[MichaelMD]

In the context of the most recent posts, an interesting"why" for cosmologists would be, "why are all Type One A supernovae so uniform?"

Another "why" thought to think over would be why cellular organelles so intricate that (when one penetrates to the "nano" scale) their complexity is so great that it defies the imagination as to how they could have arisen, using familiar quantum scale theories of energy and biological systems.

I espouse an aether view of cosmic systems (as distinguished from earthbound quantum-scale energy systems, as we perceive them). -I submit that biological systems arose in cosmic settings  in which there were super-intense energy levels, derived from transient magnetic entrainments in the early cosmos, inducing super-fluxes in etherically-super-refined physical systems. -When a self-reproducing sub-system finally emerged from the fluxes, physical life could begin. A key set of amino acids was probably among the life-producing ingredients.

[Ethos_]

In the context of the most recent posts, an interesting"why" for cosmologists would be, "why are all Type One A supernovae so uniform?"

Another "why" thought to think over would be why cellular organelles so intricate that (when one penetrates to the "nano" scale) their complexity is so great that it defies the imagination as to how they could have arisen, using familiar quantum scale theories of energy and biological systems.

These are examples of questions where the word "why" can accurately be used. However, I think the point some are making here is that the word "how" can easily be substituted in it's place. In my opinion, either one would be appropriate, that is unless, one chooses to associate the anthropomorphic with the word "why".

I espouse an aether view of cosmic systems

I doubt you will receive much support for that view my friend. Aether theories have, for a long time now, been found to be lacking credible evidence.

[alancalverd]

In the context of the most recent posts, an interesting"why" for cosmologists would be, "why are all Type One A supernovae so uniform?"

Presumably because the laws of physics are universal.

Another "why" thought to think over would be why cellular organelles so intricate that (when one penetrates to the "nano" scale) their complexity is so great that it defies the imagination as to how they could have arisen, using familiar quantum scale theories of energy and biological systems.

Again, it's a "how". The "why" only arises because your imagination is more limited than the potential implications of chemistry. I'm often led to the conclusion that "why" is a reflection of human vanity, and actually means "because I don't understand it, it can't be true". Hence religion and other absurdities.

I espouse an aether view of cosmic systems (as distinguished from earthbound quantum-scale energy systems, as we perceive them). -I submit that biological systems arose in cosmic settings  in which there were super-intense energy levels, derived from transient magnetic entrainments in the early cosmos, inducing super-fluxes in etherically-super-refined physical systems. -When a self-reproducing sub-system finally emerged from the fluxes, physical life could begin. A key set of amino acids was probably among the life-producing ingredients.

An explanation of "how" would be appreciated, along with an estimate of the resulting density and distribution of biological systems in the universe. For the time being, the presence of liquid water and a few simple carbon compounds seems crucial. 

[tonylang (OP)]

The monogamy of entanglement enforces the integrity and isolation of an existing entangled state such as the hypothesized position-of-view (POV). It is in fact nature’s last line of defense against infiltration upon any entangled state. This effect can essentially be thought of as a self-destruct mechanism. The concept of defense by self destruction appears at times in implementations both technological and natural. In human affairs when vital information needs to be isolated or otherwise protected from infiltration at any cost we wire the asset for destruction with explosives or such. In nature the integrity of a law of conservation is often when such an effect is observed. In the case of an entangled state it is indeed when the conservation of information, one of nature’s fundamental laws, is threatened with violation is when the asset, the entangled relationship, forfeit. If one wired an asset to explode upon infiltration or upon specific violation then one would also need to broadcast this fact to interested parties for it to be an effective deterrent. Alternatively, one would need to erect obstacles of a defensive, offensive, and perhaps cognitive nature to actively keep out unwanted intrusions upon the protected asset. This is exactly what living hosts (species) are.
 
