Michael Anteski's Ether model

Yeah. Reporting thread to have it moved to "Movie Reviews".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems book published 1992

Found 6 second hand copies on sale at Amazon

Found two reviews

Top reviews

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Chris Connolly
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
A great book by a tremendous author

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

vizer
2.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
I read the book but the author is not saying anything sensible in the book and so i binned it.

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Evident-truths-Discovering-Freemasons/dp/0969689209

Don't know about you but my evolvement ends here

Saw the movie. Don't recall anything about Ether

Anyhow bye bye thread

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have thought of a more concise way to describe my Ether Model.

The basic idea of the model is that in the beginning, there was a universal oscillation. Then, after a Yin-Yang pairing of elemental oscillating point-localities reverted to singleton elemental units, this broke the symmetry of oscillation, converting the reciprocal oscillations to independently-vibrating elemental units. This produced a universal ether matrix composed of elemental, identical, ether units which interact (resonate) via contact vibrations. Being universal and elemental, the ether units would serve as the "building blocks" of everything from then on, including quantum units.

This model provides a rationale for all phenomena. -The ether units, being identical, and interacting via contact vibration, form a universal fundamental enetrgy system which is perfectly linear. That would mean that all quantum transmissions, electricity, light, and quantum gravity, are underpinned by underlying ether forces. (Quantum forces are non-linear. Their dynamic mechanisms are fields, waves, spin, and vectors. The underlying ether forces, on the other hand, are perfectly linear, making them suited for transmitting energy forces.)

Quantum entanglement is only explainable if there exists an underlying linear process. Underlying etheric forces operate via different kinds (differentially-resonant) vibratory patterns. Quantum entanglement represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. An "entangled" pair of quantum units are kinetically "walled off" like the "cool arms" of a quiet, purring, universal, ether mechanism.

In the case of transmissions like electricity and light, this kind of model would mean that the quantum units (electrons, photons) are being generated along the pathway of energy transmission. -When there is a source of light energy, the ether units in the area begin to align, entrain, and form other ether linkages, which in turn forms larger energy units, up to the size scale of quantum units. -In the case of light, inasmuch as our eyes are atomically-structured, they require quantum photons to produce our vision, but the primary underlying basis for the light transmission is etheric.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My kind of Ether Model represents the only way to answer the big key questions. -A universal ether matrix consisting of elemental ether units, which are the basic building-blocks of everything else, including quantum energy units, is the only reasonable conclusion to arrive at. The ether matrix provides a continuum of forces, perfectly-linear transmissions between the quantum units, which underpins the stability and orderliness of all quantum systems, such as the structuring of atoms.

"Stand-alone" quantum physics is not able to answer these questions, and never will be.

 

Can we use Ether to put this to bed permanent?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is word salad. Without any math to support it, you're just sticking buzzwords together like LEGOs. It holds as much water as "the universe was created by a wave of the Cosmic Unicorn's tail".

 

You'd need to access the ether before you could start doing math on it. (I actually have a design for a field test to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, but it would be expensive and I lack a financial sponsor. It would be the only way to detect an ether as super-rarified as this, be predicting and demonstrating a levitation effect. Michelson-Morley type experiments falsely assumed any ether would be inertial with respect to the light transmissions being measured, and thus serve as a medium for transmission of light, but my elemental ether forces are vastly more rarified than are the photons of light- transmissions, meaning their assumptions would have failed to take into account lack of an inertial-interface between this type of ether and the light beams. Physics' dismissal of ether on the basis of those MMX experiments over 100 years ago would thus be incorrect.)

 

No you don't. That's not how it works.

If what you had was a theory, you'd have a mathematical model to support it. All those buzzwords you use above would be represented instead by variables, and the formulae would predict phenomena we already observe.

You don't need a jar of stuff to have a theory about stuff.

 

I'd like to add something to the last post of mine in connection with my Ether Model, and the subject of Michelson-Morley type of experiments (MMX), which employ optical-refraction measurements of light-beams, and the position of quantum physics that MMX results "prove there is no ether." -There have even been recent proposals to conduct new MMXs using orbiting satellites.

In my post, I pointed out that, using my Ether model of the ether, as a universal matrix composed of elemental vibratory units which interact as a continuum in a perfectly linear way, that the extreme rarified size scale of such ether units would mean that the photons in the light beams being measured in MMX means that no inertial interface could exist between quantum-scale photons and the vastly-more rarified ether that MMX assumes acts as the "medium" for the light beams. That alone would throw out MMX as a disproof of ether. (In the 1800s, Michelson used the existing concepts of physics which viewed an "ether medium" as a prerequisite of ight beams to propagate through space, and that therefore, any ether "must" be able to interact with light beams inertially, a view alike to photons burrowing through an ether which is able to act as its "conducting medium," in a sort of inertial-mechanics fashion.

