An Ether-Based Creation Model

Currently, there is a growing body of dissident physics theorists who claim that consensus physics is in error in holding that such an ether does not exist.

Yeah, you said that but when I went looking there seem to be a scattering of lone wolves out there with every kind of aether theory without support even from fellow travelers. Phat’s entry Dr. Glenn Borchardt and Dan A. Davidson Aetheric Energy Physics of Dan A Davidson's Shape Power having a few of them each. No growing body of dissidents is evident. There may not be interest from mainstream cosmology because there appears to be no real model, as in a set of equations that describes the detailed operations and effects of this aether. All are inconsistent between the various speculations. I can’t see a consensus even among the few aether advocates as to what an aether is supposed to be. Another quantum field with a boson? Variation on the quantum foam? Some mysterious appeal to majik?

The first thing you guys need to do is show by some Michelson/Morley-type experiments that an aether exists. No, no, the first thing you guys need to do is figure out what the hell you’re talking about because right now none of you seem to. Looks like every speculated aether is different.

You guys don’t know, you can’t explain it to the rest of us, and we’re supposed to accept this as a replacement for QED? I don’t think that’s going to happen.

As for the rest of your work … well it is unique, I’ll give you that.

I propose that what came first was universal space, a "pure" space, free from everything else, such as forces. Thus, it could have been extremely self-compatible, such that small "localities" within it were reciprocally oscillating.

That first part is called a de Sitter space.

That second sentence is just a jumble of buzzwords. What’s it supposed to mean?

In fact, the remainder of your post is just too far under the radar to comprehend.

Can you be more specific with …

- small "localities" within, reciprocally oscillating. What’s a locality? In this de Sitter space what is oscillating? What is reciprocating? Momentum? Energy? What controls the periodicity?

- How can oscillatory fatigue be experienced by an undefined immaterial field?

- What perfect symmetry of oscillation? Define perfect? How was this perfection initially achieved?

- Are you talking a scalar field? (I sure hope so.)

And that is just the beginning. I don’t know what any of this stuff means to you because right now none of it makes any sense to me. It’s a muddle.

Right now this is just ignorant nutjob science. I need a lot clearer take on the concepts you are using.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Ahh, Capt? There's no water in it and it's not lit. You should probably fix that.

I can appreciate that, Capt, but I still think it needs some Traditional Herbal Concoctions in the bowl. It's more fun that way. Fattening, but fun.

Herb was used because it starts with an h. I was specifying a particular organic compound. Phat, you are so innocent. Please do not change.

Oh, and yes, monchies. I can't keep any of the good stuff in the house, anymore. I just eat it. So now munchies consists of rabbit food and V-8.

Flawed implies there is some un-flawed ideal for humanity.

I don't see it. We are just human - brilliant and stupid at the same time.

Unfortunately, the latter involves more than half the population.

You cited Michelson and Morley as evidence in rebuttal of my model claiming an ether exists.

No, I didn't. Please re-read.

What I said was you guys need to show the aether exists at all, in whatever flavor suits your speculations, by experiment. I am very familiar with MMX as one such attempt. Now it's your turn.

Do the experiments. Show it exists.

Physics still holds to MMX as the chief evidence against the existence oi an ether.

So change that if you can. If not then abandon your conjecture.

the ether had to have arisen first causally

Duh, yeah. How? What cause? You leave much too much unexplained.

would quite probably be ultimately-rarified

Ultimately-rarified means it ceases to exits. I don't think you are using that concept correctly.

quantum units were formed by vibrations of elemental ether units aligning and entraining into larger and larger units,

Quantum units. Define. Ether units. Define.

Formed by vibrations of elemental ether units aligning and entraining into larger and larger units? How? What is the mechanism?

But, so what? You end up with a fluff piece of undefined aether units, whatever those are.

then quantum units could still display evidence of that

How? What are the collider boys looking for? How will they know these undefined quantum units of undefined aether units?

I would claim that such evidence exists, if one looks closely at quantum entanglement (QE.)

You do realize entanglement is one of the major elephants in the quantum bedroom, yes? That whole area is being studied by more than just a "close look".

What do you think they should find they already have not seen?

The dynamics of how quantum units interact involves waves, vectors, and so on, of course, but i claim that quantum units simultaneously retain a subtle ability to interact with the underlying ether, through vibrations.

You claim this? Based on what?

Is this just your wet dream or do you have any actual data or math to lend any credence to this fantasy?

Physics is making a basic error in dismissing the ether.

No. Physics is just fine. You just haven't shown with any efficacy that there is anything in this aether business for us to study.

Mike, this sounds so much like the usual crackpot stuff. Bad terminology, misconceptions of known effects, mis-understandings of known concepts, undefined variables and secret majik mechanisms.

This is not good, Mike. You are failing.

No. No, Phat. No apologies necessary. You were doing your (unpaid, voluntary) job on behalf of this community.

I agree it should not have been promoted, but I accept your reasons for doing so.

This place is a lot more fun when we have the occasional pot to crack and crush into shards and then pulverize the shards into dust.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Mike, Do you have any evidence to support your conjecture? I mean present evidence that pointed you in this direction.

Any math? Any model (equations) that describe this aether field?

Do you have anything concrete we can see that leads you, even by extension, to postulate this aether?

