|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Ether-Based Creation Model | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
However, in my Ether Model, ...
One of these days you will actually tell us what is your model, instead of giving only vague hints. Hmm, on second thoughts, no you will never do that. You don't actually have a model.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You mean you’ll show how you try to explain it away with your ignorant fantasies (which do not qualify as a model).
quote: Incorrect. They knew that the ether was defined as the medium through which electromagnetic waves propagated. If your “ether” isn’t that, it isn’t the ether. I pointed this fact out long ago.
quote: Let us note that you have no evidence for any of this. So, as I said, all you have is an ignorant fantasy. And that is all your not-ether not-model really is. Which is why science will ignore it - and rightly so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael MD Member (Idle past 550 days) Posts: 108 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
MichaelMD writes: Hello Michael. I had not read this thread in some time, though was curious how your discussion was moving along.
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.MD writes: -so aside from yourself, have no other researchers examined your hypothesis apart from you? I noticed that you mentioned Egg on the face to Percy as if you are expecting someway somehow to eventually be vindicated through acceptance of your controversial model. Do you honestly feel as if your understanding was/is an epiphany and that it will come to light? If so, I see similar patterns in my own "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Science doesn't work by epiphanies. Even epiphanies - I'm thinking of Kekulé and the structure of benzene - need to be confirmed experimentally.
Do you honestly feel as if your understanding was/is an epiphany and that it will come to light? Phat writes:
That's a false dichotomy. Many people of faith are also people of faith. I feel as if the faith-based community can understand my hypothesis and where I am going. The evidence-based community never will. And few people of faith are likely to swallow your nonsense. Your problem is that you keep trying to turn nonsense into sense. As long as you keep digging, you're just exposing more and more flaws in your thinking."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
If you check back in to the early postings of this Thread, you can read my detailed description of this ether/creation model.
Where? Can you list specific posts? I looked back at the first few posts. There is lots of word salad, flavored with a sprinkling of bullshit. But I do not see anything that hints at an actual model.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You make no sense.
To wit:
ringo writes: That's a false dichotomy. Many people of faith are also people of faith. And few people of faith are likely to swallow your nonsense. First off, you are not a person of faith. You think Jesus is an Elmer Gantry Compilation. Then you turn around and scold me for not listening to what the character in the book says. Just because I refuse to be an idiot and sell all that I have does not mean I don't otherwise listen to the character (whom I consider living and active) Perhaps you have faith in humanity....homeless folks who would likely give you a warm spot and meal due to your spare change generosity. I cannot really judge you as you feel driven to judge me. But explain your statement.
ringo writes: Many people of faith are also people of faith. And few people of faith are likely to swallow your nonsense."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Michael MD writes: 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. You mean like Message 1? It's full of nonsense and unverifiable claims. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
It's well known fact that people with advanced theories of cosmology come here get them verified first. Obviously. Otherwise they'd look completely batshit crazy wouldn't they?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
OK, let's see how you fare with this one.
