Abstract

For centuries, wind and air have been attributed to atmospheric pressure, temperature gradients, and Earth’s rotation. Yet, even with these explanations, gaps remain. Why do winds behave inconsistently across regions and altitudes? Why does air thin with height if “pressure” is its cause, and why do certain regions—desert plains, open seas, glaciers—show unique, unrepeatable wind signatures?

This paper proposes a new interpretation: that air and wind may not solely originate from within Earth’s atmosphere but enter our observable dimension through invisible energetic gateways or dimensional nodes. These nodes release what I define as Kinetic-Dimensional Energy—an unseen but interactive layer of motion that, once crossing into our dimension, loses its structured form and becomes what we experience as “air movement.”

---

Introduction

We can feel the wind, we can hear it, and we can measure its impact—but we cannot see its origin. Science defines air as a mixture of gases moved by differences in temperature and pressure. Yet, pressure and temperature themselves are effects—not causes.

When we ascend to higher altitudes, air becomes thinner and pressure decreases. Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish. Similarly, vast oceanic regions lack wind activity while deserts overflow with violent gusts. This inconsistency implies that something else—beyond known physics—may be influencing the local creation and disappearance of airflow.

---

Observations & Logical Points

1. Uneven Wind Distribution:
   At equal latitudes, some areas experience constant wind while others remain still. Atmospheric models fail to explain micro-regional variations that appear random yet repeat over decades.

2. Altitude Paradox:
   Air density decreases with height. Yet, if “air pressure” were merely compressive, the upper layers should sustain higher compression. The absence of this effect suggests the entry points of airflow may exist within Earth’s lower dimensional layer.

3. Wind Marks & Patterns:
   From sand dunes to glaciers, wind leaves different geometrical traces—waves, hollows, spirals—each unique to the environment. These may represent localized dimensional flux patterns, showing where energy converts into physical airflow.

4. Marine Inconsistency:
   At sea, large sections experience no wind, while nearby regions have intense bursts. This may correspond to inactive or suppressed dimensional nodes over oceans and active gateways over land.

5. Sensory Paradox:
   Humans cannot see air, only its consequences. Like sound waves or light outside visible spectra, air may contain unseen structured patterns that our perception can’t decode—supporting the idea that air exists in an overlapping energetic frequency, not a single-state medium.

---

Theoretical Framework

I propose that Earth is surrounded by an invisible lattice of energy layers that intersect with our three-dimensional world. At specific nodes—whether natural or cosmic—energy from adjacent dimensions interacts with our environment, manifesting as motion, flow, or “air.”

This energy, when entering our observable range, degrades from a structured to an unstructured state, losing visible form but retaining kinetic properties.
Hence:

“Air” is not a constant substance but a dimensional phenomenon expressed as continuous energy leakage through Earth’s energetic lattice.

The apparent randomness of wind is thus a projection of deeper-dimensional order—similar to how radio waves are invisible but structured, awaiting a receiver tuned to their frequency.

---

Hypothesis Summary

• Airflow originates from multiple unseen dimensional gateways rather than atmospheric pressure alone.

• Each gateway emits Kinetic-Dimensional Energy, which upon entering our dimension, loses visible structure and manifests as wind or breeze.

• Variations in air behavior (altitude, temperature, geography) result from the strength or suppression of these gateways.

• The uneven wind distribution across deserts, seas, and mountains represents the surface patterns of this deeper dimensional interaction.

---

Philosophical Note

Religious verses often mention a veil placed upon humans, preventing them from seeing the realities surrounding them. Another verse says, “How many of the signs of your Lord will you deny?”
In this context, air may itself be one such hidden sign—a constant reminder of unseen mechanisms sustaining life, existing between seen and unseen realms.

If humans could perceive the full spectrum of energy surrounding them, perhaps we would no longer experience “wind” as invisible pressure but as moving streams of structured, living energy—each carrying the fingerprint of creation itself.

---

Closing Statement

This theory is not a rejection of established physics but an expansion of it. It calls for experimental physicists to examine localized air anomalies, magnetic flux disturbances, and energy gradients near wind-intensive regions to test for extra-dimensional consistency.

Whether accepted or not, one fact remains: we feel the air, we live within it, and yet we don’t know what it truly is.
Until that is understood, our understanding of the physical world remains half-complete.

— Haroon Khan
Independent Theorist, Observer of Perceptual & Dimensional Physics

The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis.pdf

Mr Ockham, cleanup in Aisle Four.

4 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

For centuries, wind and air have been attributed to atmospheric pressure, temperature gradients, and Earth’s rotation. Yet, even with these explanations, gaps remain...

I blame the butterflies. All that flapping.

Seriously, you toss out pressure and temperature variations that are easily testable and observable for some kind of extra-dimensional hocus pocus? Also, you put this in a mainstream section so please don't bring up religion.

