0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When one hears that a "new particle" has been discovered under artificial laboratory conditions, my response is "so what?' What is important is what happened naturally.
A sapient Entity projected electrons (the smallest and fastest quantum units( toward a "virgin" ether region, which initiated a chain reactional process in the ether, in which ether units reacted to the linear paths of the electrons by [bla bla bla bla]
Quote from: MichaelMD on 30/06/2021 22:04:44A sapient Entity projected electrons (the smallest and fastest quantum units( toward a "virgin" ether region, which initiated a chain reactional process in the ether, in which ether units reacted to the linear paths of the electrons by [bla bla bla bla]Let me guess, you can't do math, you can't do freshman physics problems and your education consists of watching YouTube. But you have the answers to every question, they're nonsense but they are answers.
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether, we will never start asking the ,right questions to realize the Big Bang theory is leading us down all the wrong roads.
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether,
As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an ether
Quote from: MichaelMD on 02/07/2021 01:32:27As long as physicists fail to acknowledge the existence of an etherWhy would they acknowledge something that experimentation has failed to find?
It was assumed that any kind of ether would interact with the light waves, as a sort of "etheric medium,"
I could use a laugh.What is this "ether" and what does it do?What are its properties, how do we observe them?
observed under different gravity settings
(other than varying gravity settings)
However,the ether model I have presented in my threads here would have it that all the MMX experiments share one key basic false assumption - that any kind of ether would interact with the light beams under observation.
With my ether model, the kind of ether I propose is composed of "elemental," vanishingly-small, vibrational units, which arose universally and first-causally.
Quote from: MichaelMD on 03/07/2021 13:35:08It was assumed that any kind of ether would interact with the light waves, as a sort of "etheric medium," Let's be clear about this.They were talking about the "luminiferous ether".The whole point of the ether was that it was something for light (and other EM radiation) to interact with.So, they were, of course, perfectly correct to make that "assumption".The "assumption" was true by definition.Maybe it would be better if you actually answered thisQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/07/2021 16:41:27I could use a laugh.What is this "ether" and what does it do?What are its properties, how do we observe them?Quote from: MichaelMD on 03/07/2021 13:35:08observed under different gravity settings Not really.Gravity is pretty near instant on the Earth's surface and it's very near constant at any particular point.Quote from: MichaelMD on 03/07/2021 13:35:08(other than varying gravity settings)The MMX has essentially nothing to do with gravity.Quote from: MichaelMD on 03/07/2021 13:35:08However,the ether model I have presented in my threads here would have it that all the MMX experiments share one key basic false assumption - that any kind of ether would interact with the light beams under observation. As I said; that's what the ether is "for". It was invented to interact with light- and subsequently found to be unnecessary.Quote from: MichaelMD on 03/07/2021 13:35:08With my ether model, the kind of ether I propose is composed of "elemental," vanishingly-small, vibrational units, which arose universally and first-causally. That's word salad.All you have done is invent something for which there is no evidence, and then muddy the water by naming it after something that doesn't exist.Why?
This kind of ether would not interact with light beams.
With my ether model, the MMX's "classic evidence" cited by physics against an ether does not hold.
Quote from: MichaelMD on 03/07/2021 13:35:08With my ether model, the MMX's "classic evidence" cited by physics against an ether does not hold. Still, why would science acknowledge something that experimental evidence doesn't exist for? Failing to disprove something is not the same thing as finding evidence that it exists.QuoteThis kind of ether would not interact with light beams.Then, by definition, it isn't aether.
Experimental evidence doesn't exist for ether because physicists have a consensus model of quantum physics that wrongly dismisses an ether based on misinterpretation of tests that were conducted in past years, particularly the sets of experiments called the Michelson Morley experiments, and which I have pointed out already in this Thread, would not disprove an ether of the type I propose does exist.
Still, why would science acknowledge something that experimental evidence doesn't exist for? Failing to disprove something is not the same thing as finding evidence that it exists.
Quote from: MichaelMD on 04/07/2021 14:15:26Experimental evidence doesn't exist for ether because physicists have a consensus model of quantum physics that wrongly dismisses an ether based on misinterpretation of tests that were conducted in past years, particularly the sets of experiments called the Michelson Morley experiments, and which I have pointed out already in this Thread, would not disprove an ether of the type I propose does exist.Quote from: Kryptid on 03/07/2021 17:48:23Still, why would science acknowledge something that experimental evidence doesn't exist for? Failing to disprove something is not the same thing as finding evidence that it exists.
would not disprove an ether of the type I propose does exist.
Quote from: MichaelMD on 03/07/2021 14:28:51 This kind of ether would not interact with light beams. If it is something which does not do what the ether did, why do you call it "ether"?
thus our quantum physics technologies fail to pick it up
Quote from: MichaelMD on 06/07/2021 12:00:18thus our quantum physics technologies fail to pick it upSo then we have no reason to acknowledge it.