Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9035 total)
91 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,592 Year: 3,238/14,102 Month: 179/724 Week: 28/93 Day: 28/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Ether-Based Creation Model
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2497
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


(1)
Message 136 of 152 (886380)
05-18-2021 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Son Goku
05-18-2021 8:41 AM


Re: Entanglement
Yeah as mentioned above Entanglement doesn't need an explanation, since we already have one.

It seems like that is a big flaw with every one of these new theories of the Universe, they are convinced that they can overthrow everything we already know with a new vague handwave. The people who come up with these new ideas don't seem to think advances in human knowledge are built on past advances.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Son Goku, posted 05-18-2021 8:41 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Son Goku, posted 05-18-2021 1:27 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 05-18-2021 1:48 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 137 of 152 (886381)
05-18-2021 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Tanypteryx
05-18-2021 12:11 PM


Re: Entanglement
In this case it's doubly weird as it is explained by the theory that predicted it, it's not like it was some known phenomena for which QM was one possible explanation.

It's like saying plate tectonics doesn't explain continental drift.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-18-2021 12:11 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4606
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 138 of 152 (886382)
05-18-2021 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Tanypteryx
05-18-2021 12:11 PM


Re: Entanglement
It seems like that is a big flaw with every one of these new theories of the Universe, they are convinced that they can overthrow everything we already know with a new vague handwave.

It's like my Lindy Hop instructor pointed out to us while we were watching a video of Al and Leon doing their version of the Shim Sham. The footwork is the most important part of that kind of dancing, but at one point one of them starts doing jazz hands. Our instructor told us he was doing that to distract the audience away from watching his feet because he was messing up his footwork.

In science and engineering (my old job), the details and the math are the most important part. Instead, the pseudoscience and quasiscience crowds give us a lot of handwaving, their attempts to cover up the fact that they haven't worked out any of the details nor done the math yet ... and very likely will never be able to. In the case of Kent Hovind, his handwaving includes explicitly forbidding his audience to ever do the math or listen to anyone who has done the math (in ref to his solar mass loss claim).

 
ABE:
Not the video we were watching, but here's Al & Leon doing their Shim Sham:

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-18-2021 12:11 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Phat, posted 05-18-2021 2:27 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15361
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 139 of 152 (886383)
05-18-2021 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by dwise1
05-18-2021 1:48 PM


Re: Entanglement
Great analogy! Your brain is firing on all cylinders today. (Im off and may have some time for our debates as soon as I get my real chores done.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by dwise1, posted 05-18-2021 1:48 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15361
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 140 of 152 (886384)
05-18-2021 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by dwise1
04-30-2021 1:05 PM


This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
The Wise One brings to mind the specific cartoon mentioned.

As I read Michael MDs premise and arguments, I notice a pattern. See if you can spot it.

MichaelMD snippets taken from posts writes:

My Creation Model is based on a theory...

In other words Michael is essentially imagining/creating a pet theory and attempting to shoehorn his thought process and intuition into scientific facts if he can find them to support it. Which reminds me of another cartoon.

Also I noticed Michael's choice of wording in his replies:

The ether, from an overall standpoint, would be steadily "trying" to "correct" what it "perceives" as "new gaps" in the ether, between the two bodies, in order to to restore the same state the ether has in outside space, but never quite doing it, due to the ongoing stream of etheroidal units from the interiors of the solid bodies. -The result is that there are two opposing forces producing the "pull" of gravitation, which makes it a less forceful form of energy than forces like magnetism, but gravity maintains its lesser force, and maintains itself, through equilibrating with the other cosmic forces and unit-moieties in the region.
So let me get this straight. A new model is being proposed. (Imagined or created in the mind of the author)
  • How does the ether try.
  • How can "it" correct itself (or reality, for that matter.
  • How can ether perceive?
  • Explain more fully this perception of two opposing forces. I'm somewhat fascinated. (Or delusional...the jury is still out. )

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ***
    “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

    “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
    - Criss Jami, Killo

    “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
    (1894).


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 125 by dwise1, posted 04-30-2021 1:05 PM dwise1 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 141 by dwise1, posted 05-18-2021 4:28 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 142 by Michael MD, posted 05-19-2021 8:02 AM Phat has responded

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 4606
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.5


    Message 141 of 152 (886386)
    05-18-2021 4:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 140 by Phat
    05-18-2021 3:04 PM


    Re: This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
    Which reminds me of another cartoon.
    http://www.bornagainpagan.com/...7-science-v-creationism.gif

    The old not-using-https trick! Third time we've fallen for it this month!

