An Ether-Based Creation Model

This Thread has presented my Ether Model.

No, it hasn't. It has not presented any model at all.

That you think you have presented a model only shows that you do not understand "model".

What you have presented, is word salad. That is, words tossed around but with no apparent meaning.

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.

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.

I'm thinking you need a logo, an emblem that concisely represents your thoughts.

Would that be an icon for the empty set?

Time would be a Rate,

This makes no sense. Time is prior to any notion of rate.

I'd say that Tanypteryx nailed it, when he said this all belongs in the science fiction and fantasy section.

I see no indication that Michael MD is serious.

I cannot read minds. But I'm inclined to think that Michael MD is being serious -- or at least believes that he is being serious.

We see the absurdity, and we see that his ideas are near vacuous. So we don't take him seriously. He is probably frustrated about that.

This thread appears to still be alive.

That's maybe because the author (OP) is still brain dead.

By referring to this basic framework, one can see how it would fit into explaining two important theoretic areas: the nature of Time and the propagation of light.

And yet you still have nothing that can be experimentally tested.

You are still just making up stories, and pretending that they are science.

The kind of ether I propose exists couldn't be tested for using traditional methods.

The it is not science. It is woo.

Traditional procedures used in quantum physics in settings like a laboratory wouldn't work.

And it isn't even quantum woo. It's just woo for the sake of woo.

You'd have to set up a field test using naturally-occurring materials, in a different kind of setting.

Sorry, no, but it is you who needs to do that. Nobody will take you seriously until you have something testable.

When I said "you'd have to use a different, or novel, type of field-test," I thought it would logically imply a protocol exists for that kind of test.

"Logically implies" does not tell you much at all.

Mathematics logically implies that numbers exist. But numbers don't actually exist. We made them up. And note that I am a professional mathematician (or I was until I retired). So numbers are important to me. But they still don't actually exist.

It would require financial sponsorship, as it would be pretty expensive.

Then you should be out there raising money. And I somehow doubt that any of the evcforum regulars will be making contributions -- especially since you have given no indication on how that money would be spent.

And do please stop with your Ethernet nonsense already! It's just plain embarassing!

To be fair, Michael MD didn't start the "ethernet" part.

As far as I can tell, his "ether" is also just a name. The problem, as I see it, is that we are at around post 395 in this thread, and Michael MD still has not told us what his "ether" actually names.

My position on the unavoidable impossibility of applying mathematics to the undetectable nature of the kind of ether in my Model, is that the weight of other types of evidence, plus logic, could still make a credible model to counter the current models of physics.

You are even admitting that your "ether" is undectable.

What you are doing is not science. It is imagination.

The existence of a universal ether makes for a very different perspective on the theoretic points you cited.

The existence of ether does nothing, unless the ether has observable effects. We are at post 478 in this thread, and you have still not indicated what observable effects you expect from your proposed ether.

I believe the only way to demonstrate the ether using our available technologies would be to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and measure the density of objects in the test system for decreased density.

That's about the same as saying that it requires a witch doctor to recite some mumbo-jumbo.

Or, in other words, it is nonsense.

Accepting an ether model like mine would necessitate almost a whole new library of work investigating and theorizing on etheric processes as the true forces underlying and underpinning quantum physics, a library section separate from the libraries now dealing with physics.

Then maybe you should start doing that work and that investigation. Report back when you have something of interest that arises from your investigation.

You won't get anywhere by just waffling about vague ideas.