Michael Anteski's Ether model

"There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge."

Hunter S Thompson

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sell the Essence for $1250 [Introductory Price] to Believers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

for the most part they are a traditional lot . thinking outside the box is not their strength

I would though like to ask you about your ether , what is it , exactly ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Michael 345,

I admit I can use some help with getting this field test done. I couldn't give a description, of what the test would involve, here, at an open forum on the internet, however. Thanks for the interest.

 

River, To get my description of Ether, you can go to my Thread titled "Michael Anteski's Ether Model," on page 3 of this Forum, especially the last two pages, where I describe my updated version of the model.

 

River: Slight correction, "Michael Anteski's Ether Model" is on page 2 of Alternative Theories, not page 3.

 

Michael you may need to explain in a bit more detail to river. He will be an assiduous student, I know, if you take the trouble to explain it clearly.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have an Ether Model to explain the mysterious phenomenon called quantum entanglement ("Q.E."). A logical new explanation for Q.E. could have important implications for the basic concept of the nature of forces. -My model starts with a first-cause model for how a universal ether could have been formed, and could have led to our present kind of universe.

There never was any random Big Bang. The very first "happening" was a universal oscillation. The only possible universal substrate for such an oscillation would have been original space. Original space would have been free of forces, and thus different from present space. It could well have been more self-compatible than space is now, so that oscillations would have existed, as point-localities, oscillating throughout space. Then, oscillatory fatigue could have caused neighboring "points" to fall toward each other, in Yin-Yang fashion. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It can occur in metals.) -Such point-pairs would have necessarily had to reversibly revert to singleton units, which then would have fallen out-of-phase with the oscillations, which would have broken the perfect symmetry of oscillational space, so that the oscillations transitioned to vibrations, of elemental "point" units, existing everywhere. These units would have been universal, fundamental or elemental, and would have been the basic ingredients of everything from then on, including quantum units. This kind of ether would have represented a universal matrix, whose individual units no longer oscillated, but rather vibrated. This would have been an ether containing energic resonation, as each unit's outward vibrations made contact with other elemental units. -These resonances then would have been able to form larger and larger units, through entrainments and other linkages, on up to the size scale of quantum units - which could become "entangled," at some later time.

Q.E. is explained very simply with such a model. I believe Q.E. represents radiated packets of etheric energy having the same vibratory pattern. The entangled pair of quantum units in Q.E., being composed of the identical elemental units that make up the surrounding ether matrix, still retain the ability to interact with those units, which accounts for the perfect connection between the two quantum units.

The fact that the elemental ether units are vibrational means their energic interaction is perfectly linear, whereas other theories of Q.E., which use the standard theories of quantum mechanics, involve forces that act via fields, waves, vectors, spin, and so on. Such mechanisms cannot account for Q.E.

 

I have a Theory Model that the above post is nonsensical

But I could be wrong

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Unfortunately, having an idea without evidence to support it is not much use.

I could explain QE through the subtleties of pixie dust with just as much detail as you have, but there is no more evidence for the objects and events you propose than their is for pixie dust and any baseless phenomena I might derive from it.

What evidence do you have for "universal oscillation"?
What evidence do you have for "original space"?
What evidence do you have for "oscillatory fatigue" of space?
for "neighboring 'points' to fall toward each other, in Yin-Yang fashion"?
for "ether containing energic resonation"?
"radiated packets of etheric energy having the same vibratory pattern"?
"ether matrix"?
etc.

 

im not a physacist so i dont know the technical stuff. it does seem to me, metal would have diferent fatigue properties to space.
assuming that your not assigning a unified field principal to your

it does raise some interesting questions.
is friction as fatigue equal to a gravitational field in a relative fluid nature ?

Entropy has its desire to take away from the 100%, soo the nature of the fatigue is entropic ?

lumpy universe theory ?

some type of metric would elucidate its self
what is your suggestion of the nature of the

bit ?

 

Is same as metal fatigue, like the flexing of aircraft wings can cause them to fall off?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

DaveC
From your emphasizing "evidence," I gather that you adhere to the current concensus of "experts," who rely entirely on their own observation and experimentation, for your own scientific beliefs.

My Model is based on the idea that our world of observation is only a reflection of part of reality, and misses larger, cosmic parts of reality, especially what could have led up to our present quantized, atomically-structured, setting here on earth. I propose that first, there was a first-cause setting, which, logically, had to involve space itself. Then, there had to be a transition to another setting, which came after something had happened which led to another setting, where energic action produced a second "world," which preceded our structured world. To me, the most logical sequence would be that the world preceding ours was an ether world, where hyper-energy fluxes existed, producing sapient entity(s), who created structured "islands," but they were not stable enough, so that our present kind of universe was needed for a more magnetically stable macrocosm.

I claim that our earth-centered theories of forces is ignoring what had to lead up to the kind of world we inhabit. They are completely focused on "observable evidence" without considering what logically had to lead up to it.

The specific ideas as to "Yin-Yang," etc., etc., were gotten from a long-term research involving codebreaking a historical Document purportedly conveying otherworldly insights into all this.

 

My referring to oscillatory fatigue in a first-causal setting obviously would involve different kinds of forces than would be the case in metallic oscillatory fatigue, which would involve quantum/atomic forces. Nevertheless, I would submit that there could be some degree of analogy there.

 

...

you are familiar with plasma big bang theory ?
The recent posutlation of the plasma state of the known universe prior to its expansion ?

you do not mean ether in place of the word "plasma" ?

 

If you review my description of Ether, you'll see that it involves a distinctly different kind of dynamics than in the case of quantum forces. In my ether model, the energic forces are vibrational. The units vibrating at that very-minuscule level would be elemental, fundamental, universal, units, which then entrain and link further, to form larger units, first, etheroidal units, then still larger units, such as quantum units (electrons, photons, atoms, etc.) Quantum forces act differently from my concept of Ether. Quantum forces involve fields, vectors, spin, and the like. No vibrational forces are involved in quantum standard theory.

The theory of plasmas, and their role in a Big Bang, involves standard physics, where quantum-scale forces are involved, producing ionized gases, which in turn form plasmas. Those theories do not entertain that an ether even exists.

 

Or mental fatigue, like "alternative theories" cause face-palming.

 

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?