[MichaelMD (OP)]

To add several more theoretic points regarding my Ether Model as a "theory of everything."

It is logical to hypothesize that our world of different quantum-unit forces was preceded by an earlier world-setting in which earlier, more-uniform, unit-type forces existed, that led to a subsequent quantization. Any earlier etheric setting of this kind would have had to be universal. The likeliest setting would have involved a first-causal formation of a universal matrix, comprising ultimately-minuscule, first-causal size-scale, units, and also likely that some sequence of universal physical events was what led to a world of forces like ours.

I previously outlined a model for this, involving an initial universal oscillation of ultimately-tiny point-like units, which then transitioned to a universal etheric matrix, composed of post-first-causal ("elemental") units, which interact with each other through a post-oscillational,immediate-vibratory-contact, mechanism (which is a perfect sub-model to account for quantum entanglement.) -Quantum entanglement representing radiated packets of etheric force-units that have the same vibratory pattern, the only actual forces involving elemental etheric units, the quantum units, as a whole, being kinetically uninvolved, but having a composition of identical "building block" elemental ether units, allowing the process to take place.

The chief factor that led physics to reject an ether was Michelson and Morley's 1887 experiment, repeated with modifications by others since then, involving measurements of the behavior of light beams, using optical refraction, which involve a key assumption that the light beams would have to be affected by (interact with) any kind of ether. However, I propose that a universal ether must actually consist mainly of ultimately-minuscule, first-causal-type, units that would be vanishingly-smaller than the photons that transmit visible light beams. So the light beams measured in the Michelson-Morley sets of experiments would not have had any inertial interface with such an ether, which means that the light beams and the ether could not interact, which in turn means that those experiments were based on a false assumption, and that physics is wrong in dismissing the ether.



 

[Bored chemist]

The likeliest ...

Please show how you calculated the probabilities.

The chief factor that led physics to reject an ether was Michelson and Morley's 1887 experiment, repeated with modifications by others since then, involving measurements of the behavior of light beams, using optical refraction, which involve a key assumption that the light beams would have to be affected by (interact with) any kind of ether.

It's hardly an "assumption".
It is true- by definition of the luminiferous ether.
The ether is what carries the light; of course there is an interaction.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

In my model, the propagation of light falls into the same kind of explanation as does quantum entanglement, above. -With my model, the primary actors in a light transmission are the very same elemental ether units. The energy that starts a light beam's transmission, say a flashlight bulb or the sun, primarily emits an etheric transmission. These ether units "feel," and travel toward, ambient forces in the area having the same kind of vibrations (photonic type.) (There are always a lot of photonic forces in and around an area, even after sunset.) (It's worth noting that a flashlight's illumination occurs even to the rear of the light source, as if there exist ambient light-resonances there) The large numbers of quantum photons seen with the light beam are generated by the energy of the ether units in the transmission, and come from the light source (sun or light bulb)'s ether units. -Ambient ether units in the area, as they "feel" the linear energy coming from the transmission, change from their previous un-energized state, of quiet, random, vibrations, to a state where the linearity of the beam aligns the units, which in turn entrains the ether units, which is what produces larger energy units, up to the size of the photons that are seen.


 

[MichaelMD (OP)]

To further clarify as to how my model of the ether relates to light, and to current views of quantum physics. -Quantum physics, in rejecting the ether, largely due to their belief that the Michelson-Morley experiments "disproved ether," views light as arising from a quantum-order unit, the photon. They view photons as massless (although a minority of physicists deny photons are truly massless), and that they move through space at the speed of light, producing the light.

On the other hand. my model claims that photons are generated secondarily, to the primary cause of light transmission, namely ether units, according to the model I outlined in my last Post. -I should add some clarification to this ether-version of light transmission.

I propose that  when a light transmission is generated by a source such as a star or the sun, the energy needed for light beams to travel through space is, like the photonic etheric impulse also propagated with it, virtually unabated as it goes. (A necessary, but reasonable assumption here would be that the vibrational dynamic of the ether is virtually perfect, or "ideal," unlike quantum dynamics.) Then, as the transmission passes through space, it "feels," etherically, similarly to the process in quantum entanglement, other photonic resonances elsewhere in space, and the light transmission is directed toward these "areas of resonance." -The fact that photons are generated in such profusion as far away as another solar system is evidence that the etheric transmission has transmitted the energy from its source virtually unabated.

Quantum theory cannot match the logic of this model in terms of accounting for why such quantities of photons (in the trillions) are seen with light beam transmissions moving over such distances.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

Since this has been a lengthy "theory of everything" thread, at this point I would like to encapsulate what I consider its basic, key, concepts, starting from its view of the beginnings of the Cosmos.

