Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:52, 30 August 2015

History of Science B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: Relativity / History B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. 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.

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)

• 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