Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
564 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 560 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,257 Year: 4,369/6,534 Month: 583/900 Week: 107/182 Day: 14/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Ether-Based Creation Model
Stile
Member
Posts: 4071
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 496 of 566 (893183)
03-31-2022 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Michael MD
03-30-2022 8:17 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
Michael MD writes:

Your question as to my concept of the ether, and "whether it has negative mass" is not relevant, because of my concept of how the ether arose. This derivation indicates that the ether has no mass. "Mass" is a concept pertaining to quantum theory, but not to my ether theory.

Okay.

Then why did you say the following earlier?

Michael MD in message 479 writes:

I believe the only way to demonstrate the ether using our available technologies would be to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and measure the density of objects in the test system for decreased density.
Message 479

Why would you look for a change in density if the mass isn't changing?
If the volume was going to increase, why wouldn't you simply measure the size of the object instead of it's density?

Possibly you haven't gone through my discussion of the ether's logical origin at the start of this thread, or didn't assimilate it fully, if you did go through it.

If the methods you've chosen to describe your Model are contradictory, how is it my fault?

YOU said the "selectively-etheric energy field" will be "inducing a higher proportion of ether units" to the object.
-if you don't mean "ether is added to the object" then what do you mean?

YOU said that in order to identify ether one should then "measure the density of objects in the test system for decreased density" and also that "ether has no mass."
-if you don't mean that the volume will increase then what do you mean?

Not to mention that your method of identifying ether includes introducing more ether into objects and then measuring them.
How to you "introduce ether" into anything if you haven't even identified it yet?

The concepts you're describing are simplistic and easy to understand. They just contradict each other according to basic physics and logic is all.
If you actually mean something else - perhaps it is your chosen method for describing your Model that is in error.
Feel free to try again, trial-and-error is one of the most powerful parts of the scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Michael MD, posted 03-30-2022 8:17 AM Michael MD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 12:22 AM Stile has replied
 Message 505 by Michael MD, posted 04-03-2022 7:12 AM Stile has seen this message

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 497 of 566 (893201)
04-01-2022 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Stile
03-31-2022 9:01 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
To your last post: I have "contradicted myself in terms of basic physics," because my theoretic ether model differs in a basic way from currently-accepted quantum theory. Presently accepted quantum theory dismisses the existence of ether, which changes everything around, with respect to the ether model, in fundamental ways.

According to my ether model, the ether arose first-causally, and underlies everything else, including the quantum world. -If one were to apply a selectively-etheric field to objects in (a specially-designed field test, I claim that) the atoms making up the objects inside the test system will undergo the following change: their atoms will then be comprised of relatively more ether-size-scale units, and comparatively less quantum-size-scale units, and therefore the objects will become less dense. If weighed, they will weigh less than before. -No known form of energy has this property.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Stile, posted 03-31-2022 9:01 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by vimesey, posted 04-01-2022 2:41 AM Michael MD has replied
 Message 501 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-01-2022 9:54 AM Michael MD has taken no action
 Message 507 by Stile, posted 04-05-2022 9:17 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1309
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 498 of 566 (893202)
04-01-2022 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Michael MD
04-01-2022 12:22 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
34 pages of word salad and still no mathematics, still no falsifiable hypothesis, still no equations. You're not gonna get anywhere without them. Give it a go.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 12:22 AM Michael MD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 9:27 AM vimesey has replied

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 499 of 566 (893208)
04-01-2022 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by vimesey
04-01-2022 2:41 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
As for your criticism that it's presumptuous of me to claim that I have the broad, accurate, understanding, as given in my Ether Model -
If you check back a few pages in this thread, you will see a discussion, wherein I claim to have done original codebreaking work on putatively-otherworldly sets of codes in a historical Document, and that that was the source of the Ether Model. I don't claim it came out of my own head, although there have been instances where I have inserted comparatively minor additional ideas of my own, the basic Model isn't my own. (An otherworldly source could have access to occult information about the world that we lack, as comparative newcomers, learning things.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by vimesey, posted 04-01-2022 2:41 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Theodoric, posted 04-01-2022 9:36 AM Michael MD has taken no action
 Message 502 by vimesey, posted 04-01-2022 12:25 PM Michael MD has taken no action
 Message 504 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-02-2022 4:28 PM Michael MD has taken no action