You must have had a reason to think on this issue. What was the evidentiary impetus?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

engineering techno-babble

Ahh yes, the Heisenberg compensator.

I didn't realize there was a linguistic category for crack-pot techno-babble.

And people say science is limited.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Mike, I’m surprised that after 30 years in the medical profession you don’t seem to comprehend the methods you practiced all your life.

This is not the way science is done and you should already know this.

First, you keep saying you have a model. No, you do not have a model. A model is the math not the prose. You have not presented any model here, Mike. Please stop using that term to describe your speculation until you provide the equations.

Second, you have refused to answer any of the detailed questions put to you. The discipline requires you answer questions.

Next, your jargon-laden explanations use known settled jargon in illogical and inappropriate ways. You can’t fill a space with vectors, Mike. You cannot have oscillatory fatigue by an undefined immaterial field. And I can cite half-a-dozen more. You do not seem to understand the concepts behind the words you use resulting in your words reading as gibberish.

Bermuda Triangle and a few other similar areas. That eventually led me to focus mainly on the scientific questions that arose. Ultimately, it led to the ether model I developed.

Really. How does the Bermuda Triangle lead to your aether supposition? What is the logical chain of connection?

Mike, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Everything you have presented is jargon-heavy nonsense with no explanations and certainly no model.

Are you a nutjob? Seriously, Mike, are you the crackpot you appear to be or do you have answers?

He is not trying to push it to be accepted mainstream. He is not claiming it is true...

Phat, that is exactly what he is trying to do. I don't think he realizes what he is hoping for is not possible. It's part of the fantasy.

AZPaul3 seems to nearly worship Science...if it were possible. And yet half in jest he speaks of enlightening mind-opening things such as trips in the desert on Peyote or other mind-expanding drugs.

You miss the point that science IS the enlightening experience and that it is the science that informs me of the mind-opening euphoric illusions that natures chemistry can provide.

I am but a lowly acolyte of the discipline but my worship of science is true. And we get weekends off.

Genesis

In the beginning knowledge was void and without context and ignorance was upon the mind of man. Then the man said, “Let there be science” that knowledge may enter the man and the man saw that the science was good and thus was the first day.

On the second day the man had an idea and the idea was studied and the idea was spoken as a hypothesis as is the way of science. And the man saw that the hypothesis was testable and falsifiable and that the science was good. And the idea and the hypothesis were the second day.

Then the hypothesis was tested by experiment and the man saw that the experiment was good and collected lots of data from the experiment. And the data were analyzed and the man found the data were good and did not falsify the hypothesis as is the way of science. And the man saw that the science was good and the test and the analysis were the third day.

Then the test was replicated by experiment and the man saw that the replication was good and collected lots of data from the experiment. And the data were analyzed and the man found the data were repeated and the replication was good and did not falsify the hypothesis. And the man saw that the science was good and the replication and the analysis were the fourth day.

And the man said let us write upon the papers the idea, the hypothesis, the experiment and the analysis with all data, notes and equations that others, yea even those yet to be born of this world, may repeat many times the formation of the hypothesis and the test and the replication of the test and the performance of the analyses to verify the efficacy of the initial result. And the man wrote upon the papers and saw that the papers were good and the man did copy the papers and did post them onto arXiv and did submit copies of them to many specialized journals. And the man saw that the publication of the science was good and the writing and the papers were the fifth day.

On the sixth day the man saw that knowledge had come to him that had not been known before and that the science was good so he took the rest of the week off.

Yes, of course that is original. I don't do plagiarism. Not knowingly, anyway.

No, there won't be a follow up because I had my fun penning it and to go further seems like a chore at this point. Besides, I did this while steaming over your philosopher's statement formulating my response. It was therapy.

Your philosopher, as usual with your intellectual selections, Phat, was on the fringe of thought and no one cares about his errant views of the philosophy of science. He means nothing to the discipline.

quote:

---

Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.

---

No one disagrees. But, this is a gross misrepresentation of how science is conducted as should have been clear to an academic. There is a basic overall methodology which science has found to be of the greatest efficacy but the details of that methodology are as flexible and adaptable as the varied questions being asked. We’re realists, remember, not bolsheviks. Not all of us, anyway.

The only angst over methodological rules in science is with Feyerabend and friends.

Ugh, philosophers.

I see him trying to prove black is white as useless philosophers are apt to try in building a reputation. The statement that science should be classified equal with religion or majik and mythology and subject to some political influence is the exact reason science needs to maintain independence. The illogical stupidity of religion, majik, mythology, and politics is the very thing the methods of science are there to rend out.

I don't care how smart he was. His philosophy was ignorant and, imho, fuckin stupid.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Trying this interdisciplinary, wide-ranging, kind of model in a forum like EvC seemed the likeliest way to go, with the kind of model I have.

No, Mike. A lot of the folk here are science types just like the reviewers.

Since you have given us less than you give the reviewers, we cannot do better than your reviewer's response of "I wouldn't know where to start" except our language and tone is much more colorful and damning.

No, Mike, I don't think this forum is the proper venue for you to present these few scraps of your work. I don't think any venue is appropriate for this hairbrained, crackpot crap.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I reviewed QE again, to better illustrate how my Model proposes different ways elemental units, and larger etheroidal units, could affect the behavior of overlying quantum units.

I'd like to see that review, if you please. Could you bring that here? That would be good.