RE: Is Intelligence an Algorithm? Part 10: Intuition
Have you come across any of the "Theoria Apophasis" videos on youtube? He's basically ripping apart Einstein general relativity and quantum mechanics, and makes some convincing arguments, which hit directly on much of what didn't make sense to me either vis-a-vis GR and QM (also double slit experiment). Since you do seem more well-versed in this than I am, and you certainly appear to have dedicated much thought to the topic, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this in some of your upcoming posts.
Field Theory: What is a FIELD? Part 1 General Relativity insanity & Quantum Quackery:
https://plus.google.com/110321252195532535450/posts/6fLJoA32Mv1 - free ebook, Uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtluP-X1MQIKu_nwzpcW3vBv32JRHB2Wf Uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism (playlist)
One more... Light is neither a wave nor a particle, it is a coaxial circuit:
I had a look. Mother nature doesn't calculate, he says. Yet he believes in a ether and pressurising the ether. Which means that ether is somehow quantifiable in his own terms. This guy reproaches others to give descriptions rather than explanations, but that's all he does himself as well. I agree that there is an ether and I agree that a field is holistic and not quantifiable, but that does not mean that interference cannot lead to relatively localised wavepackages we call particles. Particles are possibly epiphenomena, that's fine with me, but nature does integrate them and spawn them: input output thruput: calculation. The very toroidal field form he describes is input output thruput. So I postulate his ideas must be transcended: particles and calculations emerge from field dynamics on one level, but on a meta level field dynamics emerge from particle interactions and calculations leading to a fractal or tower of turtles in which neither one is necessarily more true than the other. Materialists want you to believe in particles, spiritualists in fields, but what if both are true? It might just depend on the dimensional perspective. Please note that I am not sure about this hypothesis either, but it is an interesting middle ground between 2 extremes.
Granted he is "a bit" abrasive, but between the ebook and his many posts, he does go into more detail and clarifies many of the things he says, albeit in spurts. He's also not the only one who believes that Tesla got it mostly right and Einstein got it mostly wrong. There are many other videos up there that seems to revolve around similar premises as well.
Further fueling these questions, I just came across this today:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24076/neutron-star-particles-spring-into-existence/
http://www.sciencealert.com/we-just-got-the-first-real-evidence-of-a-strange-quantum-distortion-in-empty-space
Between fake virtual particles that magically appear and disappear, and observations that go against everything Einstein mapped out, it does sound pretty nonsensical. However, this video does seem a bit closer to explaining what may really be going on here:
Again, I definitely don't claim any expertise here. However, something definitely seems to be amiss here, possibly even more preposterous than the idea of "man-made climate change". As a final note, I will include this interesting TEDx video describing variance in the speed of light and other strange anomalies:
No, I am unaware of this theory. I'll have a look when I have more time for it. Thanks for sharing it with me.