    That cartoon's site is not secure and so is rejected by this forum's software. If anyone is interested, they can click on that link I just created in the qs box. It's the decades-old classic contrasting the Scientific Method and the Creationist Method:
    Science teacher: "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"
    Creationist: "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?"

    How does the ether try. ... etc

    The way that we often describe how something works is by personifying it, anthropomorphizing. Basically, we create a kind of metaphor for the process in question. Like describing how water always tries to seek its own level. The water is not actually trying anything, but that metaphor still serves to describe and teach about what's happening.

    The point is that using such metaphors can be useful, but we must always keep in mind that what those metaphors seem to imply, that natural processes would have human motivations, is not true. We make use of the metaphors while keeping mind that we must not carry them too far. The same with analogies, only much more so.

    The problem is when someone uses such metaphors to develop an idea without doing the necessary work (AKA "without doing the math"). The danger with that is the strong likelihood of leading oneself astray.

    It can be a fine line and one in which it can be difficult to tell if the other person has fallen for it or not.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by Phat, posted 05-18-2021 3:04 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Michael MD
    Junior Member
    Posts: 26
    Joined: 04-03-2021


    Message 142 of 152 (886392)
    05-19-2021 8:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 140 by Phat
    05-18-2021 3:04 PM


    Re: This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
    By saying the ether "tries" to maintain its own kind of state in the zone of space between the gravitating bodies, I was using a simplified analogy to clarify a new concept, of how the ether in my model would act to produce gravity.

    Basically, the idea would be that tiny units of the ether comprise a universal vibrational matrix, within which different vibratory patterns can develop. When a new pattern appears in any region of the ether, such as the appearance of an influx of etheroidal units into the zone of space between two bodies, the preponderant ether, outside this zone will "feel" the change, and interact with it, producing further changes in the zone, by an inflow of ether units from outside it.

    In my gravity model, the ether outside the zone between two solid bodies "feels" the different vibratory pattern in that zone of space, and this results in the outside ether transmitting its own (comparatively un-energized) vibratory patterns to this zone, but never quite fully changing it, due to the ongoing leakage of etheroidal units from the two solid bodies, increasing vibratory contacts between etheric units there, and the zone continues to be etherically constricted, producing an attraction between the bodies.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 140 by Phat, posted 05-18-2021 3:04 PM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 143 by Phat, posted 05-19-2021 2:47 PM Michael MD has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 15361
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 143 of 152 (886410)
    05-19-2021 2:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 142 by Michael MD
    05-19-2021 8:02 AM


    Re: This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
    Would you consider yourself a Creationist or does the belief in a living higher power seem irrelevant and silly to you, as it does to many here?

    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ***
    “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

    “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
    - Criss Jami, Killo

    “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
    (1894).


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 142 by Michael MD, posted 05-19-2021 8:02 AM Michael MD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 144 by Michael MD, posted 05-21-2021 12:51 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Michael MD
    Junior Member
    Posts: 26
    Joined: 04-03-2021


    Message 144 of 152 (886464)
    05-21-2021 12:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 143 by Phat
    05-19-2021 2:47 PM


    Re: This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
    Phat: If you check back and read my opening Post at page one of the Thread, I presented a fairly lengthy theoretic model for how a first sapient Entity could have arisen as part of a first-causal cosmic setting. My model went from an initial universal spatial oscillation, to a universal etheric setting consisting of independently-vibrating point-like localities, and then to how quantum/atomic moieties could have arisen within a region where more linear forces happened to exist, and how sapience could have developed in a "cosmic egg" moiety that produced a sapient entity.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 143 by Phat, posted 05-19-2021 2:47 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 145 by anglagard, posted 05-21-2021 7:10 AM Michael MD has responded

      
    anglagard
    Member
    Posts: 2305
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006
    Member Rating: 6.5


    (3)
    Message 145 of 152 (886467)
    05-21-2021 7:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 144 by Michael MD
    05-21-2021 12:51 AM


    Re: This Thread Expressed Through The English Language
    MichaelMD writes:

    Phat: If you check back and read my opening Post at page one of the Thread, I presented a fairly lengthy theoretic model for how a first sapient Entity could have arisen as part of a first-causal cosmic setting. My model went from an initial universal spatial oscillation, to a universal etheric setting consisting of independently-vibrating point-like localities, and then to how quantum/atomic moieties could have arisen within a region where more linear forces happened to exist, and how sapience could have developed in a "cosmic egg" moiety that produced a sapient entity.

