DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Michael Anteski thinks that.
Ether model
- Thread starter Michael Anteski
- Start date
Case in point!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I suspect it's worse.Hence origin nailed it
Being irrational would imply MA has studied the standard model of cosmology but rejected it.
I suspect he has never even bothered to familiarize himself with it in the first place.
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
The two concepts (celestial bodies formed by swirling gas clouds" and .."and then atoms appeared" were cited by me only to compare them to my detailed stepwise Ether Model. I should not have mentioned those two "accepted theory" examples together as though they were connected, my oversight there.
My ether model would have it that celestial bodies form from energic magnetic forces initiated in the underlying ether. -For example, the Core of a planet like earth consists of iron and (to a lesser extent) nickel. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to propose that a planet's formation is initiated via a unique magnetic property of iron, ferromagnetism (and nickel alongside it due to an atomic affinity of iron and nickel)? -If that is entertained, then wouldn't a planet's further accretion then progress along similar magnetic lines, rather than primarily depending on the mechanical effects of swirling gas clouds?
As for my mention of "and then atoms appeared," that was a direct quote from a standard scientific paper. I intended it as a comparison to my stepwise ether model.)
Why shouldn't science start thinking in terms of an ether? Their dismissal of it on the basis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) is basically flawed. (If an ether is composed of ether units much smaller than the photons of visible light, as in my model of the ether, MMX would not have an inertial connection between the light beams they measured and the ether, and MMX would not disprove an ether in the sense they claimed.)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because there is no experimental evidence for it, nor an theoretical need for it.
That was simply the nail in the coffin. There was been a century and a half of theoretical, experimental and applied technology advancements since then that have never had any need of it.
They ARE connected. You put them in the incorrect sequence
Like gravity?
Exactly, because it doesn't
Scientists - been there, done that, wasn't found
Mighty big if there. What gave you a indication there are ether units much smaller than the photons of visible light
Sounds sort of sensible "we didn't find what we were looking for so for us it doesn't exist"
Trying to fit your jigsaw brain thoughts into a coherent idea
are you suggesting someone invent a detection device (equipment) or possibly increase sensitivity of equipment we already using??? to detect ether units much smaller than the photons of visible light ?
Ummmm, I am sure that option has been explored
I don't know what a "standard scientific paper" is but there is no theory that states "and then atoms appeared". So you are either remembering incorrectly or just making that up.
Again a very big if
I did come across this in using the Where's WEBB app to find out how the commissioning of the telescope was progressing
This is a screenshot because cannot copy paste the text
Note where in the first paragraph "The segments need to be lined up with each other with a accuracy smaller than the wavelength of the light"
Would such accuracy help your quest to find ether units?
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
Again a very big if
I did come across this in using the Where's WEBB app to find out how the commissioning of the telescope was progressing
This is a screenshot because cannot copy paste the text
View attachment 4646
Note where in the first paragraph "The segments need to be lined up with each other with a accuracy smaller than the wavelength of the light"
Would such accuracy help your quest to find ether units?
According to my Ether Model, it isn't possible to detect ether units visually, even if the etheric component of a transmission has a photonic type of ether-vibratory pattern. -Changing the characteristics of a quantum light transmission, as here, would not help. You would still have a quantum-order transmission of the light.
Our eyes are atomically, or quantally, structured, and can only visualize light which is being transmitted quantally.
(Parenthetically, your question raises an interesting theoretic consideration. -Do so-called "dark" stars have a more etheric composition than do other stars?)
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
They ARE connected. You put them in the incorrect sequence
Like gravity?
Exactly, because it doesn't
Scientists - been there, done that, wasn't found
Mighty big if there. What gave you a indication there are ether units much smaller than the photons of visible light
To answer your question as to how units of ether may well be much smaller than those of visible light, or photon units - if you look back in this Thread to my basic model of how a universal ether would have arisen: if an ether exists, it would have to be universal, and would have to have arisen first-causally. Units that could have arisen first causally would probably have just transitioned from a state of reciprocal oscillation to one of interactive vibration, and would be ultimately "elemental." Their tininess could well be almost unimaginable to us, or to Michelson and Morley, in our world.
To ,answer your other question about detecting an ether using transmissions of visible light - according to my Ether Model, that would never work, because visible light involves quantum systems and atoms, and the ether is too rarified for us to see. -You'd need an ether-test that generates an ether energy field, and measure objects in the test system for a decrease in their density, to detect their increased ether state.