Do you have any mainstream scientific support for this? If you don't, we'll need to move this to Speculations.

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Seriously, you toss out pressure and temperature variations that are easily testable and observable for some kind of extra-dimensional hocus pocus? Also, you put this in a mainstream section so please don't bring up religion.

Do you have any mainstream scientific support for this? If you don't, we'll need to move this to Speculations.

I understand your point, and I completely respect that everyone approaches such ideas through their own framework.

My mention of the divine reference isn’t meant to impose belief, but simply to recognize that throughout history, many scientific explorations began as intuitive or philosophical observations before they became formally measurable.

However, I wouldn’t describe this as speculation - it’s a theory derived from consistent reasoning and observation. Every scientific principle we now consider “mainstream” once began as a challenge to existing interpretation. My approach doesn’t reject measurable physics like pressure or temperature; it simply questions whether these factors tell the whole story, or if there’s an overlooked dynamic at play.

I’m open to discussion and critique - that’s how theories evolve. But labeling new ideas as “speculation” before examining their logic only repeats the same cycle that once delayed progress for earlier thinkers.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Mr Ockham, cleanup in Aisle Four.

I blame the butterflies. All that flapping.

Haha, fair point - if butterflies are to blame, they might be operating through micro-dimensional turbulence!

I’ll keep an eye on “Aisle Four,” though - that’s probably where the next anomaly shows up. 😄

5 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I understand your point, and I completely respect that everyone approaches such ideas through their own framework.

My mention of the divine reference isn’t meant to impose belief, but simply to recognize that throughout history, many scientific explorations began as intuitive or philosophical observations before they became formally measurable.

Then you need to come up with a way to measure it. That hurdle must be overcome before you move on, rather than treating it as a trifle to be solved later.

5 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

However, I wouldn’t describe this as speculation - it’s a theory derived from consistent reasoning and observation. Every scientific principle we now consider “mainstream” once began as a challenge to existing interpretation. My approach doesn’t reject measurable physics like pressure or temperature; it simply questions whether these factors tell the whole story, or if there’s an overlooked dynamic at play.

It’s not a theory without a model and a way to falsify it. Theory has a specific meaning in science, and it doesn’t equate to conjecture or guess.

5 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I’m open to discussion and critique - that’s how theories evolve. But labeling new ideas as “speculation” before examining their logic only repeats the same cycle that once delayed progress for earlier thinkers.

Earlier thinkers weren’t posting here. We have a reasonably clear description of what belongs in speculations.

6 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

Abstract

For centuries, wind and air have been attributed to atmospheric pressure, temperature gradients, and Earth’s rotation. Yet, even with these explanations, gaps remain. Why do winds behave inconsistently across regions and altitudes? Why does air thin with height if “pressure” is its cause, and why do certain regions—desert plains, open seas, glaciers—show unique, unrepeatable wind signatures?

This paper proposes a new interpretation: that air and wind may not solely originate from within Earth’s atmosphere but enter our observable dimension through invisible energetic gateways or dimensional nodes. These nodes release what I define as Kinetic-Dimensional Energy—an unseen but interactive layer of motion that, once crossing into our dimension, loses its structured form and becomes what we experience as “air movement.”

---

Introduction

We can feel the wind, we can hear it, and we can measure its impact—but we cannot see its origin. Science defines air as a mixture of gases moved by differences in temperature and pressure. Yet, pressure and temperature themselves are effects—not causes.

When we ascend to higher altitudes, air becomes thinner and pressure decreases. Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish. Similarly, vast oceanic regions lack wind activity while deserts overflow with violent gusts. This inconsistency implies that something else—beyond known physics—may be influencing the local creation and disappearance of airflow.

---

Observations & Logical Points

1. Uneven Wind Distribution:
   At equal latitudes, some areas experience constant wind while others remain still. Atmospheric models fail to explain micro-regional variations that appear random yet repeat over decades.

2. Altitude Paradox:
   Air density decreases with height. Yet, if “air pressure” were merely compressive, the upper layers should sustain higher compression. The absence of this effect suggests the entry points of airflow may exist within Earth’s lower dimensional layer.

3. Wind Marks & Patterns:
   From sand dunes to glaciers, wind leaves different geometrical traces—waves, hollows, spirals—each unique to the environment. These may represent localized dimensional flux patterns, showing where energy converts into physical airflow.

4. Marine Inconsistency:
   At sea, large sections experience no wind, while nearby regions have intense bursts. This may correspond to inactive or suppressed dimensional nodes over oceans and active gateways over land.

5. Sensory Paradox:
   Humans cannot see air, only its consequences. Like sound waves or light outside visible spectra, air may contain unseen structured patterns that our perception can’t decode—supporting the idea that air exists in an overlapping energetic frequency, not a single-state medium.

