An Ether-Based Creation Model

PaulK writes: It isn’t. That’s pretty obvious.

Is It Science? No.

That seems unanimous. But Michael has an opportunity to challenge that assumption...or...perhaps I DID put him in the wrong Forum.

Lots of otherwise educated people like to discuss fringe topics. I have my demons... perhaps the good Doctor could chime in on what he thinks of that fringe topic. Since Michael MD is a new member here, perhaps I failed to tell him that any member can post in the Coffee House.

But I think you guys are too uptight. jar in particular seems to want to frame these topics as either rational and critically thought out or bat shit crazy and sad. That's EvC Forum, I guess.

Chew on this a moment, however.
Criticism of science

To wit:

Wiki writes: 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.[1] Feyerabend advocates a democratic society where science is treated as an equal to other ideologies or social institutions such as religion, and education, or magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[1] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[1]

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. Speaking as the charismaniac that I am, I see it all as choosing your poison. Which is what we are effectively hashing (pun intended!) out in this topic.

I was not just saying that it wasn’t science, I was saying that it wasn’t even:

reasonable within SCI Fi para mainstream pop culture.

I would think that his claim that he found his “model” encoded in the Declaration of Independence: Message 3

To be completely informative about how I arrived at my Model, I have been doing cryptographic research into a putatively-otherworldly set of codes in a historical Document (The Declaration of Independence), which I claim outlines "inside" but valid basic information needed to derive such a wide-ranging, yet consistently logical, cosmic model.

qualifies as “bat shit crazy” and his idea that Michelson and Morley made the mistake of assuming that the ether is the ether is pretty “sad”.

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.

Did you make that up? May the farce be with you.

I cant wait for the next Chapter where you introduce the Tree of Critical Thinking and the evil Tree of Dogma and Mythos.

I'll have to ask Dr, Michael if he is a believer in anything or whether he properly questions his own results.

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.

It's easy to say "get your material published," another thing to do it.

Academic specialty journal editors would probably not even forward it for peer reviews. I have tried submitting it, and got responses such as "I wouldn't know where to start."

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.

By "selectively etheric field" I meant producing a "forced," or sort of artificial, field, by intensifying the proportion of etheric components, using specific resonators, in an area where ambient rarified units exist naturally as a normal combination, or mixture, of quantum and etheric components. Such a naturally-occurring mixture of units, in my Model, would range from elemental ether units at the smallest scale, through somewhat larger "etheroidal" units, on up to quantum scale units. -You would not aim to produce an exclusively-etheric field, but rather to produce one that has a significantly higher degree of etheric components than would otherwise occur.

I'm sorry but I could not go into specific details more than this over the Internet.

MM writes: 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.

You have no model. You don't even seem to understand what the word means in relation to a scientific model.

And the next post you made is nothing but word salad.

quote:

---

By "selectively etheric field" I meant producing a "forced," or sort of artificial, field, by intensifying the proportion of etheric components, using specific resonators, in an area where ambient rarified units exist naturally as a normal combination, or mixture, of quantum and etheric components. Such a naturally-occurring mixture of units, in my Model, would range from elemental ether units at the smallest scale, through somewhat larger "etheroidal" units, on up to quantum scale units. -You would not aim to produce an exclusively-etheric field, but rather to produce one that has a significantly higher degree of etheric components than would otherwise occur.
I'm sorry but I could not go into specific details more than this over the Internet.

---

That is truly incomprehensible babbling.

Edited by jar, : address the OPs next message as well.

jar,to Michael MD writes: That is truly incomprehensible babbling.

Whatever happened to pull up a stump and set a spell? This is a new member...not an objectified member of some imagined club of ignorant masses who ignore your Critical Thinking methods. Talk to Michael MD like a human...like something Jesus may have you do. Don't publicly berate new members.

When you point out to a child that they are simply babbling it is a call for them to grow up and learn to speak coherently.

I honestly believe that might even be possible for Michael MD to accomplish even though all the evidence shows otherwise.

I told you these guys here are tough, unforgiving, and at times insulting. It is one thing when they chastise *me* because I have been on this Forum for nearly 18 years. Feel free to shoot right back at them.

Michael MD writes: Academic specialty journal editors would probably not even forward it for peer reviews. I have tried submitting it, and got responses such as "I wouldn't know where to start." 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.

So jar says you have no model. This response may force you to think about what a model is, as you understand it. They do this to me all the time.

It's easy to say "get your material published," another thing to do it.

Do you see this topic as a hobby, a passion, or a goal to get published?

Academic specialty journal editors would probably not even forward it for peer reviews. I have tried submitting it, and got responses such as "I wouldn't know where to start."

That might be a clue that the concept model needs work. What do you think, Michael?

I'm sorry but I could not go into specific details more than this over the Internet.

Which may be a clue that this is something that is too complicated to publish. Or confusing.

It's easy to say "get your material published," another thing to do it.

It may be difficult to publish in scientific research journals. But it is not so difficult to just publish (as on your own web site, for example).

From what I see here, you have a "theory" that is not even wrong. It is all vague talk that we cannot pin down. There's nothing to test, nothing to even criticize. There's just a few buzz words.

Talk to Michael MD like a human.

That's exactly what jar did. I'm not sure why you cannot see that.

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.

I'm sorry but I could not go into specific details more than this over the Internet.

It seems like you are leaving out all the details, so I am puzzled how this could achieve any more personal satisfaction for you than being turned away by scientific journals?

Did you include the details, equations, graphs, figures, and definitions in the material you submitted?

Did you describe the observations you made that led you to conclude that there is a ether field?

When astrophysicists measured the rotation speed of the stars in galaxies they observed that the all the detectable mass in the galaxy was not nearly enough to account for the motion. They realized that the obvious conclusion was there is a lot more mass that we could not see that they called "Dark Matter" until they can figure out what it is.

What you have told us so far is that you heard about the Bermuda Triangle and Declaration of independence. and concluded, "Wow, that must mean that ether exists."

By "selectively etheric field" I meant producing a "forced," or sort of artificial, field, by intensifying the proportion of etheric components, using specific resonators, in an area where ambient rarified units exist naturally as a normal combination, or mixture, of quantum and etheric components. Such a naturally-occurring mixture of units, in my Model, would range from elemental ether units at the smallest scale, through somewhat larger "etheroidal" units, on up to quantum scale units. -You would not aim to produce an exclusively-etheric field, but rather to produce one that has a significantly higher degree of etheric components than would otherwise occur.

Well, I can conclude from this that your ether field has absolutely no effect on how physics and chemistry is carried out and does not need to be taken into account. Tens of thousands (probably million) of scientists have been studying every aspect of the Universe and nature for the past 100 years and none of them have reported any hints of your ether or the somewhat larger "etheroidal" units.

So far, all you have told us is you have an idea and you can not really explain it any clearer than that.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Which may be a clue that this is something that is too complicated to publish. Or confusing.

Too complicated to publish? Really? Apparently you are completely unfamiliar with science.

There is nothing there to publish, no questions, no observations, no data, no clear concise explanation of anything, no definitions of terminology, no systematic methodology. This isn't complicated it's just confused. If he doesn't do the science there will never be anything to publish or even announce.