Michael Anteski's Ether model

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Michael Anteski, Feb 19, 2017.

  1. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    288
    By referring to first-causal space as "original" space, it refers to a different type of space than we have now. My Ether Model claims that the space we have now contains an ether, composed of ultra-rarified, elemental, etheric energy-units, that interact with each other, via contact of their vibrations.

    First-causal "points" in "original" space would have existed within a type of space that was free of these ether-energy-units, as well as being free of anything else. Such a type of space would have likely been more self-compatible than space is now. -Therefore, you should not try to make analogies between how we would experience "points iu space," using our present concepts, of how "points" would have related to an "original" space.

    In this kind of model, I think we should refer to "point localities" of space rather than simple "points." Such localities of space would have had to be finite (in order to be able to oscillate, and later, to vibrate.) True "points," in mathematics, are dimensionless.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. POVphysics2 Registered Member

    Messages:
    93
    I think your ether model is like a snow covered car in the winter. You can sort of see the shape of a car, but it's not the car. Keep developing your ideas.

    I like this sentence. First-causal "points" in "original" space would have existed within a type of space that was free of these ether-energy-units, as well as being free of anything else.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    288
    Standard physics theory proposes that "particles" which are seen using ourtechnology stem from processes that started with a so-called Big Bang. Following the Big Bang, supposedly, various energy units started to appear, among which, hypothetically, were Higgs bosons, which physicists claim were the key to producing "solid matter" and its plethora of subquantum units, such as bosons, fermions, "quarks," photons, and so on.

    As conceptually nebulous as this hypothetical progression is, physics claims it is supported by rationale based on observing and measuring quantum systems and applying mathematics to that. -One important assumption for all this is that no underlying ether matrix exists, an assumption based on experiments using optical measurements of refracted light beams that were subjected to different gravit settings, first performed by Michelson and Morley in 1887, and repeated with various modifications by others since then.

    If this assumption of physicists that there is not ether is wrong, and if on the other hand quantum dynamic systems are underpinned by a universal ether having a different (vibratory) dynamics, as I claim, the theoretic framework for the formation of quantum and subquantum units would be completely different.

    In my Ether Model, there was a first causal formation of a universal ether world, in which Yin Yang couplets were reversibly equilibrating and reverting in various locations to singleton ether units, which now were vibrating and interacting with each other via vibratory contact. =In such a "first world, which would have been an emerging ether macrocosm, ther would have been "wrinkles" in its fabric, because of different portions of the world where different patterns of ether-formation occurred. (it would not have been a uniform process.) This wo8uld have led to fluxing etheric transmissions which then could have formed foci of ultra-intense, ultra-refined (etheric) forces. Such foci could have produced larger energy units, including atomic units like we have now.

    When an energy transmission impinges on a "virgin" ether region (where the ether units are vibrating quietly and randomly), the linearity of the transmission induces the ether units in the region to align with each other, and then entrain, forming larger energy units, such as bosons, quarks, photons, and atoms.

    This kind of model can be grasped conceptually, unlike the present model of physics.

    michelson Morley sets of experiments dismissed the ether because they assumed that the light beams being measured must interact with "any type of" ether. However, my model of the ether proposes that it consists mainly of elemental ether units that would have been ultimately-minuscule, or first-causal in size, and thus would have been vanishingly smaller mthan the photons which transmit visible light beams. -So the light beams measured in the Michelson Morley experiments could not have had any inertial interface with those ether units. -Since the light beams and the ether could not interact, the basic assumptions of the Michelson Morley experiments were false, and physics was wrong in dismissing the ether.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    288
    I would like to present a full encapsulation of my Ether Model, including how it logically fits together with a creation-model, and how it all comes together in the end to make a compelling solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement.

