Ever occur to you that new theories opposing "mainstream physics" are generally based upon rational thought, empirical evidence, and a need to eliminate inconsistencies and/or shortcomings in "mainstream science?"
layman wrote:http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115550 Yeah, that link works---I missed the http part the first time.
Ok. That's not the theory I thought it was. I believe there is a newer theory out there which I've been hearing about, but this isn't it.
Do you have any specific examples that don't also come with their own set of conflicts with observed data?
I'm just not aware of any other theories that have a better broad range track record of matching the observed data.
It was less than a century ago that Einstein was the most radical physics thinker around. With his general theory of relativity, he discarded the traditional notion of space and time as fixed and redefined them as flexible dimensions woven together to create a four-dimensional fabric that pervades the universe...
Yet Einstein’s fabric left a few loose threads that cosmologists have struggled to tie up ever since. For one, general relativity alone cannot explain the observed motions of galaxies or the way the universe seems to expand. If Einstein’s model of gravity is correct, around 96 percent of the cosmos appears to be missing....
Barbour and a growing cadre of collaborators see a need for a bold march forward. They aim to demolish the space-time fabric that stands as Einstein’s legacy and remap the universe without it. This new cosmic code could eliminate the need to invoke dark matter and dark energy. Even more exciting, it could also open the door to the theory of quantum gravity that Einstein was never able to derive. If Barbour is right, some of the most fundamental things cosmologists think they know about the origin and evolution of the universe would have to be revised....
To remap the cosmos, Barbour has tapped into both Newton’s and Einstein’s conceptions of nature and then discarded key elements of both....Barbour felt that Einstein had taken a circuitous route to reframing the cosmos. Einstein’s 1905 publication on special relativity seemed to bring him closer to Mach’s camp, dismantling part of Newton’s grid by abolishing the notion that time was absolute. But it did so only by linking time to the three dimensions of space to create a rigid, four-dimensional block of space-time...
By 1982 Barbour and Bertotti had come up with a new theory of gravity (pdf) that described the world just as accurately as Einstein’s general relativity but without invoking time as a fundamental dimension.
Most physicists are trained to get on with calculating things and not worry too much about these contradictions,” Barbour says, but to him, they were key. In his true Machian theory, there is no space-time fabric that could be torn apart by quantum fluctuations. In fact, there is no fundamental dimension of time to create conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, removing any obstacle to coming up with a complete theory of gravity that works in both cosmic and quantum realms.
They are not only making and confirming predictions, they are also creating GPS networks, and semiconductors and electron microscopes. Note, I am talking about the scientific community here as a whole.
Your rejection of expertise and mathematics is the real issue here.
If you are doing Physics, then you are doing math.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
I don't suppose you have actually read any of Einstein's papers on Physics, have you (they are based on mathematics).
The theory of Lorentizian Relativity was an accepted view before Special Relativity. It was proposed a good decade before Einstein and was the theory that Einstein refuted.
His theory was accepted (and still is accepted) by mainstream science because it made predictions that could be tested.