 This evolutionary arms race to protect the individuals’ vital asset the POV began with a simple cell wall in the early proto-cell. This cell wall may be metaphorically compared to the posts of timber erected by early peoples that settled in a new land. They often erected a defensive barrier to keep out environmental threats and also to protect vital assets on the inside of the encampment. Today these walls have grown and evolved substantially both in nations and in the living cell. In the living cell and in any other host all systems are evolved to support in the protection of the POV the entangled state maintained by the entanglement molecules within the single cell. In complex (multi-cellular) hosts the POV is the entangled state maintained specifically by the entanglement cells (EC) which must be protected from intrusion or infiltration while sacrificing many other non-EC cells in due course.
 
 Another apt metaphor for this idea is the starship enterprise on the popular iconic TV show star trek. Though the enterprise bristles with offensive as well as defensive and cognitive systems, both living and non-living, the last line of protection is to isolate or protect the information content inherent in the enterprise from infiltration. This is accomplished similarly by annihilating the ship. So it is that the well known self-destruct system of the enterprise is ushered into service at the last possible moment. Likewise the monogamy of entanglement as previously stated is nature’s last line of defense of the law of conservation of information in this universe. Make no mistake this is purely a cause and effect mechanism of natural law. Quantum coherence and its monogamistic properties are observations made in the laboratory and are given labels, names. No one should suggest at this juncture to know the fundamental underlying implementation in nature of these phenomena. However, plausible well considered hypothesis are welcome.

[alancalverd]

You are now asserting purpose in nature. But since purpose is an emergent property of transient, sentient beings, i.e. the creatures of nature, this is a circular argument and requires a redefinition of nature as something other than "what happens in the observable universe".

Your definition of nature would be appreciated.

[MichaelMD]

In alluding to how my aether-overview could address a couple of theoretic areas, including the possible origin of biological life, I left out why I consider an aether a viable concept, despite the position of Science that an aether doesn't exist.

The old concept of a universal underlying aether medium which transmits forces was discarded after the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) of 1887 reportedly indicated the absence of an aether. -However, I submit, the MMX used a faulty theoretic criterion as its basic premise. -In the MMX, it was assumed (I believe falsely) that any kind of aether would have to behave inertially with respect to earth's movements through it, producing a dragging "wind" effect which should be detectable, using the optical refractive measurements in the MMX. -However, if an aether was non-inertial, the key theoretic assumption used to dismiss the aether would not apply, the MMX would be cosmologically irrelevant, and its dismissal by physics, which continues to this day, would be in error.

In my aether model, the aether originated in space, which in the beginning, before the first appearance of forces, was self-compatible, such that point-localities oscillated reciprocally and symmetrically, until oscillatory fatigue induced a pair of adjacent "points" to fall together curvilinearly, in "Yin and Yang" fashion, which broke the perfect symmetry of original space, leading to a vibrationally (as derived from the oscillational) energic aether. (Oscillatory fatigue is known to occur in metals, but since metallic oscillatory fatigue is a quantum process, it cannot be definitively correlated with oscillatory fatigue in first-cause space.)

Once aggregative forces from such an aether led to larger "particle capacities," then to atoms, then to aggregational bodies in space, the elemental underlying aether framework would function in an energically-contiguous fashion, such that a body's surface would be in constant vibrational interactive resonance with identical elemental aether units in space. -The aether in space would thus be non-inertial with respect to the body (such as earth), because the aetheric resonances between a body and the aether of space would resonationally tend to "follow" the body as it moves through space.

Such "auric" elemental aetheric forces would also serve to mediate such cosmic effects as gravity, light, and other effects. We are unable to detect the aether, so we cannot appreciate the various magnetic and gravitational auric forces at work.

So-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of aetheric energy, which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental aether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units walled-off kinetically, like cool arms of an underlying quiet purring aether mechanism, which can turn itself on and off by itself, any time.   

 

[Ethos_]

We are unable to detect the aether, so we cannot appreciate the various magnetic and gravitational auric forces at work.

And this is the reason aether theories are unacceptable, without evidence, such theories will remain unscientific.

