7 ms·

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

by cm127 10y ago

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPLNfgxD2ic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPLNfgxD2ic 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEgGMFK-VU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEgGMFK-VU - (warning: audio isn't great)

wfunction 10y ago
I don't care as much for the Big Bang, but for it to go against relativity seems a bit hard to swallow.
- cm127 10y ago
  Yeah, no kidding... because that would also challenge the "Laws" of Thermodynamics, too: Free Energy from the Ether. *I have to put that in quotes because it's not actually a law, right? You shouldn't go to jail for breaking it.
danbruc 10y ago
That is crackpottery, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory at 11. Forget about it if you are interested in any serious conversation about physics.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cm127 10y ago
  I think you're proving Dr. Paul LaViolette's point why the theory is not getting attention: emotional, knee-jerk reactions like this. Seems like I have to agree with everything you say in order to have a conversation about physics with you.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    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. [1] http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical-summary/ http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical... [2] http://www.starburstfound.org/SQK/SQK-c.html http://www.starburstfound.org/SQK/SQK-c.html
ajkjk 10y ago
Yeah, this is insane and totally wrong.

by cm127 10y ago

wfunction 10y ago

I don't care as much for the Big Bang, but for it to go against relativity seems a bit hard to swallow.

cm127 10y ago
Yeah, no kidding... because that would also challenge the "Laws" of Thermodynamics, too: Free Energy from the Ether. *I have to put that in quotes because it's not actually a law, right? You shouldn't go to jail for breaking it.

danbruc 10y ago

That is crackpottery, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory at 11. Forget about it if you are interested in any serious conversation about physics.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cm127 10y ago
I think you're proving Dr. Paul LaViolette's point why the theory is not getting attention: emotional, knee-jerk reactions like this. Seems like I have to agree with everything you say in order to have a conversation about physics with you.
- danbruc 10y ago
  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. [1] http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical-summary/ http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical... [2] http://www.starburstfound.org/SQK/SQK-c.html http://www.starburstfound.org/SQK/SQK-c.html

ajkjk 10y ago

Yeah, this is insane and totally wrong.