Using a contiguous universal ether for unifying cosmic forces

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Michael Anteski, Jan 18, 2015.

  1. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    I posted a Thread titled "A simple new theory of gravity" here last month, and I would like to add some further detail to the model I presented then.

    The model proposed that a universal ether arose from pure space. -The basic idea is that original space, prior to the first appearance of forces, had a self-compatible property which was manifested as an oscillation, or "shimmering," of contiguous elemental "points." -These would have been vanishingly small, but finite, "points," related to the distance of reciprocal oscillation with other spatial points, which distance would not have been infinite. -Eventually, oscillatory fatigue caused a pair of adjacent points to fall toward each other in a Yin-and-Yang fashion. This led to a "disturbance" of the perfect symmetry of original space, a solitary anomaly which then propagated throughout all of space, producing a uniform, unit-based ether, made up of contiguous, directionally vibrating, ether energy units.

    The forces we observe as quantum forces represent cosmically "local" (earthbound) forces involving spin, variable space-vectors, and so on, and are "superimposed" on the true, cosmic, etheric forces which underpin quantum-scale forces. The ether forces involve vibration, and this vibratory energy is entirely associated with the original elemental (from space) units. These units are all uniform, or identical, which makes a well suited model for the original appearance of orderly cosmic systems like atoms, planets, and so on.

    This kind of cosmic model can explain observations that the standard model of quantum mechanics does not. -For example, we could take the phenomenon known as "action at a distance." This refers to an effect observed when a pair of "like" (highly resonant) energy units are separated at a great distance from each other, and one of the pair is tweaked, at which point the other unit reacts in the identical way that the tweaked unit does, even though they are now separated by a great distance.

    Quantum mechanics refers to this effect as "quantum entanglement," which is a clever phrase, but QM really does not know what causes the effect.

    If we apply our ether model, an explanation of this observation is readily apparent. -The ether model views space not as being "empty," as in QM, but as composed of vibrating, contiguous, ether units, which transmit energic forces as a transmitted impulse from any point in space to any other. Such contiguous transmissions would depend on the vibrational properties of the ether units. Thus, an energy unit having the same vibrational properties as another unit will be able to "feel" the other unit, even across great spatial distances, and resonate with it instantaneously.

    My other Thread showed how this kind of model of the ether also provides a simple model of pull-gravity. The idea of it is that the elemental ether units, comprising the ultimate structure of two bodies that are being gravitationally attracted to each other, are indentical to, and contiguous with, the ether units in the space between the two bodies. The ether units of each body resonate with the ether units in the space between the bodies, producing gravitational attraction of the two bodies.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,621
    I have some questions:
    1. How fast are the energic forces transmitted from one point in space to another?
    2. What is the mechanism of the force transmission between ether units?
    3. Why is it that only some particles, prepared in specific ways, end up with the same "vibrational properties", so that they can "feel" the other unit? Why does is the preparation process so well described by regular quantum physics if that theory is wrong?
    4. Can you show that the gravitational force is inverse-square using your ether model? Please show me the mathematical demonstration.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    183
    James R

    My answer to your first question as to how fast etheric transmissions occur in space would be that it is virtually instantaneous. -That conclusion is based on experimental observations of "action at a distance," which occurs instantaneously, but also by inductive reasoning, because this kind of ether model has to be a very-fundamental unifying model, implying that all cosmic-force transmissions, such as gravity and light, are also transmitted via this same basic method. (We already know the speed of light, of course.) -The way you would model light transmission gets a bit complex. It would involve the concept of "photonics," a series of transmissional energy units, starting with the elemental units, but all having a similar vibrational characteristic, resonating with one another along the path of a light beam, forming larger and larger units, up to the quantum-scale photons our quantum-world ("earthbound") eyes see.

    Your 2nd question, as to the mechanism of transmission, would be answered thus: The energy-ether acts via a vibrational mechanismwhich was derived from the original oscillatory mechanism of space. ("Mechanism" is probably the wrong term, because unlike quantum mechanics, where relatively-larger energy units interact via spin, distance-vectors, and so on, the ether transmits forces contiguously and non-mechanically.) To conceptualize the ether transmission, you can think of it in terms of elemental ether units having "nodes" which interact, or resonate, with each other by forming loose (not fixed) bonds. That's the best analogy for the directional forces of vibrational resonance.

    Your 3rd question, as to ether units can "feel" another similar (resonant) unit, across great distances of space: I can only answer by logical reasoning, in that we know that such phenomena as action-at-a-distance happen. -I could use the phrase "amazing Space." The problem in trying to be more specific is that at present, we are not able to detect the ether.

