@Pelin, as per Mormonism criticisms and answers debate #3 - #22 by Pelin thank you ... your three-point outline helps clarify how you intend the material to fit together. I am bringing that clarification into this thread so it stays alongside the summary.
Thank you also for clarifying that you have been using several accounts on the Giza forum. The reason I raised that was simply to establish which contributions were yours, so we would neither assign someone else's ideas to you nor miss part of your own explanation.
I also understand your reason for developing the material through forum discussions: you are exploring openly and inviting other people to examine and correct it, rather than presenting yourself as an expert in every subject you touch. The summary should reflect that without overlooking how strongly you now favor the framework.
As you have now explained it, the starting point is specifically these three ingredients:
- Joseph P. Farrell's discussions of geometric algebra in a non-Cartesian system. This is the geometrical and mathematical direction you are drawing on, rather than simply adopting any historical model that used the word "aether."
- The fluid-dynamics approach you associate with “AlexanderU.” I am reading that name as Alexander Unzicker; please correct me if that is not the person you mean.
- Konstantin Meyl's proposals, which you describe as “scalar vectors.” I will retain your wording here until we have clarified precisely what it means within the combined framework.
You then bring those ingredients together and explore whether they can explain the engineering ideas and effects you associate with Nikola Tesla and “ViktorS,” whom I take to mean Viktor Schauberger. Please correct that name too if necessary.
I understand your phrase "reverse proof of concept" to mean working backward from those engineering examples and asking how the proposed aether framework could account for them. That makes those examples part of the route you are using to develop and examine the explanation, rather than merely additional names on a reading list.
You use (as noted above) Google's artificial intelligence to explore the implications, compare explanations across different scientific subjects, and revisit material such as the Joy of Knowledge encyclopedia, which you abbreviate as JOKE. Your stated purpose is to explore a positive aether-based explanation, not merely to collect objections to existing physics. You believe the resulting conversations have developed that starting framework into something much more widely applicable than you initially expected.
Your clarification about AFT, AFT+, and AFT++ also matters. These are not three unrelated theories. They are your labels for the same developing Aether Field Theory framework as additional ideas are introduced through the conversations. My summary should make that continuity clearer while still identifying the additions that change the model.
There is one other distinction I should preserve: you explicitly describe the suggestion that Cartesian mathematics produced chaos in earlier aether models as your own assumption. I should therefore record it as your proposed explanation, rather than present it as an established historical finding or something derived from the model.
The longer summary is meant to help us follow your material, not replace it or require you to defend every exploratory suggestion as a settled conclusion.
For the next clarification, could you explain in your own words what “non-Cartesian” and “scalar vectors” specifically mean in this framework, and what the crucial additions are that distinguish AFT+ and AFT++ from the starting AFT?
A short explanation here, with a particular passage linked where necessary, would help us follow the longer conversations without assigning our own meanings to your terms.
Have I understood this outline correctly? We can use your corrections to bring the opening summary into line with what you actually intend.