Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
521 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (4 members, 517 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,307 Year: 4,419/6,534 Month: 633/900 Week: 157/182 Day: 37/27 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Ether-Based Creation Model
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 29 of 566 (885464)
04-13-2021 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
04-13-2021 9:25 AM


Re: What is so pitiful is ...
The most pitiful thing I see here is that a proponent of an “ether theory” seems to have no idea what the ether was meant to be.

The ether was proposed as the medium through which light waves propagated. The idea that it can’t interact with light is absurd.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 04-13-2021 9:25 AM jar has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 60 of 566 (885534)
04-17-2021 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
04-16-2021 4:59 PM


Re: Stop and smell the aether
quote:
All of you literalist critical thinkers are ready to slay the first guy that waunders from your precious methodology. Answer me this, Tanypteryx: If Stan Lee or Isaac Asimov were spinning a sci fi tale of intrigue with pseudo science which they had created simply for entertainment value (and to pass the time speculating with other Sci Fi lovers, would you corner either of them and ask them
...like how could anyone be gullible enough to believe any of this bullshit?

If you think that this is simply fiction, what is it doing in the “Is it Science?” Forum ? Pastiches of bad 1970s SF belong in the Coffee House, if anywhere.

quote:
Right here the good Doctor tells us that the topic interests him. He is not trying to push it to be accepted mainstream. He is not claiming it is true....only that it is speculative and reasonable within SCI Fi para mainstream pop culture.

It isn’t. That’s pretty obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 04-16-2021 4:59 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 04-17-2021 9:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(5)
Message 62 of 566 (885540)
04-17-2021 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Phat
04-17-2021 9:46 AM


Re: Stop and smell the aether
I was not just saying that it wasn’t science, I was saying that it wasn’t even:
reasonable within SCI Fi para mainstream pop culture.

I would think that his claim that he found his “model” encoded in the Declaration of Independence: Message 3

To be completely informative about how I arrived at my Model, I have been doing cryptographic research into a putatively-otherworldly set of codes in a historical Document (The Declaration of Independence), which I claim outlines "inside" but valid basic information needed to derive such a wide-ranging, yet consistently logical, cosmic model.

qualifies as “bat shit crazy” and his idea that Michelson and Morley made the mistake of assuming that the ether is the ether is pretty “sad”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 04-17-2021 9:46 AM Phat has seen this message

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 78 of 566 (885575)
04-19-2021 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Michael MD
04-19-2021 9:12 AM


Re: Stop and smell the aether
quote:
Actual experiments have been done in the area of synchronizing sound waves that have produced levitation (of relatively light-weight objects), and the researchers have speculated, rather vaguely, about "some sort of etheric process" being at work.

I very much doubt that any serious researcher would say any such thing. Do you have any references? Or any reason to think that there is any effect beyond the direct effects of the sound waves (which obviously could affect suitably light objects)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Michael MD, posted 04-19-2021 9:12 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 84 of 566 (885611)
04-20-2021 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Michael MD
04-20-2021 2:06 PM


Re: Stop and smell the aether
quote:
The standard model of acoustic levitation includes a number of hypothetical propositions, and is based on quantum physics, with no consideration of any possible underlying ether..

Ordinary wave mechanics is all that is required. What “hypothetical propositions’ would even be needed? Certainly not your “ether” (which is not the ether).

quote:
The best example of how the elemental ether units would be centrally important would be quantum entanglement (QE). I have previously mentioned my submodel for QE, which is that QE represents radiated packets of elemental ether units which have the same vibratory pattern. My creation-model proposes that vibrational elemental ether units are universal, their formation having been from an original universal oscillation, so that they would be first-causally related.) They would also, later, become the basic "building blocks" of quantum units. Identical elemental ether units would also exist throughout space. In QE, the elemental units comprising the quantum units "feel" the surrounding ether's elemental units, and thus each other, through the mutual vibrations.

This is just a wodge of jargon without any real explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Michael MD, posted 04-20-2021 2:06 PM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 88 of 566 (885652)
04-21-2021 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Michael MD
04-21-2021 2:19 PM


Re: Stop and smell the aether
quote:
I repeated the same description of the entanglement model in order to show how, in my ether model, elemental ether units can account for quantum entanglement...

Except it doesn’t show any such thing. As I pointed out it is notably lacking in the details required to show anything. It doesn’t show that you have anything more than some vague ideas and undefined jargon.

quote:
... whereas in acoustic levitation, my model would call instead upon the much-larger "etheroidal" ether units, which in size scale are more able to quickly respond to an outside energy source, and interact, to produce levitation.

You have yet to provide any reason why anyone would want to invoke your “ether” (which isn’t the ether) when there is no need for any exotic physics.

quote:
To appreciate how my model works, one has to keep in mind that etheric units interact via vibration, only.