---

Theoretical Framework

I propose that Earth is surrounded by an invisible lattice of energy layers that intersect with our three-dimensional world. At specific nodes—whether natural or cosmic—energy from adjacent dimensions interacts with our environment, manifesting as motion, flow, or “air.”

This energy, when entering our observable range, degrades from a structured to an unstructured state, losing visible form but retaining kinetic properties.
Hence:

“Air” is not a constant substance but a dimensional phenomenon expressed as continuous energy leakage through Earth’s energetic lattice.

The apparent randomness of wind is thus a projection of deeper-dimensional order—similar to how radio waves are invisible but structured, awaiting a receiver tuned to their frequency.

---

Hypothesis Summary

• Airflow originates from multiple unseen dimensional gateways rather than atmospheric pressure alone.

• Each gateway emits Kinetic-Dimensional Energy, which upon entering our dimension, loses visible structure and manifests as wind or breeze.

• Variations in air behavior (altitude, temperature, geography) result from the strength or suppression of these gateways.

• The uneven wind distribution across deserts, seas, and mountains represents the surface patterns of this deeper dimensional interaction.

---

Philosophical Note

Religious verses often mention a veil placed upon humans, preventing them from seeing the realities surrounding them. Another verse says, “How many of the signs of your Lord will you deny?”
In this context, air may itself be one such hidden sign—a constant reminder of unseen mechanisms sustaining life, existing between seen and unseen realms.

If humans could perceive the full spectrum of energy surrounding them, perhaps we would no longer experience “wind” as invisible pressure but as moving streams of structured, living energy—each carrying the fingerprint of creation itself.

---

Closing Statement

This theory is not a rejection of established physics but an expansion of it. It calls for experimental physicists to examine localized air anomalies, magnetic flux disturbances, and energy gradients near wind-intensive regions to test for extra-dimensional consistency.

Whether accepted or not, one fact remains: we feel the air, we live within it, and yet we don’t know what it truly is.
Until that is understood, our understanding of the physical world remains half-complete.

— Haroon Khan
Independent Theorist, Observer of Perceptual & Dimensional Physics

The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis.pdf

“Framework”, yet again.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then you need to come up with a way to measure it. That hurdle must be overcome before you move on, rather than treating it as a trifle to be solved later.

It’s not a theory without a model and a way to falsify it. Theory has a specific meaning in science, and it doesn’t equate to conjecture or guess.

Earlier thinkers weren’t posting here. We have a reasonably clear description of what belongs in speculations.

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

“Framework”, yet again.

I appreciate your comments. I understand the importance of falsifiability and measurement - those are indeed the core of scientific development. But we can’t reach that stage until a conceptual framework exists to guide what’s worth measuring. Every experiment begins with a structured thought, not a formula. My focus here is to establish that missing conceptual step - a structured hypothesis that could inspire measurable paths forward. If this is what you define as a “framework,” I’ll gladly accept that title - because every theory began as one.

3 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

  17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then you need to come up with a way to measure it. That hurdle must be overcome before you move on, rather than treating it as a trifle to be solved later.

  9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

“Framework”, yet again.

  Quote

I appreciate your comments. I understand the importance of falsifiability and measurement - those are indeed the core of scientific development. But we can’t reach that stage until a conceptual framework exists to guide what’s worth measuring. Every experiment begins with a structured thought, not a formula. My focus here is to establish that missing conceptual step - a structured hypothesis that could inspire measurable paths forward. If this is what you define as a “framework,” I’ll gladly accept that title - because every theory began as one.

I’d rather converse with a human being.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone here. I want to clarify something - I’m not presenting this theory as a finalized or proven model, but as an early conceptual framework to discuss and refine, exactly as every major scientific idea began.

It seems I’m being pushed toward the edge simply because this doesn’t fit into existing textbook categories. But the foundations of science were built by those who began before formal proof existed. Early scientists weren’t degree-holders following a structure - they were observers, thinkers, and risk-takers. They noticed something different, proposed it, and only then developed measurable models over time.

If we look back, many great theories started as conceptual - Tesla’s wireless electricity, Einstein’s early formulation of relativity and even E=mc² - these took years of refinement and critique before experimental confirmation. Dismissing a developing concept as “speculation” without exploring its logical base risks discouraging inquiry itself.

All I’m asking for is engagement with the idea - to question the logic, the gaps, or possible directions for testing - not to silence it for being new. That’s how science actually grows: by challenging what seems settled and allowing new interpretations a space to breathe.

11 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

Einstein’s early formulation of relativity and even E=mc² - these took years of refinement and critique before experimental confirmation.

Whilst I am sorry your earlier thread was closed as I has some further pertinent points to make in it, I do not expect to see such a blatant attempt to re introduce it.

In particular whilst you have made some interesting points, you are not listening to or perhaps just not acknowledging worthwhile or forum protocol points made by others.

