Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
519 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (4 members, 515 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
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 178 of 566 (887289)
07-29-2021 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Michael MD
07-28-2021 7:51 AM


Re: This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
Michael MD writes:

To answer your question,my ether model would have to go through a number of steps, including a few basic assumptions that should be reasonable and logical.

In screenwriting, they call that "foreshadowing".

Thus, original space could well have been very self-compatible, where extremely-rarified, "elemental," or etheric, "points," or point-localities, were reciprocally oscillating, in a perfectly "pure" type of oscillation.

That's just word salad. It isn't logical or reasonable. It's as if you saw these terms in the back of a physics book and then randomly assembled them.

Eventually, a pair of adjacent points underwent oscillational fatigue, and fell toward each other, forming "Yin and Yang" couplets. (Oscillational fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals.)

That is illogical and irrational. Just because metal fatigues does not mean that space has the same features. This is known as the false analogy fallacy.

Just these two snippets alone demonstrate that you don't have assumptions that are either logical or reasonable.

In my ether model, a creational Entity arose after the etheric processes in a local spot happened to be very linear, where the linearity of the ether units caused their vibrations to align mutually with each other, so that they entrained with each other, producing larger and larger units, up to the size of quantum units.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of assumptions. You don't take your hypotheses and present them as assumptions. That's not how it works. Assumptions are something that both you and I would agree to, some basic working principles. Assumptions are never the claim that you are trying to prove. You are essentially saying that if we assume your ether model then it is true. That's illogical and irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Michael MD, posted 07-28-2021 7:51 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(2)
Message 188 of 566 (887308)
07-30-2021 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ICANT
07-30-2021 12:44 AM


Re: Fair Warning
ICANT writes:

How life can evolve from nonliving matter

Their experiments were never about that. They simply wanted to see if biomolecules could emerge from simpler molecules.

All of these experiments proved non life could not produce life.

That's completely false. You might as well claim that throwing a rock into the air and watching it come back down is proof that spaceflight is impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2021 12:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 2:14 AM Taq has taken no action
 Message 204 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:53 AM Taq has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 190 of 566 (887310)
07-30-2021 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Michael MD
07-30-2021 12:36 PM


Re: Get Real.
Michael MD writes:

My model of the ether would have a different, but logical (with respect to the rest of my model) explanation for these two assumptions in "consensus physics."

They aren't assumptions. They are observations. It is observed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and the name of the force causing the expansion is dark energy. It is no different than watching two masses being pulled towards one another and calling it gravity.

My ether model includes the factor of creational design of our universe. -Alternatively to the consensus model, BBT, this could account for the apparent (to our earthly observation) expansional movement of our universe's outermost celestial bodies (an alternative to our universe somehow "expanding.")

How does it explain it? Why does your ether model produce a correlation between distance and wavelength independent redshift? Why is this correlation the same in all directions (i.e. why is there a horizon)?

This alternative explanation would be that when our universe was created, by projecting quantal electrons through ether, creational forethought also designed a way for this universe to continue, virtually without end. That would have been done by creating another, younger, universe. Then, when one universe (say ours) had dissipated much of its internal energies, it would be increasingly attracted by external energies: gravitationally, by another similarly-sized gravitational force (a second universe.) -Then, the two universes would gradually approach each other gravitationally, and the younger universe, upon collision, would re-energized the older tired universe (ours.)

If they approached each other gravitationally then we would see stronger expansion on one side of the universe. That's not what we see. We see expansion occurring evenly across the entire universe. All galaxies are accelerating away from us at the same rates no matter which direction we look.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Michael MD, posted 07-30-2021 12:36 PM Michael MD has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 2:02 AM Taq 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