Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Michael Anteski, Jan 18, 2015.
When your ready
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The ether is not contiguous , there is an ether though
Your so close
I can't help but notice you used the word "Earthlings". Is this meant to imply your "confidential source" is an alien?
I don't know if this will fit your ether model or not. I agree that the ether is not physically contiguous. However, it can be argued that there is a contiguity in a sense - the important sense of functionality, in that the energic units of the ether are able to radiate energic vibrations widely enough to form connections among the array of potential other units "within reach," in the distance parameters of vibratory resonance. - So in terms of energic action, there is contiguity in that sense.
Well I have some great news for you, having a confidential source means that you cannot reveal the identity of the source, it does not mean you cannot reveal what the source said.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok, I'll go as far as saying that I've used codebreaking of a historical Document.
This is getting to be sad. So you are super secret spy who is also a genius scientist who has discovered that the key to the universe is a substance that is undetectable except using an experiment that is too secret to be revealed.
This sounds like the fantasy of a stoned 14 year old.
My advice is stay in school and don't do drugs.
Your comment "like a 14 year old," is untrue. I'm a Senior citizen.
Your only as old as you feel.
Even if you have to keep your source a secret, and you have to keep the method with which you used to codebreak that document a secret, you can tell us which document it was, as the document is a historical document that everybody already knows about.
From your article on the ether:
As soon as the “disturbance” incurred by the point-pair broke the perfect symmetry of space, it would have been propagated throughout all of space, producing a new kind of matrix, featuring directionally-vibrational (as derived from the oscillational) energic-units that are elemental and identical.
Directionally-vibrational points are reality?
I did not mean mathematical "points," but rather point-localities that existed in Original Space, a space that existed prior to the first appearance of forces. (Oscillational- reciprocity distance-parameters would not have been infinite, so the first elemental ether units would have been finite - vanishingly minute, but finite.) -This model cannot be tested, inasmuch as original space no longer exists. -I maintain that the most rational concept is that space came first, and that non-directional oscillation had to precede the first forces (which might be more accurately termed "curvilinearly resonant" than "directional.") -The classic depiction of this would be the familiar Yin and Yang curvilinearly-connecting pair. -Multiple Yin and Yang "point" pairs led to multiple elemental vibrating ether units.
My model of elemental ether units as vibrational units is based on the concept that the oscillational process producing the "oscillational fatigue" produced an analogous vibrational process, that these vibrations extend outwardly, also, similar to the Yin and Yang combination, in a curvilinear fashion (the description "directional" admittedly may be too vague, here) analogous to the units having "nodes" that form loose outwardly-extended connections (not "fixed" connections) between the units, i.e., they resonate. Then, further resonances among the elemental units formed entrainments which then led to larger and larger "particle capacity" units, on up to the quantum-scale units we are familiar with, which have their own energic mechanisms involving not vibration, but rather spin-vector forces.
The strongest illustration of this type of ether, made up principally of elemental vibrationally resonant units, would be the phenomenon physics is calling "quantum entanglement." -With my model, the action-at-a-distance phenomenon represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units walled-off, kinetically, like cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, ether mechanism which can turn itself on and off, by itself, any time.
When you say turn itself on and off, do you mean appear/ pop into existence and then disappear/ return to non-existence? And if the ether is real, how can we know when we've interacted with it?
I don't know if this matters to you, but Michael has not a clue as to what he is talking about. All he has done is throw around terms he does not understand to describe phenomena that he cannot comprehend.
Cranks of a feather, and all that...
The concept of the ether "turning on and off" refers to how elemental etheric units resonate with each other. (As each unit vibrates, curvilinearly, its vibrations project outwardly, allowing contact resonance to occur between the units. -It can be conceptualized as though the ether units have "nodes" which form loose connections (not "fixed" connections) with other elemental etheric units. - Resonances can only occur between elemental ether units. -Larger energy units are made up of the elemental units. The ether is an underlying, separate, energy system from our familiar quantum energy systems, which operate via spin/vector mechanisms. The ether operates vibrationally. -Different vibratory patterns exist between packets of elemental ether forces. -When, in a case of so-called "quantum entanglement," a pair of analogous quantum units are separated in space, the elemental ether units that they are made of "feel" the analogy between the quantum units, via the vibrational ether network. The similarity of the two quantum units produces a like-to-like resonance through the ether, allowing them to remain "connected." The similarity between the two quantum units in terms of vibration in the ether is transmitted by packets of elemental ether units which share the same vibratory pattern as the two quantum units. -When not transmitting in this way, the ether is an underlying quiet purring mechanism.