[jeffreyH]

An Aether theory that simply has the Aether moving in concert with celestial bodies serves no purpose. There are thought to be constant vacuum fluctuations that send ripples of short lifetime virtual particles through space. These do move but not necessarily in concert with mass. This is not an Aether. Why on earth does this theme keep cropping up? It may well be easier to resurrect this than learn the physics that is in use today. To work through the history of the developments in physics is fascinating. Once you appreciate how one discovery led to another it all starts to make sense. It amazes me just how correct the theorists were without the experimental evidence to validate the postulates. Many were later vindicated by experimental results. You cannot skip the journey through the history of physics and hope to be taken seriously.

[MichaelMD]

JeffreyH,

I don't claim my Model of the Aether compares, empirical-evidence-wise, with the standard model of physics. The latter is based on empirical evidence obtained in our earthbound setting, where quantum forces are what mediate our observational evidence.

In my Model, quantum forces just represent a spin-vector type of energy which, in our setting, is superimposed upon  underlying aetheric vibrational forces which are what originated the cosmic forces in space. -Our everyday perceptions prejudice us to think scientifically, also, in terms of our quantally-mediated world, where "quantum-scale forces are the elemental forces and are all there is."

I gather we're all supposed to just keep waiting for quantum physics to find the answers to questions like the nature of gravitation, Time, quantum entanglement, and so on.

[alancalverd]

Setting aside my wonder at the difference between vibrational and oscillatory forces, and my concern that you equate force to energy, what does your aetheric theory predict, that is not correctly predicted by any other theory?

[Ethos_]

-Our everyday perceptions prejudice us to think scientifically,

So just how ought we to think if not scientifically? Turning from the scientific method leaves us with little more than; Myth, Philosophy, Anthropomorphism, and Intuition. All of which may or may not lead to new thought, but without evidence no real progress in our understanding of reality can be achieved. It's called "spinning your wheels", as in getting nowhere rapidly.

[MichaelMD]

Setting aside my wonder at the difference between vibrational and oscillatory forces, and my concern that you equate force to energy, what does your aetheric theory predict, that is not correctly predicted by any other theory?

The concept of "oscillation" I work with is of a process involving oscillating entities, a non-directional (thus non-energic) process, symmetrical in all possible directions, and reciprocal with respect to other like-entities (in my case, "entities" would refer to point-localities of original space.)
In my Origins Model, a symmetrical oscillational process in space transitioned, due to oscillational fatigue of certain "Yin and Yang" point-pairs, to a directional vibrational process. The vibrational process can be thought of as analogous to the point-localities having "nodes," as their vibrations extend outwardly in certain directions, so that loose connections (not "fixed" connections) occur between the elemental etheric "points." -In the overall context of non-energic space. the appearance of such resonational forces then would have tended to form transient magnetic entrainments of elemental etheric units, which in turn produced energic foci, producing larger "particle capacity" units, and eventually, atoms.

[MichaelMD]

Setting aside my wonder at the difference between vibrational and oscillatory forces, and my concern that you equate force to energy, what does your aetheric theory predict, that is not correctly predicted by any other theory?

alancalverd,

As to whether my aether model could lead to predicted, or objective, evidence, I do have a potential test for that. (The test would be based on information obtained from an obscure source, derived by code breaking.) The test would involve generating a selectively aetheric force field, and measuring densities of materials inside the test system for a predicted decrease in density. -Such an effect on density does not occur with known forms of energy. -However, this test would be expensive to conduct, and I lack the funds to do it, myself.

[alancalverd]

Having read very little science fiction, I would be grateful to know what a "force field" is. Apart, that is, from "the answer to everything".

[MichaelMD]

The term "force field" has been used in alternative physics to refer to the concept of motivating UFO craft by first energizing them, using a super-intense energy field that has been generated technologically. -In correlating this concept with my theory of the aether, such a field would comprise aetheric-scale forces, but in a technologically greatly-magnified strength (which confers to such craft their ability to traverse cosmic distances unattainable via our inertial methods of propulsion in space). It is a "force" field because its strength is over and above the natural aether forces that exist naturally all around us as "auric" forces. -Reviewing my model for the aether, at an elemental, basic, level, aether/auric forces are really what account for all energic phenomena, with manifested differences observed (at our quantum level of observation) such as light, gravitation, magnetism, spontaneous human combustion, "quantum entanglement," and others. At the basic elemental aether level, the differences between them are only due to variations in the vibratory patterns of radiated packets of aetheric energy. -Of course, when the aether forces are manifested in our earthly quantum systems, those manifestations appear vastly different from each other, misleading us as to their true basic origin.