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7316
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 500 of 566 (893209)
04-01-2022 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by Michael MD
04-01-2022 9:27 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
wherein I claim to have done original codebreaking work on putatively-otherworldly sets of codes in a historical Document, and that that was the source of the Ether Model. I don't claim it came out of my own head,


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 499 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 9:27 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 501 of 566 (893210)
04-01-2022 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Michael MD
04-01-2022 12:22 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
Presently accepted quantum theory dismisses the existence of ether, which changes everything around, with respect to the ether model, in fundamental ways.

No, you just made that up.

Presently accepted quantum theory never mentions the existence of ether. Or chocolate cake, and every quantum physicist knows chocolate cake exists.


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 497 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 12:22 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1309
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 502 of 566 (893215)
04-01-2022 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Michael MD
04-01-2022 9:27 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
If you check back a few pages in this thread, you will see a discussion, wherein I claim to have done original codebreaking work on putatively-otherworldly sets of codes in a historical Document, and that that was the source of the Ether Model.

Well, let me give you another code to crack: sea kelp


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 9:27 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 503 of 566 (893216)
04-01-2022 12:29 PM


Topic: ether.

We were doing liquid-liquid extractions using ether. We were working in the fume hood, of course. Late in the afternoon, somebody came in and said, "I can smell your ether all the way down the hall."

Maybe she was smelling Michael's ether.


"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 504 of 566 (893274)
04-02-2022 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Michael MD
04-01-2022 9:27 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
If you check back a few pages in this thread, you will see a discussion, wherein I claim to have done original codebreaking work on putatively-otherworldly sets of codes in a historical Document, and that that was the source of the Ether Model. I don't claim it came out of my own head, although there have been instances where I have inserted comparatively minor additional ideas of my own, the basic Model isn't my own. (An otherworldly source could have access to occult information about the world that we lack, as comparative newcomers, learning things.)

This is the most, best explanation in this thread of how your head works. Now I understand!


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 499 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 9:27 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 505 of 566 (893292)
04-03-2022 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Stile
03-31-2022 9:01 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
Properly answering your post requires a somewhat lengthy discussion of how standard quantum theory, including its concepts of "mass" and density, contrasts with my ether model. Of course, the main reason for the disconnect between the two theoretic models is that standard physics theory claims an ether does not exist, whereas my ether model claims that there exists a universal ether matrix that fundamentally underpins all the quantum-order phenomena we observe and base standard physics theory on.

In my model, a universal ether arose first-causally, when point-like, or "etheric," localities transitioned from reciprocally oscillating with each other due to oscillatory fatigue (a known process; it occurs in metals, for example) to a state of independent vibration, and interacting with each other as their vibrations came into contact.

I submit that the well known depiction of Yin and Yang represents a version of such a first-causal process, given to ancient people to show how a more-advanced people believed the world started.

Interpreting it that way, two first-causal, or "elementary," point-like units combine, as tear-drop-shaped Yin and Yang units, into a couplet unit. (Their previous shape, when oscillating, had probably been spherical, but as they now moved for the first time, due to oscillatory fatigue, their shape changed to tear-drop shape.) Their orientation with respect to other elementary "points" also changed, as they switched from reciprocal oscillation to independent vibration, and interacting vibrationally.

As other such couplets came into contact, their matching vibrations linked them into a tetrad unit. Then further, rapidly-multiplying vibrational contacts within the emerging ether "matrix" locked and linked up into larger units, up to the size scale of quantum units and atoms.

That's my Model's basic version of how quantum force-units arose and continue to arise. -One can contrast the rationale of this version with the standard version in physics, of a "Big Bang," followed by the appearance of atoms and "mass."

