes" have ever been detected anywhere in space. It's very hard to believe such hydrodynamics could operate so smoothly. Gravity is detected locally in labs also; this fluid has to be running around everywhere, into chairs and cats ... with no noticeable effects. Furthermore it's doubtful your theory could explain the precession of Mercury, for instance, and many other details. It may be possible, but no one wants to do the work to figure it out. You'll have to do it yourself, then I'd look at it.
Notice I'm not even mentioning, or caring, about ontology issues such as "what's your ether made of?" "What causes the pressure pushing it into planets?" "Where does the sink drain to?" If the math worked out those are minor details.
Let me make some general comments ... I myself have been in the "crackpot" role a few times over the years, in physics and other topics. The best technique is to hang around and get interested in other people's ideas as well. You'll learn a lot and establish yourself as someone worth listening to, that people want to help. It's a lot of work reading 80 pages of theory, especially when I have to fill in holes myself. Being a successful crackpot (or, let's call it "layman", sounds better :-) is not as easy as you think! You can't just make pronouncements "ex cathedra" and expect us to drop everything and listen. Ask specific questions related to your idea. When you see a post where you can make a point, slide it in. After a while (as little as a week, or month) people will be more willing to listen.
The other approach - as Schmelzer emphasizes - is to have all the math in place already. It's still tough to get them to listen but you stand a real chance then. Of course if the math's not correct, that's the end of it. But that way I'll put some time into it because I can actually resolve the issue one way or the other. Without the math, endless pointless debates about nothing result.
I hope Schmelzer doesn't mind if I point out: he's not what you think. He's got a rigid point of view, but it's justified: he wants to see the math, who can blame him? But he's open-minded, willing to listen. Tells you straight out what he thinks, but never gets sarcastic or perturbed. Many people you run into want only to shoot you down. In fact if they fear you really have something they'll hit you even harder, they hate new ideas! That's NOT Schmelzer. But it takes a while to realize it.
I know how you feel - been there done that - it's a worthwhile exercise, even if no Nobel results. Recommend you stop pushing so much, relax, look at other ideas, keep this one in the back of your mind. Either you'll realize yourself what's wrong with it, or (as a year or two goes by) develop it to where it's worth my valuable time! Anyway, good luck.