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
    OnlyMe: I fail to see how some more recent advances in thinking about QM (and making it more rational than Bohr's classical QM of the 1920s) has anything to do with this ether model. I don't view that as competing against this ether model and "winning or losing." I gather that my presentation of this ether model does not convince you that it's true. I feel sure it's right. In any case, all I am really interested in would be getting a chance to run the field test to elicit etheric energy, and I was hoping to attract a deep-pockets sponsor for that. The test could also have biological benefoits as well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Forgive me but I do not know what an "ET Code Source" means. Can you explain what ET stands for in this context?

    And can you describe the procedure for producing this "etheric energy field"?

    (I have to confess very deep misgivings about where this is leading, but will try to contain them at least until you have had a chance to explain a bit more what all this is about.)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    OnlyMe, I would like to congratulate you on what appears to me to be great clarity of thought, and expression of it, on this subject. Not to mention patience.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    11,888
    This entire post is what is variously known as word salad, gibberish, woo-woo or just plain arm waving hog wash. It sounds like for all the world like you were making this up as you were writting it.

    Do you have any way that the above conjectures could be tested or falsified to determine if they are even remotely accurate?
     
  8. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    Exchenist: The exact details of the proposed field test procedure to elicit etheric energy and tap possible biological beneficial properties of it, I am unable to disclose here. "ET" information refers to my claim it was derived cryptographically from an historical Document having been encoded by ET (extraterrestrials). I can probably reveal that it would use sets of natural-material elements of specific composition, emplaced in sequence or series, designed to specifically fractionate and amplify etheric energy from naturally occurring energy. An important aspect of the proposal is that it should be done on a privileged or privately-funded basis because of the possible biological effect (in view of overpopulation already).
     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Why? I assume that is because you have not made up that part yet, or is it because you need a thicker aluminum foil hat to keep the 'ETs' from condusing you with mind control.
     
  10. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    The above for some reason put in mind of a quote from, Frank Herbert (or one of his characters that is),

    This is the perspective which you create with your own belief, and beliefs can be manipulated by imagination.
    - The Lady Jessica, of the Bene Gesserit (Children of Dune)​

    Imagination is in my opinion one of our (as human beings) greatest gifts and tools. Without imagination the advancement of science would be lost... But, it also may lead to a world of fiction and fantasy.., and in some cases blurs the line between illusion and delusion, and the reality that truely exists, beyond the veil of our imagination.

    When the question was asked it was my first thought that "ET" stood for extraterrestrial. The discussion it would seem has taken a turn from even a semblance of science and your goal of attracting a deep pocket backer....... But then the concept of past extraterestrial visits, does fit within the scope of the Alternative Theories umbrella, does it not?
     
  11. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    OnlyMe, I don't intend to expound any further on the scientific theoretic points I've been trying to impress members of the Forum as to the logical appeal of this ether model. All the criticisms have been categorical and don't confront this model's scientific theoretic points, just complaining that it doesn't fit into QM and GR.
     
  12. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    origin, I have "tons" of deciphered material on a wide range of topics and it is extremely internally consistent, though often not in agreement with consensus beliefs, and if I were to get a chance could back it all up, I'm sure. Again, I'm really just fishing for a sponsor to get a chance to to the field test.
    '
     
  13. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    My Critics in this Thread have decried the lack of correlation between this ether model and the "established" consensus models, GR and QM. -In using this to dismiss this ether model, they should have been keeping in mind that the basic premises of this ether model are different, so in evaluating this model, a completely new model, they should not have been looking for analogies of it to GR and QM, but rather keep in mind such basic assumptions of this ether model such as that energic units mediating energy are elemental and transmit force via instantaneous linkage between the (dynamically-curvilinear; see my first Post proposing first-causal space-to-energic ether) elemental units. Thus the model has to be fundamentally at odds with any quantal-empirical-evidence-based models, where discrete "particles" are usually viewed as moving through space. I feel that critics need to admit they're just throwing this model out because it is so different from preceding consensus. If they say this model is inherently flawed in terms of being rationally impossible, then we're just on different pages.
     
