An Ether-Based Creation Model

Michael MD writes: ...generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and measure the density of objects in the test system for decreased density.

Are you saying that if you have a "selectively-etheric energy field...." then you can "remove the ether" from the object?
That's the only way to get the object's density to decrease... right?

How do you identify the ether in order to remove it in order to create a possible-density-reducing-scenario where you can identify ether?

It seems to me that you cannot build a "selectively-etheric energy field" without having already identified the ether.
Therefore... this cannot be your method for identifying or detecting the ether.

As well, if "removing some ether" from the object (without changing the object's size) actually decreases the density of the object... then the ether has mass.
Because that's what density is.

If the ether has mass... none of our calculations for physics that "ignore the mass of ether" (because they think it doesn't exist) will work in any vacuum or space-like environment where "no other mass" should be.

Yet - all our science and calculations for such things work extremely well and can be very, very precise - all the while ignoring any "extra mass" from this ether you've described that affects density.

Michael MD writes: To answer your leading question, to generate a selectively etheric field, you would not "remove ether from the field."

I think you misunderstood.
That's not what I explained - but I don't think it matters anyway.

...the ether could not be "removed," inasmuch as it is the essential basic component of our familiar quantum world. Instead, you would have to have a way of inducing a higher proportion of ether units within the atoms of objects making up the test system, so that they have relatively more ether-scale units, and comparatively less of the larger quantum units.

Fair enough... you're introducing more ether and then the density of the object goes down.

So... you're saying that ether has negative mass?

Michael MD writes: Your question as to my concept of the ether, and "whether it has negative mass" is not relevant, because of my concept of how the ether arose. This derivation indicates that the ether has no mass. "Mass" is a concept pertaining to quantum theory, but not to my ether theory.

Okay.

Then why did you say the following earlier?

Michael MD in message 479 writes: 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. Message 479

Why would you look for a change in density if the mass isn't changing?
If the volume was going to increase, why wouldn't you simply measure the size of the object instead of it's density?

Possibly you haven't gone through my discussion of the ether's logical origin at the start of this thread, or didn't assimilate it fully, if you did go through it.

If the methods you've chosen to describe your Model are contradictory, how is it my fault?

YOU said the "selectively-etheric energy field" will be "inducing a higher proportion of ether units" to the object.
-if you don't mean "ether is added to the object" then what do you mean?

YOU said that in order to identify ether one should then "measure the density of objects in the test system for decreased density" and also that "ether has no mass."
-if you don't mean that the volume will increase then what do you mean?

Not to mention that your method of identifying ether includes introducing more ether into objects and then measuring them.
How to you "introduce ether" into anything if you haven't even identified it yet?

The concepts you're describing are simplistic and easy to understand. They just contradict each other according to basic physics and logic is all.
If you actually mean something else - perhaps it is your chosen method for describing your Model that is in error.
Feel free to try again, trial-and-error is one of the most powerful parts of the scientific method.

Michael MD writes: ...my theoretic ether model differs in a basic way from currently-accepted quantum theory.

So you're saying that introducing more ether will cause the mass to lower, but ether is massless and this "contradiction" is due to ether-theory being different from quantum theory.

According to my ether model, the ether arose first-causally, and underlies everything else, including the quantum world. -If one were to apply a selectively-etheric field to objects in (a specially-designed field test, I claim that) the atoms making up the objects inside the test system will undergo the following change: their atoms will then be comprised of relatively more ether-size-scale units, and comparatively less quantum-size-scale units, and therefore the objects will become less dense. If weighed, they will weigh less than before. -No known form of energy has this property.

This, in a sort of on-the-face-of-it sense, is actually very scientific.

The idea that you have an experiment, and if done the results will contradict known measurements - proving that "currently known understandings of those measurements (quantum theory)" is wrong... is very good science. It's the backbone of science, even.

However, the more mature version of your theory is very, very unscientific.

Try this analogy:

I can also say "I have an idea of snozzberries - if eaten, they will give us superhuman strength, a person will be able to lift 10 tons!"
-if true, then yes - it would be very impressive
-it would make a lot of 'heavy machinery' requirements a lot simpler - a single person could do it instead of large, expensive machinery
-someone says they're interested and want to see how it works
-I then say "Oh... I don't have any snozzberries, so I can't test them. But, if you give me millions of dollars, I'll find them and then we can do the test and you'll see!"
-well, how many people do you think will take me up on that offer?
-we do have heavy machinery that works for these things, and it works well
-we do have many people claim foods/potions/snake-oil will be super helpful (if only we give them money) and then the claims turn out to be false
-why would anyone take such a claim seriously?

Your idea is very similar:

You say "I have an idea of ether - it's a new understanding to the world we live in!"
-if true, then yes - it would be very impressive
-it would make a lot of ideas on 'how things work' move in very different directions than the current research avenues
-people say they're interested and want to see how it works
-you then say "Oh... I can't show you how ether works. But, if you give me millions of dollars, I'll figure out a way we can do the test and then you'll see!"
-and you blame people for not taking you up on this offer?
-we do have very good understandings of mass and the fundamental workings of physics, and they work very well
-we do have many people claim ideas/theories/dreams will be super helpful (if only we give them money) and then the claims turn out to be false
-why would anyone take such a claim seriously?

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do some more work to show there's something serious to be understood.

You can:

• Do the math. Show equations that prove how ether will explain this-or-that situation that can't currently be explained using quantum theory. You'll also need to show how ether-theory equations "drop down" to quantum-theory and eventually even classical-theory equations eventually (because, more the most part, these equations work extremely well...)
  
• Do an easier test. Figure out another experiment you can do that doesn't rely on other-peoples' resources that shows 'something wrong' with current quantum theory and how ether theory makes it work out.

Anything like that will make people start to take you more seriously.
Without doing anything like that - you're idea will remain with the rest of the other crank-ideas... just an idea with no reason to give it more serious study.

"Passion" isn't a reason to give an idea more serious study.
We simply don't have the resources for it, and "passion" tends to be wrong more often than not.

Edited by Stile, : Fixing list codes

Tanypteryx writes: So basically, ether is magic aliens.

Very skinny aliens.
They have negative fat.

dwise1 writes: Or, to keep in line with current business practices...

I am reading scammy vibes.

"Oh, I'll show you the proof... just give me money first, cash only!"

I'm pretty sure MD stands for "Nigerian Prince."

You're in luck.
This is exactly how Science is configured in order to shift paradigms.Modern Quantum Theory, however, isn't used to criticize your Ether Model. Only reality is.
If your Ether Model doesn't explain reality... then it's useless (and wrong.)Modern Quantum Theory does explain a lot of reality... and really well.
Your job will be to show how your Ether Model explains all the reality that Modern Quantum Theory already does... and then... ALSO explains parts of reality that Modern Quantum Theory has difficulty explaining.That's it.
Replace and move on with something better! The power of Science!All you have to do is explain how your Ether Model explains reality better than the Modern Quantum Theory.People criticizing you are not using Modern Quantum Theory to say your Ether Model is bogus.
They're using Modern Quantum Theory to say Modern Quantum Theory explains reality better than your Ether Model... and this makes your Ether Model... less useful in explaining reality.Why would we switch from something that explains reality better to something that explains reality worse?Stop worrying about Modern Quantum Theory. Science only cares about explaining reality. Explain reality better... and you'll see progress. Don't explain reality better... and, well... you get what you're getting right meow.