For instance you have your history in the above quote quite the wrong way round.

Einstein's 1905 paper was the result of experimental 'confirmation' which predated it by some years.

30 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I’d rather converse with a human being.

I get it, though I hope the idea itself can still be part of the discussion. That’s how new perspectives grow.

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Whilst I am sorry your earlier thread was closed as I has some further pertinent points to make in it, I do not expect to see such a blatant attempt to re introduce it.

In particular whilst you have made some interesting points, you are not listening to or perhaps just not acknowledging worthwhile or forum protocol points made by others.

For instance you have your history in the above quote quite the wrong way round.

Einstein's 1905 paper was the result of experimental 'confirmation' which predated it by some years.

Thanks for pointing that out - and I understand your concern about keeping things within forum guidelines. My intention wasn’t to reintroduce the earlier thread inappropriately, but to clarify and refine parts that were misunderstood before.

Regarding Einstein’s 1905 work - you’re absolutely right that it built on experimental results already available, like the Michelson–Morley findings and Maxwell’s equations. My point was simply that his interpretation - the leap to special relativity - was theoretical at its core and only later validated more directly. In that sense, I was drawing a parallel between how new theoretical thinking often emerges before formal confirmation.

I genuinely appreciate the corrections and discussion. I’ll make sure to respond more directly to technical points and stay aligned with forum standards. I’m not here to challenge the rules - just to exchange ideas and learn through open dialogue.

29 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

and only later validated more directly.

Please post your sources for claiming this.

Edited October 21Oct 21 by studiot

I understand that new ideas can be challenging, especially when they step outside familiar frameworks. However, for clarity - this isn’t an unverified post; it’s a documented paper.

It has been publicly published and assigned a DOI via Figshare and ORCID under my name (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30373507).
If the concept were irrelevant or without merit, it would not have passed that stage of publication.

I welcome constructive debate on the idea itself — not personal opinions or attempts to silence discussion.
If anyone wishes to discuss the framework, I’m open to thoughtful analysis and counterpoints — that’s how theories evolve.

Edited October 21Oct 21 by haroonkhan87
URL

10 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I understand that new ideas can be challenging, especially when they step outside familiar frameworks. However, for clarity - this isn’t an unverified post; it’s a documented paper.

It has been publicly published and assigned a DOI via Figshare and ORCID under my name (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30373507).
If the concept were irrelevant or without merit, it would not have passed that stage of publication.

I welcome constructive debate on the idea itself — not personal opinions or attempts to silence discussion.
If anyone wishes to discuss the framework, I’m open to thoughtful analysis and counterpoints — that’s how theories evolve.

To whom is this addressed ?

11 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I understand that new ideas can be challenging, especially when they step outside familiar frameworks. However, for clarity - this isn’t an unverified post; it’s a documented paper.

It has been publicly published and assigned a DOI via Figshare and ORCID under my name (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30373507).
If the concept were irrelevant or without merit, it would not have passed that stage of publication.

I welcome constructive debate on the idea itself — not personal opinions or attempts to silence discussion.
If anyone wishes to discuss the framework, I’m open to thoughtful analysis and counterpoints — that’s how theories evolve.

It is also how time is wasted reading chatbot nonsense. We need to be persuaded that is not what this is.

Edited October 21Oct 21 by exchemist

The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis

The Dimensional Overlap Hypothesis:

For those still doubting credibility — even the so-called “chatbot” has its work verified and published on Authorea. Evidence is stronger than assumptions.

3 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

However, I wouldn’t describe this as speculation - it’s a theory derived from consistent reasoning and observation. Every scientific principle we now consider “mainstream” once began as a challenge to existing interpretation. My approach doesn’t reject measurable physics like pressure or temperature; it simply questions whether these factors tell the whole story, or if there’s an overlooked dynamic at play.

It's NOT a theory, as swansont pointed out. Theory has a very specific meaning in science. It's the hallmark of explanations. It doesn't get any better than theory. And theories start with hypotheses, which are then rigorously tested and observed, experiments are developed, and conclusions are used to predict further concepts. Only after there are mountains of evidence in support and not a single bit of evidence to contradict it does an idea like this start getting called a theory.

You say you're questioning whether we know the real story behind wind. I understand you may not know much about it, but what do you think mainstream science has wrong about it? Where is the mystery that science can't explain? What is lacking in our accumulated knowledge of wind? Is it simply that it sometimes behaves in an erratic fashion that resists prediction? What gaping hole does your overlooked dynamic fill?

54 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis

The Dimensional Overlap Hypothesis:

For those still doubting credibility — even the so-called “chatbot” has its work verified and published on Authorea. Evidence is stronger than assumptions.

Authorea is just a paper-writing tool.

