I'm starting to become skeptical of our understanding of quantum mechanics because we completely discredited a common theory with only one experiment over a hundred years ago:
We never recreated the experiment again until Ernest Wilbur Silvertooth did about one-hundred years later in the 1980s. He found a possible connection to the Ether, but by this point every scientist in the world committed to thinking the opposite; they didn't care for his findings.
People say GR works, but they keep running into weird situations where they have to keep fudging their mathematical models -- none of the equations work together, i.e. no unified field theory, -- and everyone is too afraid to suggest we've been approaching it all wrong.
God, I love how political science has become: funding, faith, pride... The world didn't care for Galileo's theories, either: it turned their whole world upside-down.
If you regard particle-wave duality as an "issue" that needs to be "solved," (other than perhaps "duality" being a poor choice of term) you're really approaching this from a strange and incorrect perspective.
The information present in your writing doesn't show the basic understanding of the topic, as soon as you claim that Michelson-Morley wasn't repeated many times.
Ever tried to grasp how the detection of the gravitational waves already worked?
The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis. It's like saying the iPhone will never succeed because so many other "smart" devices at the time were terrible.
> The point is so much of our conclusions are based off of these null hypothesis.
Quantum mechanics, special relativity, and general relativity (I'm not sure which ones you're objecting to here) all have strong predictive power. The fact that we can build extensions of these theories and see experimental validation of those theories is itself support for the underlying principles. With quantum mechanics, you can explain atomic spectra, crystal field splitting, aromaticity and antiaromaticity, vagaries of chemical bonding--and that's only in the domain of chemistry. Special relativity can also explain, say, why there is a stable Pb²⁺ ion.
That's like saying computers and laptops are so great -- we'll never need smart phones. Sure, classical devices / models are great and proven true, -- but that's still a limited view based on previous biases.
I know that's a terrible analogy, but proving GR kinda works doesn't really disprove the Ether, either.
The value of scientific theories is their ability to make accurate predictions. Their reflection of the underlying physics and mechanics of the universe is a secondary concern--and indeed, most likely all of our theories are wrong by that metric. But if we can't tell that our theories are wrong by experiment, then the fact that they are wrong is only of philosophical importance.
Quantum mechanics is an ur-example. Fundamentally, it's a set of mathematical equations only some of which have clear physical interpretations. What does the wavefunction actually represent, for example? To make matters worse, it also relies on mathematics that are well outside the comfort zone of most lay people--complex probabilities and renormalizable groups, for example (the latter caused consternation even within the physics community before the underlying mathematical basis was more rigorously developed). That leads popular description to rely on analogy that is at times more obfuscatory than helpful. But the underlying mathematics is quite well-understood, and we've built successful validations across chemistry, physics, and biology. As Feynman said, it's the most well-validated theory in history.
If you want to get a new scientific theory established, you need to do one of two things. The more common scenario is that you explain something that wasn't explainable beforehand. This is basically what quantum mechanics did. The less common scenario is that you find a much simpler but equally powerful explanation--this is what special relativity was.
The point of the Michelson-Morely experiment was to find the Earth's motion relative to the inherent reference frame of the universe (the ether). With the discovery of Lorentz invariance, Einstein's relativity theory basically said "it doesn't matter, any reference frame will do." Given also the many wavelength-dependent properties of light meant that you couldn't reuse the wave equations to explain electrodynamics, there was no reason to keep the ether around. Sure, you can build theories on the ether, but you're not getting anything simpler or more accurate by doing so, so what's the point?
What's the point? It's about understanding the universe! If the ether exists then it could mean an open-system exists in the universe, i.e. the big bang is still happening, -- or the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy, are not set in stone because structure can be created with an open-system, -- or even general laws of physics: free energy because an open-system exists.
The implications are phenomenal, -- we could be in the presence of something HUGE, -- but people seem to rather "know for a fact" that we live in an empty vacuum devoid of anything but relics of a big bang.
