Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
116 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,896 Year: 1,008/6,534 Month: 1,008/682 Week: 61/182 Day: 6/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Ether-Based Creation Model
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 406 of 443 (890825)
01-10-2022 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Tanypteryx
01-10-2022 9:18 AM


Re: Bump for Michael MD
One cannot detect the ether of my Ether Model, because its first-causal ether units are too super-rarified, compared to our world's (created subsequent to the ether's appearance) ability to detect it by observation, or by using conventional technologies.

I have mentioned this before, along with suggestions of how to apply a different kind of technology that uses a more natural setting and materials, which would be expensive and require financial support.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-10-2022 9:18 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-10-2022 7:23 PM Michael MD has not yet responded
 Message 409 by Theodoric, posted 01-10-2022 7:31 PM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2773
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 407 of 443 (890829)
01-10-2022 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Michael MD
01-10-2022 6:51 PM


Re: Bump for Michael MD
One cannot detect the ether of my Ether Model, because its first-causal ether units are too super-rarified, compared to our world's (created subsequent to the ether's appearance) ability to detect it by observation, or by using conventional technologies.

And yet you speak so authoritatively, about something that has never been detected. How is it that you can describe something that cannot and has not ever been detected?


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 406 by Michael MD, posted 01-10-2022 6:51 PM Michael MD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by dwise1, posted 01-10-2022 7:26 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4818
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


(3)
Message 408 of 443 (890830)
01-10-2022 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Tanypteryx
01-10-2022 7:23 PM


Re: Bump for Michael MD
And yet you speak so authoritatively, about something that has never been detected. How is it that you can describe something that cannot and has not ever been detected?

Theologists and fundies and purveyors of woo do it all the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-10-2022 7:23 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-10-2022 9:30 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 409 of 443 (890832)
01-10-2022 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Michael MD
01-10-2022 6:51 PM


Re: Bump for Michael MD
Your ether module sounds a lot like my leprechaun model. Because its first-causal leprechauns are too super-rarified, compared to our world's (created subsequent to the appearance of leprechauns) ability to detect it by observation, or by using conventional technologies.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Michael MD, posted 01-10-2022 6:51 PM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2773
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 410 of 443 (890838)
01-10-2022 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by dwise1
01-10-2022 7:26 PM


Re: Bump for Michael MD
Theologists and fundies and purveyors of woo do it all the time.

OK, I see what you're saying here, he should hit up a fundie bible humper for the funding.

ABE: They have more money than God.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


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 408 by dwise1, posted 01-10-2022 7:26 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2773
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 411 of 443 (890839)
01-10-2022 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Michael MD
01-10-2022 9:07 AM


which itself is based on rejection of the existence of any ether whatsoever.

This is a total fabrication on your part!

Quantum mechanics is NOT based on anything related to ether or whether it exists or not. That would be exactly equivalent to saying that quantum theory is based on the rejection of Rudolph's red nose.


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 404 by Michael MD, posted 01-10-2022 9:07 AM Michael MD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Michael MD, posted 01-12-2022 7:43 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 412 of 443 (890927)
01-12-2022 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Tanypteryx
01-10-2022 9:44 PM


I disagree. Development of quantum theory was seriously related to, and ensued upon, the rejection by physicists of a background ether, after the Michelson-Morley Experiment's "null" result in 1887. Einstein later even toyed with the term "ether," but never incorporated it in Relativity theory.

In my opinion, my Ether Model deserves serious consideration, and could stand on its merits, if it were to get the attention of the Mainstream.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-10-2022 9:44 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2022 9:06 AM Michael MD has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 413 of 443 (890935)
01-12-2022 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Michael MD
01-12-2022 7:43 AM


Development of quantum theory was seriously related to, and ensued upon, the rejection by physicists of a background ether, after the Michelson-Morley Experiment's "null" result in 1887.

Please provide an argument and evidence to support this assertion. If you want people to have a rational discussion on this irrational hypothesis then you need to fill in the background. It is impossible to respond if we do not know what your supposed understandings of your claims are.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Michael MD, posted 01-12-2022 7:43 AM Michael MD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Michael MD, posted 01-13-2022 8:28 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 414 of 443 (890982)
01-13-2022 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by Theodoric
01-12-2022 9:06 AM


My study of the development of quantum theories and its relationship to the rejection of ether theories stand as I stated it. If I were to present all the details of my analysis on that, it would not help you as much as studying the history of that subject and reaching your own conclusions about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2022 9:06 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2022 9:18 AM Michael MD has not yet responded
 Message 416 by Michael MD, posted 01-13-2022 9:22 AM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 415 of 443 (890984)
01-13-2022 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Michael MD
01-13-2022 8:28 AM


In other words
You got nothing.

I don't think you understand how this works>
If you make an assertion, you need to back it with evidence and sources. It is not up to me to do the research. If you make the claim point me to the source that I should read to understand the support for your assertion.

This is no different than if I said the rise of sex abuse cases in the Catholic church is tied to the rejection of the Latin mass by Vatican II. If I made such a claim it would incumbent upon me to provide a convincing argument and data and sources to back it up. You alas have provided neither.
I could not get by telling people they need to study the history of the subject and make their own conclusions. That is a cop-out and indicative of no argument and support for an argument for the assertion.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Michael MD, posted 01-13-2022 8:28 AM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 416 of 443 (890985)
01-13-2022 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Michael MD
01-13-2022 8:28 AM


I have given the details of why I claim my kind of model of ether would over-ride the null result of all the various versions of the Michelson Morley Experiment, but since you ask, I'll describe it again.

