neuromaton

You are right. Sorry for that. But as I have said above (the edit was done before your answer), I will not waste more time here. Thank you. Let us leave it at that.

I am done with this thread btw. Thank you for your time. It is obvious that this discussion will go nowhere. How can you try to discuss something that you have not even read? This is a waste of time. If you dont want to read it, fine. If it is too much text for you, fine. But if you try to judge it after looking at it for a few minutes, then this is pointless and a waste. I am sure you too have better things to do. You may celebrate this as a victory. But you will probably live long enough to witness a revival of the aether. Live long and prosper

Actually my theory was done first. I have only recently discovered this experiment that produced the pear shaped nucleus, at that time my theory was mostly complete (in my opinion at least). And you have asked about experiments: I am providing an experiment in my theory that can provide proof. Experiments are usually based on a thourough understanding of the physical reality, not only on calculations. @ strange: see my answer above. The most prominent proof that we have is the redshift that hints to an expansion. This does not necessarily mean that the universe must have expanded from an existence as a "point-sized" universe, this is merely an extrapolation. What it means is that the universe is expanding. The rest is interpretation without observation.

@ sensei: I was following a few discussions about this paper and they seemed to interpret it this way. Now that I have been looking for this in the publicly available papers there seems to be no mention of this (but those papers have very limited content) so we actually only have the statement of the physicist that I have quoted, which is unfortunately not very accurate, and can be interpreted in different ways. I will have to do more research on this. But it stands that my interpretation is a possibility. I was quick to connect this result to my theory because it follows a prediction that arises from the design. Within my theory the pear shape would only be allowed in the absolute direction of motion. So this "coincidence" was very striking to me. @ mordred: There are many predictions that arise from my Aether design. But I believe this theory is being seen as something that it is not and never wanted to be. I am not interested in calculation of physical phenomena. I am interested in designing a system that works with the calculations that others have presented. To find the origin, the reason why those formulas work the way they do. Mathematics is only a tool to describe reality. But words can also describe reality. And at this point in time it should be quite obvious that we have exhausted the possibilites of the pure mathematical approach. We are still using Einstein's way of viewing reality. So I have used a different approach. It seems to me that it is actually impossible for a new theory to arise where only old methods and mindsets are being used. I believe you should be thankful for anyone who provides a different mindset because physicists have a standardized way of thinking which is most hindering for a creative process. edit: To answer your question about the aether: I am actually leaving open the question how this aether might have "looked like" billions of years ago. This is not interesting to me. My theory includes the expansion of the universe, but this does not necessarily have to be retraced to a "Big Bang". You are probably aware that the concept of a Big Bang is very theoretical. I like the image that a Big Bang is presenting but it also raises new issues and there is no hard evidence for it.

Oh my, you guys are quick to dismiss a claim. Not very scientific if you ask me. But history has shown that this is what has to be expected if you tell people that the earth is not flat. First of all, "pointing to a direction" is inaccurate. If you had read the articles then you would know that my interpretation is right, and this wording is just inadequate. @swansont And yes, the vector would be roughly the same for earth, the moon, the sun and anything connected to those objects, regardless of rotation. You do realise that you are circling around the sun while rotating around the axis of earth? So your motion vector relative to the sun will always point in one direction regardless of rotation of the earth. The same works for larger correlations. @sensei And your claim that an aether has to exist for all of eternity in the same fashion is only an opinion. There is no evidence to support such a claim. And you have probably looked at my theory for 20 seconds and believe you are capable of judging it. This is more than ridiculous. Your inability to deal with words, or with a more abstract approach, rather than pure math only shows your own narrowness. @mordred

I would not have said this if it was not true. try these sources http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01485 http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-nucleus-shape-and-it-could-ruin-our-hopes-of-time-travel https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.112503 edit: If you do not like external links then this will be difficult. But I can put a quote from the articles here: "We've found these nuclei literally point towards a direction in space. This relates to a direction in time, proving there's a well-defined direction in time and we will always travel from past to present," Marcus Scheck from the University of the West of Scotland told Kenneth MacDonald at BBC News"

/thread