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Ok, what "test" would that be? Describe it in mathematical form. What does your "test" predict?
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Nothing new there. So what stokes you to go with the "unestablished" minority consensus (extreme minority) of people who seem to find value in ether? I mean, where is the motivation? It was a 19th c. strawman that was for a short time nothing more than a wild belief, a stopgap of a sort, to tie people over while modern science was having a rather protracted form of labor and delivery. After the cloud of confusion cleared, thanks to Maxwell and his peers and predecessors and then again after Einstein and his, this subject fell away as many half baked interim explanations do. What leads you to decide it has merit when it was never more than a wild hare to begin with?

    Where is it used as a model? I recall Maxwell speculated on it briefly, but he never used it as a model. I guess we might want to clarify what constitutes a model. GR and QM are core theories that explain some of the ways reality actually operates. Surely you're not here to tell us they are invalid. But besides getting past them you have to get past EM.

    I think you mean to say that ether was found to be wrong by the time Maxwell published his laws of EM. That was the point Origin made early in the thread that I think went over your head. You're picking the wrong battle. Everything you're complaining about needs to attack Maxwell first and foremost, which is an attack on some of the most solid laws of nature known to science. It's a losing proposition from the get-go; hence Origin's post.

    That language is foreign to me. Generally if you have to invent words to say things, you're probably lost in the weeds.

    What force? Maxwell accounts for the electromagnetic forces, Newton-Einstein et al account for gravitation, and the rest are internal to particles. None of these have any bearing on the "luminiferous sea" or "molecular vortices" as pre-EM physicists would have used the term. Again: why resurrect the dead idea that never had any science to support it in the first place?

    You can't pigeonhole all of early modern physics into the term "model". A whole lot of things are going on and all of these have to accounted for. Otherwise, you're pitching at windmills.

    First off, the motion of particles has to be accounted for, but that's just a slice of the whole pie. You have to account for static fields and waves (and Maxwell does) and the wave-particle interaction (Einstein's QED does). And so on. You have to walk through all the rest of the development in physics that are all intimately tied to these earlier developments. Everything has to dovetail. At least to a point. What you are proposing is to break all existing theories as well as proven laws. So far you haven't stated a motivation for doing this, which would have to be compelling even if it were a minor change to established principles of physical reality. But you're giving the thinnest of conceivable rationales - the dead ideas once tendered as interim measures and long since buried under the foundations of EM, which is not going away, no matter how much you might wish it would.

    People who know better reject bad ideas simply because they are bad ideas. So far you haven't offered any rationale for stating that "fixin shit that aint broke" (thank MacGyver for that) is a good idea, or that you have any kind of fix at all. So far it sounds like a superstitious belief that something was buried the way the Lost Ark was buried - leaving it with some secret of great value yet to be dug up and rediscovered. But that's ludicrous. These aren't even tablets alleged to be inscribed by God. It's just some interim wild-ass hare of an idea that floated around unchecked until Maxwell finally condensed EM into a concise set of laws. And as such, they're simply not reversible. Maybe if you took a moment to find out what I'm talking about you'd understand what the real motivations are from people who actually have a formal training in science, why Origin brought up EM in the beginning . . .

    We are on different pages because ours (the pro-science folks) come from the actual annals of what actually happened during the pursuit of knowledge of inner workings of the physical world. Your pages come from some anecdotes and I suppose some essays you have been reading from people who like to think they are smarter than the experts. Therein lies the rub. Unless you walk back through the history of discoveries, and reasonably digest the laws and principles discovered in the process, you'll never get it right. In short, you can't be right simply by declaring yourself right. A million experiments that have already been conducted all have to agree. That is, you can't require them to all go back produce a different result. And that requires that the whole smorgasboard of interoperating principles (not this oversimplified notion of a model) have to be upheld. And that's what existing principles do. And yet they all attest to the absence of an ether and/or the the irrelevance of ether to the principles and laws already known to be in play. You simply can't reverse the history of all of these prior findings. That would be ludicrous. For most of us, it's a pretty clear indicator that the opposing theory is seriously flawed, even before considering it on its purported merits. Forget the tail wagging the dog, you're trying to unwag the tail. That kind of leaves you out there flapping in the breeze which is a little bit worse than being on a different page, which is not half as bad as being on the wrong page, which is the page ether is on. It belongs under "religion" or something like that. It's not even close to science.
     