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I appreciate the feedback from everyone here. I want to clarify something - I’m not presenting this theory as a finalized or proven model, but as an early conceptual framework to discuss and refine, exactly as every major scientific idea began.

But your "conceptual framework" is worthless simply because you don't have even the rudiments of basic physics you need to assemble one. If you don't know why air pressure decreases with altitude, for example, then it just tells everyone you skipped the most minimal amount of homework required to discourse on atmospheric physics. Similar problem when you ask,

9 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

Why do winds behave inconsistently across regions and altitudes

Well, some thermodynamics and Bernoulli's principle would have been some help with that. Not to mention how friction works, and laminar versus turbulent flow.

Exposing your ignorance, and then trying to patch it with invisible interdimensional gateways offered with no more basis than thermodynamic fairies...this is not a good way to engage with science.

2 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

has been publicly published and assigned a DOI via Figshare and ORCID under my name (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30373507).
If the concept were irrelevant or without merit, it would not have passed that stage of publication.

This is false. Figshare is an open repository, not a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Anything, including work-in-progress, can be tossed onto it. It is not vetted or edited or reviewed in any way. I can go there right now and post that cats use mental telepathy to attract birds. (I don't doubt that such open repositories have value, especially for students and non-institutional contributors, but that doesn't mean everything on there has any merit)

Ahem. I just "published" this on Figshare.

https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Feline_use_of_telepathy_in_urban_hunting/30411034

9 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

My focus here is to establish that missing conceptual step

My focus here is to make sure the rules are followed, and this is the second thread where you’ve been told that we discuss things that have reached the “science” stage, rather than the concepts of a plan stage, which is better suited to a dorm room at 2AM, possibly with chemical enhancements

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's NOT a theory, as swansont pointed out. Theory has a very specific meaning in science. It's the hallmark of explanations. It doesn't get any better than theory. And theories start with hypotheses, which are then rigorously tested and observed, experiments are developed, and conclusions are used to predict further concepts. Only after there are mountains of evidence in support and not a single bit of evidence to contradict it does an idea like this start getting called a theory.

You say you're questioning whether we know the real story behind wind. I understand you may not know much about it, but what do you think mainstream science has wrong about it? Where is the mystery that science can't explain? What is lacking in our accumulated knowledge of wind? Is it simply that it sometimes behaves in an erratic fashion that resists prediction? What gaping hole does your overlooked dynamic fill?

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

But your "conceptual framework" is worthless simply because you don't have even the rudiments of basic physics you need to assemble one. If you don't know why air pressure decreases with altitude, for example, then it just tells everyone you skipped the most minimal amount of homework required to discourse on atmospheric physics. Similar problem when you ask,

Well, some thermodynamics and Bernoulli's principle would have been some help with that. Not to mention how friction works, and laminar versus turbulent flow.

Exposing your ignorance, and then trying to patch it with invisible interdimensional gateways offered with no more basis than thermodynamic fairies...this is not a good way to engage with science.

This is false. Figshare is an open repository, not a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Anything, including work-in-progress, can be tossed onto it. It is not vetted or edited or reviewed in any way. I can go there right now and post that cats use mental telepathy to attract birds. (I don't doubt that such open repositories have value, especially for students and non-institutional contributors, but that doesn't mean everything on there has any merit)

Ahem. I just "published" this on Figshare.

https://figshare.com/articles/preprint/Feline_use_of_telepathy_in_urban_hunting/30411034

4 hours ago, swansont said:

My focus here is to make sure the rules are followed, and this is the second thread where you’ve been told that we discuss things that have reached the “science” stage, rather than the concepts of a plan stage, which is better suited to a dorm room at 2AM, possibly with chemical enhancements

As the scienceforum.net itself states: “You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model.” Nowhere does it say that ideas must be presented only at a fully finalized stage — conceptual frameworks and early-stage theories are welcome for discussion.

Let me clarify a few points for anyone still questioning the credibility or relevance of this work.

1. Authorea and ORCID Verification

My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, has been publicly published on Authorea and assigned a DOI via ORCID. Authorea is a legitimate platform for drafting, collaboration, and preprint publication within the scientific community, and ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit providing persistent identifiers for researchers. The DOI ensures authorship and establishes traceable contribution - this is verifiable by anyone. If there is doubt, you can check the record yourself; it is fully transparent.

2. Conceptual Stage vs. Finalized Science

Science always begins with ideas. No major discovery was presented fully formed with equations, experiments, and proofs on day one. Newton observed an apple drop and formulated the theory of gravity - he was mocked for it. Tesla proposed wireless electricity concepts long before devices could implement them. Einstein’s 1905 work built on earlier experimental confirmations, and even then his insights were debated before acceptance. To dismiss a conceptual framework at the idea stage ignores how every authentic scientific progression begins.

