My new theory offering new view on inertia/gravity/relativity

Ultron

Ultron

Registered Senior Member
Finally after long time I managed to put together first basic version of my theory. This first version has 13 pages. If I would have wanted to made it a full scale with all required tables graphs and equations, I would need at least 25 pages, but simply I dont have so much free time, because Im doing it as hobby along my job and family. I plan to upgrade it over time to version 2 and version 3 and then try my luck in arxiv and journals.

Its extremely controversial theory, so I dont really await anybody to agree with it, but I hope there will be at least some constructive discussion which could help me to upgrade it to version which will be generally easy to understand and without obvious errors.

Abstract:
Unified gravito-kinematics theory unifies gravity and kinematics on deeper level as current theories. It is generally compatible with equotations of General relativity, but it extends it and introduces different explanations to selected underlying principles on which is General relativity based. Unified gravito-kinematics theory explains or solves following open problems: primary cause and underlying mechanism of inertia, explanation of speed of light as speed limit, primary cause and underlying mechanism of relativity (Lorentz transformations), explanation of creation of rings of planets explanation of increasing speed of expansion of universe (dark energy), explanation of galaxy rotation problem, solving of some singularities in relativity theory and solution for compatibility of relativity theory with quantum mechanics, which will open door to merge of quantum mechanics and what is now relativity theory. What is most important, Unified gravito-kinematics theory makes very specific predictions, which can be tested by experiments and by astronomic observations. This paper includes one proposed rotation experiment and explanation of creation of rings around planets and smaller objects.

Link to vixra (yea, I know it has bad image, but at least it is a safe and reliable web page):
http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0356
 
Ultron said:
If I would have wanted to made it a full scale with all required tables graphs and equations, I would need at least 25 pages, but simply I dont have so much free time
Click to expand...

Spend your free time on grammar and style, then perhaps you should try mathematics. Maybe you could then present something a child couldn't destroy in a minute.
 
Dr_Toad said:
Spend your free time on grammar and style, then perhaps you should try mathematics. Maybe you could then present something a child couldn't destroy in a minute.
Click to expand...

OK, give it a try, did you understand it?
 
I haven't taken a look, but gr unites gravity and kinematics, so I'm not sure what this theory could do.
 
The theory literally does nothing with kinematics. It's as if the author has no idea what the word "kinematics" means.
 
Ultron said:
And did you understand it?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't understand the kinematic part because it wasn't there.

As far as the document as a whole goes, I believe that I did. Since there is no attempt to relate the idea presented to available evidence, I can't really call it a theory. It is an interesting hypothesis and there are many straightforward ways to link it to readily available evidence. Well, with one caveat that the entire idea relies on a conceptual mistake about the nature of inertia in Newtonian physics and this hurdle has to be overcome in order for the idea to actually make sense when applied to physical objects.

The real problem is that it is deviation from inertial motion that defines force, and this definition seems absent from the idea. It is not clear how we can identify what is and what is not inertial motion in relation to the idea and it is not clear how we will identify a force.

Next, of course, comes the misunderstanding of the third law. However, this should come out in any attempt to do even toy models with the idea.
 
PhysBang said:
No, I didn't understand the kinematic part because it wasn't there.

As far as the document as a whole goes, I believe that I did. Since there is no attempt to relate the idea presented to available evidence, I can't really call it a theory. It is an interesting hypothesis and there are many straightforward ways to link it to readily available evidence. Well, with one caveat that the entire idea relies on a conceptual mistake about the nature of inertia in Newtonian physics and this hurdle has to be overcome in order for the idea to actually make sense when applied to physical objects.

The real problem is that it is deviation from inertial motion that defines force, and this definition seems absent from the idea. It is not clear how we can identify what is and what is not inertial motion in relation to the idea and it is not clear how we will identify a force.

Next, of course, comes the misunderstanding of the third law. However, this should come out in any attempt to do even toy models with the idea.
Click to expand...

It seems, that you have not read it past first 5 pages. I understand, that it is not easy reading, but later there is part with specific explanations and predictions. I would especially suggest to read the part with the table. When you read it whole, maybe you will understand it.
 
Ultron said:
It seems, that you have not read it past first 5 pages. I understand, that it is not easy reading, but later there is part with specific explanations and predictions. I would especially suggest to read the part with the table. When you read it whole, maybe you will understand it.
Click to expand...
You might think that, but I did, indeed, read until the end. You don't even have an viable hypothesis until you can do a physics problem with your idea and it is currently impossible to do a physics problem with your idea.

If you want to improve your idea, then show us how to do a simple physics problem with your idea.

This really is an important point, since so many people come up with these grand physics ideas that they cannot actually use to do any physics. If an idea can't be used to do physics, then it isn't physics.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Toad said:
Spend your free time on grammar and style, then perhaps you should try mathematics. Maybe you could then present something a child couldn't destroy in a minute.
Click to expand...

I dont think it would be so easy to destroy it in a minute. Especially not by somebody who has an IQ of a toad and is not able to figure out how the button "Post reply" works.
 
Ultron said:
I dont think it would be so easy to destroy it in a minute. Especially not by somebody who has an IQ of a toad and is not able to figure out how the button "Post reply" works.
Click to expand...
Rather than useless replies like this, you could try to actually come up with an application, with actual numbers, for your idea. Until you do, you do not have physics.
 
PhysBang said:
Rather than useless replies like this, you could try to actually come up with an application, with actual numbers, for your idea. Until you do, you do not have physics.
Click to expand...

It seems you have still not made it to the page with actual numbers. I admit, the theory is not easy to understand, and 13 pages are quite long reading.
 
Ultron said:
It seems you have still not made it to the page with actual numbers. I admit, the theory is not easy to understand, and 13 pages are quite long reading.
Click to expand...
Seriously, what application do you have? You have one fucking table on a page that you were too stupid to put a page number on.

Perhaps you are too stupid to know what a fucking application is.

Here's a direct request: calculate a fucking orbit with your piece of shit idea. Once you've done that, then we can begin the process of perhaps seeing if there is any merit whatsoever.

If you cannot do that, then I report your piece of shit paper as pseudoscience.
 
Hi there Ultron.
May I offer you some advice which may make your hobby more enjoyable.
Look up the scientific method and understand that to call an idea a theory will bring only scorn from those who understand the meaning.
If you present your idea as an idea and exhibit respect for the theories who's toes you may step on uyou may draw less scorn...
And above all if someone comments or objects look to their point rather than dismiss their input.
And always remember you can't really do science as a hobby and be taken seriously.
Nevertheless keep trying to learn.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
And always remember you can't really do science as a hobby and be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
I don't think that this is true. There is a lot of science that can be learned by people working at it as a hobby. There is also a lot of scientific analysis that people can do working as a hobby. If they take short-cuts, then they won't be taken seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top