An Ether-Based Creation Model

When you ask me to clarify what the ether is with respect to space, it's a question difficult to answer from the standpoint of our experiential world, which is mediated by quantum forces.In my ether model, we have not been able to perceive, or to detect the ether technically, due to limitations inherent in our world, where forces are mediated by much-larger energy units, i.e., quantal units. In my ether model, the predominant units comprising the ether are vastly smaller. (Being first-causal in origin, they are "elemental," and had their origin in a world-setting very different from ours.)Since it was derived from original space, ether units would have no mass. (This has been hard for me to put over with some theorists clinging to the concept that since we perceive "solidity" in our everyday experience, there has to be such a thing as "mass." -If this represents a major sticking-point for some theorists, this is as far as I can go on that point. While we are not able to demonstrate the ether scientifically, at least not yet, neither is there a clear definition of what "mass" actually is.

Several of the recent posts have discussed "dark energy" and the "expanding universe."My model of the ether would have a different, but logical (with respect to the rest of my model) explanation for these two assumptions in "consensus physics." -My ether model includes the factor of creational design of our universe. -Alternatively to the consensus model, BBT, this could account for the apparent (to our earthly observation) expansional movement of our universe's outermost celestial bodies (an alternative to our universe somehow "expanding.") - This alternative explanation would be that when our universe was created, by projecting quantal electrons through ether, creational forethought also designed a way for this universe to continue, virtually without end. That would have been done by creating another, younger, universe. Then, when one universe (say ours) had dissipated much of its internal energies, it would be increasingly attracted by external energies: gravitationally, by another similarly-sized gravitational force (a second universe.) -Then, the two universes would gradually approach each other gravitationally, and the younger universe, upon collision, would re-energized the older tired universe (ours.)To us earth observers, it would appear like our universe was "expanding," but the actual mechanism at work is gravitational motion toward a second universe.Here, it's worth noting that galaxies have been observed colliding with each other."Dark energy," then, in my model, would be an unnecessary hypothesis, since the true mechanism for the acceleration of the outer celestial bodies does not come from an expansion of our universe.This Forum is called Creationist. -Why aren't members freely open to new creationist ideas? Most of the posters seem to prefer non-creational "random universe" consensus theory and hypothesis.

Non life to produce life? -My ether model proposes there were intensive fluxing etheric radiations in an ether world that preceded creation of our quantized world. In that earlier world, the intensity and ultra-rarified nature of the radiations could well have included magnetically monopolar areas within ether/quantum entangled fluxes. The unidirectional nature of monopolarity could then have catalyzed appearance of the first life forms.

Tanyptryx's Post treats the question of the nature of "vacuum" in a way that accords with present quantum-physics-theory. -Since this is still my Thread, I should point out that in my Ether Model, what quantum theory refers to as a vacuum, i.e., as being completely empty, would not apply.In my Model, the ether is everywhere, both inside and outside everything, and what they are calling "totally empty" just refers to what they are picking up with quantum-forces-mediated measurements. I claim it's not truly a "vacuum."

OK, I am not a quantist, and a gap here and there in my discussion of quantum theories can be pointed out. But I dispute the way Tanypteryx authoritatively used the term "physics" in this context, as if it undisputedly represents a full description of forces, including all elemental forces, in addition to quantum forces. I believe the term "physics" should be qualified in such a context, in the present Thread, and instead one should call it "theoretical physics," when one cites interpretations of current-consensus quantum physics, which eschews the existence of an underlying ether such as the model of the ether I proposed.

This Thread has presented my Ether Model. Anyone taking the time to go through my earlier posts will see that my model covers a very wide range of cosmological and earth-based topics. By its very nature, the fact that my model is based on an ether makes it deviate from basic foundational theories of quantum physics. -Just the fact that physics still rejects the ether, alone, means that the last few posts, commenting on my mistake on a comparatively small detail of quantum theory, is beside the main point. Comparing the two overviews would require an analysis of each overview, and comparing their rationale.If I missed on fine details in commenting on a theoretical aspect in quantum physics is not near the crux of this Thread as I have presented it.

My ether model would treat the "uncertain" result of the two-slit experiment as due to a "scattering" effect of etheric radiations, coming from from their instruments, which would have been shielded against any interference coming from instruments' quantum-scale forces, but not shielded from the indirect etheric radiational forces that would have been generated, and thus without considering the possible effects of etheric entanglements with the observed quantum system, thus skewing the results of the manipulations done.

Continuing the last Post,
To illustrate how my ether model treats etheric radiations becoming entangled with observed quantal forces, - consider how, when a flashlight is turned on at night, there is some degree of illumination seen even behind the flashlight. (In my model, there are etheric radiations having a photonic vibrational pattern, coming from the flashlight, which are attracted to the area behind the flashlight, because there are always some ambient photonic forces in an area, even after sunset.)

PercyYou will have egg on your face after my creation/ether model receives serious consideration in science.