3. Historical Precedent

The first genuine theorists, from Thales of Miletus to Aristotle, worked in ways that parallel this process:

• Thales (c. 624–545 BCE) proposed that water is the fundamental element of the cosmos - a rational, non-mythological explanation. He lacked formal experimentation as we define it today.

• Aristotle (384–322 BCE) systematically observed nature, classified animals, and developed physics and metaphysics. His approach was logical and structured, even without modern experimentation or quantification.

The lesson is clear: major theories always start with observation and reasoning, then evolve through testing and formalization.

4. The Theory in Context

My work proposes that air and wind may not be fully explained by conventional atmospheric physics alone. Instead, I introduce the concept of Kinetic-Dimensional Energy entering our observable dimension through energetic nodes. Variations in wind behavior, altitude inconsistencies, and unique environmental patterns may reflect interactions with this underlying dimensional lattice.

5. Relation to Modern Theoretical Physics

Extra dimensions and interactions beyond our perception are already part of theoretical physics discussions:

• String Theory/M-Theory suggests additional spatial dimensions that are compactified or warped.

• Concepts like “portals” in these models describe points where fields or particles from hidden dimensions might interact with ours.

• The idea of energy leakage or dimensional influence is not rejected outright by theoretical frameworks; it simply lacks experimental confirmation, as do many frontier physics hypotheses.

My theory extends these ideas into observable phenomena (wind patterns, airflow inconsistencies) in a way that can be explored further experimentally. If theories like M-Theory or relativity can start from conceptual reasoning and mathematical inference, why is it invalid to explore an idea in atmospheric behavior using a similar approach?

6. The Core Argument

The focus should be on evaluating the logical consistency and potential of the hypothesis, rather than dismissing it for not yet having fully measurable proofs or textbook familiarity. Open discussion, critique, and experimentation are what allow new ideas to evolve into established science - exactly as history has repeatedly shown.

In conclusion: the paper is publicly documented, verifiable, and intended as a framework for discussion. Critique is welcome, but dismissal based on procedural technicalities rather than reasoning does not advance understanding.

If after all this detailed explanation you still reject it, then the issue is not with the theory - it’s with me, because I don’t come from your textbook culture. But let me give an example: some read textbooks to gain knowledge, while others create knowledge that later gets printed in textbooks. The choice is always yours which side you want to stand on.

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

As the scienceforum.net itself states: “You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model.” Nowhere does it say that ideas must be presented only at a fully finalized stage — conceptual frameworks and early-stage theories are welcome for discussion.

Let me clarify a few points for anyone still questioning the credibility or relevance of this work.

1. Authorea and ORCID Verification

My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, has been publicly published on Authorea and assigned a DOI via ORCID. Authorea is a legitimate platform for drafting, collaboration, and preprint publication within the scientific community, and ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit providing persistent identifiers for researchers. The DOI ensures authorship and establishes traceable contribution - this is verifiable by anyone. If there is doubt, you can check the record yourself; it is fully transparent.

2. Conceptual Stage vs. Finalized Science

Science always begins with ideas. No major discovery was presented fully formed with equations, experiments, and proofs on day one. Newton observed an apple drop and formulated the theory of gravity - he was mocked for it. Tesla proposed wireless electricity concepts long before devices could implement them. Einstein’s 1905 work built on earlier experimental confirmations, and even then his insights were debated before acceptance. To dismiss a conceptual framework at the idea stage ignores how every authentic scientific progression begins.

3. Historical Precedent

The first genuine theorists, from Thales of Miletus to Aristotle, worked in ways that parallel this process:

• Thales (c. 624–545 BCE) proposed that water is the fundamental element of the cosmos - a rational, non-mythological explanation. He lacked formal experimentation as we define it today.

• Aristotle (384–322 BCE) systematically observed nature, classified animals, and developed physics and metaphysics. His approach was logical and structured, even without modern experimentation or quantification.

The lesson is clear: major theories always start with observation and reasoning, then evolve through testing and formalization.

4. The Theory in Context

My work proposes that air and wind may not be fully explained by conventional atmospheric physics alone. Instead, I introduce the concept of Kinetic-Dimensional Energy entering our observable dimension through energetic nodes. Variations in wind behavior, altitude inconsistencies, and unique environmental patterns may reflect interactions with this underlying dimensional lattice.

5. Relation to Modern Theoretical Physics

Extra dimensions and interactions beyond our perception are already part of theoretical physics discussions:

• String Theory/M-Theory suggests additional spatial dimensions that are compactified or warped.

• Concepts like “portals” in these models describe points where fields or particles from hidden dimensions might interact with ours.

• The idea of energy leakage or dimensional influence is not rejected outright by theoretical frameworks; it simply lacks experimental confirmation, as do many frontier physics hypotheses.

