Ether model

[Write4U]

I await the onslaught ......with eager anticipation......

 

[Michael Anteski]

I await the onslaught ......with eager anticipation......

Write4U,
My first-causal model goes as follows. Original Space was "pure," and did not contain anything else, such as forces. Thus it was extremely self-compatible, so that ultimately-small "elemental," or etheric, point-localities were oscillating reciprocally in a pure fashion. Eventually, oscillatory fatigue induced adjacent "points" to fall toward each other, in Yin and Yang fashion. (Oscillatory fatigue is a known process in our quantum world. It occurs in metals.) -Such couplets were able to interact with other couplets, as their matching vibrations "felt" each other. -In my ether model, this is the basic template of how larger and larger units, up to the size of quantum units, were formed from the starting point as elemental ether units.

 

[Write4U]

Original Space was "pure," and did not contain anything else, such as forces. Thus it was extremely self-compatible, so that ultimately-small "elemental," or etheric, point-localities were oscillating reciprocally in a pure fashion

May I suggest that you familiarize yourself with "quantum non-equilibrium", which I believe is close to parallel to your hypothesis, but substitutes your pure etherial properties, with the term "pure energy".

Diagram made by Antony Valentini in a lecture about the De Broglie–Bohm theory. Valentini argues quantum theory is a special case of a wider physics[1]

Relaxation to equilibrium[edit]

The causal interpretation of quantum mechanics has been set up by de Broglie and Bohm as a causal, deterministic model, and it was extended later by Bohm, Vigier, Hiley, Valentini and others to include stochastic properties.

Bohm and other physicists, including Valentini, view the Born rule linking {\displaystyle R}

to the probability density function {\displaystyle \rho =R^{2}}

as representing not a basic law, but rather as constituting a result of a system having reached quantum equilibrium during the course of the time development under the Schrödinger equation. It can be shown that, once an equilibrium has been reached, the system remains in such equilibrium over the course of its further evolution: this follows from the continuity equation associated with the Schrödinger evolution of {\displaystyle \psi .}

[2] However, it is less straightforward to demonstrate whether and how such an equilibrium is reached in the first place.

Predicted properties of quantum non-equilibrium[edit]

Valentini showed that his expansion of the De Broglie–Bohm theory would allow “signal nonlocality” for non-equilibrium cases in which {\displaystyle \rho (x,y,z,t)\neq |\psi (x,y,z,t)|^{2},}

[3][4] thereby violating the assumption that signals cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Valentini furthermore showed that an ensemble of particles with known wave function and known nonequilibrium distribution could be used to perform, on another system, measurements that violate the uncertainty principle.[7]

These predictions differ from predictions that would result from approaching the same physical situation by means of the Copenhagen interpretation and therefore would in principle make the predictions of this theory accessible to experimental study. As it is unknown whether or how quantum non-equilibrium states can be produced, it is difficult or impossible to perform such experiments.

However, also the hypothesis of quantum non-equilibrium Big Bang gives rise to quantitative predictions for nonequilibrium deviations from quantum theory which appear to be more easily accessible to observation.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_non-equilibrium

 

[Michael Anteski]

You haven't really answered my posts. What you presented looks to me like just another strictly-quantum, empirical-observations- based, variation of the many theories that quantists have put forth to support a Big Bang, and its related concepts.

I tried to show the steps of how our quantum dynamic world was creationally superimposed upon an underlying etheric vibrational-dynamic world that preceded it, and that contained "islands" of quantization, including the appearance of a creational Entity. -I won't go through the details of that again, but I have given it earlier if you care to re-check it.

 

[Michael Anteski]

The main reason physics rejects the existence of an ether is the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX), in which behaviors of light beams subjected to different gravity-settings, relative to earth's rotation, were studied using optical measurements, "to detect interaction of the light with any existing ether." -The results were interpreted as "null," or negative, for any type of ether, and ever since, physicists have referred to this result to dismiss the existence of an ether.

My own ether model would have it that a universal ether arose post-first-causally, composed of elemental, post-oscillational, vibrational, units, which are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside," rather than interacting with them inertially, analogous to how a motorcar (photon) goes through a cloud of dust without interacting with the dust particles (ether units.) -The possibility of this kind of ether would invalidate a key assumption of MMX, that light beams would have to interact with any and all possible types of ether.

