The "Big Bang" and Random-Universe Theory

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

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Certainly is! I have yet to see you align with any mainstream cosmology aspect since you started here.
    That really is a definition of total underdeveloped aptitude for critical thinking and more attuned to an evangelistic god driven anti science bias! Do better!

    Of course though as you keep telling us all: The whole world is wrong and you are it's Saviour!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Or is this just more nose twitching? [that which you so slavishly undertake to disguise your own ignorance and shortcomings!]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    Anyone interested in how my model, of an underlying matrix of elemental-ether vibratory-resonance, can also deal with other mysterious phenomena like quantum entanglement, can see my Web Page at

    Michael Anteski
    John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Not even a little bit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,900
    I had a look at the site but did not find your stuff Michael.
    Seems like it is rather an anti mainstream site.
    The forum seemed to have little participation.
    Even Hidden Variables site has more activity.
    Trust me Michael it is a great interest but dont give up your day job.
    Alex
     
  8. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    The Web Directory seems to have changed the listing of the link to my Website. -You can bring up the link to my Web Page by entering its title, "Ether, the Only Path to Unifying Cosmic Forces."

    The John Chappell Society contains members with varying theories, with the strongest commonality being a prejudice against Einsteinian relativity. They produced a film titled "Einstein Wrong," but the last I knew, they hadn't found a media outlet for it.
     
  9. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    In mentioning the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, I said that their film "Einstein Wrong" hadn't found a media outlet. -I spoke incorrectly, from outdated information on the film. In looking up the film on the Web since then, using the link "Einstein Wrong, film," I learned that it won the 2015 Grand Prix Sci Flix award. The film's director, David de Hilster, is also the Director of the John Chappell NPS. (I had mentioned previously that my Web Site "Ether, the Only Path to Unifying Cosmic Forces" is also located at the JCNPS.)

    I hope this clarifies my error.
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So they won an award that they paid for and you are impressed? And yet you aren't impressed enough with physics to actually learn any?
     
  11. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    Phys,

    What we presently define as "physics" is too inflexible. -For example, my present Thread claims that the 20th century experiments purported to disprove the ether were not designed in a foolproof manner. An ether that acts primarily (elementally) electrically would have eluded detection in those experiments which assumed an ether acts primarily fluidically, as a medium conducting light. -My claim is that elemental ether units, acting resonationally and perfectly-linearly, are the key, or primary, players, in how the ether works. Waves or a fluidic type of effect just represent a "shoreline" effect where an "ocean" of transitioning etheroidal units (arising from an immensely-over-riding elemental ether) are beginning to transition to our observable quantum scale units.

    Physics erroneously assumes that the elemental units of energy are electronic or bosonic in scale, and then proceeds theoretically from there. I maintain my ether model is the correct one.
     
  12. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    The "Einstein Wrong" film makes good points. It hasn't enjoyed publicity because of the media blitz standard physics always gets.
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Look, you do not have a model. If you had a model, then you could actually do a physics problem. But since you clearly can't do a physics problem, you are lying, at least to yourself.

    I do not appreciate your half-assed attempt at rewriting the history of physics in a lame attempt to promote your own intellect. I suggest that you a) learn some physics, and b) learn some physics history. They are both fascinating topics that reward study. They will not give you an ego boost, but you could try to get that through honestly engaging with other people.
     
    origin likes this.
  14. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    That is because you made it up and so you think it is swell. But alas, your ether 'arm waving' is simply a product of someone who does not understand physics or science in the slightest.

    I whole heartedly agree with PhysBang that since you seem interested in physics you should take some courses. I think you would find it rewarding.
     
  15. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    Origin has repeated a certain statement I have responded to before, which he ought to have seen. I reiterate my claim that I did not "make up" this model of the ether. I derived it using two other sources (an encoded Document, along with prior codebreaking work on that, by another cryptographer.) -I shouldn't have to go over and over the same point, even if it's a point a critic might want to dispute.
     
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You may claim to have deciphered rather than created, but the end result is the same: you have no model. This is the real point.
     
  17. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Of course you made it up. You may have deluded yourself into believing that you deciphered it, but it is simply made up gobbledy goop none the less.
     