Sounds sort of sensible "we didn't find what we were looking for so for us it doesn't exist"
Trying to fit your jigsaw brain thoughts into a coherent idea
are you suggesting someone invent a detection device (equipment) or possibly increase sensitivity of equipment we already using??? to detect ether units much smaller than the photons of visible light ?
Ummmm, I am sure that option has been explored
They ARE connected. You put them in the incorrect sequence
Like gravity?
Exactly, because it doesn't
Scientists - been there, done that, wasn't found
Mighty big if there. What gave you a indication there are ether units much smaller than the photons of visible light
Sounds sort of sensible "we didn't find what we were looking for so for us it doesn't exist"
Trying to fit your jigsaw brain thoughts into a coherent idea
are you suggesting someone invent a detection device (equipment) or possibly increase sensitivity of equipment we already using??? to detect ether units much smaller than the photons of visible light ?
Ummmm, I am sure that option has been explored
Gravity is not detected visually
Detected by its interaction with stuff around it
Sonic boom not visual. Auditory, though don't think that applies to ether
So ether is detectable how?
Why are you telling me you have put some text in parenthesis? I can see them. If you put text in parenthesis (which I do often - it helps my dyslexia) there is no requirement to say the text is in ()
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(dark_matter)
Under this model, a dark star is predicted to be an enormous cloud of molecular hydrogen and helium ranging between 4 and 2,000 astronomical units in diameter and with a surface temperature and luminosity low enough that the emitted radiation would be invisible to the naked eye.[2]
In the unlikely event that dark stars have endured to the modern era, they could be detectable by their emissions of gamma rays, neutrinos, and antimatter and would be associated with clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas that normally would not harbor such energetic, extreme, and rare particles.
We will not know until we find either of such elusive stuff
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
Gravity is not detected visually
Detected by its interaction with stuff around it
Sonic boom not visual. Auditory, though don't think that applies to ether
So ether is detectable how?
Why are you telling me you have put some text in parenthesis? I can see them. If you put text in parenthesis (which I do often - it helps my dyslexia) there is no requirement to say the text is in ()
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(dark_matter)
Under this model, a dark star is predicted to be an enormous cloud of molecular hydrogen and helium ranging between 4 and 2,000 astronomical units in diameter and with a surface temperature and luminosity low enough that the emitted radiation would be invisible to the naked eye.[2]
In the unlikely event that dark stars have endured to the modern era, they could be detectable by their emissions of gamma rays, neutrinos, and antimatter and would be associated with clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas that normally would not harbor such energetic, extreme, and rare particles.
The question of dark stars is not essential to, or part of, my Ether Model. -Still, it's interesting that some maverick researchers and theorists have been saying that their outside-the-scientific-mainstream measurements of gravity strengths and vectors indicate there is a scientifically-unappreciated dark star in our own solar system, which is significantly large, compared to our visible Sun.
Please do tell of these
- outside-the-scientific-mainstream measurements and
- vectors
- indicating a
- scientifically-unappreciated dark star in our own solar system
How large?
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
See: The Dark Star Theory, at darkstar1.co.ukPlease do tell of these
- outside-the-scientific-mainstream measurements and
- vectors
- indicating a
- scientifically-unappreciated dark star in our own solar system
How large?
There is also a you tube video on it, and other sources.
Ummmm to lazy to discuss (explain) but just awake enough to fob off with a couple of references
Has the definition of discussion become a version of Dueling Banjos? replace Banjos with References
I'm Steve Martin
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
After recent posts discussing subjects like theories of dark stars, and returning to the purpose of this thread, which is my Ether model -
The Model's key points, contrasting it with the standard model currently accepted by physics and cosmology, would be as follows: a universal ether appeared following the transition of a first-causal, and universal, reciprocal-oscillation of point-like etheric units, to units that independently vibrate, rather than oscillate. These initial ultimately-tiny, or "elemental,"etheric units began to interact with each other as their vibrations came into contact. Larger energy units, up to the size of quantum and atomic units, are formed in this underlying ether-matrix, as multiplying vibrations of smaller units "lock" and link up.
