Michael Anteski's Ether model

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

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,291
    Into an all-purpose thread for collecting Michael Anteski's ramblings, I hope.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,607
    I just realized I used 'theory' and 'model' interchangeably. Sloppy.

    Michael's Ether and Dave's Pixie Dust are models, not theories.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,882
    Mental fatigue as in my 3 neurone brain Huey Dewey Louie to go on strike just because I am on holiday

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    199
    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    Above, I mentioned that I have done a long-term research involving codebreaking a historical Document, purporting to convey otherworldly insights into this ether model.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.
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,882
    Arrh the old code breaking historical document with the expensive test needed

    Not seen this one for a few weeks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist likes this.
  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,867
    I think it is very nice of you guys to talk to Mike, that's all he really wants.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,671
    That's the problem. All of the cheap physics has been done.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,607
    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.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,975
    Admin note:

    Two other threads on Anteski's "Ether model" have been merged into this one.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  13. river

    Messages:
    12,607
    No your pixie dust model would never come close .
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,607
    It has as much evidence and science behind it as the OP's.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    12,607
    My thoughts on ether is not appropriate here .
     
  16. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    199
    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.)
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,607
    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: Nov 29, 2018
  18. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,867
    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'?
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,671
    The passengers on the Titanic accepted reality. They would not have gained anything by hypothesizing that the ship wasn't sinking.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,607
    "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."
     
  21. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    199
    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.
     
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,882
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,588
    We made the invisible Higgs boson appear and thereby confirm the Higgs field, with our maths and of course the collider at Cern.
     

Share This Page