My model of the ether proposes that a universal ether arose first-causally, when original space transitioned from a state of self-compatible "point" oscillation, where ultimately-minuscule (ultimately "elemental") point-localities were oscillating in perfect reciprocity, to a state in which these point-like units were now vibrating independently from each other, rather than oscillating.

A way to conceptualize this at the level of the elemental units would be to revisit the well-known depiction of "Yin and Yang," in which a pair of tear-drop-shaped units are shown combining with each other. -This would fit with the idea that the two units had previously been independently oscillating, and were probably more spherically shaped. Then, theoretically, the two units underwent oscillatory fatigue, causing them to move directionally for the first time, which changed their shape and their orientation with respect to each other, and other elemental points undergoing the same kind of transition. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals, for example.)

Once similar point-pairs began to contact each other in space, their matching pair of vibrating "nodes" would lock, and link them, into a larger, tetrad, unit. -This would represent a template for how ever-larger energy units, up to the size scale of protons and atoms, could form inside such an ether matrix.

Returning to the question of why this type of model would not be disproven by the MMX experiments. - MMXs have all been based on using optical measurements of how beams of light are changed, when subjected to certain changes in the surrounding conditions (the original MMX compared light beams subjected to different gravitational settings with respect to earth's rotation.) The basic idea was that any and all ,types of ether would necessarily interact, in an inertial fashion, or mechanically, with any kind of ether. MMXs have generally been entirely negative for detecting interactions of the light with any underlying ether. -However, my Ether Model depicts a different type of ether than previously assumed. In my Model, the ether arose first-causally within a different, more etheric, kind of world-setting than the (created since then) quantum world we live in now. Thus, any such truly-elemental units would likely have been so super-rarified that measurements done in our world, as in MMX, would not be able to pick them up experimentally.

An analogy to this situation would involve a motorcar driving through a cloud of dust. The car (quantum-photon light-unit) would not interact mechanically with the dust particles (ether units), but rather, would simply brush them aside.

An important qualifier to this, in my Ether Model, would be that although quantum units such as photons would not interact inertially with the ether, they would nonetheless interact with them vibrationally, because all quantum units, including photons, were originally formed from elemental units of the ether, in the universal ether matrix. -(An important factor to note in understanding quantum entanglement.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Michael MD, posted 01-13-2022 8:28 AM Michael MD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2022 9:34 AM Michael MD has not yet responded
 Message 418 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2022 11:01 AM Michael MD has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17072
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 417 of 443 (890987)
01-13-2022 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Michael MD
01-13-2022 9:22 AM


Why not just say that you’re an ignorant bullshitter?

None of what you offer is a reason to think that there is anything wrong with Michelson-Morley.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Michael MD, posted 01-13-2022 9:22 AM Michael MD has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 418 of 443 (890996)
01-13-2022 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Michael MD
01-13-2022 9:22 AM


You seem to be more confused than I thought.
I had a simple question about one assertion. I have neither the time nor the desire to wade through all of your bullshit.

Are you willing to start simple and address the one request? Then we will go from there.
Message 413

quote:
MDguy writes:

Development of quantum theory was seriously related to, and ensued upon, the rejection by physicists of a background ether, after the Michelson-Morley Experiment's "null" result in 1887.


Please provide an argument and evidence to support this assertion. If you want people to have a rational discussion on this irrational hypothesis then you need to fill in the background. It is impossible to respond if we do not know what your supposed understandings of your claims are.

It truly is a simple request if there is some basis for the assertion


What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Michael MD, posted 01-13-2022 9:22 AM Michael MD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Michael MD, posted 01-14-2022 12:24 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 419 of 443 (891053)
01-14-2022 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Theodoric
01-13-2022 11:01 AM


Re: You seem to be more confused than I thought.
Firstly, I don't see how my answering a question, about the ways that different people view the development of quantum theory vis-a-vis Michelson and Morley's null-result for detecting the ether, should be an important key to whether my Ether Model is credible or not, which is what this Thread is all about.

You might try looking up the history of quantum theory in Wikipedia. -Classical physicists, including Isaac Newton, all believed that an ether must exist, to account for how forces are able to get transmitted. My understanding is that during the 1800s, scientists became especially interested in the possibility of the existence of a so-called luminiferous ether, which would represent a connection for how light is propagated through ether, if an ether does exist.

Then, in 1887, Michelson and Morley obtained a negative, or "null" result for the existence of an ether.. Then, gradually over several decades, a combination of Einsteinian relativity and "ether-less" quantum-order systems became the consensus model of physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2022 11:01 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by AZPaul3, posted 01-14-2022 1:02 PM Michael MD has responded
 Message 421 by Theodoric, posted 01-14-2022 2:51 PM Michael MD has not yet responded
 Message 422 by Theodoric, posted 01-14-2022 6:00 PM Michael MD has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6215
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 420 of 443 (891055)
01-14-2022 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Michael MD
01-14-2022 12:24 PM


Re: You seem to be more confused than I thought.
That quantum history you gave is about 6 very thick textbooks short of how it all came together, but I grant your point even if you refuse to get it. You do not have any evidence of your aether either physical or theoretical.

Have you ever opened a real quantum physics textbook like Modern Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-42241-3? You see all the math?

If you understood the math you would know why QM is so powerful. You have nothing to compare.

That is the level of detailed math YOU need to formulate, YOU need to present, before anyone is going to consider your aether.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Michael MD, posted 01-14-2022 12:24 PM Michael MD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Michael MD, posted 01-16-2022 9:11 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022