[tonylang (OP)]

The entanglement spectrum is part of nature. It is known to exist by modern science. It is being harnessed for use in technologies which may become available to you and I in the near future. However, long before that, perhaps even before the big-bang, nature has ‘used’ entanglement for, among other things, the implementation of individuality in living entities.
 
Think of it this way…Essentially, you have or own a part of the QE spectrum. This part, your QEF is all yours and it will always belong to you. Don’t panic this is not a mystical statement; it is a scientifically plausible premise. It is as if your individuality was defined by a unique band of FM-frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum (EMF). Any host (radio) that tuned in your EMF would instantiate you, that is to say, establish your being your position-of-view (POV) your presence as a solution of state in this space-time. Thereby tethering you to this particular host (radio/body). Dispense with any notion of personality, or behavior or memories or such of past instantiations (lives). These all extinguished along with any former hosts you may have had. The Monogamy of Entanglement is the property of the QE spectrum which maintains individuality. For interested readers I recommend that you research the general concept of; Monogamy of Entanglement;

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310037
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1867
 
 
In nature it is the QE spectrum that assumes this role. Your QEF is an aspect or degree-of-freedom of the QE spectrum (similar to frequency) and is relativistically unconstrained (does not need comets or spacecraft to lumber through space-time) and implements your individuality in any viable form that emerges anywhere in this universe. This is essentially a form of coherent state information transference or natural teleportation see the links below for these general concepts.
 
http://www.nature.co...ature14246.html
http://arxiv.org/ftp...9/1409.7769.pdf

[tonylang (OP)]

The hypothesized entanglement molecule, a primordial arrangement of atoms, naturally establishes a shared information state with a form of matter hypothesized to exist outside of our space-time in Hilbert-space. Today it is suspected that gravity is as weak as observed in our space-time because it too exists partially or mostly outside of our space-time. However, gravity like all known standard-model forces is governed and constrained by the laws of relativity and their effects are therefore limited at or below the speed of light in this space-time. Therefore, changes in the suns’ gravitational influence for example, take 8 minutes to reach the earth just as does the suns’ light. The only phenomenon known to science which demonstrates behavior which essentially subverts the current laws of relativity is entanglement, a type of quantum coherence. Natural entanglement is quantum entanglement implemented by natural structures like the Fenna-Matthews-Olson  (FMO) complex or by the hypothesized entanglement molecule and is utilized in nature to great effect. Life is one such effect. 

So what might be the origins and structure of the entanglement molecule? For starters it is most likely to be one of a finite number of known interstellar molecules. These are molecules formed from stellar or interstellar processes rather than in ecosystems.  There is a good chance that whatever the structure of the entanglement molecule may have been prior to the emergence of life on earth it may since have been transformed here on Earth to be incorporated into cellular structures such as in the DNA molecule or in the FMO complex. Much of the DNA molecule remains unknown to modern science and is sometimes referred to as DNA dark-matter. This suggests that, like interstellar dark-matter, DNA dark-matter is also undefined. Nonetheless, this significant unknown portion of the molecule most influential to earth-life must be of primary interest in the search for the entanglement molecule; But what to look for? For guidance I tend to begin my scrutiny with the structure of the FMO complex. This photosynthetic antenna complex is the naturally occurring molecular structure responsible for the photosynthetic non-classical conduction observed in living plant cells via natural entanglement. In green algae it operates to overcome the otherwise inefficient latency of classical mechanisms which would result in a devastating loss of anti-entropic information needed from sunlight for the continued evolution of viable hosts on this planet, cross referenced with types of known primordial molecules. Today, in our quest for life, we tend to search only for molecules which support our current understanding of the implementation of life in this universe, which are molecules which comprise the biological structures we can readily identify, this is of course as it must be. However, there may be a more effective approach.

