A case for an ether model of physics

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Michael Anteski, Nov 8, 2013.

  1. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    The ether-concept is considered anathema among consensus theorists. However I would propose a new way to think about things, not taking empirical data based on quantally-mediated instruments we use and quantally-mediated phenomena as we observe them here in our earthly macrocosm, but rather to think about how physical phenomena could be (I posit, better) explained using the ether concept and an "origins" starting-point (as opposed to an "empirical evidence" starting point.) The consensus model of a Big Bang has no conceptualization of what banged, how it banged, or what came before the bang. -If we consider space itself as a likely starting point, origins-wise, for our world, a likely start-up would probably have to involve the idea that space itself is self-compatible, such that at first, elemental spatial points were oscillating, symmetrically, with other spatial points. At a certain juncture in this process, oscillational fatigue set in, causing adjacent spatial points to curvilinearly fall toward each other, in a Yin-Yang fashion. This process would still be perfectly symmetrical with respect to space. Then, however, re-equilibration of the yin yang point-pairs with the original oscillatory setting would have produced interaction between unlike point-entities, which would have produced directional, vibrational (as derived from the oscillational) elemental forces. Being directionally vibratory, these new elemental (we can begin calling them "etheric") energic units would be capable of linking with other elemental etheric energic units, resonationally. From then on, all energic resonance would be elemental in nature. Larger scale energic processes, such as atomic, would fundamentally be elemental and all energic processes would be reducible to etheric scale energy. "Electrons" are merely incidental energic units, and happen to be the smallest units we are able to detect with our quantally-mediated instruments. -To use a familiar example of how this model would work, take the case of a current passing through a wire. Physics now considers that the forces involved consist of flows of electrons. However, physics can't account for the associated magnetic field using an electron-flow model. They can't explain how electrons flow through the space around the wire with that model. -With the ether model just described, it becomes supremely simple and logical. All the forces involved, both of the current passing through the wire and the magnetic field outside the wire, involve identical elemental etheric energic units. The current passes through the wire via instantaneous resonance between elemental etheric units, and the forces in the neighborhood around the wire are rebalanced via resonances between elemental etheric units in the space near the wire, The magnetic field balances the forces in the wire's neighborhood which were unbalanced by the current going through the wire. "Electrons" are merely incidental energic units formed by resonances between elemental etheric units. -I could go on to a model for how elemental etheric electronic units led to etheric protonic and neutronic units, but won't overstay my "first posting welcome."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pluto2 Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,085
    Spacetime could be the ether.

    But then again this raises more questions than it attempts to answer like:

    1. What is the ether or spacetime made of?

    2. Who created the ether or the spacetime?

    3. Why is there a spacetime or an ether instead of there being no ether?

    4. Who created the creator who created the ether or the spacetime (assuming they are even the same thing).

    4. Could there actually be evil monsters hiding in deep extra dimensions?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    If only there were a set of Maxwell equations that could explain the association between the electron flow and the associated magnetic field.

    If we only understood how electrons are affected by a magnetic field then we could build an electron gun and direct the flow of electrons with a magnetic field and have a device maybe called a 'Cathode Ray Tube'. Could you imagine what it would be like to have one of these devices in your own house. Wow, it boggles the mind!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Your grasp of current physics seems a little shaky - see for example Origin's response.

    But leaving that aside, how would one test the validity of your idea?
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Really? A 'Cathode Ray Tube'. Super.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It can't be explained using the ether concept. Folks much smarter than us tried to do it 100 years ago. Not to mention 'why would' the universe choose a medium for matter to propagate through when it isn't necessary? Not to mention we can't seem to find it anywhere in the universe. Probably because it doesn't exist. Extremal occam's razor.
     
  10. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    You can't find dark matter either, but it's there.
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Dark matter is detectable. Has been directly detected. Get a clue Mazulu. It rhymes.
     
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    There is no direct detection of the dark matter, there is only indirect detection.
     
  13. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    It's gravitational effect has been detected. That's really indirect detection.
     
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    That is really not quite true!

    The introduction of dark matter allows the explanation of otherwise unexplainable observations. The observation of odd gravitational effects, preceded the labeling of their source as dark matter... Thus the observations cannot be even indirect evidence. Instead the dark matter lable is a place holder name for the source of those and further observations, which would otherwise lie beyond the explanation of GR.

    Dark matter is a name given to unobserved gravitational mass necessary to explain observation. While those observations support the current underlying theory, they cannot be either direct or indirect evedence of dark matter.

    It is the supporting observations that require the introduction of dark matter for the world to continue to make sense, while retaining our current understanding of gravity.
     
  15. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Direct observation would mean that I could point to something and say, "there it is." But I can't do that with dark matter. Dark matter is an indirect observation because were not even really sure if were looking at invisible matter or if there is something wrong/imcomplete with our gravity model. Dark matter is definitely an indirect observation.
     