My theory extends these ideas into observable phenomena (wind patterns, airflow inconsistencies) in a way that can be explored further experimentally. If theories like M-Theory or relativity can start from conceptual reasoning and mathematical inference, why is it invalid to explore an idea in atmospheric behavior using a similar approach?

6. The Core Argument

The focus should be on evaluating the logical consistency and potential of the hypothesis, rather than dismissing it for not yet having fully measurable proofs or textbook familiarity. Open discussion, critique, and experimentation are what allow new ideas to evolve into established science - exactly as history has repeatedly shown.

In conclusion: the paper is publicly documented, verifiable, and intended as a framework for discussion. Critique is welcome, but dismissal based on procedural technicalities rather than reasoning does not advance understanding.

If after all this detailed explanation you still reject it, then the issue is not with the theory - it’s with me, because I don’t come from your textbook culture. But let me give an example: some read textbooks to gain knowledge, while others create knowledge that later gets printed in textbooks. The choice is always yours which side you want to stand on.

Oh dear. This is verging on the delusional. The first requirement for anyone proposing a new hypothesis is to understand the current science beforehand and identify its shortcomings. You quite obviously don't understand physics and have not carried out this essential first step. For example, you have not even stopped to find out why the atmosphere thins with height. You have just assumed that, because you personally don't understand why, then nobody does, and then have gone on to propose your own idea about it. Here, though, is the reason, from the UK National Physical Laboratory: https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/q-a/atmospheric-altitude-pressure-changes You could have found that out in about 30 seconds, if you had bothered to look it up.

There is also this thing called Ockham's Razor. Science employs this principle implicitly. You don't introduce strange new entities, like your extra dimensions, when you can explain atmospheric phenomena perfectly well without them.

It is unlikely that people who know some science will take you seriously when you display such failure to find out what science already says before putting forward your home-made alternatives. Nobody owes you a hearing: you have to earn it, by showing where the current science fails and how your hypothesis is an improvement.

As for this stuff about your ideas having been "published", the web resources you mention don't check anything. They are just tools to help researchers. As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" any old rubbish on them. They tell you nothing at all about the credibility of the material.

Actually, though, I wonder whether perhaps your real motivation may be religious, not scientific. What you (or your AI) has written feels as if you are trying to find a way to introduce the Koranic concept of the "veil" into science. It is quite a nice metaphor for the way that science uses successively improved models of the physical world, as it gropes its way towards an ever better picture of reality. (In Christianity St. Paul has much the same idea, with a different metaphor: "Now we see through a glass, darkly".) But don't let religious ideas lead you into the error of trying to introduce obscure and unnecessary concepts into science, to account for things that can explained already without them. The job of science is to demystify the natural world, not to make it more obscure.

28 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Oh dear. This is verging on the delusional. The first requirement for anyone proposing a new hypothesis is to understand the current science beforehand and identify its shortcomings. You quite obviously don't understand physics and have not carried out this essential first step. For example, you have not even stopped to find out why the atmosphere thins with height. You have just assumed that, because you personally don't understand why, then nobody does, and then have gone on to propose your own idea about it. Here, though, is the reason, from the UK National Physical Laboratory: https://www.npl.co.uk/resources/q-a/atmospheric-altitude-pressure-changes You could have found that out in about 30 seconds, if you had bothered to look it up.

There is also this thing called Ockham's Razor. Science employs this principle implicitly. You don't introduce strange new entities, like your extra dimensions, when you can explain atmospheric phenomena perfectly well without them.

It is unlikely that people who know some science will take you seriously when you display such failure to find out what science already says before putting forward your home-made alternatives. Nobody owes you a hearing: you have to earn it, by showing where the current science fails and how your hypothesis is an improvement.

As for this stuff about your ideas having been "published", the web resources you mention don't check anything. They are just tools to help researchers. As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" any old rubbish on them. They tell you nothing at all about the credibility of the material.

Actually, though, I wonder whether perhaps your real motivation may be religious, not scientific. What you (or your AI) has written feels as if you are trying to find a way to introduce the Koranic concept of the "veil" into science. It is quite a nice metaphor for the way that science uses successively improved models of the physical world, as it gropes its way towards an ever better picture of reality. (In Christianity St. Paul has much the same idea, with a different metaphor: "Now we see through a glass, darkly".) But don't let religious ideas lead you into the error of trying to introduce obscure and unnecessary concepts into science, to account for things that can explained already without them. The job of science is to demystify the natural world, not to make it more obscure.

I am fully aware of standard atmospheric physics, including thinning air with altitude. My work does not reject pressure or temperature effects — it explores whether these alone explain observed wind anomalies, like regional inconsistencies and altitude behavior. These are phenomena that standard models describe statistically, but not mechanistically, which my hypothesis addresses.

