Elaborate Alternatives to Physics
Kulakov’s Theory of Structures
Developed by a group of scientists recognized in the traditional fields of physics since 1961.
Theory of physical structures
Theory of physical structures | Yu. I. Kulakov | download | BookSC. Download books for free. Find books
The Wolfram Physics Project
Developed under the direction of a successful businessman and competent scientist Stephen Wolfram.
Everything that people see, hear, and feel around them inspires them to create physical theories. The flow of fluids, wind, light, sound, heat, gravity, the melting of ice and metals, friction, and the collision of objects have all been described in ways that have obvious practical applications.
Of all the things that our ancient ancestors directly observed in everyday life, a fire was the hardest to explain and “improve.” Now there is plasma physics, and it is quite useful. Electricity, although rarely and poorly observed in nature, has given rise to a coherent theory that has radically changed our lives.
A century ago, new areas of physics ceased to be intuitive and useful. Their apparent unnaturalness was used in PR campaigns as proof of their genius. This worked for the first fifty years of stagnation, but then the theories stopped being elegant. Strangeness can only be forgiven when combined with aesthetics and practicality. Neither of these has been observed.
For six decades there have been no fundamental improvements in people’s lives thanks to physics. For a hundred years there have been no new fundamental discoveries or theories that bring practical results.
If quantum physics and relativistic theory had not appeared at all, nothing would have changed. Electronics, semiconductors, nuclear power, satellites, or GPS (contrary to popular urban myth) would not need them. These theories may be sewn into the practical results already obtained, but they are not the cause of those results. Heck, even a quantum computer doesn’t need the provisions of quantum mechanics.
We have run out of things we can see around us and improve upon. There must be technologies based on things we don’t observe at all. For example, antigravity. It wasn’t that long ago that we didn’t see bacteria and laser beams.
The stalemate we are in now is artificially created. Two years ago, few people would have agreed with me, but today half of the people refuse to turn a blind eye to the obvious. The medical community has turned out to be a cult and a political puppet. Generally accepted economic theory doesn’t work. Sociology breeds monsters of delusional thinking that destroy the foundations of society.
Why should we think the situation in physics is different? Politics, too, rules there, not the spirit of free inquiry. Ultimately, politicians decide what to fund and what to ridicule. Dozens of promising theories are destroyed and their authors are dismissed from the profession. It is our good fortune that Stephen Wolfram was able to make his own money, but this is the rarest of exceptions.
There is no shortage of new ideas, but they cannot get past the formative stage because they require a sensible revision of the entire physics building. They almost never appear in the English-speaking sphere, because in the West the persecution of heretics is particularly strong.
Even the theories that work and produce results have a shaky foundation. For example, Newton’s second law of motion says: “In an inertial frame of reference, the product of the acceleration of a material point by its mass is equal in magnitude and direction to the force acting on it. This immediately introduces the concept of an “inertial system,” which is far from trivial. It also introduces the relationship between three quantities, two of which have not previously been defined. These difficulties are fundamental. No neater formulation will get rid of them. This criticism is quite old. Among the critics are many great names. Saint-Venant, Mach, Kirchhoff, Hertz, Poincaré.
However, with the outbreak of World War III in the next quarter-century, the situation will change dramatically.