Ether model

DaveC426913 said:
So you believe that evidence to back up a theory is unnecessary. How then, do we determine whether one or another theory is accurate or useful?

My theory about pixie dust is every bit as detailed and explanatory as yours, and - since neither yours nor mine have to meet any expectations of evidence, nor do they have to be based on existing known science - neither can be shown to be right or wrong.

Where do we go from here?
Click to expand...
Into an all-purpose thread for collecting Michael Anteski's ramblings, I hope.
 
I just realized I used 'theory' and 'model' interchangeably. Sloppy.

Michael's Ether and Dave's Pixie Dust are models, not theories.
 
DaveC426913 said:
So you believe that evidence to back up a theory is unnecessary. How then, do we determine whether one or another theory is accurate or useful?

My theory about pixie dust is every bit as detailed and explanatory as yours, and - since neither yours nor mine have to meet any expectations of evidence, nor do they have to be based on existing known science - neither can be shown to be right or wrong.

Where do we go from here?
Click to expand...

I claim the way my Ether Model can account for quantum entanglement constitutes significant indirect evidence for an ether.

Direct experimental evidence could come from being able to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and then measuring for a predicted decreased density of materials inside the test system. No known forms of energy have such an effect. Another term for that would be levitation.

Above, I mentioned that I have done a long-term research involving codebreaking a historical Document, purporting to convey otherworldly insights into this ether model. -Another aspect of that study gives a procedure for a field test designed to produce that kind of energy field, but the test would be expensive, and I haven't found a potential financial sponsor to be able to get it done.
 
Michael Anteski said:
Above, I mentioned that I have done a long-term research involving codebreaking a historical Document, purporting to convey otherworldly insights into this ether model. -Another aspect of that study gives a procedure for a field test designed to produce that kind of energy field, but the test would be expensive, and I haven't found a potential financial sponsor to be able to get it done.
Click to expand...

Arrh the old code breaking historical document with the expensive test needed

Not seen this one for a few weeks

:)
 
Michael Anteski said:
I claim the way my Ether Model can account for quantum entanglement constitutes significant indirect evidence for an ether.
Click to expand...
You are trying to use a circular reference.

Here is my model.
What evidence do you have to support your model?
My model could be evidence.
No. A model is the opposite of evidence.


You do not understand models. Or evidence.


My pixie dust model is every bit as valid as your ether model.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You are trying to use a circular reference.

Here is my model.
What evidence do you have to support your model?
My model could be evidence.
No. A model is the opposite of evidence.


You do not understand models. Or evidence.


My pixie dust model is every bit as valid as your ether model.
Click to expand...

No your pixie dust model would never come close .
 
River's moral support is appreciated. My Ether Model, overall, has much more going for it than DaveC's "pixie dust" analogy implies.

A major factor would be that its concept of an underlying, unstructured, ether matrix, composed of fundamental elemental units, and operating through a linear, vibrational, form of energy (derived from a first-causal universal oscillation which transitioned to universal vibrational units, which interact as their outward vibrations contact each other, thus producing entrainments and other linkages, which in turn produce the larger quantum units we can observe, such as electrons) can logically explain quantum entanglement (Q.E.) very readily, which quantum mechanics does not.

The energy dynamics of quantum physics involve fields, vectors, spin, and other similar mechanisms, which cannot explain Q.E. The perfect connection between two separated quantum units can only be accounted for using my Model, involving another, more fundamental, kind of dynamics, in which the perfect linearity of vibratory type interaction occurs, amidst an etheric matrix, via matching, elemental, ether units.

I would categorize DaveC's dismissal of this as along the same lines as the passengers who kept playing cards after the Titanic hit the iceberg. (The "Titanic" being standard quantum theory as a universal model of physics, the "passengers" being the scientists who refuse to entertain anything other than strictly quantum mechanisms, and the "iceberg" being my type of ether model.)
 
Michael Anteski said:
My Ether Model, overall, has much more going for it than DaveC's "pixie dust" analogy implies.
Click to expand...
The problem is, it doesn't.
Your model has no evidence. It's not even a theory; it's just an unfounded idea.
How is it predictive? What does it predict we should see that current models do not, and do we see that?
How do any of the components of your idea have any basis in reality?
Any mathematics that back it up?
What observations do we have that indicate the components of your model are real, but the components of the standard model are not?

This is not how to science.
 
Last edited:
Michael Anteski said:
River's moral support is appreciated. My Ether Model, overall, has much more going for it than DaveC's "pixie dust" analogy implies.

A major factor would be that its concept of an underlying, unstructured, ether matrix, composed of fundamental elemental units, and operating through a linear, vibrational, form of energy (derived from a first-causal universal oscillation which transitioned to universal vibrational units, which interact as their outward vibrations contact each other, thus producing entrainments and other linkages, which in turn produce the larger quantum units we can observe, such as electrons) can logically explain quantum entanglement (Q.E.) very readily, which quantum mechanics does not.

The energy dynamics of quantum physics involve fields, vectors, spin, and other similar mechanisms, which cannot explain Q.E. The perfect connection between two separated quantum units can only be accounted for using my Model, involving another, more fundamental, kind of dynamics, in which the perfect linearity of vibratory type interaction occurs, amidst an etheric matrix, via matching, elemental, ether units.

I would categorize DaveC's dismissal of this as along the same lines as the passengers who kept playing cards after the Titanic hit the iceberg. (The "Titanic" being standard quantum theory as a universal model of physics, the "passengers" being the scientists who refuse to entertain anything other than strictly quantum mechanisms, and the "iceberg" being my type of ether model.)
Click to expand...
I wonder if you have really deluded yourself into believing that this gibberish is meaningful or do you realize it is bullshit and you are just trying to feel good about yourself by impressing gullible sots like river with your 'deep thinking'?
 
Michael Anteski said:
(The "Titanic" being standard quantum theory as a universal model of physics, the "passengers" being the scientists who refuse to entertain anything other than strictly quantum mechanisms, and the "iceberg" being my type of ether model.)
Click to expand...
The passengers on the Titanic accepted reality. They would not have gained anything by hypothesizing that the ship wasn't sinking.
 
Michael Anteski said:
(The "Titanic" being standard quantum theory as a universal model of physics, the "passengers" being the scientists who refuse to entertain anything other than strictly quantum mechanisms, and the "iceberg" being my type of ether model.)
Click to expand...
"I bet there's an iceberg there."
"What makes you think that?"
"I have an idea of what I think this iceberg looks like."
"Any evidence of what your berg looks like? Any evidence that they're not like all the icebergs we have evidence of? Any evidence there's even one there?"
"No to all. But I have an idea."
 
DaveC426913 said:
The problem is, it doesn't.
Your model has no evidence. It's not even a theory; it's just an unfounded idea.
How is it predictive? What does it predict we should see that current models do not, and do we see that?
How do any of the components of your idea have any basis in reality?
Any mathematics that back it up?
What observations do we have that indicate the components of your model are real, but the components of the standard model are not?

This is not how to science.
Click to expand...

Look above, my Post of Nov 20 mentioned a predictive field test (predicting how generating an etheric energy field would cause a decreased density within the system, or levitation effect, and how I've tried to get it performed.)

You can't do mathematics for an ether you are unable to detect, at least not at this point in time.
 
Michael Anteski said:
You can't do mathematics for an ether you are unable to detect, at least not at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Arrrh another cannot do the math for something we cannot detect excuse

Once we detect it that won't be a problem

That sounds back to front to me

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top