To appreciate my model of weight, density, and "mass," you have to compare the rationales of the two models in a number of respects, including first-cause, and more. My ether model has more to it, involving first causation and later creation of our atomically-structured world, than the above. Those have been given in other posts further back in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Stile, posted 03-31-2022 9:01 AM Stile has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-03-2022 12:58 PM Michael MD has taken no action
 Message 509 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-09-2022 9:34 AM Michael MD has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 506 of 566 (893298)
04-03-2022 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Michael MD
04-03-2022 7:12 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
Of course, the main reason for the disconnect between the two theoretic models is that standard physics theory claims an ether does not exist

I think you are mistaken. There is a clear distinction between not even mentioning ether and claiming ether does not exist.


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 505 by Michael MD, posted 04-03-2022 7:12 AM Michael MD has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2022 11:04 AM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4071
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 507 of 566 (893327)
04-05-2022 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Michael MD
04-01-2022 12:22 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
Michael MD writes:

...my theoretic ether model differs in a basic way from currently-accepted quantum theory.

So you're saying that introducing more ether will cause the mass to lower, but ether is massless and this "contradiction" is due to ether-theory being different from quantum theory.

According to my ether model, the ether arose first-causally, and underlies everything else, including the quantum world. -If one were to apply a selectively-etheric field to objects in (a specially-designed field test, I claim that) the atoms making up the objects inside the test system will undergo the following change: their atoms will then be comprised of relatively more ether-size-scale units, and comparatively less quantum-size-scale units, and therefore the objects will become less dense. If weighed, they will weigh less than before. -No known form of energy has this property.

This, in a sort of on-the-face-of-it sense, is actually very scientific.

The idea that you have an experiment, and if done the results will contradict known measurements - proving that "currently known understandings of those measurements (quantum theory)" is wrong... is very good science. It's the backbone of science, even.

However, the more mature version of your theory is very, very unscientific.

Try this analogy:

I can also say "I have an idea of snozzberries - if eaten, they will give us superhuman strength, a person will be able to lift 10 tons!"
-if true, then yes - it would be very impressive
-it would make a lot of 'heavy machinery' requirements a lot simpler - a single person could do it instead of large, expensive machinery
-someone says they're interested and want to see how it works
-I then say "Oh... I don't have any snozzberries, so I can't test them. But, if you give me millions of dollars, I'll find them and then we can do the test and you'll see!"
-well, how many people do you think will take me up on that offer?
-we do have heavy machinery that works for these things, and it works well
-we do have many people claim foods/potions/snake-oil will be super helpful (if only we give them money) and then the claims turn out to be false
-why would anyone take such a claim seriously?

Your idea is very similar:

You say "I have an idea of ether - it's a new understanding to the world we live in!"
-if true, then yes - it would be very impressive
-it would make a lot of ideas on 'how things work' move in very different directions than the current research avenues
-people say they're interested and want to see how it works
-you then say "Oh... I can't show you how ether works. But, if you give me millions of dollars, I'll figure out a way we can do the test and then you'll see!"
-and you blame people for not taking you up on this offer?
-we do have very good understandings of mass and the fundamental workings of physics, and they work very well
-we do have many people claim ideas/theories/dreams will be super helpful (if only we give them money) and then the claims turn out to be false
-why would anyone take such a claim seriously?

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do some more work to show there's something serious to be understood.

You can:

  • Do the math. Show equations that prove how ether will explain this-or-that situation that can't currently be explained using quantum theory. You'll also need to show how ether-theory equations "drop down" to quantum-theory and eventually even classical-theory equations eventually (because, more the most part, these equations work extremely well...)
  • Do an easier test. Figure out another experiment you can do that doesn't rely on other-peoples' resources that shows 'something wrong' with current quantum theory and how ether theory makes it work out.

Anything like that will make people start to take you more seriously.
Without doing anything like that - you're idea will remain with the rest of the other crank-ideas... just an idea with no reason to give it more serious study.

"Passion" isn't a reason to give an idea more serious study.
We simply don't have the resources for it, and "passion" tends to be wrong more often than not.

Edited by Stile, : Fixing list codes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Michael MD, posted 04-01-2022 12:22 AM Michael MD has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 508 of 566 (893334)
04-05-2022 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by Tanypteryx
04-03-2022 12:58 PM


Re: Powerful Stuff
There is a clear distinction between not even mentioning ether and claiming ether does not exist.