In my Model, the ether, nevertheless, would interact in another way (other than inertially) with the photons of visible light, because photons, like all quantum atomic and subatomic units, were formed originally through linear alignments of the vibrations of, and consequent entrainments of, smaller units, down to the size-scale of the smallest units, the elemental ether unit. Therefore, photons would retain an ability to vibrationally interact with the vibrations of the ether units surrounding them in the underlying ether-matrix, especially if the ether units in that area have a photonic-type of vibratory pattern.

In my Model, a similar approach as this is used to explain quantum entanglement, as well as other phenomena. -Quantum units such as photons were all originally formed through entrainments of identical, elemental, "building block" ether units.

 

[Michael Anteski]

To elaborate on the last sentence, one could conceptualize how larger energy units (muons, bosons, photons, and so on, up to the size of atomic units, get "bullt up," by thinking of how, in my model, the very first combination of elemental ether units combine with each other. -In the very beginning, wherever a pair of neighboring single units are just oscillating, reciprocally with all the other ether units, and then oscillatory fatigue sets in (oscillatory fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals), the two units would fall toward each other, in "Yin and Yang" fashion. Then, wherever such a paired unit happens to contact another identical pair, vibrationally, in the matrix, their matching dual vibrations would further combine, forming a still-larger unit. -(In this model, this is a template for how all the larger and larger units can be formed in the ether.)

When I read about "another new type of particle" being discovered by researchers at an accelerator/collider, my reaction is "so what?" -The important question instead should be, what units formed naturally as atomic units in the universe, not under artificial conditions, in the beginning.

 

[Michael Anteski]

To continue further on my last Post, my Ether Model proposes that our world operates from an underlying, vibrating, ether matrix composed of super-rarified ether units, and that the quantum dynamic, made up of much larger units, such as electrons, photons, atoms, and so on, is an additional, but connected, dynamic. My Model proposes that the quantum overlay was created from an earlier "ether world," within which were formed "islands" of quantized, atomically-structured bodies, in one of which which a Creator appeared, amidst radiating, etheric, energies. -If, as my Model proposes, a subsequent creational process, involving sending quantum electrons from this atomically-structured "island," and passing the electrons through the ether beyond, then as these electrons coursed through the ether beyond, their linear paths would have aligned the vibrations of the ether units there, causing them to entrain into larger units, up to the size of the quantum units and atoms now in our universe.

The quantum units thus formed would have been formed naturally, in such a process, into protons and neutrons and atoms, chain-reactionally, and not into a vast panoply of units like bosons, muons, and so on, that physicists produce, using artificial techniques, with accelerator/colliders. (It's true that units like muons may be seen in the cosmos and around the earth, but in a model like mine, these units were formed in vast cosmic collisions such as quasars and the like. (Physics now proposes that the large amount of muons detected around the earth are formed as cosmic rays strike the outer earth's atmosphere.)

 

[river]

The main reason physics rejects the existence of an ether is the Michelson-Morley Experiment of 1887 (MMX), in which behaviors of light beams subjected to different gravity-settings, relative to earth's rotation, were studied using optical measurements, "to detect interaction of the light with any existing ether." -The results were interpreted as "null," or negative, for any type of ether, and ever since, physicists have referred to this result to dismiss the existence of an ether.

My own ether model would have it that a universal ether arose post-first-causally, composed of elemental, post-oscillational, vibrational, units, which are so super-rarified that the photons which transmit visible light merely "brush them aside," rather than interacting with them inertially, analogous to how a motorcar (photon) goes through a cloud of dust without interacting with the dust particles (ether units.) -The possibility of this kind of ether would invalidate a key assumption of MMX, that light beams would have to interact with any and all possible types of ether.

In my Model, the ether, nevertheless, would interact in another way (other than inertially) with the photons of visible light, because photons, like all quantum atomic and subatomic units, were formed originally through linear alignments of the vibrations of, and consequent entrainments of, smaller units, down to the size-scale of the smallest units, the elemental ether unit. Therefore, photons would retain an ability to vibrationally interact with the vibrations of the ether units surrounding them in the underlying ether-matrix, especially if the ether units in that area have a photonic-type of vibratory pattern.

In my Model, a similar approach as this is used to explain quantum entanglement, as well as other phenomena. -Quantum units such as photons were all originally formed through entrainments of identical, elemental, "building block" ether units.

Agreed .

But what is this ether ?

 

[river]

Then, wherever such a paired unit happens to contact another identical pair, vibrationally, in the matrix, their matching dual vibrations would further combine,

Not to me . This would cause stillness . No movement .