This alternate approach requires an understanding of the instantiation of life by natural entanglement and the subsequent development of technologies based on its principles such as a conceptual entanglement telescope. Such a telescope would reveal areas of dense natural entanglement present in living entities throughout this universe in a manner similar to the way non-optical telescopes illuminate matter. Properly designed QE detectors when exposed to the open sky will permit us to see life throughout the universe as bright star-like spots of complexity. Each such spot reveals, not the density of matter at those locations, but rather the immensely concentrated density of information complexity present in living entities at those locations, complexity which exists in much greater density in living entities than in non-living ones.  In nature how does the influence and density of informational complexity encoded in living entities compare to that of inanimate matter?

Our most powerful computing systems programmed with our best models running non-stop for months can barley model the folding of a basic protein. Step that concept up to the full expression of a complex protein not to mention the Ribosome which is the tiny factory that builds proteins in living organisms, step that up all the way to modeling a living bacteria etc. This informational concentration of DNA and its systems, regardless of how we define them, is potent to the mathematics and therefore to the state of nature and each instance is a multiplier of this mathematical potency. Each instance is each DNA strand in each cell that has ever been created in the four plus billion years that DNA has existed on Earth. Put in these terms you can begin to appreciate how earth life has contributed to nature as a very potent mathematical factory contributing to balancing the existential formula.

On the other hand, we are much more capable of modeling a star like our Sun or even a black hole which we all know are both physically much larger than a DNA molecule or a Ribosome or your cat. As I'm sure you can see size doesn't matter in this regard. Likewise complexity can be deceptive to the human eye but is well defined in mathematical terms. The reason we are more able to model a Star is because the processes that implement a star and inanimate entities in general, are far simpler in mathematical and informational complexity than those that define a protein to a bacteria. Modeling a star is only a few orders of magnitude more difficult than simulating the aerodynamics and thermodynamics of the Space shuttle. Simulating even single bacteria is far, far more complex.

[tonylang (OP)]

The theory of instantiation by natural entanglement proposes that all that you are experiencing at this moment including the body you’re in, and the reality you see as this universe, is a real-time rendering of a set of quantum wave functions of state (Hamiltonians) or qsf’s. These qsf’s comprise the metaverse if you will or Hilbert space if you won’t. They manifest a potential reality which for you, as an emerged composite being, would remain unresolved and inaccessible if not for your position-of-view (POV) produced and maintained by the entanglement molecules contained within a very special group of cells in your host form called the entanglement cells (EC). All living cells in or out of your body establish an entangled state with a form of matter called metamatter. However, most of your cells do not directly establish your emerged QE connection, your POV. It is only the EC’s that have evolved the specialization to heterodyne or combine their individual entangled state into a new unique composite entangled state to establish your individual LifeID at your unique QEF sufficiently different from that of your other cells. Together these elements establish your position-of-view (POV). The POV is the mathematical representation of the emerged individual. Each individual POV, regardless of the form taken by its host vessel, effectively provides a unique solution (practical and mathematical) which resolves, and collapses the surrounding ocean of qsf’s (Hamiltonians) that is nature, into that individuals’ reality. This collapse of quantum states into what we call reality is centered upon the individuals POV and manifests an individualized rendering of nature. Each individual rendering had by every truly living entity is similarly collapsed by those other POV’s. These realities are very similar at least for compatible POV’s such as those on earth and perhaps those that may be found throughout this universe.
 
Although not easy it is not impossible to detect differences between POV renderings as seen in individual observations of subtle quantum experiments (Double slit, weak-measurement etc.). Differences between individual POV’s and their resulting rendering of nature may have mostly to do with the cells that host the entanglement connection being that the QE spectrum upon which the POV is established is expected to be a significantly constant universal phenomenon. This is like saying that the audio experience produced by a radio set is primarily dependant upon the design and technology of the radio set given the same broadcast signal. In this metaphor ones’ natural entangled state is akin to the broadcast signal and your host form is the radio set. There may be many types of forms of radio sets and species but the fundamental natural implementation of both implementations, the natural entanglement spectrum and the electromagnetic spectrum, is universal.