Which is precisely the same mistake ID IDiots make in their fundamental and foundational complaint over the supernatural (eg, "God") not being included in science.

For the lurkers' (AKA "visitors") sake, one of Intelligent Design's (ID) primary accusations against science has always been that it teaches that the supernatural (and hence also "God") does not exist, therefore one of ID's fundamental goals has always been to force science to include the supernatural in its work.

But those IDiots fail to understand that science instead uses methodological materalism, which is based firmly on the inability of science to make any use of the supernatural (because of our inability to observe, test, detect, or even determine the existence of the supernatural). That means that science does not use the supernatural because it cannot use it, not because of any position that the supernatural does not exist (kind of like how a new smartphone with a USB-C connector cannot use a power adapter for an iPhone or Android which uses USB-B; doesn't mean that those other power adapters do not exist -- I just had to suffer through that situation).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-03-2022 12:58 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 509 of 566 (893374)
04-09-2022 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by Michael MD
04-03-2022 7:12 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
That's my Model's basic version of how quantum force-units arose and continue to arise. -One can contrast the rationale of this version with the standard version in physics, of a "Big Bang," followed by the appearance of atoms and "mass."

There are quite a few well known gaps in our knowledge of physics of the Universe, but you never suggest your ether as the solution to any of them. You never show any reason to suspect that any aspect of physics would be clearer with ether.

Yesterday I saw an article about new more precise measurement of the mass of the W Boson. Particle Physics Shock: Most Precise Ever Measurement of W Boson Mass Differs From Standard Model Prediction

Can your ether model correct this problem? Or any problem known to physics?


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 505 by Michael MD, posted 04-03-2022 7:12 AM Michael MD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Michael MD, posted 04-09-2022 11:26 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Michael MD
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 510 of 566 (893375)
04-09-2022 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Tanypteryx
04-09-2022 9:34 AM


Re: Powerful Stuff
Your question about specific properties the Higgs boson has, does not enter into my Ether Model. In my Model, the key units forming atoms during Creation of our quantum world were electrons and protons.

Creation of our world, then, was done from a partly-quantized, partly etheric, creational "base" within a macrocosm, an "ether world," that preceded it (if you wish, you can review my model of how that ether arose first-causally from original space) by creationally passing electrons from that "base" through the ether. (The base had become partly-quantized, fortuitously, by virtue of the fact that the radiations of ether units in the area of the base happened to be especially linear). Then a creational Entity projected quantum electrons, through the ether, to produce a quantum universe, the advantage of such a universe, compared to an ether world, being that things would become more magnetically stable, than with the ether macrocosm. As the electrons passed through the ether, the units of the ether underwent a shift toward the formation of quantum units - protons - in reaction to the negative charge of the speeding electrons. This took place as a self-sustained chain-reaction, throughout this region of the ether, which had been creationally programmed.

With this model, various units like muons, bosons, and others, that physicists have discovered using accelerators and colliders, are not importantly relevant. They just happen to be what has been left over, once atoms have been forcibly smashed.

(I didn't discuss neutrons together with the creational model of electrons and protons, because it would be beyond the present theoretical vista, in terms of current quantum theory. (Neutrons have been found to exist, as such, only inside atoms. Outside of the atom, they decay into a proton, electron, and an antineutron. This area of theory is not for me to discuss, as I am an ether theorist rather than a quantum theorist.

Going back to another post of mine in this thread, I did discuss how my ether model would view the question of cosmic muons. Muons have been observed bombarding, and penetrating into, earth. -Physics currently attributes these muons to "particle interactions" as cosmic rays hit the outer layers of earth's stratosphere. -With my ether model, however, the source of such muons would more likely be as a kind of "stardust" component in space which arise from vast cosmic collisions, strong enough to split atoms of the cosmic bodies involved, with the muons being one prominent by-product.

(The concept of the electron/photon unit having been the key unit in the creation of our quantum universe is consistent with the observation that its velocity (speed of light) is the highest speed limit in the universe.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-09-2022 9:34 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-09-2022 12:53 PM Michael MD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022