Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Hydrcosmica" by Phaedrus
#1
I have splitted what is below from this thread and named it based on the following quote:

(05-08-2016, 03:12 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: 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.



I see, here is your Cosmoquest thread.  

My first objection is that your vixra paper does not really define a theory of gravity.  At least not one comparable to the usual way to define theories of gravity, since the Newtonian times.  

Say, you have a satellite flying around, in the gravitational field created by Sun, Earth, Moon, and all the other planets.  It is located at a particular position (x,y,z), has a particular velocity \((v_x,v_y,v_z)\) at that moment.  Newtonian theory defines an equation which allows to compute the whole future trajectory of the satellite.  I have not seen a similar equation in your paper.   

We know, today, that the gravitational field also influences the clocks.  Clocks in a strong gravitational field go slower.  But if the clock moves faster, is will be also slower.  A modern theory of gravity should be able to compute this time dilation.  I have not seen any formula for this.
Reply
#2
Well I certainly never claimed that it was a complete theory. And it's written more like a story than a scientific paper.

Basically what I did was prove (to myself) that an incompressible medium flowing into a massive spherical object would not be breaking any rules. It would obey the inverse square law and the equation of continuity concurrently. No one has yet bothered to refute this part.

Then I threw in a huge assumption; that the aether is sheared into its two component parts as it is consumed by electrons and protons, and this is what constitutes electric and magnetic fields. Flowing "in" of course, not "out."

Then I ran with those two ideas, and a whole lot of stuff seemed to make sense.

Sure, I don't have a lot of predictions because the world the theory describes is the same as the world we have. It's a different interpretation, kind of a "through the looking glass" version of what we take to be reality.

By the way; Bernhard Riemann is the one who came up with this concept, so the math is probably okay. His problem was that he was too early, atoms were still hypothetical, and the best he could do was claim that the medium, as it was annihilated, was flowing into "another dimension."
Reply
#3
Once there is no math, the math cannot be ok.

The question is, why should someone refute some of your ideas? Your ideas should be somehow, in some aspect, better than those of the established theories to become interesting. And should not be much worse in other aspects.

Other interpretations are nothing bad, but they should be other interpretations of the best, most fundamental physical theories. Once in our best physical theory the protons consist of quarks, one could propose a theory which gives some new interpretation to quarks. But what would be the point of one which somehow reinterprets protons, as if they would be something fundamental?
Reply
#4
(05-08-2016, 07:58 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: Once there is no math, the math cannot be ok.

I don't understand this statement. I have lots of math there in the first chapter.

Quote: The question is, why should someone refute some of your ideas? Your ideas should be somehow, in some aspect, better than those of the established theories to become interesting. And should not be much worse in other aspects.

If my idea (and Riemann's) is correct, it would provide an underlying mechanism for gravity. That should qualify as interesting. Thing is, nobody wants to upset the apple cart. There is a huge amount of institutional inertia supporting the dominant paradigm. Isn't that one of the reasons for you starting this forum?

Quote: Other interpretations are nothing bad, but they should be other interpretations of the best, most fundamental physical theories. Once in our best physical theory the protons consist of quarks, one could propose a theory which gives some new interpretation to quarks. But what would be the point of one which somehow reinterprets protons, as if they would be something fundamental?

Protons used to be considered as fundamental. To me they still are. Quarks are only inferred from collision experiments and mathematics.

By the way Schmeizer, what are your scientific credentials?
Reply
#5
(05-08-2016, 08:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(05-08-2016, 07:58 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: Once there is no math, the math cannot be ok.  
I don't understand this statement. I have lots of math there in the first chapter.
There are some formulas, but this is not the math one needs to define a theory which could compete with the established theories. What would be the differences between your theory and GR about the movement of planets around the Sun, or satellites around the Earth? Completely unclear.

(05-08-2016, 08:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: If my idea (and Riemann's) is correct, it would provide an underlying mechanism for gravity. That should qualify as interesting. Thing is, nobody wants to upset the apple cart. There is a huge amount of institutional inertia supporting the dominant paradigm. Isn't that one of the reasons for you starting this forum?
If you want to find an underlying mechanism for gravity, ok. But you would have to show that this underlying mechanism leads to a theory which makes predictions similar to those of the established theory, with predictions close enough to GR to be viable. To have equations of the theory which, in some limit, give the equations of GR would be one way to reach this. Other ways would be even more complication - but anyway this would not work without evolution equations for all the fields.
(05-08-2016, 08:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Protons used to be considered as fundamental. To me they still are. Quarks are only inferred from collision experiments and mathematics.
Don't wonder if you will not find many supporters.
(05-08-2016, 08:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: By the way Schmeizer, what are your scientific credentials?
Do you think "credentials" matter? I have my theories published in peer-reviewed journals, which are the credentials which I think are more or less important.
Reply
#6
Right. OK. I see what is going on here now. My mistake. Good luck.
Reply
#7
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.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)