Native wrote:Anyway, I´m pretty sure we can rule out all the gravitational ideas.
Take for instants the several decades of search for "dark matter" in connection to the galactic rotation anomaly and later cosmological connections too.
Scientists always assume that a finite finding and proof of this "dark matter" will solve major problems in standard cosmology, but completely regardless of a possible solid proof, this does not solve any problems at all. It seemingly solves the galactic rotation anomaly but it still raises the logical question:
How can an assumed universal law of celestial gravity counts for 2 very different kinds of orbital motions in our Solar System and in galaxies where objects supposedly orbits around a celestial gravity center? It obviously and logically cannot. With or without the help of dark this or that.
The cosmological implication of this inconsistent hypothesis is huge. It raises first the question of that either gravity only works on one of the places and completely rules out the other - with or without dark matter - or gravity doesn´t work at all any places.
If gravity doesn´t work at all, the gravitational ideas of attraction also is in full jeopardy. Then "gravity" only can be relieved by electromagnetic binding and repulsive forces which creates and dissolve everything in an eternal cycle of formation and reformation. (Good by Big Bang)
Subsequently, if gravity is totally ruled out, then the question of "feeling weight" must be a question of having lots of atoms and molecules stacked together in our bodies and of an outside pressure and not a question of attraction from the surroundings. Then we are talking primary of atmospheric pressure and secondly of an "orbital speed pressure" on the Earth and other celestial bodies.
Regarding unification of fundamental forces it´s of course much easier without the nonsensical gravitational confusions and the rest of the once-upon-a-time-splitting-up-of-forces can be unified again just by declaring that “it all depend on different amount of electromagnetic charges an of magnetic polarities”.
In order to support this unified theory, thermodynamics also should be included since all gases and matter reacts motionally differently to hot and cold influences.
Well. I almost got dizzy by this - but that´s my opinion.
Been toying with that thought recently too. To me it seems as if this is the case. In fact I've been toying with the following views:
- Only electrostatic forces in nuclei (Only electrons, protons and neutrons being the result of migrating electrons) [http://mb-soft.com/public2/nuclei6.html
- No force of gravity (Wall Thornhill has discussed this on some occasions and rather proposed it be because of the temporary alignment of charges within the body in question) [A balloon rubbed against a surface and have dust gather on the surface is a overly simplistic, but surprisingly still a rather good analogy]
- No relativity (Discussed by physicist Ricardo Carezani in Autodynamics + the fabrication of successful time dilation experiments)
- Only classical wave dynamics in kinetic energy emission (No wave/particle duality, only waves) [Discussed by experimental physicist Eric S. Reiter]
- Partial electromagnetic energy absorption in particles (The not much talked about loading theory which was a thought initially proposed by Max Planck) [Also discussed by Eric S. Reiter in his work]
- No fundamental universal black body radiation emission from anything (Exceptions: Solids with an ideal configuration) [Courtesy of the recent talk from Pierre-Marie L Robitaille]
- CMB spectrum observed is caused by: (1) The galaxy it self (2) The hydroxyl bonds between water molecules [Also Courtesy of the recent talk from Pierre-Marie L Robitaille]
- Electric Universe theory is, if not close to a theory of everything, on the right path to it.
- There is no quantum mechanics, only classical waves in phase space (Slight re-iteration: No quantum mechanics involved in the transmission of EM waves)
- There is no exotic particles in the standard model of particle physics (Only protons and electrons)
- The universe is not expanding
- Simplifying (No more need for mathematically complex theories to describe reality. Bonus: Can be explained to grade schoolers)
- A daunting 90-ish years of work within some branches of physics could be thrown out the window (voiding dozens of Nobel Prize winners)
The amalgamation of the above physicist's work is outlining a new paradigm of physics which is free from quantum mythos, particle-complexification, and legends of successful relativity experiments from mathemagical physcists.
Einstein wrote:Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Unfortunately I predict that a new model and paradigm will take generations to catch on because of the huge industry of keeping physics as complex as possible. Can you imagine how many tenures and how much research funding that would go down the drain if this would become a new standard over night? In the current system there is no incentive for paradigm shifts within physics. Back in the day it was mostly pride at stake if your theory was challenged by serious contributions or rebuttals, but now it's also a lot of money and possibly public out-rage over massively expensive standard model research (LHC and so on). The modern physics community and educational systems are not only large, but extremely specialized -- and in being so, there is a propensity to rely heavily on earlier physics work. It's a negative feedback loop creating a community of dogmatic physics rather than creative and open-minded ones who are able to see problems in a larger perspective. Of course there is many nuances to my statement, but I think that is an over-arching issue of modern physics. We are simply churning out physicists unable to think out-side the current paradigm.
Other problems with the current paradigm is that So have found a self-corrective mechanism which keeps increasing the tension on their anchors. What they do with observations that are supposedly "theory breaking" is to:
1) Modify the theory with extra free parameters to make the models fit reality AND/OR
2) Say there is no alternative solution so we should just continue on this path
Thankfully the current paradigm will not
hold because of the very nature of the scientific method. As long as the spirit of the method is still alive, outliers (aka. fringe physicists), will be able to come to more correct conclusions from available experimental data. I think there will be a constant tension between physics you can't rely on to make predictions and physics you can. The uncertain time-scale of a revolution is because nobody can predict what will trigger the building tension to spew out like a CME.
Apologies for the wall of text, just my humble thoughts on the matter