I propose an alternative model - but instead of ether, mine involves Fluffy Invisible Blancmange (or FIB for ease). Let's see how mine works:
My Creation Model is based on a theory of a universal FIB that underlies the quantum/atomic processes observable to us. Currently, there is a growing body of dissident physics theorists who claim that consensus physics is in error in holding that such a FIB does not exist. -Here, I will not try to go into all the aspects of this theoretical disconnect, but rather I will just present my FIB-based model of creation. In my Model, any FIB would have to be universal, by its very nature, and it would have had to originate according to a logical sequence of events. 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. These localities would have probably been of a very tiny size, and conceivably ultimately-minuscule ("point-like.") -Then, "points" adjacent to each other underwent oscillatory fatigue, and formed "Yin and Yang" couplets. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals.) -This transition broke the perfect symmetry of oscillation, so that now there were ultimately-rarified ("elemental") point-like, or "etheric," units, which were now independently vibrating, rather than reciprocally oscillating. However, this transition would not have been uniform and simultaneous throughout space. Now there were, here and there, couplet-units which would have tended to merge, as their mutual matching vibrations contacted and combined with each other. (The idea here would be that the non-uniformity of this first-causal process would have included some areas where the motion of various units happened to be relatively linear, which would have accelerated the alignments of different units, causing the units to entrain with each other, producing larger and larger units, at first "FIB-like," and then up to the size-scale of quantum units and atoms. At this point., there would have been multiple fluxes of energy units moving in different directions. Like-to-like resonances would have tended to form confluences, or "islands," where extremely-intense, extremely-rarified, and complex energic processes occurred. Within such an "island," the combinations of energy units could even have produced quantization, and solid moieties. If one such moiety, or body, happened to be roundish in shape (or"cosmic egg" like), then any energic interactions of the body's outer surface with the FIB-like radiations in its surroundings, which happened to be tangential, could have resulted in reverberating circuits of energy around the body, which then could have produced a sapient Entity (ies). Eventually, the overall ongoing processes would have brought about a "FIB macrocosm." However, the effects of the transient type of magnetism of such a macrocosm upon any quantum bodies at such a quantized "island" would have made things unstable there, so it was decided to create a quantum macrocosm (our universe.) To accomplish this, electron/photons (the smallest and speediest quantum units) were projected, using the intense surrounding energies, toward a "virgin" FIB region, causing the FIB there to undergo a patterned, chain-reactional, transition to quantum units (as the electrons' motion through the FIB aligned the vibrations of FIB units, producing entrainments into larger units. (One effect of the electron/photon unit being used to create the universe would have been that its velocity (the speed of light) would have remained as the highest speed limit in the universe.) There you go - coincidentally, the same word salad and utter lack of equations, numbers and falsifiable hypotheses as yours - what are the odds ? The main difference is that my model better explains my slowly expanding stomach.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
I meant to say, "Many people of faith are also people of evidence."
You make no sense. Phat writes:
That has nothing to do with anything I said, sensible or otherwise. First off, you are not a person of faith. You think Jesus is an Elmer Gantry Compilation. But I DO have faith in the message - just like I have faith in gravity. Reality confirms that they work. It doesn't matter who the messenger is, whether it's Jesus or Elmer Gantry. The message works. And that's what matters.
Phat writes:
I don't "scold" you for not doing what the messenger says. I point out that you ignore the message. You argue against the message. How does that demonstrate faith in the messenger?
Then you turn around and scold me for not listening to what the character in the book says. Phat writes:
Of course it does. If Jesus tells you to be an idiot, be an idiot. Just because I refuse to be an idiot and sell all that I have does not mean I don't otherwise listen to the character... The disciples were idiots. The lady with two mites was an idiot. The widow who fed Elijah was an idiot. The members of the early church were idiots (except for Ananias and Sapphira, who were killed for not being idiots). Many members of monastic groups, Christian and non-Christian, are idiots. Jesus requires you to be an idiot. You can't get into heaven without being an idiot.
Phat writes:
I'm not judging you. I'm pointing out how Jesus will judge you.
I cannot really judge you as you feel driven to judge me. Phat writes:
As I said, it was a gaffe. I meant to say, "Many people of faith are also people of evidence." But explain your statement.ringo writes: Many people of faith are also people of faith. And few people of faith are likely to swallow your nonsense. But it works as written too: You claim to be a person of faith but you have no actual faith in Jesus. You don't trust Him to take care of you. You insist on taking care of yourself. I also said, "And few people of faith are likely to swallow your nonsense." That should be self-explanatory. The people who DO live the life that Jesus required - Christians and non-Christians - obviously don't agree with you that it can't be done."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael MD Member (Idle past 550 days) Posts: 108 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
LOL
So list those resources and the method, process, procedure, steps that would be required and explain exactly what the results would show and how those results could be tested and verified. Maybe if at least one single post from you contained something more than word salad your idea would rise above the joke threshold.My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
You and Phat are like brothers now. No matter what anyone says you just ignore it and ramble on and on as if loquacious, pigheaded ignorance were a virtue.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael MD Member (Idle past 550 days) Posts: 108 Joined: |
I couldn't give the details of the field test over the Internet. It would have to be a serious inquiry.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024