An Ether-Based Creation Model

One cannot detect the ether of my Ether Model, because its first-causal ether units are too super-rarified, compared to our world's (created subsequent to the ether's appearance) ability to detect it by observation, or by using conventional technologies.I have mentioned this before, along with suggestions of how to apply a different kind of technology that uses a more natural setting and materials, which would be expensive and require financial support.

And yet you speak so authoritatively, about something that has never been detected. How is it that you can describe something that cannot and has not ever been detected?

Theologists and fundies and purveyors of woo do it all the time.

Your ether module sounds a lot like my leprechaun model. Because its first-causal leprechauns are too super-rarified, compared to our world's (created subsequent to the appearance of leprechauns) ability to detect it by observation, or by using conventional technologies.

OK, I see what you're saying here, he should hit up a fundie bible humper for the funding.ABE: They have more money than God.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

This is a total fabrication on your part!Quantum mechanics is NOT based on anything related to ether or whether it exists or not. That would be exactly equivalent to saying that quantum theory is based on the rejection of Rudolph's red nose.

I disagree. Development of quantum theory was seriously related to, and ensued upon, the rejection by physicists of a background ether, after the Michelson-Morley Experiment's "null" result in 1887. Einstein later even toyed with the term "ether," but never incorporated it in Relativity theory.In my opinion, my Ether Model deserves serious consideration, and could stand on its merits, if it were to get the attention of the Mainstream.

Please provide an argument and evidence to support this assertion. If you want people to have a rational discussion on this irrational hypothesis then you need to fill in the background. It is impossible to respond if we do not know what your supposed understandings of your claims are.

My study of the development of quantum theories and its relationship to the rejection of ether theories stand as I stated it. If I were to present all the details of my analysis on that, it would not help you as much as studying the history of that subject and reaching your own conclusions about it.

You got nothing.I don't think you understand how this works>
If you make an assertion, you need to back it with evidence and sources. It is not up to me to do the research. If you make the claim point me to the source that I should read to understand the support for your assertion.This is no different than if I said the rise of sex abuse cases in the Catholic church is tied to the rejection of the Latin mass by Vatican II. If I made such a claim it would incumbent upon me to provide a convincing argument and data and sources to back it up. You alas have provided neither.
I could not get by telling people they need to study the history of the subject and make their own conclusions. That is a cop-out and indicative of no argument and support for an argument for the assertion.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I have given the details of why I claim my kind of model of ether would over-ride the null result of all the various versions of the Michelson Morley Experiment, but since you ask, I'll describe it again.My model of the ether proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, when original space transitioned from a state of self-compatible "point" oscillation, where ultimately-minuscule (ultimately "elemental") point-localities were oscillating in perfect reciprocity, to a state in which these point-like units were now vibrating independently from each other, rather than oscillating.A way to conceptualize this at the level of the elemental units would be to revisit the well-known depiction of "Yin and Yang," in which a pair of tear-drop-shaped units are shown combining with each other. -This would fit with the idea that the two units had previously been independently oscillating, and were probably more spherically shaped. Then, theoretically, the two units underwent oscillatory fatigue, causing them to move directionally for the first time, which changed their shape and their orientation with respect to each other, and other elemental points undergoing the same kind of transition. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals, for example.)Once similar point-pairs began to contact each other in space, their matching pair of vibrating "nodes" would lock, and link them, into a larger, tetrad, unit. -This would represent a template for how ever-larger energy units, up to the size scale of protons and atoms, could form inside such an ether matrix.Returning to the question of why this type of model would not be disproven by the MMX experiments. - MMXs have all been based on using optical measurements of how beams of light are changed, when subjected to certain changes in the surrounding conditions (the original MMX compared light beams subjected to different gravitational settings with respect to earth's rotation.) The basic idea was that any and all ,types of ether would necessarily interact, in an inertial fashion, or mechanically, with any kind of ether. MMXs have generally been entirely negative for detecting interactions of the light with any underlying ether. -However, my Ether Model depicts a different type of ether than previously assumed. In my Model, the ether arose first-causally within a different, more etheric, kind of world-setting than the (created since then) quantum world we live in now. Thus, any such truly-elemental units would likely have been so super-rarified that measurements done in our world, as in MMX, would not be able to pick them up experimentally.An analogy to this situation would involve a motorcar driving through a cloud of dust. The car (quantum-photon light-unit) would not interact mechanically with the dust particles (ether units), but rather, would simply brush them aside.An important qualifier to this, in my Ether Model, would be that although quantum units such as photons would not interact inertially with the ether, they would nonetheless interact with them vibrationally, because all quantum units, including photons, were originally formed from elemental units of the ether, in the universal ether matrix. -(An important factor to note in understanding quantum entanglement.)

Why not just say that you’re an ignorant bullshitter?None of what you offer is a reason to think that there is anything wrong with Michelson-Morley.

I had a simple question about one assertion. I have neither the time nor the desire to wade through all of your bullshit.Are you willing to start simple and address the one request? Then we will go from there.
Message 413

quote:

---

MDguy writes:

​

Development of quantum theory was seriously related to, and ensued upon, the rejection by physicists of a background ether, after the Michelson-Morley Experiment's "null" result in 1887.

Please provide an argument and evidence to support this assertion. If you want people to have a rational discussion on this irrational hypothesis then you need to fill in the background. It is impossible to respond if we do not know what your supposed understandings of your claims are.

---

It truly is a simple request if there is some basis for the assertion

Firstly, I don't see how my answering a question, about the ways that different people view the development of quantum theory vis-a-vis Michelson and Morley's null-result for detecting the ether, should be an important key to whether my Ether Model is credible or not, which is what this Thread is all about.You might try looking up the history of quantum theory in Wikipedia. -Classical physicists, including Isaac Newton, all believed that an ether must exist, to account for how forces are able to get transmitted. My understanding is that during the 1800s, scientists became especially interested in the possibility of the existence of a so-called luminiferous ether, which would represent a connection for how light is propagated through ether, if an ether does exist.Then, in 1887, Michelson and Morley obtained a negative, or "null" result for the existence of an ether.. Then, gradually over several decades, a combination of Einsteinian relativity and "ether-less" quantum-order systems became the consensus model of physics.

That quantum history you gave is about 6 very thick textbooks short of how it all came together, but I grant your point even if you refuse to get it. You do not have any evidence of your aether either physical or theoretical.Have you ever opened a real quantum physics textbook like Modern Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-42241-3? You see all the math?If you understood the math you would know why QM is so powerful. You have nothing to compare.That is the level of detailed math YOU need to formulate, YOU need to present, before anyone is going to consider your aether.