I think the most rational theory for neutron stars is that they arise during the destruction of a "tired" ordinary stellar star. Inasmuch as I am an ether theorist my Model for the formation of a neutron star is along those lines. Destruction of an ordinary star whose internal energy has been depleted would have to involve energic forces of extreme violence beyond our ordinary experience. It's quite possible that that volence could erase atomic signatures in the star system. The concomitant energy flux would be not only violent but chaotic, and electrical processes such as resonance would not occur there. My concept of an etheric continuum includes the idea that space is not "empty" as physicists now propose, and that there is no such thing as solid-matter "particles" (instead there are "particle capacities" made up of elemental etheric units with uniform resonant "nodes" derived from first causal space). The scale at which all energic processes take place is at the elemental scale involving uniform, organizing, elemental nodes with larger energy units like electrons built up from the etheric units but still resonating via these elemental nodes. Returning to the hypothetical situation of a newly-destructed star and the chaotic energy fluxes associated with it, one would have neutronic, protonic, and electronic etheric and etheroidal units (but not intact atoms) which may be able to resonate like-to-like, but not electrically. The likeliest mechanism for like-to-like resonance would be according to energy-unit size. Neutronic units would resonate like-to-like to form a neutron star. Protonic units would likewise aggregate into a new star (Nova). The electronic units would produce cosmic rays such as gamma rays. The neutron star would leave the area and enter space, resonating in the etheric continuum with spatial neutronic attractors.
What experiments can you propose to lend support for your idea? Are there any predictions that you can make from your idea that would differentiate it from current theory? Are there any mathematical models or equations that will support your idea? If you cannot supply any of the above then your idea is just idle conjecture for your enjoyment and not worth anyones elses time.
origin: Yes, I have a potential field test to prove an ether. My overall ether Model is derived from unorthodox cryptographic work I've done, which also outlines a possible field test for proving it. The test would involve using elements composed of natural materials emplaced in series in a certain kind of field setting, with the overall design to selectively produce and amplify etheric forces. The test could pose a unique type of danger if not done using the given data. There could be a unique biiological fringe benefit. The test would be very expensive to do and I haven't found a deep-pockets sponsor to fund it.
addendum to last Post: The test for an ether would have the end point of showing a decrease in density of elements in the test system.
Out of curiosity how could cryptology lead to an ether model? Which elements? What sort of fields? How would you know that the etheric forces were amplified? What is the unique danger? What would be the unique biological fringe benefit? edit to add - so an amplified etheric force would cause a decrease in density of elements? How much of a decrease and why would there be a decrease in the density?
It wasn't so much a theory of neutron stars, but a scientific study of astrophysics, particularly in connection with supernovae. Speculations about ether never reached the status of a theory. It was merely a wild guess during the formative years of modern physics, replaced by the newer sciences of electromagnetics and relativity. It's better to say that most large scale processes are beyond our ordinary experience. Violence is relative. The violence of a large earthquake is insignificant on the scale of the cosmos. We only know about them because they exist in our experience. The solar ejecta seem trifling to us on an ordinary sunny day when the most we experience is light and heat. Yet they are violent at some other scale, producing disruptions the size of the Earth. This is unclear. In the lexicon of science, you should replace "violence" with something like "supernovae", and "atomic signature" with something like "emission spectra". But there is nothing to suggest that the spectra get erased. Indeed, in the nebulae there are vast remnants of supernovae that are known to have not been erased by the presence of their spectra. Suffice it to say supernovae are vast on the scale of the world we live in. But they are mere specks in the arms of galaxies. Again, it's relative. As to the question of what happens in the vicinity of supernovae, it's clear that huge clouds of stardust are scattered in all directions. Some objects produce directed cones of ejecta which suggest not a disruption of the laws of electromagnetics or chemistry, but a bending of space itself, such as when a black hole is formed. Another result is the projection of unusual spectra, such as X-rays, which reveals something else about the nature of the region, below the level of atoms. First of all, in plain English, space is by definition the absence of any physical object. In physics the term has different meanings. For most of the practical sciences, it's either a concept of elementary geometry or else it's construed to mean "the vacuum" which is the same as the void between physical objects in the common meaning, to which we also remove the notion of an atmosphere. And that gets us to the usage you are evidently referring to, which is "outer space". Finally it's also construed in the sense of relativity, in which space and time are joined together as "spacetime", which carries more specific connotations and the weight of a lot of heavy duty science with it. Physicists generally do not treat this latter kind of space as empty, since they are also dealing with more esoteric phenomena on the level of quantum fluctuations. This is why it's a good policy to try to be careful defining what you mean. And when we borrow terms coined by scholars of long ago, we need to be aware of their ideations connected to the terms they use. And that brings us to ether. It was believed (not theorized) to be the carrier of corpuscular light, and then that was extrapolated to imply that it carried waves in the manner of water waves. But that would require particles, which are not involved in wave transmission. When electromagnetics was discovered, the basis for transmission of waves no longer needed ether to explain it. Be careful with the words you use. Resonance in particle physics has an entirely different meaning. Otherwise, resonance implies frequency, but this has no relation to space. There is no resonance in space. If there were, space would be frequency-selective, and it's not. It's velocity selective which is why c (the speed of light) can be formulated as the dual of a ideal filter from the intrinsic properties of space, and the intrinsic relation in relativity between space and time. I can expand on that some more if you wish. The point is, all waves pass at exactly one speed, but any frequency is allowed. "Resonance" implies there is frequency selection, and you need some other science such as electromagnetics to begin to establish that something is resonating. But none of those sciences involve any ether, nor could the known laws work in the presence of any ether unless you keep reshaping the definition of ether which creates a vicious circle with no point. Ether was just a first guess, and like a lot of other first guesses, it wasn't even remotely correct. A second rough spot in your statement is the term "solid-matter particles". This is mixing apples and oranges. "Solid" is a state or phase of matter at the molecular level. It involves bulk matter and properties like the melting point (and boiling point). It has no meaning when applied to particles. As you may know, particles have particle-like and wavelike natures. An electron is an elementary particle of the lepton group. It may not be composed of lower particles, and probably isn't. The ways electrons "resonate", though no one would use that term in the way you are using it, is that they carry energy information in the form of frequency. But this has nothing to do with resonance unless you try to define resonance in terms of quantum energy states. But far easier is to adopt the language of science and use the term "quanta" as appropriate. You're referring to supernovae, but the statement conflicts with evidence. Spectra of the stellar remnants indicate copious atoms are intact, and unusual emissions such as X-rays indicate that fundamental particles such as electrons are intact and following the laws of physics. The liberated protons and electrons were the products of fusion, whereas the neutrons were left behind to collapse into the supermassive object we call a neutron star. But what you wrote makes no sense. You seem to be saying something about electrodynamics without touching on the actual subject. Evidently the particles are bound together by elementary forces, which does not relate to resonance as you are using the term. All of the evidence suggests that stars are born from the gravitational accretion of the remnants floating around in the nebulae. Those remnants have the spectra of atoms. "Protons" is a rather vague notion here, since, in the nebulae they exist as hydrogen ions until capturing an electron. That has no basis in science. With the exception of some polar jets or some anomaly during the supernovae, the momentum of the star would probably remain unchanged, which leaves it "in the same area". There would be some exchange of momentum with any orbiting planets (or twin star) which might cause the neutron star to shoot off in another direction. But it's never going to begin going off into space since it was born hurtling though space and lives its entire life doing so. The rest of what you said makes no sense.
origin: "Cryptology" (your term) refers to mysterious themes in general. It's a non specific term without relevance to my Post. I had used the word "cryptography," which refers to the study of ciphers, or codes. By saying my theories stem from a cryptographic study, I was trying for brevity to indicate that I had done a lengthy study of codes which putatively convey secret or occult information that our scholarly disciplines are not ordinarily privy to. -The thrust of all this is that I claim to have something special that deserves special attention and maybe without formal adherence to traditional guidelines. But I nevertheless think my Model, although theoretic, is compelling enough to merit some scholarly attention on its own even without the special claims as to its origins.