In my Model, what came first was universal Space, a type of space free from everything else, such as forces. It is viewed as thus having been very self-compatible, such that ultimately-rarified point-like localities within it were oscillating with each other, reciprocally. Eventually, here and there, adjacent "points" underwent oscillatory fatigue, and fell toward each other, thus forming first-causal Yin-and-Yang couplets. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals.) -This broke the perfect symmetry of the oscillations in space, producing ultimately-rarified ("elemental") units, which now were vibrating independently, rather than oscillating reciprocally. However, this transition would not have been simultaneously uniform throughout space, so that now there were couplets which were scattered, here and there, and which tended to merge with each other as "matched" doubled-units. -The idea here is that since this first-causal sequence of processes would have been non-uniform, there would have existed within it areas where comparative linearity of the motions of the units would have existed, the linearity then producing alignments of the vibrations of units, which in turn would have produced their entrainment into larger and larger units, at first "etheroidal" in size-scale, and eventually, up to the size of quantum units and atoms.

At this point, there would have existed radiating fluxes of such units in space, which, through mutual resonances, would have formed confluences, or "islands," where intense energic processes occurred, involving both local quantization and outside etheric radiations. The etheric components would have involved extremely rarified and complex processes, affecting any "local" quantum materials. Quantization could have included roundish, or "cosmic egg" shaped moieties, which, because of the outside etheric radiation, developed curving, reverberating, energy circuits, which in turn could have led to the appearance of a sapient Entity (ies.)

Eventually, the overall process in space would have produced a universal Ether, which would have represented an "ether macrocosm." However, the transient type of magnetism which would have been acting upon the quantum moieties (and entity(s) at the "island" would have made things unstable, so it was decided to use the surrounding energies to form a more-stable quantum universe (our universe.) To accomplish this,electrons (the smallest, and speediest, quantum units) were projected into a "virgin" ether region, where no quantum forces existed, inducing the ether there to undergo patterned chain-reactional formation of larger units, up to the scale of atomic units. (Since photon/electron units had been used to produce the quantum universe, it remained the speediest unit in the universe, accounting for why its velocity, the speed of light, remained the highest speed limit in the universe.)

[Bored chemist]

In my Model

What evidence is there to support your model?
In what ways is it better than the conventional model?
What quantitative predictions can your model make?
If the answer to any of those isn't clear then, once again, you have just been composing postmodern poetry.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

Chemist, To apply the technical details you mentioned would require serious scientific interest in this Model, which has yet to happen.

I believe the logic of the model, as described above, is enough to justify some investigative interest.

[Bored chemist]

I believe the logic of the model, as described above, is enough to justify some investigative interest.

It seems nobody shares your belief.
This may reflect the fact that the ether was shown not to exist.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

A brief addendum to the cosmic formation-model just described above: while our universe does have its well-known speed limit (the speed of light. Nothing here can go faster), UFO theorists claim that UFOs must travel faster than light, in order to have bridged the distance-gaps between stars of the order of light-years. -The way my model would answer that would be that UFO space craft are using etheric energies, which would not be subject to the same speed limit that quantum-structured craft in our world are subject to.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

The claim above, that "the ether has been shown not to exist," is false. The chief reason physics has continued to deny the existence of an ether is the series of experiments called "Michelson-Morley." (MMX). MMX was first performed in 1887 by Michelson and Morley, and has been repeated by others, with various modifications, since then. The MMX sets of experiments have used optical measurements of the refraction of beams of light which have been subjected to different gravity-settings (as in the original MMX) or, since then, to other experimental modifications. MMX experimenters have always assumed that the light beams being measured must necessarily be interacting with any kind of ether. -However, in my model of the ether, a universal ether exists that consists of ether units that are ultimately rarified, and which were formed, universally, when the ether itself originated. Therefore, such ether units would be first-causal, presumptively ultimately-rarified, and thus vanishingly smaller than the photon units which transmit light beams visible to our eyes. So there could be no inertial interface between the ether and the light beams measured in MMX. The basic assumption of MMX being false, physics has been wrong in dismissing the ether.

[Kryptid]

So why call it ether at all? What experiment could reveal that your ether exists?

[Bored chemist]

The claim above, that "the ether has been shown not to exist," is false. The chief reason physics has continued to deny the existence of an ether is the series of experiments called "Michelson-Morley." (MMX). MMX was first performed in 1887 by Michelson and Morley, and has been repeated by others, with various modifications, since then. The MMX sets of experiments have used optical measurements of the refraction of beams of light which have been subjected to different gravity-settings (as in the original MMX) or, since then, to other experimental modifications. MMX experimenters have always assumed that the light beams being measured must necessarily be interacting with any kind of ether. -However, in my model of the ether, a universal ether exists that consists of ether units that are ultimately rarified, and which were formed, universally, when the ether itself originated. Therefore, such ether units would be first-causal, presumptively ultimately-rarified, and thus vanishingly smaller than the photon units which transmit light beams visible to our eyes. So there could be no inertial interface between the ether and the light beams measured in MMX. The basic assumption of MMX being false, physics has been wrong in dismissing the ether.

