Ether model

[karenmansker]

One example of a theoretic point to debate would be: "Why could an etheric form of energy have been appropriate, or usable, to produce larger energy units like quantum/atomic units, in a process whereby a structured universe could arise?"

Michael: Contributors here always get resistance when their model presents hypothetical ideas that are outside the Standard Model norm.

When one reduces to the 'why' of any phenomenon, there will always be question marks (??) (unless one communes directly.with the prime, causal initiator - humor here!). My 'simplo-reducto' (my term) is that the only two elements required for any created universe are: Energy and Intent . . . . . most theorists' models would require, at least, the 'energy' component . . . . if intelligence (as we know it) is involved, one would add the 'intent' factor.

Keep thinking Out-of-the-Box, Michael . . . . .it's a tough road, but worth it! In the future (not yet, sometime) folks will 'Google' "How Simple it Really is" for a better convergent understanding of our universe.

 

[karenmansker]

There is only one response to a post such as that:

"All green of skin... 800 centuries ago, their bodily fluids include the birth of half-breeds. For the fundamental truth self-determination of the cosmos, for dark is the suede that mows like a harvest."

Is this an original quotation of yours, or have you plagiarized from an undocumented source . . . remember Sciforum rules!!

 

[origin]

Keep thinking Out-of-the-Box, Michael . . . . .it's a tough road, but worth it!

There is a difference between thinking out of the box and bat-shit crazy.
It also helps to have at least a tinsy-winsy bit of knowledge of a subject before you attempt to think out of the box on that subject - it helps to prevent bat-shit crazy....

 

[karenmansker]

QUOTE="origin, post: 3444615, member: 143078"]There is a difference between thinking out of the box and bat-shit crazy.
It also helps to have at least a tinsy-winsy bit of knowledge of a subject before you attempt to think out of the box on that subject - it helps to prevent bat-shit crazy....[/QUOTE]
True, but Michael is not. However, many who would insultingly post such as yours, are!

BTW Origin . . . . . does your header lead (re: Trump is the . . . ) meet Sciforums standards/rules? . . . looks like preaching/advertising to me!

ps/ RIP, Chuck!![

 

[origin]

True, but Michael is not. However, many who would insultingly post such as yours, are!

You find his posts reasonable? I cannot even decipher what he is trying to say. His posts look to me like they are composed by a random word generator that has been set to spit out random sciency sounding words.

BTW Origin . . . . . does your header lead (re: Trump is the . . . ) meet Sciforums standards/rules?

I think so.

ps/ RIP, Chuck!![

Who is Chuck?

 

[Oystein]

Is this an original quotation of yours, or have you plagiarized from an undocumented source . . . remember Sciforum rules!!

I've already named the source in several threads. Know it?

 

[karenmansker]

You find his posts reasonable? I cannot even decipher what he is trying to say. His posts look to me like they are composed by a random word generator that has been set to spit out random sciency sounding words.

I think so.

Who is Chuck?

Chuck Berry - Died yesterday at age 90 . . . . had a good run! . . . Maybeline . . . . Johnny Be Good . . . among others

 

[origin]

Chuck Berry - Died yesterday at age 90 . . . . had a good run! . . . Maybeline . . . . Johnny Be Good . . . among others

I saw that. One of the founders of rock.

 

[Michael 345]

However, the test would be quite expensive to set up and carry out (possibly running to 8 figures in US dollars), and I haven't been able to find a financial sponsor.

See your own explanation for your reason why you cannot obtain funding

I should mention that I derived this Model from long-term codebreaking work on sets of codes in a historical Document, that were putatively encoded there by an otherworldly Source.

 

[hansda]

Hawking and other "random universe" theorists don't truly represent "science." Metaphysics is closer to the truth, cosmologically.

A purely etheric world, which followed after an oscillational world had transitioned to a vibrational-ether world, is what preceded our quantum-structured universe. Etherically finely-tuned, powerfully-fluxing, etheric forces produced energized foci conaining etheric mental Entitie(s). These etheric regions can't even be imagined from our world of quantum forces. Then, magnetic instability of this ether world led mentally-directing etheric Creator(s) of our quantum universe, along with enough other universes to allow revitalization of any "tired" universe by another stronger universe.

What quantum cosmologists now interpret as a "dark negative form of energy" actually represents the outermost bodies of our universe accelerating toward another "younger and stronger" universe.

This process is analogous to the proven observation that one galaxy can collide with another galaxy.

Is your theory/paper available somewhere, where one can read it?

 

[Michael Anteski]

Is your theory/paper available somewhere, where one can read it?

Getting a Paper published in a mainstream science publication, when your material is this different from the "Standard Theory" isn't really possible. and getting an article published in an "alternative" publication doesn't accomplish anything.

All I have available would be in a few Internet scientific forums, like this one.

 

[Michael 345]

Getting a Paper published in a mainstream science publication, when your material is this different from the "Standard Theory" isn't really possible. and getting an article published in an "alternative" publication doesn't accomplish anything.

All I have available would be in a few Internet scientific forums, like this one.

I am sure if there were the smallest nugget of value in your theory it would be investigated

The investigation may only be checking your calculations to see if they provide a better explanation than what is currently available in the field

If you have no data to present other than 'I think' that will not be looked at sorry

Remember those Scientist in the field would get a vast amount of brownie points if they discovered from you a ground breaking theory

It would be you lifting them up

With only 'I think' and no data you would drag them down

If you have written down your ideas/theory have it noterised and lodged in a safe place with carefully attention to note all the details you can about the lodgement

This might give you some protection if you suspect someone has stolen your intellectual property

Best of luck

 

[hansda]

Getting a Paper published in a mainstream science publication, when your material is this different from the "Standard Theory" isn't really possible. and getting an article published in an "alternative" publication doesn't accomplish anything.

