This Thread has presented my Ether Model. Anyone taking the time to go through my earlier posts will see that my model covers a very wide range of cosmological and earth-based topics. 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. Comparing the two overviews would require an analysis of each overview, and comparing their rationale.
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.
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.
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.
My ether model would treat the "uncertain" result of the two-slit experiment as due to a "scattering" effect of etheric radiations, coming from from their instruments, which would have been shielded against any interference coming from instruments' quantum-scale forces, but not shielded from the indirect etheric radiational forces that would have been generated, and thus without considering the possible effects of etheric entanglements with the observed quantum system, thus skewing the results of the manipulations done.
Continuing the last Post, To illustrate how my ether model treats etheric radiations becoming entangled with observed quantal forces, - consider how, when a flashlight is turned on at night, there is some degree of illumination seen even behind the flashlight. (In my model, there are etheric radiations having a photonic vibrational pattern, coming from the flashlight, which are attracted to the area behind the flashlight, because there are always some ambient photonic forces in an area, even after sunset.)
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.
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. They attempted to demonstrate an interaction of light with ether, using optical measurements of light beams taken at varying angles with respect to earth's rotation, which would reflect the effect of varying gravity settings on the paths of the light beams. -The results of MMX were negative for any interaction of light beams with any conductive medium. This has ever since been referred to in physics as the "null result" of MMX, and assumed to disprove the existence of any kind of ether. -Other investigators afterward applied different modifications to the basic MMX (other than varying gravity settings), but physics still holds to the concept that MMX disproves ether.
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.
The analogy I would draw here would be with a motorcar traveling through a cloud of dust. The car (photon) would not interact inertially with the dust particles (elemental ether units), but rather just brush them aside.
(Actually, in my Ether Model, this is an oversimplification of the interface between ether and light. In my Model, the elemental units of the ether are vibrational. Photonic units in light beams would have originally formed from elemental ether units, and therefore, like all quantum units, they would retain an ability to "feel" the vibrations of the ether units in the surrounding ether matrix; this is the basic principle behind quantum entanglement.)
The ether units and the light units just don't interact inertially.