[MichaelMD (OP)]

I will try to address some of the points made in the multiple posts above by describing, in more detail, how my model of the ether would address quantum entanglement, and how that can be correlated with how the model would treat the path of light from a star.
With my Model, so-called quantum entanglement represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the "connected" quantum units acting as "cooler arms" of a quiet, purring, ether mechanism.
This can be roughly correlated with how light is transmitted from one star region to another. -Starlight, as it leaves one star, is at a high energy level in terms of energy-content of (the mainly-photonic vibratory pattern) its etheric units. (The light beam is  mainly composed of etheric units, with, in this case, part of its very-high energy "transferred" to associated larger units, such as quantum photons.) The star's photonic-patterned transmissions (similarly as in quantum entanglement) preferentially focus on other, similarly-dense, (but identically-patterned in terms of etheric vibration patterns) photonic spatial regions, such as other star systems. Along the way, the light beam traverses less-photonic spatial ether regions, and resonates with less-densely photonic ether units along its pathway. Then, on reaching the vicinity of another star, the distant star's light beam again encounters a very high-energy photonic ether region, which changes its resonational pattern, affecting its transmission, such that the path of the beam can be bent (as in the Einstein/Eddington effect, or "gravitational lensing.")
This example illustrates one of the ways the Ether Model I work with would alternatively interpret some of our existing evidence.

[Thebox]

Physics now bases its Big Bang model on an empirical rationale using quantum observational data taken in our earthbound setting. I submit there is an alternative approach they should use instead, namely a rationale based on the likeliest first causal processes in space. Understanding a basic force like gravity must be based on how it originated, and that could not have been in our earthbound type of setting

The likeliest place to start forming a first causal model would be space. -I submit that the origin of the universe involved two substrates: space and units of space. (Had to be "units" because we know that in our world, forces are mediated by units - atoms, photons, etc.)

No, you can't have units of space, you are adding to space and creating an existence that is not a part of infinite void.  You have to take any given point of space, then create zero point energy from nothing. I have researched it down to zero point pressure. it is a miracle and God must be real is my scientific objective conclusion and analysis.
I did not believe in God before, I do now scientifically and morally.

[Good Ground 41]

Space can't just "oscillate".

If space were to be a super fluid, then it could be made to oscillate by an oscillating space unit within it. Although space units are thought to be more complex, for the purpose of beginning this reply, they can be described to be a tetrahedron made of tubes which are filled with a pressurized super fluid which can be released through a circular valve in the middle of each tube, which valve is pointed at the center of the tetrahedron. One consequence of this arrangement would be that the unpressurized super fluid, which surrounds all of the space units, would be set into vibration by the tubes which recoiled from the release of pressurized super fluid  through the valves in them. Another consequence would be that the tubes would tend to collapse because the pressurized fluid were released from six segments of them. That is to say that a tetrahedron would momentarily tug on all of its neighbors. Moreover, the smoke rings, which would be in the released super fluid, would collide at the center of the tetrahedron and rebound in a new configuration.  As it so happens, three "super strings" in a tetrahedron are enough to make all twenty-eight (28) quarks and twenty-eight (28) antiquarks. One hundred twenty (120) tetrahedrons, arranged in a larger tetrahedron, are enough to account for all possible combinations of ten (10) superstrings, when combined three (3) at a time. Moreover, such a larger tetrahedron is sufficient to account for all other items, such as gluons, etc.Moreover, the larger tetrahedrons are sufficient to account for the "families": of particles. Still further, the tetrahedron arrangement is sufficient to account for the anisotropy of space, as noted by Maurice Allais. Further yet, this arrangement accounts for "dark matter" and "dark energy" by supposing that they are the residual effects, in the super fluid and in the tube structure, of releases of super fluid.at a different time for each set of tetrahedrons, each set consisting only of those tetrahedrons which combine the same set of three (3) super strings. Surely, this tetrahedral model is incomplete, so comments, questions, and suggestions are welcomed.

[Good Ground 41]

I did not believe in God before, I do now scientifically and morally.

Although I continue to believe in the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I now realize that he is merely another creation, such as we are, to wit, merely a vibration in the unpressurized super fluid which surrounds the tetrahedral structure of tubes which contain pressurized super fluid, and the vibrations in the structure of tubes, caused by the releases of the pressurized super fluid. As to the extent of space, although I agree that it is infinite in each universe, I also believe that it is being increased in each universe as we speak. Moreover, all of the super fluid and the tubes are merely imaginary, the only real thing being the creator. If we were to say that the super fluid is figuratively similar to "dust", then we could say that the portion, which reads, "From dust thou art, and to dust thou shall return" is correct. Whether that situation includes or precludes resurrection seems debatable. What seems undebatable is that the creator creates to his benefit, which is not always to our benefit. For instance, pain, misery, anguish and death are arguably not to our benefit; but certainly provide drama to and for the creator. Although it seems debatable whether the creator is cruel, or merely a Drama Queen, it seems undeniable that the creator does not hesitate to inflict the most horrible of situations upon us, and that for drama, if not also for sadism.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

The Ether Model I've presented in my Thread I claim was derived from long-term codebreaking research. My uni believe the model reflects first hand familiarity with etheric forces , used in ways that were occultified as far as human earth knowledge. Here on Earth we are familiar with how space behaves in our setting of quantum-scale forces. I stick with my derived model of ether and space.