    Stand back folks, I have a TC degree from NMT so I am qualified to translate Buttigieg to English.

    first sapient Entity = God, the OG alien, the founders, the ancient ones, the first cause.

    first-causal cosmic setting = the first cause is an old way of philosophic thought prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics, a course apparently not required in med school. Note the terms "Post" and "Thread" and "Entity." Now the capitalization "post" and "thread" in this context are likely driven by a mild form of argument from authority whereas capitalizing "entity" may easily be construed as some argument for the existence of a deity.

    initial universal spatial oscillation = well, let's look at each word. initial of course means beginning, the great uncaused cause. universal = hypothesis applies everywhere, spatial means territorial as in envisioning the proposed model of reality in 3 dimensions. Oscillations = vibrations.

    universal etheric setting = see above, etheric = an antiquated view of physics prior to the Michelson–Morley experiment, as I'm sure has already been mentioned. This one is the elephant in the room the good doctor has to deal with better than I have seen so far.

    independently-vibrating point-like localities = Brownian motion

    quantum/atomic moieties = quantum originally means you can't measure the position and velocity of a particle/wave at the same time, it drops straight out of the wave equation. This has serious implications for empirical philosophy because if viewed as a particle, the math works, if viewed as a wave, the math works, the human mind can't properly conceive of both notions being true yet incompatible. This is part of the reason why cause and effect thinking is incorrect regardless of the source, be it Spinoza or Einstein. Atomic means at the atomic scale, a thing that can be photographed by the monster electron microscope at LANL if my sister is cool with it. Moieties in this context are a part of a molecule.

    could have arisen within a region where more linear forces happened to exist, and how sapience could have developed in a "cosmic egg" moiety that produced a sapient entity = if you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit.

    MichaelMD, you need to do your homework because if you don't, who knows, at any time you could be called to account by an actual physicist, or worse, a librarian.


    The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.

    If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.

    Republican = death


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by Michael MD, posted 05-21-2021 12:51 AM Michael MD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 146 by Michael MD, posted 05-21-2021 10:44 AM anglagard has responded

      
    Michael MD
    Junior Member
    Posts: 26
    Joined: 04-03-2021


    Message 146 of 152 (886468)
    05-21-2021 10:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 145 by anglagard
    05-21-2021 7:10 AM


    Re: This Thread Expressed Through The English Language
    You touched on a central point of my first-causal model, where you state "oscillation =vibration." -However, my first causal model, views this differently, in that oscillation is viewed as a repetitive motion in which the repetitive motion of the central point is in a state of balanced reciprocity with the motions of other identical points.

    With the transition to "vibration," in my model, these repetitive motions are no longer reciprocating in balance with other points, but rather their motion is independent of them. Such etheric, or "point-like," localities are able to interact with each other, as their outward motions come into contact.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 145 by anglagard, posted 05-21-2021 7:10 AM anglagard has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 147 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2021 1:26 PM Michael MD has responded

      
    anglagard
    Member
    Posts: 2305
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006
    Member Rating: 6.5


    (1)
    Message 147 of 152 (886496)
    05-22-2021 1:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 146 by Michael MD
    05-21-2021 10:44 AM


    Fair Warning
    MichaelMD writes:

    You touched on a central point of my first-causal model, where you state "oscillation =vibration." -However, my first causal model, views this differently, in that oscillation is viewed as a repetitive motion in which the repetitive motion of the central point is in a state of balanced reciprocity with the motions of other identical points.

    With the transition to "vibration," in my model, these repetitive motions are no longer reciprocating in balance with other points, but rather their motion is independent of them. Such etheric, or "point-like," localities are able to interact with each other, as their outward motions come into contact.

    That didn't help much.

    Medicine is a profession, because it uses incomplete knowledge to make a quick assessment based on the best judgement, like engineering, or sometimes Library Science.

    Physics, being a core component of physical science, is devoted to the scientific method and peer review.

    What you are proposing is a major revolution in the current understanding of physics at the quantum level.

    First, you will have to state your hypothesis, do a lit review to make sure your hypothesis has not already been tested and found wanting, gather empirical evidence to support your hypothesis under the strictest rules against data misuse, then reduce the hypothesis into a mathematical form.

    That's just the easy part.

    Next comes publishing and peer review. Publishing may cost you, they like to charge authors, not pay them, that's for taxpayers. They just reap the profits, suckers! (Looking at you Elsevier).

