An Ether-Based Creation Model

It is not restricted to people in the US.Homo sapiens is a flawed species.

Then get to work inventing such a generator.Those of us who doubt that there is such a thing as "the ether" aren't likely to invent it for you.Edited by nwr, : fix typo

My early answer still applies. You need to get busy on this.People who doubt the existence of the ether aren't likely to do it for you. Then you need to publish something about it. That way, either people will laugh at you or people might be persuaded to join in.

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.

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

I saw Michelson-Morley as posing a problem for ether theories. But I never saw it as a knockout blow.The real problem for ether theories, was Maxwell's equations. They showed that the apparent wave properties of light can be explained without any appeal to an ether.

What's an "etheric process"? Hmm. "Passing into the quantum realm" -- is that like "Alice through the looking glass"?As far as I can tell, you are just using meaningless words ("etheric" and "etheroidal" for example). Perhaps they are not meaningless to you, but you have not said anything that would make them meaningful to us.

To help us follow this discussion, I thought I would post a summary of the model, as presented.--- start of summary ---
--- end of summary ---And no, there isn't anything missing between the "start" line and the "end" line.

This does not make sense.The reasons that scientists considered the ether, was to explain the apparent wave properties of light. So the whole purpose of ether theory had to do with its relation to light.So now you deny that there is any relation to light.In effect, you are agreeing with the Michelson-Morley conclusion, that ether (as they understood it) does not exist.The most charitable view I can take, is that you are interested only in the word "ether", and that you are giving it an entirely different meaning. But you seem to want to keep that meaning secret. You won't tell us anything about your ether, though you have been asked.If you want to keep it secret, why did you open a discussion thread here? It makes no sense at all.

As best I can tell, you don't have a model. You have not presented any actual model in this thread.

The simplest explanation, is that the ether does not exist.If you want to persuade people that it does actually exist, then you have to come up with ways of finding actual detectable evidence.As to the question "Is it science?" -- no, it isn't. Science starts with evidence.

Or, in other words, you've got nothing.That you have nothing has been pretty obvious throughout this thread. But thanks for openly admitting it.

I am open to new creationist ideas. But they would need actual supporting evidence.

He is lecturing. That's not even trying to have a conversation.

It still needs evidence. You need to be able to map your model into actual reliable data.Until you can do that, you've got nothing.