  16. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Not this again! An [a]ether theory can not explain measurements. From The Einstein Theory Of Relativity by Prof. H. A. Lorentz:

    But there is much more evidence. IMO the biggest piece of evidence was (also so from Lorentz):

    The only explanation for the dynamics of Mercury is Einstein's geometric explanation. Ether theory has no ability to explain the phenomenon. So that pretty much rules ether out of the running as a theory. You ether nuts should give up.
     
  17. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,060
    They never will.

    Govs i am sure at the higher levels use that info, and ridicule it in society.
     
  18. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    Exchemist, your question puts me into needing to reveal where my ether model comes from. I have been working with a putatively ET Code Source for years, and that's where I got the model from. It also gives a procedure to produce an etheric energy field, which supposedly would have unique effects, such as biological enhancement. But the test would be expensive to do, and would require someone with deep pockets to fund it. The test would employ naturally occurring materials to fractionate and amplify etheric energy out from ordinary quantally-mediated energy.
     
  19. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    If an energically resonational ether exists between the Sun & Mercury, Mercury's anomalous apogee can be explained by the ether. Mercury's close proximity to the Sun's solar flares means those energic boluses affect Mercury's orbit in a way other planets are not affected. Instead of the energic boluses appearing as blips in Mercury's perihelion, they would summate into a single anomaly, the apogee of Mercury's orbit.
     
  20. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    Pluto 2, the idea behind the ether theory given as "the origin" of everything necessarily implies that there had to be a scientifically reasonable way for space to "start up" via a random mechanism, before creational "tweaks" could appear. Creational entities came after the random mechanism involving space only. -I believe there will never be a Grand Unified Theory, even with the ether model, because non-random forces have been injected by other cosmic entities to optimize existence in the cosmos.
     
  21. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    Brucep, Michelson-Morley's test for an ether in 1887 only looked for a fluid type of ether whose fluidic properties would produce an "ether wind" detectable using optical interference measurements. Back then, the concept of a vibrational, energically-resonating ether was not even under consideration. So the kind of ether model given here doesn't relate to the MMExperiment you mention.
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Yes, the post was poorly worded.

    The point was that the idea of dark matter (a presently unknown and unobserved source of gravitational mass) did not precede the observation of a need for that same source of mass for current theory to explain the observations.

    All the observations really "prove" is that gravity at the scales involved is not explained or predicted by GR, without the addition of some previously unobserved mass or source of gravitation. But then expand your field of observation again and we see an opposite effect that requires the addition of an unknown dark energy.

    What is being discussed as proof.., direct or indirect, preceded the introduction of the source. At this point we imagine the source, "dark matter", as the answer to observations that otherwise, cannot be explained by the theoretical model we have come to rely on.

    Essentially we look into the darkness and imagine what must be, for the world we have come to believe in, to continue to make sense.

    I am not saying that dark matter does not exist, just that the observations that lead to the conclussions that it does exist, are not proof. It is not at this time unthinkable, that just as Newton's understanding of gravity has been superseded by Einstein's GR, one day GR might be like wise thought of as a near field case of a larger perspective. Think about it . . . Today we accept SR as valid in a weak field limit of GR, that does not apply within a strong gravitational field. The case for dark matter arises from observations that have their origins within the context of gravitational fields far weaker than those we accept as valid in the case of SR.
     
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    It is important to be clear about definitions. Your argument holds true if you assert the definition of the aether that existed prior to the conceptual revolution, introduced by SR and GR. But keep in mind that Einstein did not overturn Newton's field equations describing gravity, he improved on them. What did happen is that the underlying Newtonian concepts of a fixed or absolute frame of reference for space and time, were replaced by a relativistic conceptual understanding.

    The aether of the past was fixed and associated with that now discarded Newtonian concept of an absolute space and time frame of reference... And it is that fixed conceptual definition of the aether that has been discarded. If an ether exists in today's understanding of the world, it must also be understood as relativistic.., as something other than a fixed background that all else moves through.

    I am not trying to argue that there is an ether, only that when the concept is discussed today, it must be done within the context of today's understanding of space and time. Arguments rejecting the concept of an ether that rely on archaic definitions, are arguments which do not speak to the realities of today's knowledge.

    Just as a point of reference, within the context of today's theoretical science the ZPF could be thought of as an ether. Something which within the context of a SED perspective, where the virtual photons of the ZPF are thought of and treated as real, becomes an even more real possible replacement for the now archaic aether of the past, with a conceptual model that is consistent with today's relativistic understanding of spade and time.

    It is the definition one attaches to the word "ether" that is of most concern today. The underlying concept, applied in a relativistic context, remains a valid subject of theoretical exploration even today.
     

Share This Page