The "Big Bang" and Random-Universe Theory

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Michael Anteski, Feb 23, 2016.

  1. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    I'd be willing to debate our mainstream quantum theorists, point by point, on specific theoretic points they think are at issue., with just common sense as arbiter. -Arguing that ether theory is currently not amenable to mathematics is not valid for dismissing it.

    Physics discarded the ether dating back to the Michelson Morley Experiment in 1887 (MMX) which was designed to detect a "wind" effect which they assumed a stationary ether would produce as Earth moves through space. They believed that measuring light paths through space would show the wind-effect, based on their assumption that as the light is transmitted through the ether, an inertial effect would occur, and would be measurable by measuring a deviation of the path of light using optical refractive measurements. No wind effect was found, which physicists accepted as meaning there is no ether, which has continued to the present day.

    The MMX's assumptions however were not valid, because a non-stationary, or "drag" type of ether (an ether which is dragged with Earth as it moves through space) would not display the inertial behavior assumed in the MMX.

    Then in 1925, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment (MGPX) attempted to resolve this issue by performing measurements they believed would rule in, or out, a drag-type of ether. By 1925, the velocity of Earth's rotation was known. The MGPX also used measurements based on the Sagnac effect, in which two different light sources located at the equator of a rotating sphere are measured for the time of arrival of their light beams at a third location. -The MGPX also produced a null result for an ether. -Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity were becoming accepted in physics at the time, and the existence of an ether medium was dismissed again.

    I would dispute the concept behind those experiments, that measuring the behavior of light beams would correspond to how an ether behaves with respect to Earth's movement in space based on the idea that an ether would behave like a fluid in conducting light beams. -It must be granted that there is superficial evidence that an ether would behave like a fluid, especially the "wave" effect. However, in my ether model, waves represent something different from what was assumed in the MMX and MGPX. -In my ether model, there exists an "ocean" of "etheroidal" energy moieties, transitional between the elemental ether units and observable quantum units. Waves represent a "shoreline" effect where the etheroidal units are beginning to mix, transitionally, with the observable quantum units, such as bosons and fermions.

    However, the model of the ether I have proposed in this Thread would have it that both experiments that are cited for dismissing the ether were using false assumptions about how an ether behaves. -In my ether-model, the ley players are the elemental ether units, which act via vibration and resonance. They behave as elemental, uniform, energy units, acting linearly as their outward vibrations form transient connections with each other, serving as an underlying matrix upon which other forces, like quantum energies, are superimposed.

    Thus, as Earth moves through the ether, these elemental ether units would exist in the space near earth, and identical elemental ether units would also exist from earth itself, and they all would be in a state of constant resonance with each other. (This would correspond closest to a "drag" type of ether, but would not have been detected by the MGPX which was designed to rule out a drag type ether. -This process would be etheric not fluidic but electrical in nature, and would not be detectable with our quantum observations. -So the MMX and the MGPX did not rule out an ether. -Physics should not continue to automatically assume there is no ether.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Then you fail as a scientist and as a thinker in general.

    It's not about mathematics, it's about how much a theory matches what we observe. This is done through mathematics because it gives us a way of measuring and comparing: measuring what goes on in the world and comparing it to the results of theory.

    Common sense is a nice collection of general rules, but there is no guarantee that these general rules apply to every situation.
    Sure. However, we should know that there is definitely not this type of ether. How do we know? Because of the position of the "fixed stars". Think about that for a while.

    Stop right there: either show us how to do a physic problem in you ether or never post about this again. If you can't show us how to do a physic problem with your ether model, then you have no model and you have been lying to us, and perhaps yourself, this whole time.

    You have proposed nothing, since there is no sign that we can do any physics with your suggestions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Why, he should stop there ? and who are you to ask him that ?

    He is in the right section, and he has the liberty to post an alternative proposal, you can counter that but you have no locus to ask him to stop there...Be careful, I have again started watching you.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    • Please do not use abusive language to purport to order members around.
    Fuck off. You clearly don't understand science, either.
     
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Common sense is never the arbiter. Reality is.
    A physical theory is a precise, communicable framework for predicting the observable behavior of a large class of related phenomena.
    So metaphysics baggage about what "X" really is, is not part of physical theory because physical theory cannot tell you what fundamental objects are, only how they behave and how that gives rise to observable physical behaviors.
    It's completely valid for dismissing your ideas as not related to physics.
    You can't have precision without logic about measurable quantities, which means math.
    19th century theories of the luminiferous ether were based on analogy with material substances but necessarily had mathematical content. It was those mathematical models which disproved the fluidic ether and the dragged ether because they would result in aberrations not seen while the stationary ether of Newtonian absolute space-time would have a definite state of motion which would be detectable if it were real. Math provided these claims and sent those theories to the graveyard when reality, the only arbiter, confronted theory.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    You fail to realise that your dishonesty is there for all to see........
    what was said in entirety......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In other words Physbang is simply asking that the scientific methodology be invoked and that is the measure of the validity or otherwise of any hypothetical idea. Which is further inferred with his next reply.......
    And incidentally is why some of your own claims remain as simply nonsense.