  16. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    Aqueous Id: You enter this Thread at a latter stage of dialogues, and some of your criticisms indicate to me that you didn't go over all the previous posts, which dealt with the question of why try a new approach and propose a new kind of model different from QM and GR. -The general idea from the standpoint of this ether model is that sure, QM and Maxwellian mathematics work empirically here in our earthly quantally-mediated (our observations and data stem from quantum scale atomic and subatomic processes) realm. Nevertheless, those hundred-year-old models are still not giving us a reasonable mechanism for cosmic questions such as origin of forces in the cosmos. -What this ether model offers is a new approach that would appear to give a more rational overview of origins than the 100-year-old models have been doing. I'll repeat a few of the most important basic ideas of this model. -Space came first. The only reasonable theoretic option for how forces could have arisen would have to start with the idea that space is self-compatible, such that elemental spatial points were were oscillating symmetrically with each other, which led to oscillational fatigue, so that adjacent spatial points fell toward each other in a curvilinear Yin-Yang fashion. This was still perfectly symmetrical, but then re-equilibration of the point-pairs with the original oscillational setting brought about an interaction between unlike point-entities, producing directional, or energic-type, elemental "ether" type, units, which were both curvilinear (as derived from the yin-yang units) and vibrational (as derived from the oscillational.) These elemental units, being curvational and vibrational, pulsationally (the frequency being variable) produced "nodes" which can interlink, or resonate, with each other, in a contiguous, instantaneous, fashion. (There are no discrete "particles" moving through "empty space.") -In all the time since this origin, all energies are basically mediated via these elemental energic units interacting. Larger energic units like electrons are "particle capacities" made of the elemental units. All energic resonances, whether field energies or aggregational ("particle"-forming) are mediated at the elemental etheric level. -In the case of particle capacities like neutrons and protons, they represent aggregational resonance between elemental (smaller, speedier "electronics") ether units. -Starlight passes from star to star via such like-to-like resonance (somewhat analogous to A. Einstein's famous allusion to "spooky action at a distance" for interactions seen between high-affinity particles). A distant star's light beam gets "bent" after it has passed through the ether of space and has become less energic by resonating with photonic etheric units in distant space, then gets re-energized when it again nears a high-photonic energy source (our Sun) and the beam is seen to "bend" (so this is not a case of Einsteinian curvature of space-time.)
     
  17. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    Tach The proof that this field test (see my post of 11/14) would have produced an etheric form of energy would be by measuring and finding a decreased density of material within the test system.
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    This is not a proof, this is just empty words. I take it that you have no formal description in mathematical formalism of your "test", therefore it isn't falsifiable, therefore it isn't science.
     
  19. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    seconded
     
  20. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    Tach: If you check back to earlier posts, you can see that my proposed field test's technical details have to be secret. I would only go into details if a suitable sponsor became interested. -I don't know what your requirements are to get a 'scientific" rating with you, but in any case, this theoretic model and test proposal are unique and not intended to conform to traditional categories.
     
  21. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Rubbish. Based on your description you have absolutely nothing but fringe stuff.

    It is not going to happen, no one buys snakeskin ointment anymore.
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    If you went into the specifics right here this would be proof that you are the owner of this material. It cannot be put out here and stolen - there is a record of it!

    This 'model' (it is not a model) and secret test do conform to a traditional category - the category is pseudoscience.
     
  23. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    313
    It might help clarify my post of Nov. 18, where I talked about starlight passing through space, and how this ether model implies it works. To give better detail as to the way this model would describe the way starlight traverses space, it would involve the photonic etheric energy units leaving the distant star, then "sensing" high-affinity high-energy photonic foci in space at great distances through an intervening contiguous etheric continuum, the highly-photonically-energized (from the source star) units are transmitted instantaneously along the contiguous etheric continuum by linking resonationally with the (somewhat less energized) photonic etheric units in the intervening space between the stars, as a "light beam' between the stars. (On again arriving in the vicinity of a high-photonic-energy region near the other star, the distant star's etheric transmissions become re-energized, "bending" the light beam.) -This is actually similar to what A. Einstein famously alluded to in his remarks about "spooky action at a distance" to refer to persisting correspondence between high-affinity particles across vast distances in space, which then was unexplained (physicists picturing an "empty space" between the particles), and so it was regarded as a "spooky" observation.
     

Share This Page