An Ether-Based Creation Model

dWise1,You direct your objection, about a mention of linking the ether net to a proposed universal ether, to me, but by saying the "ether" net is just a name rather than a particular link-up to a universal ether, you were saying the same thing I said about it. You should have addressed your theoretic objection toward jar, who was the one who brought up the ether-net topic.

Addendum, to the suggestion of jar, that the ether net could, at least theoretically, hold keys to tapping into the universal ether. -My model of the ether could fall in line with the idea that ether-net's manipulations of ways ordinary energy transmissions are transmitted could, at least theoretically, enhance the degree to which quantal units, like electrons, in a transmission could be increased in number, if such a manipulation happens to increase the amount those units are being formed, from ether units in their vicinity that are aligning, and entraining with, each other, to form the larger units.One technique ether net has used involves physically twisting fibers within a transmission wire. -it seems at least possible that could stimulate such interactions between the ether and the quantum units.

My reply to your Post is that it is inappropriate, in the context of my Thread's lengthy presentation of a new model for a universal ether, to counter it, as you have, just with assertions based on standard quantum theory - which itself is based on rejection of the existence of any ether whatsoever.To offer my overview of the "non sequitur" of our kind of "confrontation," i will briefly outline how my Ether Model views the subjects you mentioned.In my Ether Model, an underlying (universal) vibratory ether initiates the flow of electric current, in a wire or other "solid" quantum conduction medium.
Quantum electrons are generated, as the ether units align and entrain with each other, producing larger energy units, as vibrationally-matching units lock their vibrations, and link with each other in larger and larger "etheroidal" ether units, up to the size of quantum units. This is a vibratory dynamic system. The quantum units, on the other hand, interact via a separate (non-vibratory) dynamic, but the electrons still retain a vibratory link with the underlying ether units, because these, like all quantum units, had their origin from entrainment of ether units in the universal ether matrix.My model views magnetism (and gravity) as due to "leakage" of etheroidal units through the "apparent" barrier of the solid conducting medium, such as a wire or core, where the slightly smaller size of the etheroidal units, compared to quantum units, allows them to pass through into the ether outside, where a corresponding energy-gradient is established (which we call a "magnetic field.") But the basic process s similar both inside and outside the conducting medium. There is an energy gradient in the ether between the two poles, or nodes, involved, which, in the ether, had initiated the transmission.Magnetic attraction (as well as gravity) is due to constriction of the ether outside the conducting medium, as the ether out there becomes partially quantized, due to the induction there of the near-quantum etheroidal units coming from etheric processes in the intense inner transmission.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Theodoric,Besides being a medical doctor, I have a bachelor degree as a major in chemistry, a tough major course in one of the physical sciences. I received a membership in the American Chemical Society at that time.If you took the time to look back through earlier posts in this Thread, you would have seen that I don't claim this Ether Model came only out of my own head. The basic ideas for the Model were obtained through codebreaking, of sets of codes, putatively enciphered by otherworldly sources.

During the Viet Nam period, I was an MD in the Army. I returned to residency on being discharged, but I had lost my academic motivation toward being a medical specialist, quit hospital training and entered General Practice. That was at a time before generalists needed to be board-credentialed to be well accepted.The posts saying my Ether Model can't be tested have ignored my posts where I mention a possible field test that predicts effects of an ether (not directly demonstrating the ether, but, certain effects having been predicted, would be strong indirect evidence of its existence. As I've said, such a test would be expensive, and no sponsor has been found to get it done.

Does quantum consensus theory still hold to the "lattice" model of atoms? If not, how is an underlying ether still able to be dismissed?

There is such a thing as the lattice theory of atoms in theoretical physics. Anyone interested in the status of the lattice theory can look it up on the Internet or in Wikipedia.

Percy,I don't want to get deeply into lattice theory, inasmuch as, from the perspective of my ether model, it's just another aspect of consensus quantum theory, and my Ether Model has a fundamentally divergent perspective on theoretic permutations of quantum physics.However, when I looked up "lattice, atom" on the Internet, and checked all the sub-references to it in Wikipedia, I found a number of sources dealing with it, including in Wikipedia. You have to stick with its sub-references to find them.

I'll summarize the foundation of my Ether Model. -It isn't to include how the Model deals with gravity/magnetism or quantum entanglement (given at other parts of this Thread), but just to focus on the basis of the Model.If an ether exists, it would have to be universal. If universal, it would have had to arise first-causally. -A rational substrate at the very beginning could only have been original space. -Original space would have differed from space as it is now in that it would have been "purer," free from everything else, such as forces. It could, then, have "shimmered," with extremely tiny "elemental" point-like localities in a state of perfect, or ideal, reciprocal oscillation. Then, my Model proposes, neighboring "points" underwent oscillatory fatigue, and moved toward each other, as in the well-known depiction of "Yin and Yang," which shows a pair of tear-drop shaped units joining together. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals, for example.)If, as I proposed earlier in the Thread, there exist otherworldly entities who are familiar with, and technologically employ, etheric forces, they may have left us certain clues we could recognize if we got developed enough. One such possibility would be a representation like Yin and Yang -If it was intended to represent a key process in how the world began, what could that be.My Model proposes that any such "first causal" random process preceded the world we are in now -i.e., a first-causal process that led to a universal ether, and which was later followed by a designed creational process that produced the quantum-atomic world we are in now.As a pair of first-causal elemental units underwent oscillatory fatigue, their shape (which had probably been spherical) changed, as they moved directionally for the first time. Besides the change in shape, they would also have undergone a change in their type of orientation with other elemental points, as reciprocal
oscillations changed to independent vibrations. These ether-like "points" now could interact with each other, as their outward vibrations came into contact.Wherever two Yin-Yang couplet units contacted each other, their matching pairs of vibrations could lock and link up the two couplets into a tetrad unit. This would represent a template for how larger and larger units could be formed in the ether matrix, up to the size scale of protons and atoms.