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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.