    Yep, I agree with the first part.....Michael at least has had the decency and honesty to post in the correct section. You need to take a leaf out of his book and incidentally is why some of your own threads have been shifted from science to the fringes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    From the OP:
    Firstly, This "problem"is not being ignored and never was.
    It is a problem though although not serious or big enough to invalidate the BB/Inflationary model of our Universe.
    I have read somewhere with regards to the "weak Interaction" or weak force treating the matter/anti matter post BB asymmetrically.
    Not sure how valid it is but I would surmise that the LHC experiment would have that as a prime objective.
    There have been a few additions/discoveries since the BB model was accepted generally outright by cosmologists, after the CMBR discovery: DM, DE, and the outstanding observation that the normal baryonic matter of which we and most objects we see are composed of, amounts to less than 5% of the total universe content.
    But those new revelations also do not invalidate the BB/inflationary model.
     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,911
    Hi Michael
    It is my understanding that for a new scientific model to have any chance of replacing the prevailing current model it needs to explain the observations, which you seem to have attempted but I wont comment upon your success, and in addition make a testable prediction using the new model.
    Using your model can you make a testable prediction. If you can your model may have a small chance but in the absence of a testable prediction I doubt you have any prospect.
    To reintroduce an ether would not be easy for many reasons do you know those reasons, if not may I suggest you focus some attention on that question.
    Good luck with your efforts and keep studying.
    Alex
     
  12. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Just to think, the owners of this site are already making money out of Michael and us all. Michael is a godsend to them.
     
  13. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    I mentioned, a couple of posts ago, that I have a design for a potential field test for detecting a property of the ether, but I lack the capital to get this test done. -As I mentioned, the test would be intended to generate and amplify a selectively-etheric energy field. If the before- and after- densities of materials inside the test-system are measured, there should occur a predicted decrease in their densities, which would be an effect not produced by presently-known forms of energy. -The "money" factor is the reason I haven't been able to run the test. (A new form of energy could have novel and useful effects.)
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,911
    What do you need?
    How much specifically will it cost? have you a plan costed?
    Alex
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This one is bad.....In general you can decrease the density of a material by simply heating it up...see solid to liquid to gas..
    You want money, I will get you...But I despise those who seek money with fake ideas and with dishonest pursuits of unverifiable nonsenses.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Pot, kettle, black??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Michael:
    Do you realise how many other alternative hypothesis we have had on this forum alone?
    I have never bothered to count.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But in my time here, I have seen four individuals all claiming to have TOE's [theories of everything]
    While I admit on some occasions my technical knowledge of the subject in question may be limited, I always like making some observations to these hopeful Einsteins.
    [1] Forums such as this are open to anyone that likes to believe he can rewrite 21st century cosmology.
    [2] If any of our hopeful claimants had anything of substance that invalidated any incumbent theory, they would not really be here.
    [3] Most of these hopefuls also have no relevant credentials.
    [4] Some are most certainly obviously inflicted with "delusions of grandeur" and just as obviously have an agenda to push, which blinkers them to the shortcomings of what they are proposing.
     
  18. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    The cost of the test could reach 8 figures, but hopefully it would be less. No precedent exists for this type of field test. -I'd be open just for a chance to present what I have.

    The "decrease in densities" would not be related to any changes in states from solid to liquid or gas, in this test system. -The idea is that a new, non thermal, linear energy can be generated.
     
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Forget the "test", let's just see how to calculate a simple EM problem in your theory. Consider this a simple test: if you can't pass that test, then you can quit and nobody has to pay millions of dollars.
     
  20. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    "Calculations" involving observable quantum-energy EM systems are not appropriate for judging my ether model. An ether, as in my Model, is undetected with our present technology, so measurements and calculations would not be applicable for testing it.

    I still say my model makes sense. For one example of how it can better explain mysterious energy phenomena, take the Marfa Lights phenomenon. -Near Marfa, Texas, luminous lights appear, off and on, above the surface. There is no theory to account for these lights. They are generally believed to involve anomalous, undefined, geological factors below the surface, together with magnetic-attractional factors causing the lights to ascend above ground. Scientifically, the most mysterious aspect of the lights is the observation that although they are luminous, they completely lack a heat signature. That feature cannot be accounted for using the present theories about energy.

    The way my ether model would explain this observation is that the underground energy producing the lights is predominantly etheric in character, and thus is linear and "cool," unlike our known forms of energy, resulting in luminescence without a thermal signature. -This idea would be consistent with my model of an etheric form of energy naturally existing in the earth - which, it is conceivable, could be tapped with the right procedural scientific approach.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,217
    Of course it can. Fireflies produce light chemically without any appreciable heat.
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So your answer is that you cannot do even the most basic physics with your model.

    If you can't see that you are a fraud because of this answer, then I do feel sorry for you.
     
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    ...Is it ?
    I am always with the truth. I despise if the falsehood comes from mainstream guys or from non-mainstream guys. On the other hand, you are just foolishly or slavishly following the authority, with underdeveloped critical thinking.
     

Share This Page