You seem to argue from a premise that there is an absolute truth that is discoverable without obscene expenditure in research, and that getting closer to the truth is likely to cause great advancements on our quality of life.
I dispute that premise; it seems to me unlikely that we know anything from certain, and it seems to be that expanding our understanding of the world has had diminishing returns; fire has had greater returns than agriculture, and that engineering, than Newtonian mechanics, that than relativity and quantum mechanics, and so on.
From the above observation of the utility of scientific discoveries, if Ether theory nevertheless is closer to how the world functions, it seems very unlikely, and the conditions that enable it to exhibit its characteristics seem so alien to our present way of life that it is unlikely that funding research in such a direction gives better expected returns than research into other questions.
We have evidence showing General Relativity is true, we have the Michelson–Morley experiment showing that there is no "aether wind" predicted by the Ether theory. Do you have any experiments supporting the Ether?
I just ran into an interesting theory for Gravity: Subquantum Kinetics
It's featured in Dr. Paul LaViolette's book The Secrets of Anti-gravity Propulsion, and there's a really interesting section that challenges the Standard Model in Quantum Mechanics called the Model G in Subquantum Kinetics.
The idea is that matter is born out of what's called the Ether, the origin to all energy. The positive and negative electrical energy sums a positive or negative charge with a "spin" -- which also yields positive or negative gravity.
This is a video that simulates matter being created out of the Ether:
Supposedly, it's been rejected by other researchers because it goes against Einstein's theory of Relativity and the Big Bang, -- however, there's been rumors the Model G is being used by underground, black-project sites like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (e.g. Northrop Grumman's B-2 Spirit stealth bomber.)
Here's a lecture by Dr. Paul LaViolette featuring content from his book:
It has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying, what that guy says is inconsistent with reality and probably with itself. Science is decided by experimental facts, not by opinions. But he just ignores all the things we have learned by using scientific methods in the past centuries and now know to be true.
When you search for »subquantum kinetics«, the first result on Google for me is »Subquantum Kinetics (a nontechnical summary)« [1] and this is from the first two paragraphs.
One of its distinctive features is that it begins at the subquantum level for its point of departure. By comparison, conventional physics and most alternative physics theories begin with mathematically quantified observations of physical phenomena at the quantum and macrophysical level and attempt to deduce physical theories based on those observations. Since the conventional approach must take into account numerous experimental observations, the end result is a fragmented and often contradictory set of theories which must later be sewn together with mathematical acrobatics. [...] Instead of beginning with physical observations, subquantum kinetics begins by postulating a set of well-ordered reaction processes that are proposed to take place at the subquantum level.
Let me translate that. Mainstream physics does experiments and tries to explain the results with theories using math. But the resulting math is not beautiful so I postulate some nicer math ignoring physical reality altogether. Admittedly he later mentions tuning his math until it matches reality but that doesn't provide any justification for his initial choices. Nothing what he proposes makes much sense, just have a look at this comparison chart [2] linked to from the summary.
I am not even a physicist, but I understand enough about it that I could probably rip apart most of the arguments he is trying to make, at least if they make enough sense to be actually attackable. And I would do it if I were confident that it would somehow help someone, but if you are in some way interested in physics and look at theories like subquantum kinetics without becoming skeptical, then chances are unfortunately pretty slim that tearing apart such a theory using accepted knowledge will change your mind.
You're not really proving or disproving anything. You're just complaining he's using another mathematical model. So what?
The worst part is you have no basis for any of your arguments, yet somehow you feel authorized to completely dismiss the theory altogether because it somehow offends your perspective of the world.
Either post real scientific data / material, or look up cognitive dissonance.
I am not going to go through all the nonsense that this guy has made up over years or decades, that is not worth the time. But if you can point to one specific idea, prediction, refutal of mainstream physics or whatever you like within his work, written in a way that can be understood by an interested layman, not longer than say 25 pages or so, then I will try to explain you why he is wrong in that instance.
