Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MichaelMD on 28/06/2021 14:15:24
-
I recently posted comments in another Thread, on the topic of "what kinds of particles are there?" Here I might use my own Thread to add some clarification to the theory I proposed there, i.e., that physicists are following the wrong pathway in how they are investigating various "particles" - quarks, Higgs bosons, etc., and trying to fit their laboratory findings into the real world of electrons, photons, and atoms.
I propose that there are many kinds of what might be termed "unit moieties," but that what is important to one's understanding is to focus on what could have happened when certain unit moieties formed naturally (I further propose, were formed creationally) not what is produced under laboratory conditions or in an accelerator.
In previous threads here, I present a detailed model based on the existence of a universal underlying ether, which preceded our atomically structured world. I propose that etheric forces were used to produce larger quantum atomic units, by a process in which the vibrations of minuscule ether units become aligned and entrained, forming larger and larger units.
What I propose is the real key is to appreciate how etheric forces acted, how electrons, protons and neutrons formed, and then could have interacted to produce atomic moieties, via a natural chain-reactional process.
When one hears that a "new particle" has been discovered under artificial laboratory conditions, my response is "so what?' What is important is what happened naturally.
-
When one hears that a "new particle" has been discovered under artificial laboratory conditions, my response is "so what?' What is important is what happened naturally.
Particle accelerators mimic what has happened naturally. Immensely energetic particle collisions that would have dwarfed our best accelerators would have happened soon after the Big Bang, producing not only the exotic particles we see in our accelerators, but surely also ones that we haven't seen yet.
-
If you check into my past threads, I gave an alternative model of first cause (alternative to a Big Bang.) In my model our universe originated creationally. A sapient Entity projected electrons (the smallest and fastest quantum units( toward a "virgin" ether region, which initiated a chain reactional process in the ether, in which ether units reacted to the linear paths of the electrons by aligning their vibrations, which in turn caused the small units in the ether to entrain forming larger units like protons and neutrons. This was a self-sustaining chain-reactional process that resulted in the formation of atoms.
Use of the electron photon unit bin creating the universe meant that its velocity (the speed of light) would remain as the highest speed limit in our universe for quantum/atomic entities like us.
-
It still doesn't matter. The energies humans can generate in particle accelerators are nothing compared to what some things in the Universe can do.
-
A sapient Entity projected electrons (the smallest and fastest quantum units( toward a "virgin" ether region, which initiated a chain reactional process in the ether, in which ether units reacted to the linear paths of the electrons by [bla bla bla bla]
Let me guess, you can't do math, you can't do freshman physics problems and your education consists of watching YouTube. But you have the answers to every question, they're nonsense but they are answers.
-
A sapient Entity projected electrons (the smallest and fastest quantum units( toward a "virgin" ether region, which initiated a chain reactional process in the ether, in which ether units reacted to the linear paths of the electrons by [bla bla bla bla]
Let me guess, you can't do math, you can't do freshman physics problems and your education consists of watching YouTube. But you have the answers to every question, they're nonsense but they are answers.
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether, we will never start asking the ,right questions to realize the Big Bang theory is leading us down all the wrong roads..
-
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether, we will never start asking the ,right questions to realize the Big Bang theory is leading us down all the wrong roads.
My guess was right.
-
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether,
I could use a laugh.
What is this "ether" and what does it do?
What are its properties, how do we observe them?
Incidentally, your ideas were wrong here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52622.msg442701#msg442701
and they have not improved.
-
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether
Why would they acknowledge something that experimentation has failed to find?
-
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether
Why would they acknowledge something that experimentation has failed to find?
The "evidence" most cited by physics to dismiss the ether is the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX), which used optical measurements of the behavior of light beams, observed under different gravity settings relative to the rotational motion of Earth. It was assumed that any kind of ether would interact with the light waves, as a sort of "etheric medium," affecting the behavior of the beams as measured optically under different gravity settings. -A "null" result was obtained, and physics has referred to this ever since as "proof" an ether does not exist. Since then,, other experimenters have repeated MMX with various modifications (other than varying gravity settings). Physics has continued to consider MMX experiments as showing there is no ether.
However,the ether model I have presented in my threads here would have it that all the MMX experiments share one key basic false assumption - that any kind of ether would interact with the light beams under observation. -With my ether model, the kind of ether I propose is composed of "elemental," vanishingly-small, vibrational units, which arose universally and first-causally. Later on, the extremely-minuscule ether units formed larger and larger units (up to the size of atoms), as linear motions within it aligned the vibrations of the elemental units, causing them to entrain with each other, producing larger and larger units, including the photons that transmit visible light beams.
In this ether model, the post-first-causal elemental ether units are so small, they have no inertial interface with much larger units such as photons. -So in MMX, there is no interaction between these ether units, as any sort of "medium," and the photons in the light beams being measured. -The light beams and the ether units cannot interact the way MMX assumes. -One can imagine this as similar to a motorcar ("photon") passing through a cloud of dust. The dust particles (ether units) are simply brushed aside without being affected.
With my ether model, the MMX's "classic evidence" cited by physics against an ether does not hold.
-
It was assumed that any kind of ether would interact with the light waves, as a sort of "etheric medium,"
Let's be clear about this.
They were talking about the "luminiferous ether".
The whole point of the ether was that it was something for light (and other EM radiation) to interact with.
So, they were, of course, perfectly correct to make that "assumption".
The "assumption" was true by definition.
Maybe it would be better if you actually answered this
I could use a laugh.
What is this "ether" and what does it do?
What are its properties, how do we observe them?
observed under different gravity settings
Not really.
Gravity is pretty near instant on the Earth's surface and it's very near constant at any particular point.
(other than varying gravity settings)
The MMX has essentially nothing to do with gravity.
However,the ether model I have presented in my threads here would have it that all the MMX experiments share one key basic false assumption - that any kind of ether would interact with the light beams under observation.
As I said; that's what the ether is "for". It was invented to interact with light- and subsequently found to be unnecessary.
With my ether model, the kind of ether I propose is composed of "elemental," vanishingly-small, vibrational units, which arose universally and first-causally.
That's word salad.
All you have done is invent something for which there is no evidence, and then muddy the water by naming it after something that doesn't exist.
Why?
-
It was assumed that any kind of ether would interact with the light waves, as a sort of "etheric medium,"
Let's be clear about this.
They were talking about the "luminiferous ether".
The whole point of the ether was that it was something for light (and other EM radiation) to interact with.
So, they were, of course, perfectly correct to make that "assumption".
The "assumption" was true by definition.
Maybe it would be better if you actually answered this
I could use a laugh.
What is this "ether" and what does it do?
What are its properties, how do we observe them?
observed under different gravity settings
Not really.
Gravity is pretty near instant on the Earth's surface and it's very near constant at any particular point.
(other than varying gravity settings)
The MMX has essentially nothing to do with gravity.
However,the ether model I have presented in my threads here would have it that all the MMX experiments share one key basic false assumption - that any kind of ether would interact with the light beams under observation.
As I said; that's what the ether is "for". It was invented to interact with light- and subsequently found to be unnecessary.
With my ether model, the kind of ether I propose is composed of "elemental," vanishingly-small, vibrational units, which arose universally and first-causally.
That's word salad.
All you have done is invent something for which there is no evidence, and then muddy the water by naming it after something that doesn't exist.
Why?
To make my point about MMX evidence as brief and simple as possible, it is that an ether composed predominantly of ultra-ultra-small elemental units compared to the size of photons, would have no inertial interface with the light beams that were measured. This kind of ether would not interact with light beams. So I reiterate, MMX does not disprove ether.
-
This kind of ether would not interact with light beams.
If it is something which does not do what the ether did, why do you call it "ether"?
-
With my ether model, the MMX's "classic evidence" cited by physics against an ether does not hold.
Still, why would science acknowledge something that experimental evidence doesn't exist for? Failing to disprove something is not the same thing as finding evidence that it exists.
This kind of ether would not interact with light beams.
Then, by definition, it isn't aether.
-
With my ether model, the MMX's "classic evidence" cited by physics against an ether does not hold.
Still, why would science acknowledge something that experimental evidence doesn't exist for? Failing to disprove something is not the same thing as finding evidence that it exists.
This kind of ether would not interact with light beams.
Then, by definition, it isn't aether.
Experimental evidence doesn't exist for ether because physicists have a consensus model of quantum physics that wrongly dismisses an ether based on misinterpretation of tests that were conducted in past years, particularly the sets of experiments called the Michelson Morley experiments, and which I have pointed out already in this Thread, would not disprove an ether of the type I propose does exist.
If the mainstream were to become interested in my ether model, things could change, and such testing for an ether could be done, but that would require a shift in basic concepts in mainstream physics that has not happened up to now.
-
Experimental evidence doesn't exist for ether because physicists have a consensus model of quantum physics that wrongly dismisses an ether based on misinterpretation of tests that were conducted in past years, particularly the sets of experiments called the Michelson Morley experiments, and which I have pointed out already in this Thread, would not disprove an ether of the type I propose does exist.
Still, why would science acknowledge something that experimental evidence doesn't exist for? Failing to disprove something is not the same thing as finding evidence that it exists.
-
Experimental evidence doesn't exist for ether because physicists have a consensus model of quantum physics that wrongly dismisses an ether based on misinterpretation of tests that were conducted in past years, particularly the sets of experiments called the Michelson Morley experiments, and which I have pointed out already in this Thread, would not disprove an ether of the type I propose does exist.
Still, why would science acknowledge something that experimental evidence doesn't exist for? Failing to disprove something is not the same thing as finding evidence that it exists.
From the standpoint of my ether model, the predominant ether units are post-first-causal, "elemental," and almost vanishingly small, even compared to the smallest quantum scale units, thus our quantum physics technologies fail to pick it up due to the vast difference in size scale of the units involved
-
would not disprove an ether of the type I propose does exist.
This kind of ether would not interact with light beams.
If it is something which does not do what the ether did, why do you call it "ether"?
-
thus our quantum physics technologies fail to pick it up
So then we have no reason to acknowledge it.
-
thus our quantum physics technologies fail to pick it up
So then we have no reason to acknowledge it.
Your statement that since experimentation has not yet been done (other than Michelson Morley type procedures), that therefore we have no reason to acknowledge it, is a different interpretation than mine.
I submit that my model of the ether, and of its origin in related first causal events (versus Big Bang and other first-causal models) makes the most sense, logically, and that should be enough reason to give it serious consideration.
If someone else's judgment about this differs from mine, it doesn't change my opinion.
-
Your statement that since experimentation has not yet been done (other than Michelson Morley type procedures), that therefore we have no reason to acknowledge it, is a different interpretation than mine.
That's how science works. You do experiments and perform observations in order to test your models. If you haven't done that, you don't have scientific evidence to support the model.
I submit that my model of the ether, and of its origin in related first causal events (versus Big Bang and other first-causal models) makes the most sense, logically, and that should be enough reason to give it serious consideration.
Giving something serious consideration is not the same thing as accepting it as true.