Aqueous Id: Your Reply covered so much ground "alternative physics theories vs. consensus" that I don't feel able to address it as it stands. The Thread "Origin of Neutron Stars" gives only a partial presentation of the basic ether Model I propose. If you should look up my Thread "A Case for an Ether Model of Physics" (Alternative Theories, 11-08-13) you can acquaint yourself more thoroughly with what my ether Model is about. Your critique raised points that actually just emphasize the surface differences between my ether Model and consensus views. The true debate should center around more basic differences which lead to the apparent sharp difference between the two. Consensus theory is based on empirical data obtained from the vantage of our earthly environs. First causal space, its possible role in producing an ether, and cosmic forces, I submit, need a different perspective, starting at first cause. -I could just cite one point you raised, regarding "frequency," which you objected to my using, because of empirical data concerning the absence of measurable frequency related forces in space. Our quantally mediated instruments are not tuned to etheric forces which, I submit, are the chief type acting in outer space. Our earthly realm is highly quantized and energized compared with outer space which is etheric but less energic. Thus when we try to apply our earth-based concepts to spatial regions, the validity of our theoretic extrapolations beaks down (I submit.) Aqueous Id, if you care to begin a point by point debate in a more concise framework, I'd be more than glad to.
Oh geeze, how could I have forgotten! You are the fellow who believe that aliens told him through secret codes that the universe is composed of ether. No need to answer any of my questions. If all of this seems very real to you then I suggest that you consult a health professional, unless you are currently under the care of one now. Good luck!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. I don't believe you have it in this case...any evidence at all actually.
This is a response to Aqueous Id's very lengthy critique of my Model for the origin of neutron stars. In a sense, all the criticisms stem from Aqueous Id's consensus/conformist framework which is based on quantum mechanics and general relativity theories, and empirical evidence obtained from earthly data about energy systems, whereas my Model is based on a new theory of the ether, so the disconnect between the two theoretic models actually reflects more fundamental overviews of cosmic systems. The various specific pieces of evidence based on earthly observation applied to the quantum model of reality that Aqueous Id cites are largely not germane to the basic confrontation between the two models (ether vs. quantum/relativity). That said, I'll try to address his criticisms one by one. -Aqueous Id, your citings of evidence from observing supernovae consist of hypotheses based on prevailing consensus theories which eschew an ether. Observing patterns of dust extruded from supernovae could be applied just as well to an ether framework of space and cosmic forces as to the QM/GR framework you espouse. There is a disconnect between the two frameworks but that doesn't validate using these observations to "disprove the ether" as you appear to be doing. You said that ether theory was shunted away after electromagnetics became better understood. This gets one into an historical arena, involving the Michelson Morley concept of a "luminiferous" ether which produces an "ether wind" which "should be found" (using optical interference measurements), which failed to show such an ether, but the ether Model I propose in fact is quite different and is in fact based on applying electromagnetic concepts itself. So your idea that this new ether model resembles early models and fails to include E-M isn't true. However, I will grant that the way my Model views such concepts as frequencies anbd resonance differs from that of QM. My first causal model is that point- oscillational space led to elemental vibrational etheric forces. (The detailed first causal model was given in my Thread posted Nov. 8.) Therefore of course this ether Model will take a different theoretic route from QM regarding "resonance." You disputed the new ether Model's overview on the question of space. The way this model views space is as a continuum comprising etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic energic units. Near earth, a higher magnetic energy ambience exists and there is more of a preponderance of quantal units (atomic and subatomic.) In outer space it is less energized and the ambience consists of more etheric and etheroidal units, But all these types of units are contiguous, so that space comprises a continuum of all these units, although resonance between the larger units is mediated via elemental resonational "nodes" (derived from the first causal process.) The larger units are made up of aggregational elemental units which carry their resonant nodes with them. - Light, for example, is transmitted as an energy impulse, nearly instantaneously, between photonic foci such as star systems, through the continuum of space. You raised the question of how the ether Model views the concept of "frequency." In this Model, the elemental etheric units are vibrational (and this is how resonance occurs). The rate of vibration determines the rate of Time for whatever macrocosmic setting the units are part of. Your questioning the ether Model's submodel for formation of new stars, or novae rests on the standard theoretic model which views novae as related to gaseous nebulae. I can't correlate my ether Model with that standard model of formation of novae. The disconnect between the two overviews is at a more fundamental level involving basic "quantum versus ether".