After a universal ether, made up of units of different sizes along with the elemental ether units, appeared, radiations of ether units eventually produced areas of more-linear radiational patterns, forming partially-quantized "islands." At that point, it became possible to project quantum units from such an island, through the ether, in order to creationally produce a quantum/atomic universe like the one we are in now. The quantum-scale units that were projected through the ether were photon/electron units. As they traveled through the ether, it set up self-sustained chain-reactions in the ether that resulted in systematic formation of the protons and atoms, the ones that make up our universe. Since the photon/electron was the unit used, its velocity (speed of light) became the highest speed limit in our world.
Compare this model with the currently-accepted model, proposing that atomic systems developed following a "Big Bang." Even if one includes the controversial Higgs boson, that model lacks the Ether Model's full stepwise rationale for how atoms formed as they did.
One must ask which model makes the most sense: is it the currently-accepted model of a "Big Bang," and "then atoms appeared?" My ether model is the only kind of model that does make sense.
The Model's key points, contrasting it with the standard model currently accepted by physics and cosmology, would be as follows: a universal ether appeared following the transition of a first-causal, and universal, reciprocal-oscillation of point-like etheric units, to units that independently vibrate, rather than oscillate. These initial ultimately-tiny, or "elemental,"etheric units began to interact with each other as their vibrations came into contact. Larger energy units, up to the size of quantum and atomic units, are formed in this underlying ether-matrix, as multiplying vibrations of smaller units "lock" and link up.
After a universal ether, made up of units of different sizes along with the elemental ether units, appeared, radiations of ether units eventually produced areas of more-linear radiational patterns, forming partially-quantized "islands." At that point, it became possible to project quantum units from such an island, through the ether, in order to creationally produce a quantum/atomic universe like the one we are in now. The quantum-scale units that were projected through the ether were photon/electron units. As they traveled through the ether, it set up self-sustained chain-reactions in the ether that resulted in systematic formation of the protons and atoms, the ones that make up our universe. Since the photon/electron was the unit used, its velocity (speed of light) became the highest speed limit in our world.
Compare this model with the currently-accepted model, proposing that atomic systems developed following a "Big Bang." Even if one includes the controversial Higgs boson, that model lacks the Ether Model's full stepwise rationale for how atoms formed as they did.
One must ask which model makes the most sense: is it the currently-accepted model of a "Big Bang," and "then atoms appeared?" My ether model is the only kind of model that does make sense.
Are you sure? Perhaps there is a George out there who not only finds deity's but another version of ether
Don't know about must ask but one can ask how is all of your Ether Model's properties deduced if said ether is undetectable?
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
Are you sure? Perhaps there is a George out there who not only finds deity's but another version of ether
Don't know about must ask but one can ask how is all of your Ether Model's properties deduced if said ether is undetectable?
The fact that the ether hasn't been detected relates to the extreme tininess, or rarefaction, of elemental ether units, compared to the quantum-sized units and atoms in our detection technologies. As I mentioned in my last post, the predominant units of the ether, the elemental ether units, had to have arisen first-causally, before anything else happened. (It's logical to presume these units of ether are vastly smaller, and possibly "ultimately" small, compared to the energy units our scientists deal with technologically.)
The biggest reason physicists dismissed the ether was the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX). The MMX has been repeated, with various modifications, by others, since then. -The basis of the original MMX involved optically measuring the behavior of light beams that were subjected to different gravity settings, and judging if there was evidence of an interaction of the light beams with an underlying ether "medium" conducting the light. An important assumption of MMX was that the beams of light should undergo some kind of inertial contact with "any type" of ether, which could be detected with their measurements.
However, in my ether model, the predominant units of ether are so small, and the photons which transmit visible light are likely so much larger, that photons simply "brush past" the ether units, the way a motorcar brushes past a cloud of dust particles, without being affected, inertially, by them, and the measurements of light beams they did wouldn't have shown an effect like the ether they assumed had to exist. -Thus, with my Ether Model, the MMX didn't disprove the existence of "all possible kinds of ether," at all, as physics has assumed it did.
That is why, according to my model, the ether has been undetected, up to now. -A different kind of test would be needed, namely a field test designed to produce an etheric field, and seeing if objects inside the test system lose their density.
What evidence do you have to support your claim of HAD?
Why?
Energy is a property of mass. Energy has no physicality
Energy units are a unit measure of how much work can be performed
Good luck producing a field test of something undetectable
How would you start to design equipment to produce undetectable something?
Perhaps somehow have a large chamber in which you reproduce the conditions just after the Big Bang???