Think of it this way: the Universe is continuously expanding, -- so in a way, it's like we're still experiencing the Big Bang.
So... does that mean matter is still being produced? Yes, from the Ether.
Completely agree that it does sound crazy, but I think it makes more sense than our current way of modeling the Universe. The interesting part is that it invites the possibility of spiritual connections which feels amazing to finally scientifically acknowledge.
I could be wrong, but I invite you to consider the possibility that there is more to life than we realize. I sincerely wish you the best either decision you make.
So... does that mean matter is still being produced? Yes, from the Ether.
Where do you take this from? To the best of our knowledge the universe does not produce new matter. Space expands but that is new empty space, not space filled with some kind of matter.
It's from the Model G theory in Subquantum Kinetics, -- and it seems more believable than a finite amount of matter being made from a single blast of energy billions of years ago.
But physics is not about believing, it's about describing reality. And when we look at our universe, we are not seeing new matter being created. If the theory actually says that new matter is created while the the universe expands and the amount is not so small that it may have escaped detection, then the theory is wrong. And not because somebody believes or says something but because the theory does not match reality.
The universe is old, at least according to mainstream physics, even small changes would accumulate over billions of years and cubic lightyears. And we are good at measuring things, we famously measured the g-factor to a part in a trillion, detecting gravitational waves required detecting length changes on the order 1/1000th the diameter of a proton, 0.000000000000000001 meters. A quick search reveals that we know the energy density of the universe to better than half a percent. So what are the numbers? How much new matter is generated per unit time and volume according to the theory?
I'm still researching this, but it's happening at a quantum level, so I expect it to be slow. But like you said, it will have an aggregate affect over time.
Also, it sounds like you're interested. Why not read the book or watch the video lecture?
I am not interested, I am absolutely sure that the theory is total nonsense. I just wanted to make you realize that, preferably by making you discover it yourself by hinting at problems, not by simply telling you that it is wrong.
As was pointed out, this comment is absolutely not up to the standards of civility that the guidelines ask for. They're actually independent of what you're replying to—we especially don't have permission to make bad threads worse.
Eh, I don't think it's unfair: this person is openly attacking me for giving attention to a form of untested science -- declaring it "crockpottery".
I honestly feel proud of myself for how much I held back on this lazy person's pathetic logic: "doesn't line up with my beliefs? then it can't be true!"
I'll happily edit my statement that can defend the scientific need to dismiss information with complete prejudice, but I doubt any such logic exists. Why do I have such confidence? Because people that dismiss information without thinking are pathetic.
The theory is not being dismissed because it is offensive; it's being dismissed because it has all the signs of a crackpot theory and none of the signs of a legitimate one. It is trivial to tear it apart. But if someone tore it apart, using the trivial arguments, you would not believe them - you would say "oh, you're just rejecting him like everyone else", "you're part of the brainwashed mainstream".
There are thousands of arguments like this online. People who somehow got to PhDs from weird unheard of schools, went off the deep end, and publish their 'theories', which aren't developed enough to even argue against, but are written in half-intelligible, imprecise language, claim to be "ignored by the establishment", claim to solve this-and-that problem with a method that the establishment wrote off prematurely, etc, whatever. They're all the same.
This particular 'theory' (though that's not a fair word for it) scores easily over 100 on this list: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html, and so isn't even worth a person's time to look at.
A simple line of reasoning to support this:
If it was a legitimate theory, it would start with concrete statements about how it proposes the world works. Not vague, hand-waving stuff. It would start with math - lots of it. It would start with a precise explanation of how the experiments that prove an ether to be impossible missed the truth for 100 years. It would discuss examples where mainstream physics fails to predict the right result of experiment, and then show, with calculations an informed reader could follow, how it makes better ones.