PaulK,Since you raise the issue of the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX), I'll go through how its results would be viewed using my Ether Model.MMX attempted to show ether by demonstrating how light beams would interact with ether. -They assumed that any type of ether must act as a medium for the passage of light beams through it. They attempted to demonstrate an interaction of light with ether, using optical measurements of light beams taken at varying angles with respect to earth's rotation, which would reflect the effect of varying gravity settings on the paths of the light beams. -The results of MMX were negative for any interaction of light beams with any conductive medium. This has ever since been referred to in physics as the "null result" of MMX, and assumed to disprove the existence of any kind of ether. -Other investigators afterward applied different modifications to the basic MMX (other than varying gravity settings), but physics still holds to the concept that MMX disproves ether.However, in my Ether Model, the ether is predominantly composed of ultimately-rarified elemental units, post-first-causal in origin, and vanishingly-smaller than the photons that transmit visible light beams. In my Model, there would be no inertial interface between these ether units and the photons. This would account for why MMX found no interaction between light beams and any conductive medium.The analogy I would draw here would be with a motorcar traveling through a cloud of dust. The car (photon) would not interact inertially with the dust particles (elemental ether units), but rather just brush them aside.(Actually, in my Ether Model, this is an oversimplification of the interface between ether and light. In my Model, the elemental units of the ether are vibrational. Photonic units in light beams would have originally formed from elemental ether units, and therefore, like all quantum units, they would retain an ability to "feel" the vibrations of the ether units in the surrounding ether matrix; this is the basic principle behind quantum entanglement.)The ether units and the light units just don't interact inertially.

nwr,If you check back in to the early postings of this Thread, you can read my detailed description of this ether/creation model. -Other postings since then have only added refinements of various aspects of the model. Again, you should read my lengthy early posts to gain an understanding of the basic model.

There are some tests that could be done in the field to test this ether model. So far, it has not had enough serious consideration in science to interest anyone to set up any kind of field tests. Monetary expense would be a factor, and I couldn't go it alone.The kind of test set up would be a bit different from conventional technology. Naturally-occurring resources would be included.

I couldn't give the details of the field test over the Internet. It would have to be a serious inquiry.

To try to boil my ether model down to its bare-bone essentials.-A universal ether arose post-first-causally when ultra-rarified elemental units transitioned, from oscillating with all other units, to vibrating independently and interacting with each other, via contact vibrations.Michelson-Morley's (MMX) dismissal of "any and all types of" ether was erroneous, in such a case, because larger-scale units, like the photons of visible light being measured in MMX, would not interact inertially with this kind of ether, because its units would likely be so rarified that photons would merely "brush them aside," analogous to how a motorcar (photon) passes through a cloud of dust without interacting, inertially, with the dust particles (ether units.)In my Model, this kind of ether nevertheless could interact in another way with quantum units, such as photons, because photons, like all quantum units, were originally formed through the linear motion of units through the ether matrix, which would have aligned their vibrations, and caused them to entrain with each other, into ever-larger units, up to the size scale of quantum and atomic units. -This meant quantum units could retain the ability to interact, not inertially, but vibrationally, with ether units, all around them, in the ether matrix. (When the universe's earliest elemental ether units had initially formed, after oscillational fatigue had induced neighboring oscillating units to "fall toward" each other, forming "Yin and Yang" paired units, it enabled further combinations, into still- larger units, where the matching vibrations of, for example, similarly-paired "Yin Yang" units, combined still further. -This kind of process would then serve as a template for the formation of all larger units.Quantum units including photons were all formed in this way through entrainments of "building block" ether units. -Whenever I read about "discovery of a new kind of particle" at an accelerator/collider, my reaction is "So what?" The important question should instead be, What units led to the formation of atoms, naturally (not under artificial conditions), during the beginning of our universe.

In my ether model, elemental ether units vibrate and contact each other without moving inertially. The ether is everywhere, although not continuously contiguous, it constitutes a universal underlying matrix, which underlies quantum units. Compared to ether dynamics, quantum dynamics operate differently, via waves, fields, spin, and so on, along spatial vectors. However, a quantum transmission through space is continuously interacting with the primary forces of the underlying ether matrix, because quantum units are constantly "feeling" the ether, inasmuch as all quantum units were originally formed from "building block" ether units, and thus still retain the ability to interact with the ether through vibration.My kind of model is the only one that makes overall sense, especially if one considers the question of how atomic structuring arose. -Physics now proposes a model involving a Big Bang, followed by the appearance of a panoply of different subatomic units like muons, the Higgs boson, etc. -With my model, our quantum/atomic universe was created by sending quantum electrons, from an atomically-structured base, through the ether beyond. The linear paths of the electrons through the ether aligned the vibrations of the ether units there, causing them to entrain with each other, forming larger units, up to the size scale of quantum units: protons and neutrons, and atoms.While it's true that larger numbers of muons have been detected around the earth, which physics proposes arise when cosmic rays strike earth's outer atmosphere, my model would counter that those muons merely stem from vast cosmic collisions such as quasars and the like.The current standard model in physics will never account for the systematic orderliness of atomic structuring.