[captcass]

I believe spactime is the aether. My theory provides for an eternal evolving continuum in place of the Big Bang. It is derived by considering the Hubble Shift to be due to time dilation instead of expansion and has us evolving between two event horizons where time appears to stop: at ~13.9 Gly and the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Black holes then become pathways to universes ad infinitum. The theory is based on a spiritual origin of spacetime based in the awareness of being here. space, and now, time. It can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109, and I discuss aspects of it in the threads here: "What is Space?" and "Is the Hubble Shift due to time dilation?", though I recommend the full paper, which also shows gravity to be an irresistible evolutionary force in time, which is why it only has 1 direction and why it overpowers the other forces so much even though it seems so weak.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

captcass should start his own thread about the Ether, rather than use my Thread to present his own model of an ether, which differs greatly from the ether model I describe in this Thread.

[captcass]

captcass should start his own thread about the Ether,

OK. Sorry, Michael,. I thought it fit the thread. I'll bow out.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

I can't single out captcass for using my Thread to present his ether model, because this Thread has seen a number of posts, since it started, giving people's private ideas on the Ether.  -For anyone interested, a more concise and updated version of my Ether Model is given in a more recent Thread of mine, titled "Can an Ether Based Model Better Address Cosmic Physics," which is at Page Two of this Forum.

[Colin2B]

When you post on this forum you don’t get exclusive rights to your thread, we expect there to be a discussion where other people can offer ideas - see forum acceptable use.
We will only interfere if someone is disrupting your thread.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

In my Thread's title, by saying "Is There an Ether Theory Suitable as an Alternative to BB Theory and Inflation," I meant that I was presenting my own model of a universal ether, and giving my ideas as to how an ether would have originated, and its dynamics. But quite a few of the posts in the Thread since then have given totally independent models for an ether, without referring at all to the specifics of my ether model in the Thread.

By referring to "Big Bang" in the title, I hoped to elicit responses from quantum theorists, such as "isn't the CMB conclusively proof of the afterglow of a Big Bang," or the like, from quantum theorists, which I could counter from the perspective of my own Ether Model. The other ether models being posted would prevent any chance of that....

[Colin2B]

I hoped to elicit responses from quantum theorists, such as "isn't the CMB conclusively proof of the afterglow of a Big Bang," or the like, from quantum theorists, which I could counter from the perspective of my own Ether Model. The other ether models being posted would prevent any chance of that....

No, the other models won’t prevent that.
What will prevent it is that quantum theorists are pretty agnostic to the idea of an ether. The focus is more on fields, and reletivistic fields don’t require an ether, however, if one turned up as underlying the field they wouldn’t reject it. However, it is worth bearing in mind that such an ether would not behave in the way the luminiferous ether was postulated to behave. Currently there is no experimental evidence of anything underlying the relativistic fields.
You might want to look up LET which is a modern, coherent ether theory mostly compatible with relativity.
Discussing your ether theory with the other posters would help to eliminate them as contenders. Recommended.

[mad aetherist]

I am surprised that no-one has mentioned Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe website.
And Reg Cahill's process physics articles (& Reg is on youtube).
The aetheric cause of gravity gets a good mention (Cahill calls it dynamic space). Aether is annihilated inside mass & aether flows in to replace lost aether, the 3D acceleration of the inflow giving us what we call gravity, & it has a 1/rr relationship.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

mad aetherist -   In my model of ether, gravity is explained by using the model of how ether originated.

In my model, the first thing that happened was not a "Big Bang," but rather there was a universal oscillation of space. Eventually, oscillational fatigue of pairs of neighboring oscillating point=localities of space led to their falling together in Yin-Yang fashion. Then, inasmuch as such pairs of elemental point-like units would necessarily have had to reversibly revert to singleton units, they would then have fallen out-of-phase with all the other points that were still oscilating, and this would have broken the perfect symmetry of original, oscillating, space.

In this model, "original" space was free of forces, and oscillated because of its inherent self-compatibility. With this kind of model, the oscillating elemental "point" units would have required tiny adjoining "empty" portions of original space, to provide the necessary "room" for oscillatory motion to occur.