The guy is telling you he's right, and you're believing him, or at least taking him seriously -- like a sucker. He's telling you "no one else is believing me, but it's because I'm being ignored unjustly", but you've skipped the more likely explanation: "no one else is believing me because what I'm saying makes no sense".
But I, who knows enough physics to parse this stuff am waiting for him to show me he's right, and he's not doing that at all. Nor is he showing anyone else, which is why he's being ignored.
It's not all your fault, though. It's way easier to spot these crackpot theories when you've a) studied legitimate ones and b) seen so many other crackpot theories that say all the same stuff.
You can't use a hypothetical to disprove a theory. Your entire comment is completely baseless: "These people don't follow my school of thought, so they must be wrong!"
No offense, but using your ego to make an argument is pathetic. I'm aware the theory sounds crazy; I'm not an idiot. But I'm also not going to let my hubris dictate what I can or can't research. That's just stupid.
No, you don't understand. I'm not trying to disprove a theory.
I'm saying that the person who's writing what we're reading hasn't said anything even meaningful enough to dispute. The words they write don't have logical content as a theory. You can sort of squeeze them into statements that sound possible at a hand-waving level, but there's no scientific content. They're "not even wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).
I'm not rejecting the guy cause of hubris or because I'm obsessed with the orthodoxy or something. I'm rejecting him cause his words are meaningless garbage, according to my ability to critically analyze what he's writing. Of course it's possible that I'm too dumb to understand them, but, statistically speaking, when I can understand most of the good physics out there, I come to trust my intuition on this stuff and write off people who can't communicate an idea at even a basic level without become super vague and defending themselves by saying "no one's taking them seriously" and "everyone else missed this" instead of an actual argument.
I guess it boils down to this:
If you can't tell this guy is crazy, how would you tell that anyone is crazy? Is there anything that can be written down that you wouldn't take seriously? Maybe something like "what if the world is made of tiny lemons, in various configurations?" Well, I draw the line way higher than that, and considerably higher than where this guy is, and I can see that he's below the line with five seconds of reading, and it's no surprise at all when 5 more minutes of reading, or 30, or whatever, completely corroborates my initial instinct.
Edit: actually, it boils down to this:
Your ability, cm127, to critically analyze theories and determine if they're scientifically meaningful is deficient. You don't have to believe me, of course, cause this is the internet, but I implore you to consider the possibility.
Edit 2: also, you're wrong that "you can't use a hypothetical to disprove a theory" - well, almost wrong. You can use a hypothetical to argue against a theory. It's not that it's disproving. It's that the hypothetical shows you "here are some things that would probably be true if this theory was legitimate", and because those things are not true, it raises the probability (via Bayes rule) that the theory is incorrect. You are supposed to consider this, think "ah, well, that makes the theory more likely to be incorrect". That's the point of the argument.
Also, it's really disingenuous to write off a whole post as baseless without responding to the points, each of which (I would argue) is a valid criticism.
Here's another form of crazy: trying to force Relativity into a unified field for over a hundred years and getting nowhere. Yeah, you'll "probably" get it one day...
What did Einstein use to say? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
BTW, if you can't argue logically, -- which is essentially all I'm getting from your comments: you can't talk about "science" outside of your echo chamber; it's "beneath" you, -- who cares what you think?
Either drop the emotional act and think like a scientist, or quit wasting both our time.
Edit: the joke is all your arguments are just as rhetorical.
Edit2: you're also making an ironic comment that the theory needs more research while arguing that it shouldn't.
Here's another form of crazy: trying to force Relativity into a unified field for over a hundred years and getting nowhere. Yeah, you'll "probably" get it one day...
I mean that statement is pure rhetorics, but anyway, you are surly aware that it took 358 years to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, a mathematical theorem where everyone was aware of the axioms and no experiments had to be done?
Either drop the emotional act and think like a scientist, or quit wasting both our time.
