|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Ether-Based Creation Model | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
You have words. Some are even scientific-sounding words. You even have a couple four syllable words. But ultimately it is just word salad.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
To encapsulate the fundamental basis of this Ether Model differently, and maybe more concisely and clearly. Really? Do you really think that was more concise and clear?
Transition from a first world, consisting of elemental-units reciprocally oscillating to a second "ether world," consisting of elemental units independently vibrating, and interacting via contact vibration, produced an etheric "second world," via first-causal processes occurring randomly. Then, from partly-quantized "islands" that appeared inside this "second" world, a designed creational process was done, that involved projecting quantum electrons through the ether, which caused a self-sustained chain-reactional process in the ether. This was what generated the protons and atoms that make up the world we are in now. (The primary process in this involved ambient ether units reacting to the transit of the electrons, with larger and larger units being generated according to the process described in my recent posts. What the heck is a designed creational process?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
What the heck is a designed creational process? It's so simple! Please try to keep up! That's something that nobody can understand. Therefore God did it! That's the bottom line to everything they do and say. goddidit, goddidit, goddidit, ad infinitum nauseum stupidium. Akin to what we were taught about Amida Buddhism in comparative religions class (constantly call upon the Amida Buddha with "Namu Amida butsu" and he will save you, sickingly similar to naïve Christianity), just chant "goddidit" constantly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael MD Member (Idle past 522 days) Posts: 108 Joined: |
In a designed creational process, a world like ours, made up of replicated, and atomically organized, systems, would be due not to a Big Bang and other random-chance cosmic processes, as is now accepted, but rather it has to be the result of creational design, along the lines proposed in my Ether Model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
In a designed creational process, a world like ours, made up of replicated, and atomically organized, systems, would be due not to a Big Bang and other random-chance cosmic processes, as is now accepted, but rather it has to be the result of creational design Ok, thanks for clearing that up. So, a designed creational process was the result of creational design? Nifty! How do you explain cosmic expansion?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
MichaelMD writes:
There's an indicator that you don't understand what is "now accepted". ... due not to a Big Bang and other random-chance cosmic processes, as is now accepted.... Natural selection is not a random-chance process. Hint: "selection"."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael MD Member (Idle past 522 days) Posts: 108 Joined: |
Since my basic ether model hasn't gotten much consideration in Science, I try to avoid extending it to cosmic theory. But the way my Model would address the observation of accelerated recession of the most-distant celestial bodies would be that it represents our universe getting ever-closer to another (created) universe, whose gravitational pull on this universe's outermost bodies is producing what appears to be an expansion.
The creational idea behind this design would be that one universe (ours) is losing internal energy, which increases the effect on it from outside energies. (Galaxies have been observed colliding with each other.) -The beneficial part of this is that the younger cluster's energy re-vitalizes the "tired" cluster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
So where is your math?
Basically what you are saying is goddidit.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Since my basic ether model hasn't gotten much consideration in Science, I try to avoid extending it to cosmic theory. Well, you brought up the Big Bang. You haven't shown us any science so far, so it all seems to be fantasy.
But the way my Model would address the observation of accelerated recession of the most-distant celestial bodies would be that it represents our universe getting ever-closer to another (created) universe, whose gravitational pull on this universe's outermost bodies is producing what appears to be an expansion. So, more fantasy, but no observations. Maybe the Webb telescope will be able to see your other (created) universe.
The creational idea behind this design would be that one universe (ours) is losing internal energy, which increases the effect on it from outside energies. Sorry, I don't see the connection between the creational design and our Universe losing internal energy. How do you propose our Universe loses energy? Is it like a tire losing air? Are you saying it was designed to lose energy? And what effect is there from outside energies? What form is this energy?
(Galaxies have been observed colliding with each other.) -The beneficial part of this is that the younger cluster's energy re-vitalizes the "tired" cluster. I don't see how galaxy collisions relates to anything else you have said. And then you switch to clusters, do you mean galaxy clusters? Beneficial and re-vitalizes seem like odd terms to use to describe physical processes (it sounds more like you're describing health food), and how can you tell which "cluster" is younger and which "cluster" is "tired?" What form does this transferred energy take? ABE: Since my basic ether model hasn't gotten much consideration in Science You know, you really haven't given science anything to work with, have you? There just isn't anything in your ether model for science to even start to investigate, surely you must see that. Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
There was an article in American Scientist some months back that described the history of E=mC2 going back to Fritz Hasenöhrl, and it mentioned a 4/3 problem. It said the problem still isn't resolved and made it seem as if most physicists just ignore the issue. Any familiarity with this?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael MD Member (Idle past 522 days) Posts: 108 Joined: |
Most of your criticisms stem from the scientific viewpoint of consensus quantum physics. The existence of a universal ether makes for a very different perspective on the theoretic points you cited.
If an ether exists, it exists everywhere, including any portions of space between galaxies, or between two universes. Those areas of space, although not quantized to the extent of the space around the energized bodies of the solar system, for example, would still be in touch with, and interactive with, their regional ether, which exists inside the universe. Gravitational (or to a lesser degree magnetic) forces existing in the ether of a galactic or universe cluster would gradually radiate their higher energy to the ether in the less-energized outer-space region, which is still basically the same ether, although in the pre-creational ether state of outer space, and which thus contains predominantly ether units vibrating quietly and randomly, rather than energically - except for the region neighboring the universe's cluster of energized bodies. -I don't know how to clarify it any more than this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Most of your criticisms stem from the scientific viewpoint of consensus quantum physics. No, my criticisms stem for the lack of clarity in your descriptions. I asked you some pretty specific questions hoping you would clarify what you are talking about. Could you at least try and take them one at a time and just answer them. Isn't that why you are posting here, to explain your hypothesis? I was actually trying to get you to define some of the terms you used, like clusters. Do you know what a galaxy cluster is? Is that what you meant? I am asking you specific questions, hoping you can clarify what you meant.
Tanypteryx writes: Michael MD writes: The creational idea behind this design would be that one universe (ours) is losing internal energy, which increases the effect on it from outside energies. Sorry, I don't see the connection between the creational design and our Universe losing internal energy. 1) How do you propose our Universe loses energy? 2) Is it like a tire losing air? 3) Are you saying it was designed to lose energy? 4) And what effect is there from outside energies? 5) What form is this energy? Tanypteryx writes: Michael MD writes: (Galaxies have been observed colliding with each other.) -The beneficial part of this is that the younger cluster's energy re-vitalizes the "tired" cluster. I don't see how galaxy collisions relates to anything else you have said. 6) And then you switch to clusters, do you mean galaxy clusters? 7) And how can you tell which "cluster" is younger and which "cluster" is "tired?" 8) What form does this transferred energy take?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael MD Member (Idle past 522 days) Posts: 108 Joined: |
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. No known form of energy has that effect.
I have a protocol for such a field test, but it would be costly, and would need a financial sponsor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
TheLiar writes: I have a protocol for such a field test, but it would be costly, and would need a financial sponsor. Sorry but that is simply a lie. You have not demonstrated that you even have a clue what a might be needed, what it would show or that you even have ANY connection with reality, honest or ethics.My Website: My Website
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024