    Then comes peer review, in Physics, by Physics professors, oh fuck. If anyone thinks some of us are harsh, or an MD internship is challenging, nothing, outside of knowing more than they do, will save you - nothing.

    So, what I am warning you about is, this endeavor involves a lot more than you seem to realize, we ain't even seen the math yet.

    Wow, you sure have a long way to go, oh well. I would wish you best of luck, but there is no such thing as luck in Physics, only at best probabilities.

    Edited by anglagard, : left out an important word and a few misspellings.


    The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.

    If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.

    Republican = death


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by Michael MD, posted 05-21-2021 10:44 AM Michael MD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 149 by Michael MD, posted 05-23-2021 7:48 AM anglagard has responded

      
    AnswersInGenitals
    Member
    Posts: 614
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 5.4


    Message 148 of 152 (886500)
    05-22-2021 3:32 PM


    MMX didn't disprove existance of ether.
    Just a small note: MMX didn’t disprove the existence of the ether as the medium that supports light transmission since it left open the possibility that the ether in the vacinity of the earth moved with the earth - the so called ‘ether drag’ hypothesis. The subseguent measurement of the parallax of nearby stars disproved the ether drag possibility and thus the existence of ether.

      
    Michael MD
    Junior Member
    Posts: 26
    Joined: 04-03-2021


    Message 149 of 152 (886528)
    05-23-2021 7:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 147 by anglagard
    05-22-2021 1:26 PM


    Re: Fair Warning
    What you propose I do with my material, i.e., getting it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, has an inherent problem with it, which is illustrated by your own recent point of criticism involving "oscillation equals vibration," (per standard physics definition). This is only one example of the kinds of disconnect that my kind of model would have with standard models of present-day physics.

    What I refer to in my Ether Model as "oscillation" refers to a type of oscillation that could have existed in Original Space. -As described in my opening post, first-causal oscillation would, in my Ether Model, have occurred in a type of space that existed originally, prior to everything else, and very conceivably, uniquely different. Theoretic oscillation within it would have involved identical, "elemental," point-localities. Their oscillations could have been "purer," involving motions that were absolutely perfectly balanced in their interactive reciprocity, and unlike types of oscillation familiar to physics now.

    (Following this, in my Model, there occurred a transition of these elemental point-localities, via a "Yin and Yang" process, to a state in which their motions became independent of each other, producing a universal ether whose units interact with each other as their outward vibrations come into contact.)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 147 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2021 1:26 PM anglagard has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 150 by anglagard, posted 05-30-2021 2:30 PM Michael MD has responded

      
    anglagard
    Member
    Posts: 2305
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006
    Member Rating: 6.5


    Message 150 of 152 (886679)
    05-30-2021 2:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 149 by Michael MD
    05-23-2021 7:48 AM


    Re: Fair Warning
    MichaelMD writes:

    What you propose I do with my material, i.e., getting it published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, has an inherent problem with it, which is illustrated by your own recent point of criticism involving "oscillation equals vibration," (per standard physics definition). This is only one example of the kinds of disconnect that my kind of model would have with standard models of present-day physics.

    The standard way of proposing something new in physical science means a thesis. This means a clear statement as to what this is all about, a lit review, results, and a conclusion that better be in the form of symbolic logic. You don't necessarily have to publish in a peer reviewed physics journal (at first, archivex will suffice). However, you will need to show how you derived this hypothesis using symbolic logic (mathematics). In physics, no math, no dice.

    You have little choice. Back in the old days (and no doubt still today) people would self-publish their magnum opus, then send it to libraries. NMT would frequently (aprox. 1X per week) have a self-published book on physics. Now those books were on the sale table of crap we didn't want. Of course, I perused a few, one that stands out was from a Guamanian physics prof purporting to explain how the universe is built on 11 dimensional strings made up of circles of dual colored particles (according to the b&w illustration where one particle pair in the circle was filled in and the other was not.) minimal to no math, no physical evidence, no indication this is anything other than something pulled from one's ass.

    I did not make the rules, but following the rules means the difference between being taken seriously or having one's cherished works on the sale table ($0.25 paperback, $0.50 hardcover.)

    You don't seem to realize just what is involved with overturning the standard consensus view of physics. (Hint: a lot more than I have seen so far). Save any money intended for self-publishing and use it to perfect your hypothesis, it needs a lot more work.


    The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.

    If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.

    Republican = death


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 149 by Michael MD, posted 05-23-2021 7:48 AM Michael MD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 151 by Michael MD, posted 06-01-2021 10:25 AM anglagard has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021