However, although this alone would mean that MMX does not disprove the ether, with my Ether Model, ironically, this has no bearing on how the ether actually works. With my Model, light beams propagate through the ether via an entirely electrical, vibratory, way. There is no inertial motion involved. With my Model, a light source emitting quantum energy energizes etheric forces in its vicinity, which causes the elemental ether units to align and then entrain, along the pathway of the light transmissions, through an ether pathway formed of similar (photonic type) vibratory patterns, the entraiunments forming larger and larger units, up to the size of quantum photons. The subsequent light beam, fortified with building numbers of quantum photons, is transmitted electrically, vibrationally, toward another photonic quantum locus, similar to the way the ether acts in quantum entanglement.

 

I think I begin to understand.......you mean, reality refreshes itself through a sort of...quantum change..?

 

Isn't that Write4U's latest schtick?

 

I think what you are describing here are "strings". If you change "points" to strings the whole confusion with the vibration issue goes away. AFAIK, a string is still a quantum object

Moreover it would connect your hypothesis to existing science and the existing science can be used to illustrate the narrative part of your perspective. Perhaps it can even use some of the maths of string theory.

 

Being as I am the current object of ridicule in the "science forum", I'll take the opportunity to respond to the ridicule spread in the "alternative forum", which apparently works exactly the same way as the science forum.

@ Dave, you're getting the idea.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The more you read by other scientists or lay persons the more you'll find agreement with my hypotheses, but worded slightly differently, a different perspective of the same thing.

I don't think that what he says is radically removed from mainstream science. He falls in the same narrative trap as I do. Constructing compound terms which do describe the properties, if you unpack every part of the compound term.

I don't believe my own perspective is in conflict with the Standard Model and I can and do use a lot of the "official" narrative to support my posits, which often contain compound terms and are not "officially" used in the Standard Model, but describe the same thing.

A little flexibility in ability to view things from different perspectives is useful in gaining "understanding". And understanding allows for intelligent debate rather than ridicule.

 

The idea of how the light is transmitted is that the source of the beam of course is the sun, with its high energy and photonic emissions. Ahead of the light beam, ambient photons exist everywhere, especially during daylight hours. The intervening ether provides the connections between the sun's photons and "target" photons ahead of the light beam, by "feeling" the similarity and producing a corresponding vibratory pattern that connects the two, similar to what happens in quantum entanglement. In addition, ever-increasing numbers of quantum photons are being generated along the path of the light beam by the energization of the ether.

"String" theory differs from this Model. -How could string theory, with its eleven dimensions, explain the stable orderliness of quantum systems like atomic structuring? My Ether Model can, by the concept of a vibratory ether underlying quantum systems such as atoms. The ether matrix underpins the orderliness of quantum systems because of its vibratory dynamics, a continuum of interconnected ether units which interact linearly, connecting quantum loci.

 

I'm a quick learner.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you miss the point that eleven dimension allow for the different potential expressions inherent in the absolute fundamental mathematical values of matter.

What difference is there between a "point particle" (as you describe it) and a "string" as singular objects? Ability to generate waves, no? Perhaps it takes eleven dimensions to accommodate all the vibratory states (fields) possible.

This is a lecture on the current Standard Model of the existence and functions of fundamental dynamical quantum fields.


When you speak of vibratory phenomena you're talking about the "wave function". Use the known properties of the wave function to support your vibrating point particles.

btw. If you haven't already read David Bohm"s "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", I really can recommend it.
I think you'll recognize a lot of your thinking in Bohmian Mechanics.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good stuff.

http://gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

 

I did not address the Ether thing, there was discussion of the history of the US.
Hence my "tongue in cheek" reference to the movie National Treasure (the book).

I hate it having to explain a quip.

And Dave having it removed is hilarious.

 

BINGO!

 

Again, this isn't really the place for this discussion, but I'll address this point.

Your ideas were addressed sincerely, seriously - and at great length - when they were brought up in the context of their own thread.

The only ridicule you've received is for the bloodiheadedness with which you plugged your ideas to death in every thread on the board whether or not it was germane. That is not "intelligent debate". You had one hammer and everything you clapped eyes on was a nail, despite it being pointed out how odious a habit that was. That fault is on you - not on others.

 

Does that mean you are agreeing with my post. Well, that would be a change.

Naa....its just an derogatory expletive. If "bingo" is the only response to my answer to a question, there is no useful information to be gained in this thread.

Bingo is all you have to say? And this from someone who claims to be qualified to offer scientific critique of knowledgeable scientists like David Bohm and Max Tegmark.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander, no?