  18. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    I can give the important essentials of my ether model in a concise "nutshell" description, if that would help to clarify. -

    The key players in this Model are the elemental ether units. These constitute an immensely over-riding sea of uniform, matching, elemental units which interact, energically, in a perfectly-linear way, as their outward vibrations form transient connections with each other. All other energic processes, such as quantum-scale forces, are superimposed upon this over-riding elemental ether matrix. -This is the only model that can rationally account for Quantum Entanglement. There, "free" elemental ether units are resonating vibrationally, and perfectly-linearly, with the elemental structural components of so-called "entangled" quantum units.

    The "waves" we observe prominently in quantum scale energy systems are just an effect produced by an unseen "ocean" of etheroidal units (units intermediate between the elemental ether units and quantum-scale units), as they are just beginning to mix transitionally with observable quantum units such as bosons and fermions, as a "shoreline" wave effect. These etheroidal units are, ocean-like, vastly more prevalent than atomic-scale quantum units, but even the etheroidal units are insignificant compared to the over-riding elemental ether matrix.
     
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    No. The only thing that would clarify is you showing us that your idea can be used in a single physics application. You are a lot of talk, but you consistently do not deliver.

    Given my past experience, the reasonable conclusion seems to be that you cannot deliver and you are deceiving us and perhaps yourself as well.
     
  20. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    If critics like PhysBang would raise specific theoretic points, then it would be possible to debate issues, rather than disputing my model in vague generalities.

    OK, what about quantum mechanics' inability to define the nature of quasiparticles? -Quasiparticles have been observed to appear in connection with unusual conditions during experiments in particle physics. They are undefinable as discrete units themselves, but they appear in combination with the tiniest quantum units, such as bosons and fermions.

    When associated with bosons, the combinations are called "quasiparticles," and in association with fermions, the combination is called a "state of elevated excitation."

    I would submit that the appearances of these undefinable moieties actually represent what I have above called "etheroidal" units which are normally too tiny to be observed by particle researchers, until they happen to "escape" from their normal vibrational etheric setting, so that their presence becomes faintly detectable under these unusual experimental conditions, which quantum-forces scientists interpret as "unexplainable changes" occurring, at the bosonic/fermionic scale of observation.
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    You seem to have nothing but vague ideas couched in sciency sounding jargon, so it is hard to pick a specific point that is any worse than the whole.
    Physics seems to have defined quasiparticles rather well...
    Quasiparticles
    A made up conjecture based on nothing other than guessing at processes that you do not understand is not a theory, a model or science. This is a thing that bong smoking high school kids do.
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That is not how science works. Science works by looking at actual empirical evidence, not vague theories. Physical evidence is a super important part of physics.

    I am not a critic, I am merely pointing out that you are not doing science, despite your claims. Why you are telling these blatant falsehoods is something that we can all speculate about, but we will do this mostly privately in order to retain some decorum.
    Quantum mechanics has a lot of problems. Some of these are addressed quite well by philosophers who examine the way that the words are used by physicists and the way these words play a role in the rest of the enterprise of physicists doing physics. Ultimately, these philosophers are looking very carefully at the way that the systems in physics relate to evidence; in so doing, they also deal with physical evidence. They do not seek to overthrow established physics merely because of a hypothesis.
     
  23. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    One point I want to emphasize,as to the believability of my model for the Ether, is the incontrovertible fact that it is the only theory available, of any type quantal or etheric, that can rationally account for Quantum Entanglement.

    I previously have given a logical model for the origin of this kind of elemental, vibratory, ether, made up of uniform elemental ether units, that serves as an underlying matrix for all other forces, such as quantum forces.

    Since the ether units are elemental and uniform, their outward vibrations form perfectly linear connections with each other - unlike the processes we see in the quantum world, which involve spin, space-vectors, waves, and the like.

    Formation of the orderly systems existing in the cosmos had to have involved linear forces.

    As elemental ether units interact with each other linearly, the process would include the formation of larger units - "etheroidal" units, on up to quantum- and atomic-scale units.

    I contend that Quantum Entanglement involves radiated packets of elemental etheric energy units, which have the same vibratory pattern (such as vibrational frequency), and which are the only actual participants in the Q.E. process. The quantum units themselves are kinetically "walled off," like the cool "arms" of a vast underlying etheric system.

    The process of Quantum Entanglement should be thought of as the two separate quantum units being composed of elemental ether "building blocks." In addition the process involves a background ether matrix in which the elemental ether units vibrationally interact not only with each other, but also with the elemental ether units that the quantum units are composed of, all being part of a quiet, purring ether mechanism that can turn itself on and off, by itself, at any time.
     

Share This Page