You are really not understanding what ajkjk is trying to say. I absolutely agree with him and don't think it can be stated much clearer than he did. But maybe you can realize it yourself. I found »Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology« at Google Books [1], skimmed it a bit and now have a simple question. Which model describes our universe, Model G or Model G-2? And which experiment produced which outcome to make that decision for one and against the other model?
Maybe trying to answer this very simple question, which of the proposed equations describe our universe, will make you realize that this theory has no answers at all.
Jesus Christ, I'm not your professor. Do your own research.
You have the skills to read about this stuff. Why do you need me?
I'm not trying to convince you to believe in anything. I just wanted to have a conversation about how anti-gravity can or can't be possible, but you're just refusing the conversation altogether. That's just so lazy...
Seriously? Bringing up a researched subject is trolling because I don't know all the answers you're postulating as if I've studied this extensively for years..?
Is this how "scientists" treat new theories? Unless they're bundled into a nice package the theory is completely untouchable?
Please don't tell me that's true because that would mean "science" is a joke. It literally means the community can't think for themselves: they need a leader to prove their understanding.
Pathetic. Call me a troll all you want, but I will never be that pathetic.
Seriously? Bringing up a researched subject is trolling because I don't know all the answers you're postulating as if I've studied this extensively for years..?
I didn't call you a troll, I just considered the possibility because that would explain pretty well the way the discussion happened, but I may return to this later. And yes, I expect you to have answers. You are defending this theory, you say that this theory should be taken serious and you dismiss all the objections brought up, you better have reasons and answers to support this.
But let's back up, I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are not trolling and that you really can not see why this theory is nonsense. I will take the position of the author of the theory and I will try to put you in my position by making up the following scenario.
Imagine we meet for the first time and talk a bit about the internet. At some point I say that I want to explain to you how the internet works. You know, there are those trucks with wings. They are loaded with high-pitched blue bananas every time you press a key on your keyboard. Then that guy in China walks into the store for hexagonal green steel fish and...
You may never have studied computer science but you are now certainly questioning my sanity. You may yourself not exactly know how the internet works, but you are damn sure that it does not work the way I am trying to tell you. Even my sentences don't really make sense, high-pitched describes sounds and I am using it to describe a color. And blue bananas? Maybe genetic engineering, not totally impossible but as far as you know that is not a thing.
But I insist, yes, that is the way the internet works, at least consider the possibility. You may give it some more thought, maybe if we are living in a really messed up version of the matrix and the machines enjoy trolling humans, maybe in such a world the internet could work with trucks with wings. You would suggest to drive around SD cards or hard disks on those trucks, but maybe blue bananas are just fine in that world.
A fraction of a second later you are back with your thoughts in the real world, may explanation of the internet is obviously complete utter bullshit. You are not sure what makes me say what I said about the workings of internet. Am I trying to troll you? Am I insane? Am I just really dumb? Anyway, you tell me no, that is not how the internet works.
You don't provide any explanation because what I just said is so obviously wrong to everyone with the slightest knowledge about the internet, there is no point in providing an explanation. I complain, you can not just dismiss my theory of the workings of the internet without any justification.
You don't even know where to start, how do you argue against things like high-pitched blue that don't make sense to begin with? After some thought you ask me about the guy in China. What is his name? And what do I mean with China, obviously the borders of China changed throughout history? At least these are some bits of the theory one can sensibly talk about and maybe you can build from there and demonstrate to me that my theory is not self-consistent or consistent with reality.
My answer? What the heck, do your own research, why do I have to explain everything to you in detail? But about China, maybe it was a guy from Japan, I am not yet sure about that. You still don't know how I came up with this bullshit and why I am telling it to you, but you are certainly not going to stick around any longer wasting your time in a pointless discussion that leads nowhere.
