Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:20, 24 December 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics: Relativity / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force. This article is supported by History Taskforce. Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mechanical explanations

This article is about all mechanical explanations, not only Le Sage's theory of gravitation. So I reverted most edits of 84.158.225.226 at the beginning of the article. I also deleted the sentence of mass increase, because it is already discussed in the Le Sage article. --D.H 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Newton

I've reverted some edits by User:Systemizer, because he mixed up Newton's stream/flow theory (1675) and his theory based on a hydrostatic pressure (1717). Those are two different theories.... Also the unreferenced remarks, that the (first) theory is compatible with general relativity, was removed. Please provide reputable sources. --D.H (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Harold Puthoff

I would like to propose that this article be amended with mention of H. E. Puthoff's ideas on Sakharov's theory of "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force" (Physical Review A, Vol 39, No. 5, Mar. 1989) using an approach categorized under stochastic electrodynamics and fluid dynamics to explain gravity as a mechanical product of the background quantum vacuum energy. To my rather uneducated understanding, it tends to resolve the issues of drag and other problems commonly associated with the aether-based gravitational causes, perhaps due to the peculiar properties of the Casimir force as opposed to the more consistent, linear types of energy that would be supposed to make up the aether. --Dark Goob (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything is inside out and spinning

Some time ago i came up with this theory where everything was inside out (from each thing or group of things perspective the whole Universe was inside them and they were the outer "shell") and everything was spinning in some multidimensional way so that the centrifugal force would pull the "contents" "outwards" in all directions (instead of just towards the "equators"); but i was told i wasn't the first to come up with that idea, some famous scientist in history already thought of that and others had analyzed and found flaws in it. Who was that and what flaws were found? --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Spinning Archimedes Screw Particle For The Graviton

I proposed this idea in a FQXi physics competition which was well received. It's the only possible way that a particle explanation could work. It also allows for two types of gravity; right-handed clockwise spinning helical particles and left-hand anti-clockwise spinning particles. Dark energy can be explained by these gravitons travelling around a 4D hypersphere or wraparound universe. Spiral galaxy curves can be explained by an additional force of attraction on a plane of rotation. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/868. 2.123.44.32 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

A theory or a hypothesis?

All of these so-called "theories", specifically the one proposed by Le Sage, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton (his second one), and James Challis... Were they actually considered theories (i.e., in accordance with the scientific definition) back in their respective time periods? Or were they just hypotheses?

(For those who don't know, there is a clear difference in science between the two terms.)

Thanks. I'm just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification on related RfC in Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation

Following deletion of this source from this article, there is a related discussion and RfC in the related article Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation|, if editors here may like to participate. The same question applies if that source may or may not be restored in this article too. Esem0 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition

Dear Mr or Ms Tercer: I added recently a short paragraph at the end of the page Mechanical explanations of gravitation, about a mechanism that has been proposed by several authors but I could not find described in the page. You undid the whole entry for reason of 'unreliable sources'. So I took note and I removed what I think could be reasonably considered 'unreliable sources' according to your standards: http://www.aether-theory.co.uk and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14334918, because, as far as I know, they have never been subject to peer review. However, my second attempt was undone by a colleague of yours, @XOR'easter, who unfortunately does not seem to be currently in a position to answer any request for explanations, which is why I address this request to you. So, could you please explain what was wrong with my second entry? Thanks in advance. Notsort (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for XOR'easter, but I can tell you the problems I see with your second edit:

1. There's still an unreliable source, the preprint by Masanori Sato.

2. Misplaced Pages shouldn't cover everything that was ever published about the subject, only the most relevant sources. You have included some papers that were hardly ever cited, which is a violation of the due weight policy. See WP:DUE. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages should prefer secondary sources (books, reviews), whereas you only included primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY.

3. Your addition doesn't integrate with the article at all. The first paragraph mostly repeats what the lead says. The second paragraph is about Le Sage's theory, it would belong in that section if at all. But it's just repeating a bunch of sources that have been cited in the main article about Le Sage's theory, so there's no point repeating them here. The third paragraph is about static pressure, which would belong in the static pressure section. Now the fourth paragraph is about a different theory, that should belong in its own section, but the sources are too weak to justify including it. Tercer (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks for your clear explanations. However, I think that some points are worth discussing or clarifying. First, I honestly do not see any relation between the theory I reported and Le Sage's theory, which is about screening. With regard to the ‘static pressure’ of the ether, I think I have missed the point when mentioning this hypothetical magnitude. With regard to gravity, the only important assumption is that, in the proximity of big masses, the speed of light diminishes according to the well-known inverse square law. Apart from that, we only need to know that there are many possible different mechanisms that can explain this effect, depending on the ‘fine structure’ that we postulate for the ether, with ‘pressure’, ‘density’, or whatever.

Now the fundamental point: we agree that what I report is a different theory, but in your view the proposed sources are too weak to include it in Misplaced Pages. I cannot discuss this point scientifically, it is an editorial matter, but I think that it raises an interesting question: what is the real value of peer-reviewed sources and of secondary sources? In my view, an article with, say, five authors and two reviewers counts as 3 independent opinions: that of the authors and those of each reviewer. A review including this article would include the opinions of the authors of the review and its reviewers, so in total 6 independent opinions, with the caveat that most frequently the authors and reviewers of reviews often do not scrutinize in sufficient detail the papers they cite, which I think would be humanly impossible. Now the key question: is all that really more reliable than, say, 6 independent non-(or not-?)peer-reviewed sources? It is true that in principle not-peer-reviewed sources carry a presumption of negative review, but this will not always be true in our complicated editorial world. Perhaps naively, I think that several independent not-peer-reviewed sources should be attributed some weight, not just zero. Notsort (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. The second paragraph of your edit was Le Sage's theory was studied by Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960), Shneiderov (1961), Buonomano and Engels (1976), Adamut (1982), and Edwards (2014).. If these references are not about Le Sage's theory we have deeper problems. Tercer (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• B-Class history of science articles
• Mid-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• B-Class relativity articles
• Relativity articles
• B-Class physics history articles
• Physics history articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles