Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MichaelMD on 15/11/2021 13:40:50
-
A new model to account for creation can be outlined based on the existence of a universal ether. -I submit that, if an ether exists, it must be universal, and if so, it would have to have originated first-causally as part of a process that occurred uniformly throughout the universe.
At present, physics denies the existence of an ether. Their denial of ether dates to the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment in 1887, in which the behavior of light-beams, that were subjected to different gravity-settings relative to earth's rotation, was measured, using optical instruments. (It was expected that light beams would have to interact with any type of ether, and that this could be detected optically.) The result of MMX was "null," or negative, and ever since, physics has pointed to this as proof that an ether does not exist.
My alternative model, based on an ether, proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, and is composed of individual first-causal units that are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside," like a motorcar passes through a cloud of dust, without interacting, inertially, with the dust particles (ether units). -This would invalidate the key assumption in MMX, that a light beam must interact inertially with any possible type of underlying ether.
(In my "origin" ether-model, what existed first was original space, which was extremely self-compatible, so that super-rarified, original, or elemental, point-localities were oscillating in reciprocity with each other everywhere. Then, oscillatory fatigue set in (oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals, for example), which caused neighboring "points" to move toward each other and combine into doubled-up "Yin and Yang" couplets, in a process in which oscillation of units transitioned to a vibration, in which the units now could interact with each other, as their vibrations came into contact. -In my Model, what happened next was that wherever a pair of Yin Yang doubled units contacted one another, their matching vibrations locked them together in a four-unit tetrad. -This kind of model would then be a template for how ever-larger units formed in the ether, all the way up to the size of quantum units and atoms.
One can compare this kind of model with the standard model of physics, based on a "Big Bang," followed by large numbers of "solid particles," including a key particle called the Higgs boson, all of which lacks any sequence of logical steps such as this ether model outlines.
Just one example of how this ether model is able to deal with questions in physics is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (QE). In my model, QE represents radiating packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units (not the larger matched-up units) are the only actual participants in QE, with the (so-called"entangled") quantum units "walled off," as discrete entities, like the cooler "arms" of a quiet, purring, universal, ether mechanism.
It's important to note here that these quantum units, like all larger units, had been originally formed through the combination of etheric "building block" units. That is how they are still able to interact, vibrationally, with ether units surrounding them in the universal ether matrix.
As for how Creation would fit into this model, it's proposed that, following an initial "first world," in which etheric forces were appearing, there existed radiating fluxes of etheric forces everywhere, and eventually, forces that were more linear, produced (through a process of linear alignment of etheric vibrations) entrainment into larger units, up to atomic sizes. This in turn produced solid moieties. As glancing ether radiations began reverberating around one such "cosmic egg" kind of moiety, the energies produced an intelligent Entity capable of initiating creational processes. -By sending quantum electrons through the ether, the linear paths of the electrons aligned the vibrations in the ether, producing the protons, neutrons, and atoms of our universe..
-
The entire post is meaningless word salad. Why would you even post this ridiculous mish mash of random sciency sounding words devoid of any coherent content?
-
proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, and is composed of individual first-causal units that are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside,
You are proposing an ether that isn't the ether.
Why are you doing that?
Do you not realise that words have meanings?
-
proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, and is composed of individual first-causal units that are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside,
You are proposing an ether that isn't the ether.
Why are you doing that?
Do you not realise that words have meanings?
To add one more reason to seriously consider my Ether Model, I would propose re-thinking the question of the nature of Time. The question of the true nature of Time has been an ongoing controversy for a long time. A few fairly well-known theorists have even suggested abolishing the idea that Time exists at all.
If you generally-review my Ether Model, it is based on the concept of a first-causal state that existed everywhere (i.e., it transitioned from an initial universal state that originally existed in Space, of symmetrical point-oscillation) ether composed of individual ether units that vibrate (rather than oscillate.)
to apply this model to the question of the nature of Time, it is that Time represents a Rate, specifically the rate of vibration of the units of the ether, because such an ether must exist, and exert its influence, everywhere, both inside and outside everything.
-
proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, and is composed of individual first-causal units that are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside,
You are proposing an ether that isn't the ether.
Why are you doing that?
Do you not realise that words have meanings?
To add one more reason to seriously consider my Ether Model, I would propose re-thinking the question of the nature of Time. The question of the true nature of Time has been an ongoing controversy for a long time. A few fairly well-known theorists have even suggested abolishing the idea that Time exists at all.
If you generally-review my Ether Model, it is based on the concept of a first-causal state that existed everywhere (i.e., it transitioned from an initial universal state that originally existed in Space, of symmetrical point-oscillation) ether composed of individual ether units that vibrate (rather than oscillate.)
to apply this model to the question of the nature of Time, it is that Time represents a Rate, specifically the rate of vibration of the units of the ether, because such an ether must exist, and exert its influence, everywhere, both inside and outside everything.
The entire post is meaningless word salad. Why would you even post this ridiculous mish mash of random sciency sounding words devoid of any coherent content?
-
After a number of posts, I might go through two topics that I consider most-key to understanding how my Ether Model out-performs the "no ether" consensus model of quantum physics - quantum entanglement and the nature of Time.
With my ether model, quantum entanglement (QE) represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern.. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in the QE phenomenon, whereas the pair of quantum units in question are, as far as their energy-dynamics as unit-moieties, kinetically "walled off," like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, universal, ether mechanism.
Important to note in the model is that the quantum units were originally formed by identical "building block" elemental ether units, which is why they are still ,able to react, vibrationally in QE, with the ether units all around them in the ether matrix.
The question of the nature of Time is still not agreed upon by theorists. -In my ether model, Time represents a Rate, specifically the rate of vibration of the ether units comprising the universal ether matrix, because the ether is everywhere, both inside and outside of everything.
-
etheric energy
You need to provide experimental evidence of these.
Without them, you might as well say "the fairies make it work"
-
etheric energy
You need to provide experimental evidence of these.
Without them, you might as well say "the fairies make it work"
For a theoretic model like my Ether Model, physical experimentation (which would require financing) would have to come after serious consideration of it by science.
So far, the physics consensus has been inflexible in dismissing the ether-concept. About all that's left, for someone advocating a major alternative to a major stance of the Consensus, is to post on the Internet, as I have been doing.
-
the physics consensus has been inflexible in dismissing the ether-concept
Not really.
Here's a list of the experiments put into showing that ether isn't real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments
It's not as if science simply dismissed it; they puta lot of effort into showing that the ether is not real.
And then you come along and say that they are all wrong.
And when I ask for evidence about that, I get this hogwash.
physical experimentation (which would require financing) would have to come after serious consideration of it by science.
Well, science did seriously consider it.
That's why nobody would fund your ideas.
-
the physics consensus has been inflexible in dismissing the ether-concept
Not really.
Here's a list of the experiments put into showing that ether isn't real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments
It's not as if science simply dismissed it; they puta lot of effort into showing that the ether is not real.
And then you come along and say that they are all wrong.
And when I ask for evidence about that, I get this hogwash.
physical experimentation (which would require financing) would have to come after serious consideration of it by science.
Well, science did seriously consider it.
That's why nobody would fund your ideas.
Regarding evidence used to dismiss the ether,Science has yet to entertain my Ether Model, which would represent a completely rational basis for a universal ether to exist.
In my Model, a universal ether arose as part of a a first-causal world-setting, in which ultimately-rarified, "elemental," point-localities transitioned, from oscillating reciprocally with all other "points," to vibrating independently, and interacting with each other, via vibratory contact. This all occurred in a pre-quantum world-setting, and the ultimate kind of diminutiveness of those "points" was, and is, much too small to mentally-grasp from the perspective of scientists accustomed to thinking in terms of size-scales of the energy units seen in quantum physics.
When Michelson and Morley ran their experiment in 1887, and got a "null" result for the existence of an ether, they assumed that any type of ether would necessarily have to interact with the visible light beams they measured. With my "first causal" model of how an ether, composed of super-rarified, vibrating, elemental units, originated, there would be an enormous difference between the super-fine size of elemental ether units, and the size=scale of quantum units such as the photons in the light beams that Michelson and Morley measured, or that scientists have used since to judge the existence of an ether.
One could compare this kind of disconnect, between the concepts of scientists running experiments to search for the ether, and how the kind of ether in my Ether Model would work, to how a motorcar travels through a cloud of dust. -As the motorcar ("photon") moves through the dust, it does not interact inertially with the dust particles ("ether units"), but rather just brushes them aside.
(Parenthetically, my Model would have it that although photons do not interact inertially with ether, as experimenters normally assume they should, nevertheless, the photons do interact vibrationally with the ether units, because photons, like all quantum units, were originally formed via alignments and entrainments of "building block" ether units, and still retain the ability to interact with the ether vibrationally.)
In my Model, that's why experiments using traditional approaches will never detect the ether. Instead, one would have to apply an indirect approach, one using naturally-occurring materials and a non-laboratory setting, to indirectly demonstrate the ether's existence.
-
Parenthetically, my Model would have it that although photons do not interact inertially with ether, as experimenters normally assume they should,
It's not an assumption; it's part of the definition of the aluminiferous ether.
-
When Michelson and Morley ran their experiment in 1887, and got a "null" result for the existence of an ether, they assumed that any type of ether would necessarily have to interact with the visible light beams they measured.
Again, that's part of the definition of the luminiferous ether
-
When Michelson and Morley ran their experiment in 1887, and got a "null" result for the existence of an ether, they assumed that any type of ether would necessarily have to interact with the visible light beams they measured.
Again, that's part of the definition of the luminiferous ether
There have been serious proposals to re-visit the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX), in recent years, by running the MMX in space, as a way around persisting questions about the definitiveness of physics dismissing the ether by using MMX as a basis for it.
This runs against the point you made that further experiments in physics are thought to have have "nailed" the ether question.
-
There have been serious proposals to re-visit the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX), in recent years, by running the MMX in space, as a way around persisting questions about the definitiveness of physics dismissing the ether by using MMX as a basis for it.
This runs against the point you made that further experiments in physics are thought to have have "nailed" the ether question.
No, it just means you don't understand how science works.
They are doing an experiment to confirm what they already know from many other experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments
They expect the shift to be zero.
Now, please go and look up what the luminiferous ether was meant to do.
Then , when you realise that its job was to carry light (it didn't have another role at the time), you will see why this
my Model would have it that although photons do not interact inertially with ether,
(like your previous post) makes no sense.
You are saying that the waves hitting the beach have no interaction with the seawater
-
There have been serious proposals to re-visit the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX), in recent years, by running the MMX in space, as a way around persisting questions about the definitiveness of physics dismissing the ether by using MMX as a basis for it.
This runs against the point you made that further experiments in physics are thought to have have "nailed" the ether question.
No, it just means you don't understand how science works.
They are doing an experiment to confirm what they already know from many other experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments
They expect the shift to be zero.
Now, please go and look up what the luminiferous ether was meant to do.
Then , when you realise that its job was to carry light (it didn't have another role at the time), you will see why this
my Model would have it that although photons do not interact inertially with ether,
(like your previous post) makes no sense.
You are saying that the waves hitting the beach have no interaction with the seawater
Chemist, you keep citing concepts of light-propagation according to the views of quantists. By denying the existence of any type of underlying universal ether, they overlook my kind of ether model, in which the ether is composed of super-rarified units that do not interact in any inertial fashion with the much-larger quantum units that transmit visible light. An ether model like mine is basically very different from quantum theory, as to how light propagates.
In my Model, the primary initiation of transmission of a light beam occurs at the level of the ether. Ether units at the source of the light beam vibrationally "feel" the linear forces of other ether units at a nearby source of energy, causing further ether units in the area to align with each other, rather than vibrating quietly and randomly, so that their vibrations increasingly come into contact with each other. This in turn increases the entrainment of the ether units into larger and larger light-energy units, which take on a photonic type of vibratory pattern, as they entrain with each other, up to the size-scale of the visible units of light energy (photons).
It is this underlying linear etheric vibratory process that underlies the visible quantum-dynamic processes involving waves and fields. It is the ether that represents the true origin of the light we see.
(In my ether model, although ether units involved in light-transmission do not interact inertially with the vastly-larger light-units like photons, the photons, which, like all larger units, were originally formed by entrainments of vibrating elemental ether units, still retain the ability to interact vibrationally with the ether units all around them in the ether matrix.
Photons seen with a sun beam can number in the trillions. You might ask a quantist where all those photons are coming from, when the source of energy is millions of miles away. -The ether is everywhere, and its vibratory dynamics are conducted in a continuous way, over any transmissional distance (although, in my Ether Model, the ether units are not perfectly contiguous, being vibrational, the ether's transmissibility is unlimited by distance.) Your references to "luminiferous" are not relevant. My ether model of light-propagation is the correct one.
-
my kind of ether model, in which the ether is composed of super-rarified units that do not interact in any inertial fashion with the much-larger quantum units that transmit visible light.
Is that meant to mean something?
-
Photons seen with a sun beam can number in the trillions. You might ask a quantist where all those photons are coming from,
They come from the Sun; there's a hint in the name "sun beam".
-
my kind of ether model, in which the ether is composed of super-rarified units that do not interact in any inertial fashion with the much-larger quantum units that transmit visible light.
Is that meant to mean something?
If you took the time to read my basic ether model, you would have appreciated that the ether, that I propose exists, arose first-causally, as ultimately-elemental units transitioned from reciprocally-oscillating to independently vibrating, and thus would most likely have been of a first-causal, ultimately-tiny, size scale, and probably would not fall into the scale of the energy framework of our present quantized world. The ether units thus would probably have been unimaginably rarified in size.
-
If you took the time to read my basic ether model
Catch 22.
I'm not going to read a model which you introduce by telling me it's about the ether, because the ether was disproved 100 years ago.
Have you tried writing it without including an outdated and disproved idea?
-
My Ether Model's key points, in comparison to the standard model of the world as currently accepted by cosmology and physics, would be as follows -
A universal ether appeared following a first-causal transition of a universal point-oscillation to point-like ether units that vibrate, rather than oscillating. These extremely tiny "elemental" ether units are able to interact with each other as their vibrations come into contact. Larger and larger energy units are formed in this ether "matrix," as etheric vibrations of smaller units "lock" and link up with each other.
After a universal ether, made up of units of various sizes, appeared, radiating etheric forces eventually included linear patterns that produced partly-quantized "islands." Then, it became feasible to project quantum units, from such an island, through the ether, in order to creationally produce a quantum/atomic universe like the one we are in now. The quantum-scale units that were projected through the ether were photon/electron units. As these traveled through the ether, it set up self-sustaining chain-reactions in the ether that resulted in the systematic formation of the protons and atoms in our universe. Since the photon/electron was the unit used, its velocity (speed of light) became the highest speed-limit in our world.
Compare this Model with the currently-accepted model, which proposes that atomic systems developed following a "Big Bang." Even if one includes the controversial Higgs boson, this model lacks the Ether Model's full stepwise rationale for how the atoms formed as they did.
-
After a universal ether, made up of units of various sizes, appeared, radiating etheric forces eventually included linear patterns that produced partly-quantized "islands." Then, it became feasible to project quantum units, from such an island, through the ether, in order to creationally produce a quantum/atomic universe like the one we are in now. The quantum-scale units that were projected through the ether were photon/electron units. As these traveled through the ether, it set up self-sustaining chain-reactions in the ether that resulted in the systematic formation of the protons and atoms in our universe. Since the photon/electron was the unit used, its velocity (speed of light) became the highest speed-limit in our world.
I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense.
-
After a universal ether, made up of units of various sizes, appeared, radiating etheric forces eventually included linear patterns that produced partly-quantized "islands." Then, it became feasible to project quantum units, from such an island, through the ether, in order to creationally produce a quantum/atomic universe like the one we are in now. The quantum-scale units that were projected through the ether were photon/electron units. As these traveled through the ether, it set up self-sustaining chain-reactions in the ether that resulted in the systematic formation of the protons and atoms in our universe. Since the photon/electron was the unit used, its velocity (speed of light) became the highest speed-limit in our world.
I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense.
Origin: As a fellow scientist, what kind of model of the universe does make sense to you? -Is it the currently-accepted model of a "Big Bang," and "then atoms appeared?" My ether model is the only kind of model that does make sense.
-
Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation? Precisely to the extent that bullshit begets bullshit. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. But if it doesn't make accurate predictions, it won't interest anyone else.
-
Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation? Precisely to the extent that bullshit begets bullshit. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. But if it doesn't make accurate predictions, it won't interest anyone else.
A proposed objectifiable test to demomnstrate ether could be done: a field test designed to generate an energy field that is selectively etheric, i.e., that would contain a higher-than-normal amount of ether units, and proportionately less quantum units. One would predict a decreased density of objects in the test system. -No known form of energy has that property.
I hAV
-
Can An Ether Model Best Account for Creation? Precisely to the extent that bullshit begets bullshit. Whatever makes you happy, makes you happy. But if it doesn't make accurate predictions, it won't interest anyone else.
An objectifiable test to demonstrate ether could be done: a field test designed to generate an energy field that is selectively etheric, i.e., atoms inside the system would contain a higher-than-normal amount of ether units, and proportionately less quantum units. One would predict a decreased density of objects in the test system. -No known form of energy has that property. This type of field test would use certain naturally-occurring materials in the test system, in order to generate what is predicted to be a unique, selectively-etheric, field.
-
Origin: As a fellow scientist, what kind of model of the universe does make sense to you?
First of all neither one of us are scientists.
Is it the currently-accepted model of a "Big Bang,
Yes that model makes the most sense and it correlates with observation. It also successfully made predictions that turned out to be true.
"then atoms appeared?"
I am not familiar with that theory.
My ether model is the only kind of model that does make sense.
Your idea is not a scientific model. It appears to be a bunch of science terms strung together with no cogent meaning.
-
generate an energy field that is selectively etheric
How do you do that?
-
generate an energy field that is selectively etheric
How do you do that?
See my Reply #24 above. I wouldn't go into more detail than that, except for a possible sponsor.
-
I wouldn't go into more detail than that, except for a possible sponsor.
Then there is no point in discussing your idea.
Edit:. I am going to suggest that this thread be closed since you are not willing to discuss your idea.