One possible factor that may plausibly contribute to differences in POV rendering is likely to be the type of matter that comprise the host cells, or their equivalent, that is to say; normal matter as we know it versus some other form of (non-standard model) matter akin to dark-matter. Another factor is likely to be the unique degrees-of-freedom that may be indigenous to such exotic forms of matter may prove to be dominant in the description of the emerged POV’s wave functions (Hamiltonian) and interaction with nature. Liken the concept of a separate POV (which is not possible) to a CPU not yet connected to a motherboard, it is pure potential. Your position-of-view POV itself is not corporeal like a CPU but is instead essentially a standing quantum wave produced and maintained by your EC. The POV is the mathematical representation of the LifeID and both interferes and interacts and collapses natures own wave functions (Hamiltonians) which are the local superposition state of your environment (i.e. the cat is both dead and alive.) into the corporeal or particulate form your senses detect as your reality.

Ones senses, such as they’re configured in your particular host form, performs an entirely different task of rendering signals electromagnetically as telemetry gathered from this collapsed reality to form what we call experiences. Make no mistake, your position-of-view is not involved with such experiences but only serves to persist your placement as a solution of state in space-time. The collapse of the environments superposition state we call reality may not be solely or even largely performed by the living POV (arguably the electron plays a significant role in pre-rendering nature.) but nonetheless manifests the tangible physical position such experiences derives from. This is hypothesized to be the natural mechanism of ‘Being’ for every individual life-form that is implemented throughout this universe and indeed perhaps throughout existence. This is the root of the experience, or lack thereof, of life.

[alancalverd]

So all that stuff about sex and organic chemistry was wrong, and we spontaneously erupt from resolving hamiltonians?  Seems like a very complicated answer to a very simple question, but it does align with various bizarre notions of predestination.

[tonylang (OP)]

I know it is challenging for some to fathom initially but no aspect of the modern scientific understanding of earths biology or its chemical properties is being challenged. Living hosts may emerge in many different ways and your host (body) is not you. You are only temporarily and naturally tethered to your body. The cell and the verifiable aspects of its biological evolution are as science currently describes them. The instantiation hypothesis begins where the modern scientific narrative admittedly, voluntarily abstains and traditionally religions are permitted to fill what is arguably the most important of all voids, and likely the only void any living being may actually care most about. That is, the natural mechanisms governing the instantiation of life. It is for this reason that humankind has fought and prayed for a time far longer than science itself has existed. It is much overdue for the narrative to be extended not by mysticism or ideological entrenchment but by well reasoned, steely objective thought, because clearly not just some, but all of nature is ultimately science.

The instantiation hypothesis suggests that each life is an instance of a specific individual. Also, the natural process that instantiates an individual to that host (i.e. species) is independent of the specific biology, chemistry (i.e. carbon, silicon etc.) or technological principles upon which such forms may be evolved, implemented or depend for function or for its local evolution. Therefore, any individual may instantiate (live) in any viable form in any viable environment in ths universe. Ergo Earth is not special.




1-   Individual life (you) is species independent.
2-   The natural process that places you or any living being in the life they currently live is not dependent upon any particular chemistry, biology, species or form, evolved or otherwise. Just as for example, memory, or intelligence does not depend upon any particular brand or type of technology for its implementation.  That is to say, memory is abstracted from its implementation. So to in nature is the individual life abstracted from any specific implementation of its host form, or species.
 

The belief that you are your body stems from a lack of an alternative perspective and supporting evidence as well as from tradition also from the powerful visual perspective imposed by sight and a prominent physical from. It is as much a misperception as was humankinds’ long held belief in the Earth centric universe, likewise it is a very convincing visual misconception only made more so by the advent of biology and genetic science which describe the evolution and development of the physical forms presently on earth. This misconception is further compounded by the very illogical belief held even by educated individuals that the function and operation of the brain defines ones individuality in nature. Clearly this last point cannot be so since most life forms on earth do not have a brain and are not even multi-cellular.