Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Well, this is kind of exciting, getting in on the ground floor so to speak.

I got here via your link at Cosmoquest (it may be gone by now).

I am by default a "crank," or a "crackpot," both unflattering terms, and so your use of the term "layman" is refreshing. "Amateur" is also nice.

I have developed an alternate cosmology based on a sink-flow aether model of gravity, and would love to have the chance to share some of my ideas with other open-minded people.

For starters, is it okay to post a link to my paper, "Hydrocosmica," on the vixra site? It's kinda long at about 80 pages, but to get an overview of what I'm on about, one could review my "Against the Mainstream" thread at Cosmoquest. The title is "A sink-flow aether model of gravity." I think it's on page 4 at this point.
Feel free to link whatever you like to link.

Of course, amateur scientists do not have a really good chance. Not that this would be completely hopeless, but essentially they have to study physics themselves. The difference of science and other domains is that in science one is allowed to do this. Nobody asks you to present a state-acknowledged PhD or so to submit a scientific paper to a journal or to publish it. But, of course, nobody will make any concessions if you don't know something a professional scientist is supposed to know. That means, if you propose a theory, you have to present evolution equations, precise definitions and so on. Such is life in science.
I have splitted this thread and moved the discussion about the theory itself under the name "Hydrcosmica" by Phaedrus  into the forum Personal "theories" and other alternative ideas.
Thumbs Up 
Hello Ilija,
First of all I congratulate you for the courage to create a forum where anyone may participate and express his own scientific views about Physics matters. It is something you do not find in other forums since those have mostly prejudices for everything but mainstream Physics. Things may get worse when one put some logical arguments on the table and forum "specialists" reply with "this is a mainstream forum, alternative interpretations are not accepted. Go learn some Physics first. Quantum Physics works as is.". I would agree and disagree with their attitude even if it seems hard sometimes. Why? IF Quantum Mechanics is the best we have at the moment then it should be able to answer simple participant questions even if they are heard as absurd. Unfortunately, such members with alternative interpretations even though with backed up maths (they can be wrong) are mostly banned.

I am banned from most of the forums because moderators and their "specialists" cannot afford logical and consistent arguments backed up with maths. At the end, I actually do not care much yours forum is one of those since I am already deflated. Excitement is what I am looking for through my participation and contribution to discussions that may have the potential to lead somewhere. Just for the record (I have not decided yet) I will place my pet theory on the Personal Theories section because I am interested about some serious feedback (since there are two proposed lab experiments involved) I never had.

Best Wishes and Good Luck
Welcome. Do not expect me being too friendly to outsiders - last but not least, even if I defend hidden variable theories and propose ether theories and have no job in physics now, in my general attitude to physics is that of a professional mainstream physicist. So I accept GR, QM, and the Standard Model of particle physics as established theories, supported by a lot of empirical evidence.
I am interested to present my work that is based on an alternative interpretation to Quantum phenomena where the cause is the theoretical discovery of the decaying speed of light on quantum level. Of course this work is not an essay that has only talking, it is fully backed up with maths (however clear and simple formulations, no need for tensors and abstract maths) and proposed experiments. Without experimental proposals, theories are just mythologies. The proposals have to do the one with a Laser Interfererometer and the other with an electrostatic deflection, taking into consideration SR and its undoubted experimental evidences.

If you think that is inappropriate to present such theory, just tell it right now and just ban me. I do not want to waste my time too.
Hi Ioannis,

I am always happy to hear alternative interpretations, as you mentioned. Schmelzer may correct me, but I believe any ideas may be posted in the Personal Theories section. And, no one's going to ridicule or insult them. But if they're wrong expect to be told so in no uncertain terms. If wrong ideas go unchallenged on this board it can't expect to retain its current good reputation in the mainstream as a place where serious alternative theories can be found, and real physics is done.

Why do I emphasize the word "interpretation" above? An interpretation, by definition, agrees with all experimental results - just as GR, QM, standard model do. It's not sensible to dispute any of these models as far as current experiment goes. If your idea contradicts experiment it must be rejected. Also an interpretation must explain more-or-less all known experimental results. A vague idea which might address one point, and simply ignores everything else, is not worth calling a theory.

However those three (GR, QM, SM) all have one big problem. They lack an explanation (an ontology) for why they work as they do. This is not a controversial statement, any mainstream physicist will agree. That's why so much work, and hot air, is dedicated to arguing about the mechanisms underlying these bodies of theory.

dBB and Schmelzer's ether theory are good examples. They not only agree with experiments (in QM and GR, respectively) but also explain why those experiments work as they do. That's why they're still within the "mainstream" (more or less) but contribute important alternative ontologies. Those are the types of theories that are of interest. In both cases future experiments are possible that would prove them wrong - they're falsifiable. But only with experiments beyond current technology.

If you have one of those please post it! OTOH if your idea contradicts known results, or perhaps is so vague no one can tell what results it would predict - it would be a waste of time. Although ... having said all that, I have seen some wrong theories that were still interesting, and contributed something to the discussion. For instance, Mr. Calkin's anti-SR ideas.

... I wrote all that before seeing your latest post. According to it, you feel your idea does meet the criteria I've emphasized: agreement with current experiment, new mechanism, experiments possible to falsify or support it. Based on that I see no reason you shouldn't post it. Might waste a couple hours, at worst. At best, who knows.
Thanks secur!
I will give it a try. Wait a couple of minutes and it will be launched on Personal Theories section.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)