An Ether-Based Creation Model

Michael MD writes: Of course, at present, physics does not even recognize the existence of the ether.

There's a good reason for that, similar to the reason for not recognizing the existence of ghosts.

--Percy

As everyone keeps telling you, transitioning your ether ideas from fantasy to the realm of possibility requires evidence. Continuing to ramble on with word salads won't produce any evidence.

Einstein realized new theory was needed because Newtonian physics couldn't explain how the world would appear to someone traveling at the speed of light.

You realized new theory was needed because...

You need to replace the ellipsis with some observation of the real world.

--Percy

ICANT writes: The circle begins at the point you place the pencil on the blank sheet of paper and begin to draw the circle. It ends when the pencil reaches the point you began to draw the circle.

That's only one of many ways to create a circle. Another is to drop a round pebble on sand, creating a circle all at once. A circle is actually a conceptual object consisting of the set of points in a plain equidistant from a single point. Which point is the first one?

That is the reason I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not the form we see it in today. I don't see why anyone here has a problem with that statement.

The problem is that you have insufficient evidence and only armchair reasoning for your conclusions.

Ever since it was discovered that the universe was expanding scientist have been trying to prove that the universe did not have to have a beginning to exist.

Why do you think cosmologists care which way the evidence leads? The big problem in cosmology regarding the origin of the universe is the lack of sufficient evidence to reach firm conclusions at this time. There *is* a wide range of opinion about what avenues are most promising to explore.

That is what I believe so what is the problem?

So long as you understand there's insufficient evidence for what you believe, there's no problem.

--Percy

ICANT writes: I understand there is a power that is streaching out the universe. I understand there is a power causing the streaching to speed up. I understand there is a power that even though things are streaching and speeding up that is holding the universe together. We just have different names for that power. But you call that power whatever you want to call it.

Energy and power are two different things. Power is how fast you can deliver energy. Whatever the source of the energy causing the acceleration of the universe's expansion, it *is* energy. Typically it's expressed in units of length^-2 because the simplest theory is that it's an inherent property of space, equivalent to the cosmological constant, but it can be transformed into the traditional units of energy.

What used to take me 30 minutes to complete now takes about 3 to 4 hours due to all the rest periods I have to take while doing the job. I am not sure the universe is not getting to the same point in it's existence.

An analogy to biological aging is not evidence of anything.

--Percy

Michael MD writes: Since this is still my Thread, I should point out that in my Ether Model, what quantum theory refers to as a vacuum, i.e., as being completely empty, would not apply.

Your made up theory has as much reality as Rivendell.

In my Model, the ether is everywhere, both inside and outside everything, and what they are calling "totally empty" just refers to what they are picking up with quantum-forces-mediated measurements. I claim it's not truly a "vacuum."

You are very wrong about quantum theory, which very explicitly does not hold that a vacuum is "completely empty." It instead believes all of space, regardless of its concentration of matter and definitely including a vacuum, to be a seething caldron of particles flitting in and out of existence.

--Percy

Michael MD writes: OK, I am not a quantist, and a gap here and there in my discussion of quantum theories can be pointed out.

What you call gaps are actually gaping chasms of ignorance and error that you've shown no interest in rectifying. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. We're all ignorant of lots of things. What's notable about you is your determination to maintain your ignorance. Until you actually begin engaging in factual discussion we can only keep repeating to you, "No, you're still wrong."

--Percy

Michael MD writes: 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.

Quantum uncertainty is central to quantum theory. Consider the two-slit experiment.

You don't seem to know enough to realize how little you know. Your gifts seem to be more in the areas of stubbornness, argumentativeness and pretentiousness than science.

So what did you really mean when in Message 264 you said:

Tanyptryx's Post treats the question of the nature of "vacuum" in a way that accords with present quantum-physics-theory. -Since this is still my Thread, I should point out that in my Ether Model, what quantum theory refers to as a vacuum, i.e., as being completely empty, would not apply.

You seemed to believe you rebutted Tanyptryx's point, but since you got quantum uncertainty 100% wrong Tanyptryx's point still stands.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Also, I agree with nwr that what you've presented so far is just a bunch of nonsense strung together, not a model.

--Percy

Word salad is so unsatisfying.

--Percy

Michael MD writes: You will have egg on your face after my creation/ether model receives serious consideration in science.

Since most breakthrough advances in science pass through EvC Forum first, your prediction is no doubt correct. I've taken to wearing a goalie's hockey mask in public.

--Percy

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

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 writes: I couldn't give the details of the field test over the Internet. It would have to be a serious inquiry.

A good snake oil salesman would have moved on already.

--Percy

The problem with your theory is that ultra-rarified elemental units vibrate into larger-scale quanta while engaged in alignments, which is not to say that the ether matrix aligns with entrainments of inertial interactions. Qualified oscillational fatigue raises a number of questions about neighboring combinations of larger units into a building block template. These flaws are, of course, fatal.

--Percy

You forgot to take Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd and Marvin the Martian into account.

--Percy