That certainly is a bit exaggerated at times but really not that much. If this doesn't help you to understand why I responded in the way I did, then I don't know what will, and I kind of doubt anything will at all. And because I have to consider the possibility that you are trolling me, sitting behind your screen and having a good laugh about how you just wasted another hour of the time of some random guy on the internet, I will not continue this discussion much if any longer. I actually don't even know how to respond not knowing whether you are trolling or whether you are serious and I don't know which one would be worse.
Let's take a step even further back: why am I defending this theory?
I only brought up what I was reading: a new theory that challenges quantum mechanics. Why did I bring this up? To add to the discussion. The responses I got weren't rational objections: they were pathetic insults that added no scientific value.
Then you got huffy about specific variables from my rough summary, and further upset when I couldn't offer more information.
Again, I don't care about your laziness and institutionally-taught bias: that's your problem. I'm just going to point it out when you brush off theories without research because you're not doing anyone any favors. It's lazy and slightly fraudulent: you're dismissing evidence without reviewing evidence.
Look, I'll be happy to agree that this theory can use more attention to prove or disprove, but I haven't heard any rational explanation as to why it shouldn't get any attention at all.
Let's take a step even further back: why am I defending this theory?
You: Have a look at this theory.
Me: That is not a theory, the author is not even using a proven methods to develop it.
ajkjk: It's not right or wrong, the text is just random gibberish, it doesn't mean anything.
You: You guys are just ignorant and lazy and don't understand things.
So you say it is a theory worth looking at, we say the text is just random gibberish without meaning. How do we decide that? I know that some online journals are using text analysis tools to tell serious articles and crackpottery apart, but I have no such tools available and I am not sure you would accept that, wouldn't you suggest that those tools are biased toward mainstream thinking and writing?
The usual way would of course be to just tell you to read that stuff and see yourself that it is gibberish, but I have to assume you already read it and that you are unable or unwilling to see that it is indeed gibberish. So I have to assume that you at least believe that you are understanding the text at least to some extend and that it makes at least some sense. How would I try to show the opposite?
I could ask you to write a short summary of the theory or of some part of it in the hope that this would force you to realize that you are unable to actually express the content of the theory, that would probably work. But looking back at the discussion I would expect you to just refuse that because it is not your responsibility, the burden should be on us to prove to you that this is not a good theory.
And here I guess we are stuck. I don't know how to prove to you that the text is random gibberish in a way that you would accept it, you are refusing to cooperate because you think the burden should be on our side. So I think we are done here, we have to agree to disagree, unless you can suggest a good method to tell real theories and random gibberish apart or unless you are willing to cooperate and want to try to write a summary or extract a concrete falsifiable idea or prediction from the text so that we can work from there.
No, I did not say that it needs more research. I said that it's meaningless drivel. And I said that I am capable of discerning that, and that it is easy to discern. You seem not to be able to discern that, and that's unfortunate. All I can do is show you how to do it, which I have attempted.
The reason real physicists ignore this guy is because they do 'think like scientists', and they can tell -- easily -- that this stuff is, as I have said, meaningless drivel. The reasons they can easily tell this are the reasons I listed above.
What specifically makes the theory drivel? Exactly, what is scientifically not matching?
Take your time because I'm pretty sure you don't have the mental capacity to think for yourself. You depend on a government or an academy to think for you because you're so cognitively incompetent.
Let's take a step back and count the number of comments you're arguing without scientific explanation. You might as well be preaching about a religious deity because you're conjuring more faith than logic.
It's drivel because the individual sentences of the 'theory' are just .. meaningless. Here's an absolutely trivial exercise to demonstrate it: let's find a paper he wrote and see if it makes any sense. (Turns out these are hard to find, because most of his work is apparently creating websites about how great he is.)
"It
conceives subatomic particles to be Turing wave patterns that self-organize within a subquantum
medium that functions as an open reaction-diffusion system."
This is meaningless. But maybe if I read on I'll find out that it's just extremely poorly written?