    That would answer your 4th question, as to the lack of mathematical proof of the ether. We are not able to detect the ether.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    183
    James R:

    It may further clarify my ether model if I add add a few more details, and contrast my model with the standard model of quantum mechanics(QM).

    QM claims that the ultimate elemental units of energy are detectable quantum (actually subquantum) units like electrons. -My model claims that the elemental units of energy are actually vanishingly-smaller, still-undetectable, elemental ether units.

    We know that observable phenomena like light (our perception of light being mediated by photons) and electricity (involving electrons) involve energic processes like unit-spin, and we know that these units act across vectors of space. -In contrast, in my model, elemental ether units act by contiguous transmission of energic impulses vibrationally from unit-to-unit. QM claims that electron units are not only "the elemental" energy units, but that they operate in "empty" space, and have "mass."

    If we consider certain observations in phenomenology, the key differences between the QM model and my ether model become apparent. -Phenomena like the propagation of light, involving photons, and electrical phenomena, involving electrons, involve observable energic properties, such as spin of energy units, and the action of these units across vectors of space. Thus, what we are able to observe about such phenomena is based on processes of inertia and motion.

    Comparing this with my ether model, that is the key difference. That is, what we are able to observe and measure in connection with the phenomena is based on energic units acting via inertia and motion, whereas in my ether model, the ultimate energic process is contiguous, i.e., non-inertial, and mediated by undetectable etheric units.

    Thus, phenomena we now consider 'explained," like light and electricity, involve our observation of the energic forces that are non-contiguous. -I submit that other phenomena, such as action-at-a-distance, spontaneous human combustion (which I believe is related to etheric auric energy), psychic phenomena, and other "paranormal" phenomena, remain "unexplained" because they involve etheric forces exclusively, and thus are mediated non-inertially.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,621
    Michael Anteski:

    Does your ether model make any testable predictions that differ from those of quantum mechanics?
     
  9. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    James,

    I do have a possible field test intended to show the existence of an ether. -The test would involve generating a selectively-etheric force field and demonstrating a predicted decrease in the density of materials inside the test system (an effect not possible with known forms of energy.)

    I got the design for the test from an obscure confidential informational source. But the test would be expensive to do and I haven't been able to get a financial backer to get it done. -A new form of energy would have new properties of interest.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,621
    Does your theory have a mathematical description?
    Have you submitted your work to any peer-reviewed physics journals?
     
  11. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    James,

    I don't know any way to measure and mathematize etheric forces, inasmuch as they are presently undetectable. -The field test would be the only way to start looking into it, in my opinion.

    I tried submitting articles a year or two ago, but although some interest was shown (Yale Scientific Journal mentioned using my material in their blog), nothing ever appeared. -I am just posting on the Internet now, here and on a few other scientific forums.

    I don't know if you have had any experience submitting non-concensus articles to scholarly journals. It is extremely difficult.
     
  12. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    The maths is made to fit the process, the process is not made to fit the maths. Maths does not make an apple fall from a tree, the falling apple has maths fitted to fit the action.
    In saying that though, no ether in space, people are trying to associate EM radiation to be this ether, no more than trying to rephrase the term EM radiation to an ether.
     
  13. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    The idea of my model is that EM is a process occurring with quantum scale energy. It's based on resonances of energy units having spin and acting across vectors of space, and producing like-to-unlike resonances (positive with negative.). In this ether model, it's basically different. The resonances are mainly like-to-like and occur via a process of resonance between vibrating, elemental, uniform etheric energy units. -There is also a difference in tersm of the concept of linearity, between quantum EM and elemental ether energy, but I won't try to go into that, which would be lengthy.
     
  14. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    I feel I need to amplify the part of my last Post where I differentiate the "EM" of standard quantum theory from the elemental etheric energy in my Model.

    In my model, it could be said that the ether energy units are "electromagnetic" as well, but an "EM" comparison is difficult due to basic differences between standard quantum theory and my ether model. -In my model of gravity and magnetism, elemental ether units would necessarily develop a bipolarity as they attract each other. In the case of gravity, as one body is attracted to another body, and as an ether unit of one body resonates with a "like" unit of the other body, as the two bodies are being gravitationally attracted, each ether unit, as it vibrationally resonates, would necessarily develop a second pole, which would then become part of a field. -Quantum theory has no explanation for either magnetic fields or gravity fields. It only goes so far as saying the electro- component of EM comes from flows of electrons. It doesn't have an explanation for the magnetic field. Likewise it has no explanation for gravity, on which it "laterals the ball" to Einsteinian relativity.
     