 

[Michael Anteski]

In my Model, the ether's vibratory dynamic works differently from how quantum dynamics operates via waves, spin, and so on, through vectors of space. The ether units don't "move" inertially or the like. The ether units transmit an energy impulse as one unit contacts another, then others are able to "join in" forming a transmission through space. The ether itself is everywhere, and although the individual units are not continuously contiguous, they do connect, without moving, as they vibrate.

The ether model is the only one that makes sense. -The standard model of physics, proposing a "Big Bang" followed by a panoply of various different quantum units like muons, Higgs bosons, etc., will never answer how the systematic orderliness of atomic structuring arose. -The only answer is an ether model in which creational design was involved, where electrons were creationally sent through the ether. The linear paths of the electrons through the ether aligned the vibrations of the ether units along the way, this alignment causing the elemental ether units to entrain with each other into larger units, up to the size scale of quantum units: protons and neutrons, and then atoms, in a systematic creational process.

 

[Write4U]

My first-causal model goes as follows. Original Space was "pure," and did not contain anything else, such as forces

What makes you believe there was original pure space without forces? Moreover you assert that this pure space without any forces was designed ? IOW there was never a pure space without any force if it was created by something that already existed prior to that?

Would it not be more logical to identify any pre-BB condition as a non-spatial "permittive" condition, which can actually exist without needing to have been created .
An argument can be made that "nothing" is "permittive" of, but not causal to everything, no?

 

[Michael Anteski]

In my Ether Model, there never was any Big Bang. You misquote my descriptions.

In my Model, "pure original space" is defined as what came first, and it was not "created." Creation refers to what initiated quantum forces in our world, following an earlier ether world which had some "islands" of atomically-structured moieties, and a Creator amidst one of the islands, from which quantum electrons were sent into the ether beyond it, which then quantized the ether there, as the linear paths of the electrons aligned the vibrations of the ether units there, so that they entrained with each other, producing larger units up to the size of quantum units (protons and neutrons), and atoms.

 

[Write4U]

In my Model, "pure original space" is defined as what came first, and it was not "created." Creation refers to what initiated quantum forces in our world,

Ok, and what came before "first"? At some point there must have been a creative process that resulted in the Universe as we know it today.

What you call "pure original space ", I call a "non-dimensional permittive condition", before there was "space" of any kind.

 

[Michael Anteski]

In my Model, I describe as clearly as I can, that the "creative process" being proposed involved a Creator who was a quantized being, and atomically-structured, but who existed in a more-etheric world-setting, and therefore was bathed in "lighter," less-dense, surroundings, enabling such an Entity to manipulate nearby rarified forces creationally, in a way we could not do, in our denser quantum world. This creation involved manipulating rarified elements of the forces in the area to produce the universe existing here now, where quantum forces are what we observe. -The purpose of creating a quantum universe was because in the earlier ether world, things were less magnetically stable. For example, someone might wake up with nine atomically-structured fingers instead of ten, due to the effects of all the etheric forces in the area. Reconfiguring a whole macrocosm, to one that was quantized throughout, meant that everything was densely atomically-structured.

The ether matrix is still there, all around us, but, being densely quantized, we aren't as aware of it, or as able to tap into it, as a creational entity would have been in the more-etheric, less densely quantized earlier world-setting.

As far as the actual nature of space before there was anything else, I suppose it depends on one's intuition. To my intuition, and in my ether model, a universal space has to be what came first. -However,I'd be interested in hearing your ideas as to what a "non-dimensional setting that preceded space" could have been like.

 

[DaveC426913]

... the "creative process" being proposed involved a Creator...

And the other shoe drops.

334 posts over 4 1/2 years is compactified to "God did it".

You win the Guinness World Record for "Most Coy Closet Creationist".

 

[Write4U]

In my Model, I describe as clearly as I can, that the "creative process" being proposed involved a Creator who was a quantized being, and atomically-structured, but who existed in a more-etheric world-setting, and therefore was bathed in "lighter," less-dense, surroundings, enabling such an Entity to manipulate nearby rarified forces creationally, in a way we could not do, in our denser quantum world.

There never was an intentional "irreducible complexity" . There was only a dimensionless "permittive condition" that gave rise to the logical value of "1" (a singularity).

This creation involved manipulating rarified elements of the forces in the area to produce the universe existing here now, where quantum forces are what we observe.