I'd like to clarify my "first cause" model of how an ether developed from Original Space.
In my model, all forces - gravity, electromagnetism, light, etc. - basically involve the action of elemental units of an underlying universal ether, which appeared in a self-compatible Space, as it existed prior to the first appearance of forces.. The starting event was oscillational fatigue of adjoining pairs of point-localities which combined in "Yin and Yang" fashion to break the perfect symmetry of space. -Our world of forces dates back to this initiating event.
However, Yin and Yang pairs could not represent the elemental ether units that transmit forces, because these point pairs were symmetrical (see the classic Yin and Yang depiction in ancient lore), and elemental ether units would have to have a dipolar feature. -That is because forces like magnetism and gravity manifest dipolarity ("north pole, south pole"), and therefore, in an ether model where all forces are generated by elemental ether units, the dipolarity would have to stem from a dipolar feature of the elemental units of the ether. -I believe that the Yin and Yang pairs, after breaking hitherto-perfect symmetry, produced a reaction in Original Space, among the remaining point-localities, that produced elemental units of the ether.
In my model, elemental ether units vibrate (inasmuch as they were derived from an oscillation-setting of space), which is how they interact resonationally, and the outward projection of their vibrations form loose connections (not "fixed" connections) with each other. -I submit that this is where dipolarity originates. -As an elemental ether unit vibrates, the vibrations extend to one side, then the other side. This is tantamount to a dipole-feature. -A dipolar elemental ether explains such phenomena as magnetic fields very simply. -The field represents elemental ether units "rebalancing" forces that were "unbalanced" by the magnetic attractional mechanism, with the attractional forces and the field forces all being mediated by identical elemental ether units.
Too bad you cannot clarify it, since first of all it is not a model, secondly it is not logical, thirdly it goes against observation/experimentation, fourthly you are using made up terms in your 'clarification' and finally the real scientific terms you are using you are using incorrectly because you do not understand what they actually mean.
But hey, nice try!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We are on different theoretic pages. -You are resting your notions of acceptable scientific terminology, and your case, on current concepts of the fundamental nature of forces - notions that stem from our empirical observations of, and measurements of, forces in our setting here on earth's surface. This approach to formulating the basic theory of cosmic forces, besides hinging on using our earthbound measurements of quantum forces for theories about cosmic forces. also hinges on the dismissal of the venerable theory that a universal ether must exist, in order to transmit forces. That theory was dismissed, based on a "null" result of the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) in 1887. -However, as I've pointed out before, the MMX 's basic premise was that an ether would have to behave inertially with respect to earth's movements through it, producing a "drag" or "wind" effect, which should be measurable with the optical/refractive measurements in the MMX. But in my ether model, both earth and space are fundamentally composed of elemental ether units which interact resonationally, so the ether would tend to "follow" earth in its movements, non-inertially, invalidating the basic premise of the MMX, and also invalidating the consequential dismissal of the ether by physics, which has continued to this day.
Therefore, my theoretical points are not "just being made up." They are being employed in a basically-different kind of theoretic model. Again, we should not be using our earthbound empirical data to form theories about cosmic forces. We should instead be using a theoretic model based on the likeliest origin of forces in space.
Let's go back to the OP here. You really are building a complex platform on a weak foundation. Your aether experiment may or may not be of any merit, and probably is just as weak as the platform you are building from. Here is my point: The OP does not set the stage for a cosmic model. It is wide open to the most basic question about cause and effect; there is nothing to address infinite regression.
Where did "pure space" come from? What caused the universal ether to emerge? What caused the first appearance of forces? Based on what logic do you conclude that original space was manifested as a shimmering oscillation of vanishingly small elemental points? Why would oscillation fatigue set in? Etc, etc.
I like to ask layman with ideas about models to address the issue of the beginning in order to associate the details of their model with some initial state or condition where infinite regress halts. Do you have any interest in stating your explanation for the existence of the universe, i.e. has it "always existed"? Did it come from "nothingness"? Or did "God do it"? Answer that, and then the aspects of your cosmology can have a first cause. You should be able to describe the mechanics from there in a cause and effect, step-by-step scenario.
Start with what the initial conditions were, and then say what caused any changes in state, and how the evolving details of your cosmic model can be explained from there; otherwise it will always suffer from infinite regression and will always lack internal consistency.
Separate names with a comma.