"Under the right conditions, the concentrations of the
variable reactants of these reaction systems spontaneously self-organize into stationary reactiondiffusion
wave patterns called Turing patterns, so named in recognition of Alan Turing who in
1952 was the first to point out their importance for biological morphogenesis. "
Also meaningless.
"In a three-dimensional volume we would
expect that a supercritical Brusselator reaction-diffusion system would give rise to a periodic
structure having a Gaussian central core surrounded by a pattern of concentric spherical shells of
declining amplitude"
Gibberish.
"Etherons in this reaction system play a morphogenetic role similar to Turing's morphogens."
Gibberish
Etc.
This paper says nothing meaningful. It's not precise enough to be parsed into predictions about the universe. He'll tell you that it predicts stuff, but the words and equations don't. They don't say anything that can be unambiguously mapped to predictions, equations, or statements of any sort. I could throw all these words - etherons, Brusselators, Turing waves, etc into a random text generator, and the result would be as meaningful as his actual writing.
That or, it has content but it's so obfuscated under meaningless jargon with no meaningful explanations, no simple sentences, no ability to explain a single point lucidly, that it effectively says nothing.
Either way, there is no reason to take it seriously if it can't formulate meaningful and communicative English sentences.
Also, it's extremely weird to accuse me of depending on a government to think for me when I've generated like a dozen carefully argued rational thoughts here, including all sorts of scientific explanation. You're just.. ignoring them, and attacking me. You have to stop that.
Complaining about linguistic specifications is not arguing rational thoughts; it's arguing laziness.
Seriously, concede that you don't understand the theory and therefore can't make certain judgements (because you arguably can't think for yourself), or STFU. Why is this is so complicated?
Do you have a unified field theory? No? Then by definition you literally don't understand how the universe works. Ironically, you should use that fact to accept why you might be wrong about Subquantum Kinetics.
Nah. I am confident in my ability to identify a coherent theory if I see one, and I am sure that that ability would hold up under scrutiny (say, if a physicist prepared a test of some coherent and incoherent theories and tested me to see if I could tell them apart). So I'm concluding this theory is incoherent according to my fairly well-informed ability to analyze theories.
It's not that "I don't understand it". It's just that it's meaningless. If it's meaningless as English language, it's definitely meaningless as physics. And there is nothing "lazy" about that argument.
Also, clearly I am thinking for myself since I am writing all my thoughts out for you. So that's a pretty pointless attack.
There is absolutely no requirement for a person to have a UFT in order to be able to criticize other people's writing. This is obvious.
Look: I'll just state what is bothering me about your comments: you're trying to assert your opinion as scientific fact / proof without a scientific explanation; you're trying to force me to blindly believe whatever you say.
It bothers me when people can't explain their views; it tells me they're more comfortable to listening than talking, and that they should only listen to select sources because they're too lazy (or possibly scared) to form a dissenting opinion on their own.
You could absolutely be right that Dr. LaViolette is completely wrong, -- but we're not going to know for sure unless we challenge our selves by challenging different theories. Deciding the outcome without any inquiry is practically psychotic: you're denying reality under the delusion that your pride knows everything.
The lecture is interesting because there is a history in electrogravitics from the early 20th century that suddenly became classified in the 1950s. The decade's obsession in flying saucers and UFOs actually derived from real prototypes these aerospace companies were making.
The implication that these companies have possibly suppressed research in this field is daunting, but seeing the universe as a continuous expansion from a higher energy that everything derives from is also transcending.
Again, the theory could be completely wrong, -- but if it somehow is miraculously correct it'd be a shame to not see it all because of some silly pride.
LOL! If you'd ask me if I would be having conversations about anti-gravity a month ago, I'd probably laugh, too. Ugh! It feels hilariously ironic because I've laughed at these people, too. It's almost like we're conditioned to think this way.