And where did those rarified elements come from? What created these complexities in the first place? Turtles?

-The purpose of creating a quantum universe was because in the earlier ether world, things were less magnetically stable. For example, someone might wake up with nine atomically-structured fingers instead of ten, due to the effects of all the etheric forces in the area. Reconfiguring a whole macrocosm, to one that was quantized throughout, meant that everything was densely atomically-structured.

And who's purpose or what created the "earlier" ether world that was magnetically less stable? I do agree with a form of instability, but IMO you cannot begin with irreducible complexity.

If there was an event that was causal to a "beginning" in the form an instability, this event must have been of a logical mathematical nature.. Note that in the absence of prior time, any point that marks the beginning of dimensional properties, is also the beginning of time.

 

[Michael 345]

I describe as clearly as I can, that the "creative process" being proposed involved a Creator who was a quantized being, and atomically-structured, but who existed in a more-etheric world-setting, and therefore was bathed in "lighter," less-dense, surroundings, enabling such an Entity to manipulate nearby rarified forces creationally, in a way we could not do, in our denser quantum world

Sounds like god being described as light. Has that not been done before?

Question - from whence cometh the Intelligence of said god?

However,I'd be interested in hearing your ideas as to what a "non-dimensional setting that preceded space" could have been like

If the space referred to in the above is your idea of basically nothing, well no person knows and guessing does not help

 

[river]

In my Model, I describe as clearly as I can, that the "creative process" being proposed involved a Creator who was a quantized being, and atomically-structured, but who existed in a more-etheric world-setting, and therefore was bathed in "lighter," less-dense, surroundings, enabling such an Entity to manipulate nearby rarified forces creationally, in a way we could not do, in our denser quantum world. This creation involved manipulating rarified elements of the forces in the area to produce the universe existing here now, where quantum forces are what we observe. -The purpose of creating a quantum universe was because in the earlier ether world, things were less magnetically stable. For example, someone might wake up with nine atomically-structured fingers instead of ten, due to the effects of all the etheric forces in the area. Reconfiguring a whole macrocosm, to one that was quantized throughout, meant that everything was densely atomically-structured.

The ether matrix is still there, all around us, but, being densely quantized, we aren't as aware of it, or as able to tap into it, as a creational entity would have been in the more-etheric, less densely quantized earlier world-setting.

As far as the actual nature of space before there was anything else, I suppose it depends on one's intuition. To my intuition, and in my ether model, a universal space has to be what came first. -However,I'd be interested in hearing your ideas as to what a "non-dimensional setting that preceded space" could have been like.

Highlighted

Seems plauesable , if you think that the Universe is actually the brain of a being , and we are inside this Universe . Its possible . Or life energy is all around ready to become in almost any envirenment .

 

[Michael Anteski]

There never was an intentional "irreducible complexity" . There was only a dimensionless "permittive condition" that gave rise to the logical value of "1" (a singularity). And where did those rarified elements come from? What created these complexities in the first place? Turtles?
And who's purpose or what created the "earlier" ether world that was magnetically less stable? I do agree with a form of instability, but IMO you cannot begin with irreducible complexity.

If there was an event that was causal to a "beginning" in the form an instability, this event must have been of a logical mathematical nature.. Note that in the absence of prior time, any point that marks the beginning of dimensional properties, is also the beginning of time.

Sounds like god being described as light. Has that not been done before?

Question - from whence cometh the Intelligence of said god?


If the space referred to in the above is your idea of basically nothing, well no person knows and guessing does not help

In my ether model, "time" is a rate determined by the rate of vibration of the ether units that make up the universal ether matrix that is inside and outside everything.

The idea of whence cometh that Entity, there was an earlier ether world within which there were some more-linear etheric radiating energies, or radiations, that aligned and entrained, producing larger force-units, up to the size of quantum units and atoms, and produced an area where there were both quantization and atomically-structured moieties. One "cosmic egg" moiety was bombarded by glancing, or tangential, radiations, which curved around and reverberated with their own forces, which in turn led to development of sapience, or intelligence, capable of initiating creation.

 

[Michael 345]

whence cometh that Entity,

More whence coming the Intelligence

Seems, and this is us Minions take - Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills - requires at least for something to be present to do the acquiring

It is a minor change in the Special Pleading
Everything must have a cause
god? Oh no god has always existed

Slightly different, same principle

something to be present to do the acquiring of knowledge and skills
where did such something come from? Well it has always been present