Ockham’s Razor favors simplicity, but science expands when reasoning or evidence demands it. Concepts like gravity, electromagnetism, and Higgs fields were “unnecessary” before discovery. Extra dimensions and portals are considered in modern theoretical physics (String Theory, M-Theory). Extending this framework to airflow is a valid conceptual hypothesis.

As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" anything on open repositories, but did you check ORCID’s credibility? My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, is on Authorea with a DOI via ORCID (doi: 10.22541/au.176063115.57976735/v1). ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit that provides persistent, verifiable researcher IDs. Anyone can verify authorship and timestamp. Publication there is not casual blogging, it is transparent and trackable.

All major scientific ideas begin conceptually. Newton observed the apple, Tesla proposed wireless electricity, Einstein built on experimental confirmations. Immediate formal proof is not required to present a valid hypothesis, as history consistently shows.

Acknowledging metaphors like the “veil” is not imposing religion. It illustrates limits of perception in understanding unseen phenomena. Using a Quranic reference does not replace logical reasoning — the hypothesis is based on observable, physical consequences.

Yes, I used AI to refine my writing, but it did not generate the theory itself — the ideas, reasoning, and observations are fully mine.

In conclusion: dismissing this hypothesis because it is unconventional, or because of my background, ignores history, reasoning, and verifiable publication. If after reviewing this you still reject it, the issue is not with the theory — it is with the unwillingness to engage with non-textbook approaches.

46 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I am fully aware of standard atmospheric physics, including thinning air with altitude. My work does not reject pressure or temperature effects — it explores whether these alone explain observed wind anomalies, like regional inconsistencies and altitude behavior. These are phenomena that standard models describe statistically, but not mechanistically, which my hypothesis addresses.

Ockham’s Razor favors simplicity, but science expands when reasoning or evidence demands it. Concepts like gravity, electromagnetism, and Higgs fields were “unnecessary” before discovery. Extra dimensions and portals are considered in modern theoretical physics (String Theory, M-Theory). Extending this framework to airflow is a valid conceptual hypothesis.

As @TheVat points out, you can "publish" anything on open repositories, but did you check ORCID’s credibility? My paper, The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis, is on Authorea with a DOI via ORCID (doi: 10.22541/au.176063115.57976735/v1). ORCID is a globally recognized nonprofit that provides persistent, verifiable researcher IDs. Anyone can verify authorship and timestamp. Publication there is not casual blogging, it is transparent and trackable.

All major scientific ideas begin conceptually. Newton observed the apple, Tesla proposed wireless electricity, Einstein built on experimental confirmations. Immediate formal proof is not required to present a valid hypothesis, as history consistently shows.

Acknowledging metaphors like the “veil” is not imposing religion. It illustrates limits of perception in understanding unseen phenomena. Using a Quranic reference does not replace logical reasoning — the hypothesis is based on observable, physical consequences.

Yes, I used AI to refine my writing, but it did not generate the theory itself — the ideas, reasoning, and observations are fully mine.

In conclusion: dismissing this hypothesis because it is unconventional, or because of my background, ignores history, reasoning, and verifiable publication. If after reviewing this you still reject it, the issue is not with the theory — it is with the unwillingness to engage with non-textbook approaches.

You (or your AI) wrote this in your opening post: "When we ascend to higher altitudes, air becomes thinner and pressure decreases. Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish."

If you are, as you say, aware of standard atmospheric physics, how do you reconcile that statement with the explanation I linked from the NPL as to why pressure reduces with altitude?

32 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You (or your AI) wrote this in your opening post: "When we ascend to higher altitudes, air becomes thinner and pressure decreases. Logically, if atmospheric pressure were the source of air movement, it should accumulate above, not diminish."

If you are, as you say, aware of standard atmospheric physics, how do you reconcile that statement with the explanation I linked from the NPL as to why pressure reduces with altitude?

To clarify, my earlier statement regarding air thinning with altitude was not meant to dispute standard atmospheric physics. I fully recognize that air pressure decreases with height due to gravity and the weight of the air column above.

The point I am raising is about gaps in explaining localized wind behavior:

Certain deserts, seas, or high-altitude regions display highly variable or unique wind patterns despite similar pressure and temperature gradients.

Micro-regional wind signatures often repeat over decades, but conventional models cannot fully predict or explain them.

The Dimensional Airflow Hypothesis does not reject the known physics of pressure, temperature, or atmospheric dynamics. Instead, it supplements them with the idea of Kinetic-Dimensional Energy entering through energetic nodes, which could account for the irregularities and unexplained variations in airflow.

Put simply: the classical models explain some of what we observe, but not all. My framework aims to explore the aspects that remain unaccounted for. This approach is in line with how major scientific ideas historically began — with conceptual reasoning and observation, before formal modeling and experimentation.

The goal here is discussion and exploration, not denial of fundamentals. If we focus only on established explanations, we risk ignoring phenomena that may point toward a broader understanding.