A revolution in science is always rejected by recent scientists in its initial step because this revolution always resist to the knowledge of these recent scientists; however, scientists would accepted this revolution when it explodes all of its power. According to Erasmus00 and Qfwfq, members of Hypography Science Forums, “Einstein did believe that quantum theory was fundamentally flawed. There is a very famous series of letters between Einstein and Bohr on this subject. Also, the EPR "paradox" was issued as a sort of formal challenge (Erasmus00). Specifically, Einstein strongly disagreed with Bohr and the "Copenhagen School" (Born interpretation) and held that the Quantum formalism was valid but that it should be possible to find so-called hidden variables (Qfwfq).” The letters between Einstein and Bohr, which is exchanged in 1920-1923, displayed a prediction of Einstein for the future revolutions in science that recent scientists could not reach anything of his prediction. The time of 1920 was the time that Einstein had begun to study for unified field theory, which is a theory that almost scientists rejected it. In his unified field theory, Einstein always wished to know a single secret of the universe that he could not find out until his last life. A single secret of the universe should be detected by the next Newton, who knows how to develop the Newton’s first law is known as the “principle of inertia;” therefore, the next revolution would be realized by a next Newton who would not reject quantum theory and relativity theory, such as these theories rejected classical mechanics. The next Newton will use quantum theory and relativity theory as a way to help scientists understand the structure of our universe. Although scientists around the earth can do so far in the future with a lot of theories that they believed, but these scientists should know about a single secret of the universe that all matter must obey it! The next revolution in science will help scientists discover gravitational waves on the earth that these scientists still study for these waves. And then this revolution will help human solve some problems such as disease, weapon and energy that recent scientists can not completely solve.
>> The next Newton will use quantum theory and relativity theory no, General Relativity theory is just not even remotely correct. To start off, time does not exist. The only real mathematical principle that does exist is the ratio Newtonian formulations are static and do not take into consideration that all things in the Universe move. But there are no straight lines. On Inertia, only objects that have constant "velocity and angular acceleration" are inertial. So the new theory must have at least these axiomatic truths. I have formulated such a new paradigm, however it is taboo for me to discuss details.... I will only defend/discuss the above basic principles of this new paradigm.
>> Why is it...taboo? Good question.... it seems there is a very deep and convoluted reason that is beyond me. But if I elaborate I get banned.... as has happened to me on all science forums. There does seem to be quite a level of professional jealousy, or is it just ego stepping or is it just the devil you don't know, so off with his head. LOL I really have no idea, but I am not going there.
There is a preliminary primer, very basic but the first principles must be understood first. see "gravity" at omegafour.com/forum/
You have what? Don't be afraid, John. You won't be banned for pushing against the mainstream theories. You won't even be banned for refusing to discuss them intelligently, like you were at Bad Astronomy. You might be criticised or laughed at if you can't adequately defend them, or if you refuse to listen to people who point out any misunderstandings of mainstream theories you might or might not have, but you won't be banned from SciForums for it. You weren't banned for [thread=9833]discussing it here[/thread], either. You were banned by Porfiry for [thread=37969]bitching about moderation[/thread] Were you banned from SSSF? If you were, it wasn't for discussing "Spin Gravity". Pete
URI, what you say rings a bell and strikes a chord. The ratio is c. There are no straight lines because gravity is everywhere and it is a "tension" gradient in c. See my essays in these threads: TIME EXPLAINED MONEY EXPLAINED ENERGY EXPLAINED MASS EXPLAINED I got banned from Physics Forums, most unfairly in my view. I'm currently working on GRAVITY EXPLAINED, but I'm getting a bit sidetracked and might have to write SPACE EXPLAINED first.
LOL. you guys really are funny!!!! Wouldn't want to upset you guys again. But I haven't seen any insights on gravity here or anywhere else... no real explanations, no understanding, just rote BS and destructive criticism. Where are your theories that WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL mine works, is accurate and gives insights into perplexing phenomena, like flat rotation curves of galaxies, quantum gravity in solar systems, pioneer anomaly, dark matter/energy...... all the problems basically there has not been one observation the theory could not adequately explain, both in math and logic. It can be falsified by the predictions it makes. It flies in the face of current understandings with the L1 and L2 points of two body systems....... NASA needs to upgrade its satellite positioning if it wishes to maintain a stable L1... NASA uses some of the formula. It is based upon Newtonian mechanics, updated with electrodynamics (like SR), has "curved space" but more like spinning bubbles than wells Describes the structure of the Universe, both mathematically and descriptively, which of course explains gravity Funny how I got banned everywhere. Oh I read the excuses, LOL.....a joke eh....... sorry I mentioned something innovative that is OK, I had a weak moment I do not have to tell all I know to make you guys happy. I will stick to the propositions in my original post, thank you Debunk them first. I now understand the state of play out here, the minds that control that are power hungry, that will stoop to any level to remove competition. I now find the net, disgusting. No games on my site. PS what I have put on the net (anywhere) is a primer. I will not disclose the serious aspects, so go ahead throw a hissy and take your bat and ball and go.
Thanks Pete, nice to see some past history. I will read them again, oh the formative days long ago. Much has evolved, and believe it or not the criticism I attracted opened my eyes to the extent of the subject and extended the theory to places I never thought possible. Thanks for the links. No thanks to the mods, I won't retract anything. James R stalked me from SSSF. But I really just don't care nowadays. I am building a ship and leaving. Thanks again, nostalgia
How can GR not be remotely correct when it agrees with many experiments within their respective margins of error? This is one of the few science forums that does not unnecessarily censor, IMO. (Kudos to the mods for that.) Where is the theory? I went to http://www.omegafour.com/forum, but see only a forum. Specifically, and for starters, I'd like to see it explain the muon experiment. I hope by "adequately explain" you mean that it predicts observations within their respective margins of error.
I also got my 'Rocket Theory' posted at Parapsychology Forums "Parallel Dimension and Ideal Future," integrating with it Conscious Energy as faster than lightspeed and as source of gravity, with the new unit of c=Awareness and enabling to peek through Parallel dimension.
