An Ether-Based Creation Model

With this "natural earth sources" you are not only idiotically lecturing Son Goku about physics, You are also starting to intrude into my turf. As a former librarian, I know what is happening here. Just because med school is filled with insufferable egotists, that does not grant anyone the superpower of knowing everything about everything. Before you lecture us about any ethereal ether, it would be best to master this: Wave Functions Source: BCcampus Open Publishing Until then, I suggest you rethink any speculations you may have concerning matters which are freely available to all which you apparently can't be bothered to research. Also, I must ask as some have already and most of us will eventually, where's the math?So, where do we go from here? One can freely speculate, but in order to communicate anything worthwhile, one must have the requisite chops needed. Until then, mere accountants, plumbers, carpenters (!) and medical doctors are not qualified to lecture either doctors of physics, or, for that matter, even a decent research librarian, unless they do the additional hard work required.Creating a new theory of physical science that may be considered valid wholecloth out of nothing previously observed is not for amateurs, learn first, talk later.

Stand back folks, I have a TC degree from NMT so I am qualified to translate Buttigieg to English.first sapient Entity = God, the OG alien, the founders, the ancient ones, the first cause.first-causal cosmic setting = the first cause is an old way of philosophic thought prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics, a course apparently not required in med school. Note the terms "Post" and "Thread" and "Entity." Now the capitalization "post" and "thread" in this context are likely driven by a mild form of argument from authority whereas capitalizing "entity" may easily be construed as some argument for the existence of a deity.initial universal spatial oscillation = well, let's look at each word. initial of course means beginning, the great uncaused cause. universal = hypothesis applies everywhere, spatial means territorial as in envisioning the proposed model of reality in 3 dimensions. Oscillations = vibrations.universal etheric setting = see above, etheric = an antiquated view of physics prior to the Michelson–Morley experiment, as I'm sure has already been mentioned. This one is the elephant in the room the good doctor has to deal with better than I have seen so far.independently-vibrating point-like localities = Brownian motion quantum/atomic moieties = quantum originally means you can't measure the position and velocity of a particle/wave at the same time, it drops straight out of the wave equation. This has serious implications for empirical philosophy because if viewed as a particle, the math works, if viewed as a wave, the math works, the human mind can't properly conceive of both notions being true yet incompatible. This is part of the reason why cause and effect thinking is incorrect regardless of the source, be it Spinoza or Einstein. Atomic means at the atomic scale, a thing that can be photographed by the monster electron microscope at LANL if my sister is cool with it. Moieties in this context are a part of a molecule.could have arisen within a region where more linear forces happened to exist, and how sapience could have developed in a "cosmic egg" moiety that produced a sapient entity = if you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.MichaelMD, you need to do your homework because if you don't, who knows, at any time you could be called to account by an actual physicist, or worse, a librarian.

That didn't help much.Medicine is a profession, because it uses incomplete knowledge to make a quick assessment based on the best judgement, like engineering, or sometimes Library Science.Physics, being a core component of physical science, is devoted to the scientific method and peer review.What you are proposing is a major revolution in the current understanding of physics at the quantum level.First, you will have to state your hypothesis, do a lit review to make sure your hypothesis has not already been tested and found wanting, gather empirical evidence to support your hypothesis under the strictest rules against data misuse, then reduce the hypothesis into a mathematical form.That's just the easy part.Next comes publishing and peer review. Publishing may cost you, they like to charge authors, not pay them, that's for taxpayers. They just reap the profits, suckers! (Looking at you Elsevier).Then comes peer review, in Physics, by Physics professors, oh fuck. If anyone thinks some of us are harsh, or an MD internship is challenging, nothing, outside of knowing more than they do, will save you - nothing.So, what I am warning you about is, this endeavor involves a lot more than you seem to realize, we ain't even seen the math yet.Wow, you sure have a long way to go, oh well. I would wish you best of luck, but there is no such thing as luck in Physics, only at best probabilities.Edited by anglagard, : left out an important word and a few misspellings.

The standard way of proposing something new in physical science means a thesis. This means a clear statement as to what this is all about, a lit review, results, and a conclusion that better be in the form of symbolic logic. You don't necessarily have to publish in a peer reviewed physics journal (at first, archivex will suffice). However, you will need to show how you derived this hypothesis using symbolic logic (mathematics). In physics, no math, no dice.You have little choice. Back in the old days (and no doubt still today) people would self-publish their magnum opus, then send it to libraries. NMT would frequently (aprox. 1X per week) have a self-published book on physics. Now those books were on the sale table of crap we didn't want. Of course, I perused a few, one that stands out was from a Guamanian physics prof purporting to explain how the universe is built on 11 dimensional strings made up of circles of dual colored particles (according to the b&w illustration where one particle pair in the circle was filled in and the other was not.) minimal to no math, no physical evidence, no indication this is anything other than something pulled from one's ass.I did not make the rules, but following the rules means the difference between being taken seriously or having one's cherished works on the sale table ($0.25 paperback, $0.50 hardcover.)You don't seem to realize just what is involved with overturning the standard consensus view of physics. (Hint: a lot more than I have seen so far). Save any money intended for self-publishing and use it to perfect your hypothesis, it needs a lot more work.

I tried to figure out what was going on without judgement, let him know that overturning the standard models of physics is not childsplay, and emphasized the need for models that can predict the future.I see no indication that Michael MD is serious.