Once the elemental units had transitioned from oscillation to vibration, these tiny portions of space would have remained, and provided the "room" for vibrations to occur. (Energic vibratory resonations between elemental ether units would have begun, as the outward vibrations, having just transitioned from oscillations, of the newly-arising ether units, came into contact with each other.)

As for gravitation, these persisting tiny "empty" portions of space between elemental ether units would have been the main factor to produce gravity. -Inasmuch as, inside a pair of neighboring, gravitationally-attracted, solid bodies, their elemental ether units are at a high state of magnetic energy, due to their resonant connection to the atomic and quantum magnetic forces existing inside the bodies, inasmuch as the larger energy units are made up of the elemental ether units, the elemental units would be at a higher energy level, than would be the elemental ether units  outside the bodies, because in the space outside them, the level of energy is less. However, in the region of space between the bodies, and just outside their surfaces, due to the interactions between elemental ether units inside the two bodies with the adjacent ether units in nearby space, the tiny "empty" spaces between the elemental ether units would be more actively vibrating with each other, compared to elemental units in the spatial regions further  from the bodies. Thus, there would be less "empty" spaces between ether units, resonating with each other, in the "auric" space between the two bodies, than between the ether units outside the bodies in other directions. Thus the two bodies would be gravitationally attracted toward each other, because the ether matrix between the bodies has "contracted."

[opportunity]

Are you saying the BBT can be explained better as an initial BB event with your explanation?

Or, are you steady state?

[mad aetherist]

mad aetherist -   In my model of ether, gravity is explained by using the model of how ether originated.

In my model, the first thing that happened was not a "Big Bang," but rather there was a universal oscillation of space. Eventually, oscillational fatigue of pairs of neighboring oscillating point=localities of space led to their falling together in Yin-Yang fashion. Then, inasmuch as such pairs of elemental point-like units would necessarily have had to reversibly revert to singleton units, they would then have fallen out-of-phase with all the other points that were still oscilating, and this would have broken the perfect symmetry of original, oscillating, space.

In this model, "original" space was free of forces, and oscillated because of its inherent self-compatibility. With this kind of model, the oscillating elemental "point" units would have required tiny adjoining "empty" portions of original space, to provide the necessary "room" for oscillatory motion to occur.

Once the elemental units had transitioned from oscillation to vibration, these tiny portions of space would have remained, and provided the "room" for vibrations to occur. (Energic vibratory resonations between elemental ether units would have begun, as the outward vibrations, having just transitioned from oscillations, of the newly-arising ether units, came into contact with each other.)

As for gravitation, these persisting tiny "empty" portions of space between elemental ether units would have been the main factor to produce gravity. -Inasmuch as, inside a pair of neighboring, gravitationally-attracted, solid bodies, their elemental ether units are at a high state of magnetic energy, due to their resonant connection to the atomic and quantum magnetic forces existing inside the bodies, inasmuch as the larger energy units are made up of the elemental ether units, the elemental units would be at a higher energy level, than would be the elemental ether units  outside the bodies, because in the space outside them, the level of energy is less. However, in the region of space between the bodies, and just outside their surfaces, due to the interactions between elemental ether units inside the two bodies with the adjacent ether units in nearby space, the tiny "empty" spaces between the elemental ether units would be more actively vibrating with each other, compared to elemental units in the spatial regions further  from the bodies. Thus, there would be less "empty" spaces between ether units, resonating with each other, in the "auric" space between the two bodies, than between the ether units outside the bodies in other directions. Thus the two bodies would be gravitationally attracted toward each other, because the ether matrix between the bodies has "contracted."

That looks to me to produce expansion not contraction, ie repulsion not attraction.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

The basic concept is that the tiny spaces between vibrating elemental ether units is breached, or goes away, at the moment two units contact each other by each unit's outward vibration contacting the other unit's outward vibration ("resonating"). -That would cause a decrease in the overall ether matrix's volume, and cause contraction of the overall matrix between the two solid bodies, relative to the spatial regions outside of this "auric zone" between the bodies, drawing the bodies toward each other gravitationally.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

opportunity:   As to your question about BBT vis-a-vis my ether model.

In my origins model based on the evolution of a universal ether out of a preceding universal oscillation of a universal substrate (which had to be original space), the very first thing that happened, in the entirety of universal space, was the oscillation of elemental units, which led to oscillatory fatigue of pairs of neighboring point-localities of space. (Oscillatory fatigue is a process known to science. It occurs in metals.) Then these Yin-Yang connected "points" would necessarily have had to reversibly revert to singleton elemental units, and then they would have fallen out-of-phase with the universal oscillations. That would have broken the perfect symmetry of the oscillatory units, producing a vibratory (rather than oscillatory) ether.

This kind of model doesn't have anything to do with a so-called "Big Bang," which quantum physics presently claims was what started our universe.