I'm not rejecting his theory because of pride or blindness. I'm rejecting it because I evaluated it with my brain and determined it to be bad. I'm saying that it is possible to 'know for sure' in some cases, insofar as my brain is working correctly. This is 2+2=5 stuff. I'm as sure he is wrong from reading his writing as I am sure that 2+2=4, because it's dead simple reading comprehension to be able to tell, if you have a bit of physics background.
I'm telling you that it seems like you don't have the background to evaluate theories correctly, and so you should take note that this is a bad theory and if you think it sounds reasonable, you need to figure out why and correct that in your intuition.
The level of expertise required to realize this guy is a moron is around first year undergraduate physics. That's all. I'm totally serious.
Yes, I'm speaking with unearned authority, having no credentials to share or anything like that. All I can tell you is that I think I know my stuff and I am absolutely confident in my judgment here.
There are theories that I would take seriously in the world. This is not one of them.
This is an example of a recent paper that proposes a theory that is not part of mainstream acceptance, but is not obviously wrong and deserves consideration: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 .
Note how different it looks. How it has math, arguments, and rigor. How it knows the current state of research in the field. How it isn't posted on a series of fringe websites that seem to all be owned by the same few people. How it doesn't have to tell you there's a conspiracy to suppress it, because its merits stand on their own.
Also, you have to stop accusing me of 'not explaining my views' and 'thinking what academics or governments tell me to". I've written you several thousand words of my views, so those attacks are clearly baseless.
How do you know you're not being taught 2+2=5. No one is close to figuring out a unifying field theory based on "The Standard Model" and Relativity, so in many ways it doesn't really make sense to obsess over these old models. Fermat's Last Theorem didn't take hundreds of years to postulate -- only to prove.
So... properties of the models you obsess over are kinda baseless: it hides the fact that the theories are still incomplete.
Seriously, what's the point in obsessing over incomplete theorems? Just to get the same grant money to write the same dribble over and over, so all new theories look the same: "promising" yet still missing the ultimate goal: a unifying field theorem.
The formulas are presented and coherently explained in both the lecture and the book. Yes, I have a BSEE, and yes I've always had issues with our current model, -- especially with dielectric materials; it's literally filled with holes.
So, yeah... quit the pretentious talk. I use to believe everything you're selling: institutions know everything; agree with authority and get your degree or grant money. Subquantum Kinetics might not be the answer, but it has an interesting approach that finally unifies fields.
There are plenty of videos on YouTube of people creating their own T.T. Brown experiments. The Model G is just a theory just like the Standard Model only it is literally more unified. Already it's a better theorem because both aren't quite proven -- they're still just theories; (again, properties of each theories are proven, but that doesn't ultimately prove the model is 100% correct or not), -- but the difference between the two models is Model G has a unified field theorem.
Okay, what about this? In »The Pioneer maser signal anomaly: Possible confirmation of spontaneous photon blueshifting« [1] Paul LaViolette claims the observed anomaly in the Pioneer signals »[...] [is] a necessary consequence of the subquantum kinetics physics methodology.« and »[...] the observed effect was predicted over a decade before the announced discovery of the Pioneer anomaly [...]«. By now we know that the Pioneer anomaly [2] is due to anisotropic radiation pressure, see the Wikipedia article for references. This of course means that the effect predicted by subquantum kinetics does not exist which in turn strongly implies that subquantum kinetics is wrong.
> Though not explicitly said at that time, it was made clear in other contexts during my two years in the West Wing in the highest level meetings that the pretext for this mentality was the claim that in a Cold War era when communications were essentially instantaneous, the vast majority of "the enemy's" - then the Soviet Union's - "intelligence" was also based on open press and media sources, so the most efficient way to lie to the Soviets was to lie in the U.S. and allied media, which meant the American public believing the lies was considered a kind of 'collateral damage.' (Barbara Honegger)
I see it analogous with respect to limited resources and interests, but it gets completely distorted when debt can be created from nothing and used as currency. What's going to happen when debt exceeds all resources in the world? I guess that's the real reason for shooting into space: paying the world's insane debt.