    In my Model, any ether would have to be universal, by its very nature. -I propose that what came first wasuniversal space, which would have been "pure," free from anything else, such as forces. Thus it could have been extremely self-compatible, with extremely-rarified, "point"-like, localities within it, reciprocally oscillating with each other. Eventually, I propose, adjacent "points" underwent oscillatory fatigue, so that they fell toward each other, forming "Yin and Yang" couplets. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals.) This process broke the perfect symmetry of oscillation, and now there were "doubled" localities that were independently vibrating instead of reciprocally oscillating. However, this transition would not have been uniform and simultaneous throughout space, so that now there were couplet-type units which, here and there, which tended to merge with each other, as their matching doubled vibrations came in contact, combining into a still-larger unit. (The idea here would be that the non-uniformity of this first-causal process produced areas where the motion of different units happened to be comparatively linear, which would have tended to align the vibrations of units making up this emerging "etheric" realm. Such alignments of the vibrations would have caused units to entrain with each other, producing larger and larger units, at first "etheroidal"in size-scale, and then up to the size scale of quantum/atomic units. At this point, there would have been multiple fluxing energy-units radiating in various directions, and their resonations would have tended to form confluences, or "islands," where the intensity of the forces would have peaked. Extremely-rarified etheric, and complex energic processes could have been possible in such an "island." Build-ups of larger energy units could even have produced quantization, and solid bodies, or "moieties." If such a moiety happened to be roundish in shape ("cosmic egg" - like), then if some of the intense fluxing energies in the area contacted the moiety tangentially, reverberating energy circuits could have been produced, around it. This in turn could have led to intelligence, and the appearance of a sapient Entity (ies).

    Eventually, overall the processes would have produced a universal ether macrocosm. At the quantized "island," however, effects of the transient type of magnetism coming from the ether would have made things unstable for the moieties and Entity(ies) there, so it was decided to create a fully-quantized macrocosm (our universe.) To accomplish this, projections of electron/photon quantum units, from the energies surrounding the "island," were directed toward a "virgin" ether region, causing the ether there to undergo a patterned, chain-reactional, formation of quantum/atomic units.

    (The electron/photon unit having been the key unit in forming the universe would have meant that its velocity, the speed of light, would have remained the highest speed limit in the universe.)

    How quantum entanglement fits into this model would be as follows. -In past posts on this Thread, I have described my model for quantum entanglement, as representing radiated packets of elemental ether units which, acting together, have the same vibratory pattern. In the creation-model just given, these same elemental ether units were the first energy units formed, and eventually their aligned vibrations and entrainments became the components of all later units, including quantum units. These ether units also comprise an ether "matrix" that exists inside and outside everything. Elemental ether units are also the "building blocks" of the quantum units. -When a pair of related quantum units are found to be "entangled" after their separation, according to my model what is happening is that the quantum units "feel" the ether, and thus each other, through their mutual vibrations.
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,363
    That would not be in anyway shape or form possible

    And it sounds like you are talking about Quantum Foam

    To much other stuff in your post for me to comment on sorry not my field

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,607
    I refer to it as a timeless, dimensionless "permittive condition", before it became "spacetime geometry"
     
  10. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    288
    If you want to focus on just one part of my Ether Model, look up quantum entanglement in Wikipedia, and at how it exhaustively goes into numerous theories for it in quantum physics -Then review my explanation of it. I would cite Occam;s Razor. My model of quantum entanglement deserves serious consideration.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,574
    Arm waving pseudoscience never deserves consideration.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,363
    How many observations / experiments / time spent in the bubble bath has it taken to show some cohesion in this (whatever it is)?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    288
    Another way to think about how an ether came to be, is to ask oneself why there exist all the various kinds of tiny subatomic units. Exactly how did this come about?

    If one entertains the concept of an ether which is composed of separate units (rather than being an entirely fluidic type of ether), then a logical step from there would be that (1) Since any kind of underlying ether would have to be universal, by its very nature, (2) Such an ether, composed of "units," would have arisen first-causally, from ultimately-small, or etheric, "elemental" units. -One might consider"units" under a generic term, "unit moieties," (rather than the term "particles"now used in quantum physics to refer to what they regard as discrete units, rather than units made up of smaller etheric components, as in my ether model) including larger sized units that might have formed after the initial elemental ether units.