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    Does your aether model have an "aether wind" or some other means for determining absolute motion of anything (even of EM) with respect to it? If it does, that would be a major problem with it, since 1905.

    Making the centers of large gravitating bodies a geometric origin is likewise a major blunder on the part of mathematicians who like to ignore physical reality in favor of topology, so your theory is really not much worse. A stone needs no degree in math to determine which direction to fall. If your calculation related to that issue does, that would be a problem that can only be resolved by knowing what actually causes gravity. You won't find the answer in geometry alone. Math related to geometry only begets more geometry. Try the Higgs mechanism and the principle of equivalence.
     
  16. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    dan

    The concept of an "aether wind" was an underpinning concept for the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) of 1887. The MMX was using 19th century ideas regarding sub atomic forces, and believed that an aether would have to have inertial properties like ("apparently" at the time) everything else, thus the "wind" concept. The null result of the MMX was taken as "proving there's no aether." Next, physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the world could work without a medium to transmit forces. Physics today still adheres to those concepts.

    My aether model claims there exists a non-inertial aether, which is due to the manner it was derived from original space, as an elemental, vibrational, contiguous-energic-impulse-transmitting medium that exists throughout all of space, having uniform, identical, elemental units as a basic matrix. -The geometry and math we are now using to model cosmic forces are derived from earthbound measurements of familiar quantum phenomena, but do not get at the underlying aetheric nature of cosmic forces in space, which is where these basic forces originated.

    Quantum forces are non-contiguous, act via spin, cross vectors of space, and thus involve inertia and motion. Of course, the phenomena we perceive in everyday experience also involve inertia and motion. -In my model, however, the basic difference is that aetheric energic processes are elemental and contiguous, which makes them fundamentally different from processes of inertia and motion. -I submit that is why we still can't explain gravity, or magnetic fields, or action-at-a-distance, or "paranormal" phenomena. "Unexplained" phenomena are purely aetheric, and are different at the basic level of action of energy units.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    Interesting. Please show the mathematics that were used to develop your model.
     
  18. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    origin,

    If you check back to the posts dated Jan. 29, you'll see where your question was raised by another poster. -I'll reply a similar way now.

    In my model, inasmuch as aether forces are vanishingly small and undetectable for us, it is not possible to develop the mathematics for it. -You need to detect forces to measure them and develop the math for them.

    As I also mentioned, above, I do have a design for a potential field-test to produce, and detect, a selectively-aetheric force-field, the design for which I got from an obscure confidential information source. However, the test would be expensive to perform, and so far, I haven't been able to find a financial backer to get it done. -A new form of energy would have new properties of interest. -You would measure densities of materials inside the test system to detect a predicted decrease in densities. -No known form of energy produces that effect.

    That would be the only method to get started in learning about aether energy, in my opinion.
     
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    OK, that means you do not have a model. A model has a specific meaning in science. You have an idea or conjecture. The other problem if it is undetectable then your conjecture cannot be disproved or supported. So what is the point?
     
  20. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    origin:

    Your criticism cherry-picks a semantic point (where I stated in the beginning that the aether is "undetectable for us," by which I meant that science at large has had no way to detect it) as being against my whole approach to "detecting the aether." -As I added later in my Post, there could be a way to indirectly detect the aether, namely by producing a selectively-aetheric energy force-field, and looking for a decrease in densities inside the test system. -I claim to have the design for such a field procedure, but it would be expensive to do, which is why I haven't been able to get it done.
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    No, it is not a semantics issue.
    Yes that all sounds very sciency with out really saying anything.

    I of course could be wrong, so show me I am wrong; what is your experimental design to detect the aether?
     
  22. Michael Anteski Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    origin

    I can't go into the details of the field test I want to have done, for several reasons. One is that I derived the design for the field test from a confidential source. Another is that generating such an energy field gets one into a web of complex, partly-unconventional, tech-details, just one being a need for certain precautions to avoid harm to investigators.

    "Ether tech" people who have proposed various tests for their own approaches to what they call "zero point" energy, and other similar terms, typically propose starting with a small-scale test-setup in a laboratory or the like. According to my information, to simulate the technological approach to it that has been used (confidential or occult toward us earthlings) could only be done as a larger-scale field setup, and would necessarily be more costly to perform.
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    So, let me see if I got this right, you have a theory about a substance that can't be detected, except by an experiment that can be revealed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That is just marvelous. Have fun with your little sciency games....
     

Share This Page