And if I call my cat "The Ether" then clearly "The Ether" exists, but that doesn't stop the MM experiment having shown that the luminiferous ether  doesn't exist.

[Halo_Nova]

There must be an in-between, a buffer, if you will, to allow for transference.

[Kryptid]

There must be an in-between, a buffer, if you will, to allow for transference.

How do you figure?

[Halo_Nova]

There must be an in-between, a buffer, if you will, to allow for transference.

How do you figure?

My reply is meant for the OP. It seems many people here on this post are having trouble getting past the hurdles to be able to understand what he is explaining from his own level. My attempt is to engage with him at his own level so that he may better understand his own theory in a way that can then be re-conceptualized to a form that many more may understand. 

[MichaelMD (OP)]

So why call it ether at all? What experiment could reveal that your ether exists?

My model of ether has yet to get any real recognition in the science establishment, so it would be premature to outline a way it could be tested. (I do have a protocol for a potential field test, but it would not be appropriate to describe it if my basic theories are unrecognized.)

[MichaelMD (OP)]

There must be an in-between, a buffer, if you will, to allow for transference.

If by "buffer" you mean there has to be an intermediate stage between the ether in my Model and the quantum unhits familiar to physics, the idea would be this. - The ether units are the primary actors in energic processes. The way they transition to larger units (at first "etheroidal," in my model), and to quantum size-scale units is as follows. -The ether units being vibratory, their vibrations might be un-aligned, or random, as in a non-energized region. But if there is an incoming linear energy, such as an electric or light flow, then as the etheric component of the incoming force interacts with the quieter ether units already there, the vibrations of the "resident" ether units become aligned with each other, and after that, the ether units begin to entrain with each other, forming larger and larger units, up to the scale of quantum units. Once a pair of ether units align vibrationally, or "pair up," if they then interact with a matching pair, they merge, and so on, and this process keeps entraining.

[Bored chemist]

My model of ether has yet to get any real recognition in the science establishment, so it would be premature to outline a way it could be tested.

Unless it is testable, it is not science and the scientific community will continue, quite rightly, to ignore you.

Did you not realise that?

[Halo_Nova]

There must be an in-between, a buffer, if you will, to allow for transference.

If by "buffer" you mean there has to be an intermediate stage between the ether in my Model and the quantum unhits familiar to physics, the idea would be this. - The ether units are the primary actors in energic processes. The way they transition to larger units (at first "etheroidal," in my model), and to quantum size-scale units is as follows. -The ether units being vibratory, their vibrations might be un-aligned, or random, as in a non-energized region. But if there is an incoming linear energy, such as an electric or light flow, then as the etheric component of the incoming force interacts with the quieter ether units already there, the vibrations of the "resident" ether units become aligned with each other, and after that, the ether units begin to entrain with each other, forming larger and larger units, up to the scale of quantum units. Once a pair of ether units align vibrationally, or "pair up," if they then interact with a matching pair, they merge, and so on, and this process keeps entraining.

I understand very well what you are trying to explain, the issue in this realm is the human need for labels. As you can tell from other replies, most are arguing on labels, limitations, and so on. Think of it like you seeing light as a whole, where as most can only see specific colors. A step down transformer would be helpful in such case, for others to get a fuller glimpse as to what you are envisioning. Abstraction is the easiest way to try to relate it to mundane terms, but then others argue their differences instead of climbing the ladder for the expanded view. The theory you are explaining here can be applied to anything and everything we experience here. Particles to atoms to molecules to compounds. Cells to tissue to organs to organ systems, etc. Planets to solar systems to galaxies, etc. Seconds to minutes to hours to days, etc. Pennies to nickles to dimes to quarters, etc. It is all around you. With that in mind, if you want to take your theory even deeper, I would suggest looking at how your theory relates to all of reality from different perspectives. This will help you expand your knowledge. As you look at differences from your model to the reality around you, then you would be contracting the concept. Say you're in a folder on your computer, if you focus on differences, then you would be viewing documents separately within the folder, if you are expanding the topic you would be seeking the parent folder to the one you are looking in. If this is too advanced for you yet, I understand. Know that you are the expert of your own perceptions and experiences of reality. No one can truly tell you what is or isn't. All they can do is explain their perspectives, which may or may not assist you in more clearly defining what it is you are experiencing outside of the 3d/4d.

[MichaelMD (OP)]

My model of ether has yet to get any real recognition in the science establishment, so it would be premature to outline a way it could be tested.

Unless it is testable, it is not science and the scientific community will continue, quite rightly, to ignore you.

Did you not realise that?

Chemist, You put a significant error into your reply. You said "unless it is testable, it is not science.." However, what I said said in my post just before that was that I do have a potential field test of my theory. My claim was that it is "testable."