    I submit that, in an overall sense, this is a more rational first-causal setting than the current Big Bang theory. -In my model, a universal ether arose when a pure type of oscillation of elemental point-like localities within original universal Space transitioned, via a Yin and Yang process, to an ether composed of ether units, which were now vibrating (rather than oscillating), and interacting with each other via contact vibrations, within a universal ether matrix.

    This kind of Yin Yang transition-process would not have been perfectly uniform everywhere in space. Eventually, following the first-causal event, multidirectional radiations in the ether occurred, which happened to produce a local region in the ether matrix where radiations happened to be mostly linear, so that the vibrations of smaller units there became aligned with each other, which produced entrainments of elemental ether units into larger and larger units, up to the size of quantum units and atoms. Quantum moieties were formed, and in the case of one such moiety, which happened to have a "cosmic egg" shape, tangential etheric radiations produced reverberating energy circuits, which resulted in a sapient Entity. Following this, a quantum/atomic universe was created by projecting electrons (the smallest and fastest-moving quantum units) toward a "virgin" ether region, which entrained the vibrations in the ether there, producing larger and larger units, such as protons, neutrons, and atoms, vi a chain-reactional process in the ether. (Using the electron-photon unit in the creation meant that its velocity (the speed of light) would remain the highest speed limit in the universe, at least for quantum-atomic entities like us).

    When one hears that a "new kind of particle" has been discovered (under the artificial conditions of a physics laboratory or an accelerator/collider), my reaction is "So what?" -The important question should instead be, what were the units actually produced naturally in the first-causal setting?
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,363
    Thought to be required as the carrier of light ie needed for light to propagate

    Found out does not exist and light propagates quite happily though a vacuum

    Have I missed something?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,607
    And that is what the twelve elementary "values" and 4 elementary "forces" are.

    A fluidic substrate is dynamical like a river . This is David Bohm's Pilot Wave model. There are waves, eddies, whirlpools, interference patterns, each having their own intrinsic potentials, but all interacting in a causal universal cauldron, from which combinatory values emerge, such as the 12 elementary values. (note the description of behaviors in these elementary values..up--, down--, 1/2 spin, etc.)

    IMO these behaviors are descriptive of dynamical fluidic wave and pressure functions......Fluid Dynamics?

    THE FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES
    https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/undergrad-projects/3rdyear/PPguide/part.htm
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2021
  16. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    288
    You haven't missed anything in the standard consensus model of quantum physics.. You have missed the points I have made before in this Thread, as to why physics is wrong in saying that ether does not exist. In earlier discussions, I pointed out that their "evidence," in particular the Michelson Morley experiments (MMX), would not disprove my kind of ether model. (In my model, elemental ether units were formed first-causally, and are so tiny they don't have any inertial interface with the much larger photons that transmit the visible light beams being measured in MMX. So in my model of the ether, the light beams in MMX cannot interact with ether, and MMX proved nothing.

    Where you state that "light propagates happily through a vacuum," you are talking about the "vacuum" of quantum physics, not about how my ether model would view their definition of "vacuum." In my ether model, ether is everywhere. It's universal, both inside and outside everything. Where quantum physics observes what they are calling a "vacuum," they are simply failing to pick up the ether which is there, and is simply not being observed.

    My ether model, if given a chance, would be able to cover absolutely all the theoretic bases. This model should get serious consideration.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Michael . Agreed the ether is there .
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,607
    How long has it been there?
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Always .
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,758
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's currently no experimental evidence for your hypothesis, yes?
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,607
    Somehow that just doesn't sound logical.
    AFAIK, everything has a beginning. All available knowledge points to "a beginning", even in religious scripture.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    river said:

    Highlighted

    Not Energy and Life . The big -bang theory is all about a beginning . I disagree . Why ?

    Because beginning means an end . Which leads to nothingness . Nothingness can never become something , ever .
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,607
    But you accept the notion of a beginningless eternity? Can you support that with an existent theory?
     

Share This Page