I have yet to see any sign you have anything deserving of being called a model, let alone any sign it works. And simply talking about “vibration’ - whatever you mean by that - does not help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Michael MD, posted 04-21-2021 2:19 PM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 98 of 566 (885810)
04-27-2021 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Michael MD
04-27-2021 7:15 AM


Re: Entanglement
quote:
My model of entanglement should get serious consideration. To the quantists, I would cite Occam's Razor.

Occam’s Razor says that your ideas should be rejected. We don’t need to assume your not-ether so we shouldn’t.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Michael MD, posted 04-27-2021 7:15 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 162 of 566 (887083)
07-08-2021 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Michael MD
07-08-2021 8:58 AM


Re: Fair Warning
Look, your so-called “ether” theory is a fantasy of your own invention. That’s why it is not in the least rational to prefer it to actual science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Michael MD, posted 07-08-2021 8:58 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 202 of 566 (887324)
07-31-2021 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Phat
07-31-2021 10:40 AM


Re: Collision Or Expansion?
The explanation is there. The gravitational forces produced by the matter in the galaxies pulls them together faster than the expansion of the universe is pulling them apart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:40 AM Phat has seen this message

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 207 of 566 (887329)
07-31-2021 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Phat
07-31-2021 10:57 AM


Re: Fair Warning
quote:
Why do you get so mad at him?

The falsehoods he spouts in his wilful ignorance seems the most likely reason.

quote:
He is just trying to have a conversation!

Then he is doing a very bad job of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:57 AM Phat has seen this message

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 275 of 566 (887507)
08-07-2021 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Michael MD
08-07-2021 11:12 AM


Re: Get Real.
quote:
This Thread has presented my Ether Model

Which isn’t a real model, nor is it about the ether that was proposed by physicists in the 19th Century.

quote:
By its very nature, the fact that my model is based on an ether makes it deviate from basic foundational theories of quantum physics. -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.

The fact that you call your imaginary whatever-it-is “ether” is hardly relevant. The ether rejected by physics is something else entirely. The fact that you don’t know this and refuse to learn shows your ignorance of even classical physics,

quote:
Comparing the two overviews would require an analysis of each overview, and comparing their rationale.

Quantum physics is science, backed by empirical evidence. Your ideas are an ignorant fantasy with no evidential support. I don’t think that we need any further comparison.

quote:
If I missed on fine details in commenting on a theoretical aspect in quantum physics is not near the crux of this Thread as I have presented it.

I’d say that the crux is why we should care about your ignorant fantasies any more than we care about ICANT’s. So far you haven’t presented any reason to care at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Michael MD, posted 08-07-2021 11:12 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 279 of 566 (887536)
08-09-2021 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Michael MD
08-08-2021 9:29 PM


Re: Get Real.
Nice try at pretending to have an explanation. But it’s pretty obvious that you don’t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Michael MD, posted 08-08-2021 9:29 PM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 283 of 566 (887864)
08-24-2021 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Michael MD
08-23-2021 7:55 PM


Re: Get Real.
It might be considered - as a joke.

Seriously you can’t refute Michelson-Morley by arguing that the ether isn’t the ether. That’s just stupid.

And science isn’t at all interested in something that barely qualifies as empty theorising.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Michael MD, posted 08-23-2021 7:55 PM Michael MD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Michael MD, posted 08-25-2021 1:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 287 of 566 (887909)
08-25-2021 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Michael MD
08-25-2021 1:20 PM


Re: Get Real.
quote:
Since you raise the issue of the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX), I'll go through how its results would be viewed using my Ether Model.

You mean you’ll show how you try to explain it away with your ignorant fantasies (which do not qualify as a model).

quote:
MMX attempted to show ether by demonstrating how light beams would interact with ether. -They assumed that any type of ether must act as a medium for the passage of light beams through it.

Incorrect. They knew that the ether was defined as the medium through which electromagnetic waves propagated. If your “ether” isn’t that, it isn’t the ether. I pointed this fact out long ago.

quote:
However, in my Ether Model, the ether is predominantly composed of ultimately-rarified elemental units, post-first-causal in origin, and vanishingly-smaller than the photons that transmit visible light beams. In my Model, there would be no inertial interface between these ether units and the photons. This would account for why MMX found no interaction between light beams and any conductive medium.

Let us note that you have no evidence for any of this. So, as I said, all you have is an ignorant fantasy. And that is all your not-ether not-model really is. Which is why science will ignore it - and rightly so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Michael MD, posted 08-25-2021 1:20 PM Michael MD has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 308 of 566 (888930)
10-24-2021 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Michael MD
10-24-2021 12:15 PM


Re: Get Real.
quote:
To try to boil my ether model down to its bare-bone essentials…

It’s ignorant nonsense. I have no idea why a supposedly intelligent man would waste his time making it up - still less make a fool of himself by repeatedly making the same silly mistaken.

Yet you do. Too bad. But not worth anybody’s time - even yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Michael MD, posted 10-24-2021 12:15 PM Michael MD has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022