Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I would like to propose that this article be amended with mention of H. E. Puthoff's ideas on ] theory of (Physical Review A, Vol 39, No. 5, Mar. 1989) using an approach categorized under ] and ] to explain gravity as a mechanical product of the background quantum ]. 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 ] as opposed to the more consistent, linear types of energy that would be supposed to make up the aether.
I would like to propose that this article be amended with mention of H. E. Puthoff's ideas on ] theory of (Physical Review A, Vol 39, No. 5, Mar. 1989) using an approach categorized under ] and ] to explain gravity as a mechanical product of the background quantum ]. 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 ] as opposed to the more consistent, linear types of energy that would be supposed to make up the aether.
--] (]) 09:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
--] (]) 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? --] (]) 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
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
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
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.H17:17, 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)
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)
.jpg){kind=small}