All I have available would be in a few Internet scientific forums, like this one.

Atleast you can upload your paper in the website academia.edu. I have also uploaded my paper there.

 

[Michael Anteski]

I am sure if there were the smallest nugget of value in your theory it would be investigated

The investigation may only be checking your calculations to see if they provide a better explanation than what is currently available in the field

If you have no data to present other than 'I think' that will not be looked at sorry

Remember those Scientist in the field would get a vast amount of brownie points if they discovered from you a ground breaking theory

It would be you lifting them up

With only 'I think' and no data you would drag them down

If you have written down your ideas/theory have it noterised and lodged in a safe place with carefully attention to note all the details you can about the lodgement

This might give you some protection if you suspect someone has stolen your intellectual property

Best of luck

I don't think you could have carefully read through the posts I made here.

My model of ether has no "calculations" or "data." According to this ether model, this kind of ether would be operating via elemental units, much too finely rarified to have been detected by existing quantum-particle or -subparticle technologies. Therefore no "data" could exist yet. (As for claims that have been made, by others in the field, of having discovered some "new method of producing zero point energy," or the like, using the scientific tools and methods now available, I would dispute that as not being possible, because this kind of ether would be beyond our current standard technology to investigate. On the other hand, the ether-test-procedure that I propose doing would not be based on using sophisticated devices and techniques, but rather would use a different type of approach, using natural materials, and mostly just readily available resources, such as earth moving equipment. The key to it would be a basically different approach to getting data on the ether, especially if a new physical effect was discovered, namely producing a decrease in material densities.

That is why the usual investigative criteria you mention would not be appropriate to prove this kind of ether exists.

That is the main point in why I propose running the field-test, based on the kind of information I obtained, through my studies in secret codebreaking, as a field test designed to produce, and test for, an ether force-field. As I have said, no financial sponsor has showed up yet, to be able to do it.

 

[Michael Anteski]

This ether-model would include a theory of gravity as well. -I might as well add it to the above, for the sake of completeness.

If two solid mass bodies are approaching each other in space, their two etheric "auras" would come together, producing an "auric zone," of increased ether activity there, between the bodies.

In this model of the ether, the two dense bodies, like everything in our world, are made of elemental ether units. Space also contains the same elemental ether units. -Therefore, there would be an "elemental-ether-unit continuum," from each body, into the auric zone between them, and this zone, radiating from the interiors of the bodies, would be at a higher level of interactive resonance, compared to the ether outside of this zone. That would mean that, as pairs of elemental ether units increase this activity in this zone, and increase their connections with each other, the spaces between each pair of elemental units is erased, which in turn would contract, or constrict, the ether in the auric zone, producing a gravitational pull between the bodies.

 

[Michael Anteski]

This ether model can be concisely summarized.- Underlying our quantum atomically-structured world, there exists an unstructured ether matrix, composed of identical elemental ether units, which interact with each other vibrationally, and perfectly-linearly (unlike quantum/atomic forces which interact via spin, vectors, waves, and other non-linear mechanisms.) -This kind of ether model is the only way to rationally account for quantum entanglement.

 

[wellwisher]

This ether model can be concisely summarized.- Underlying our quantum atomically-structured world, there exists an unstructured ether matrix, composed of identical elemental ether units, which interact with each other vibrationally, and perfectly-linearly (unlike quantum/atomic forces which interact via spin, vectors, waves, and other non-linear mechanisms.) -This kind of ether model is the only way to rationally account for quantum entanglement.

Based on maintaining a lot of existing assumptions in standard physics, your summary is good. If you alter too many existing assumptions, even if correct, departure from the status quo, all by itself, makes it less credible. You are successfully walking the fence between the needs of conformity, and the aether model.

The way I look at the aether, requires I depart from the status quo, which will create a problem for me. I assume the speed of light is the ground state of the universe. The speed of light is the same in all references; same ground state. This ground state is inferred from the observation that there is net conversion of matter to energy; inertial to speed of light reference, in our universe. The forces of natures lead matter toward the speed of light ground. As they act and generate photons there is a partial conversion from inertial into C-reference; lower potential products. In this model, the aether is the ground state at C.

As an analogy, sea level is the ground state for all the water on the surface and atmosphere of the earth. This final resting place is the same in all water references. Given a chance, all water heads to this ground state, but not all at once. The ground state sort of mediates the activity of all the water, since everything has the same goal in mind, while each different state of water, will act independently based on its potential and circumstances. This is a slightly different version of the aether as a continuous medium.

We are surrounded by the speed of light ground state, since it is the same everywhere. No matter where we measure the speed of light, stationary or in motion, large or small, it never changes. It is not in one physical place like sea level. But it permeates everything from the POV of inertial references. A quantum entanglement is where more than one thing shares a geometrical center in space-time. This becomes more like two rivers merging before pouring into the ocean; shared geometrical convergence heading toward C-level.

The speed of light aether is not about particles or waves, but about a state of lowest potential that is the same for all things. It is common to all the forces, to all matter and to all energy. All roads lead to Rome including space and time. Time only appears to stop at the speed of light, when the potential is equalized.

 

[Schmelzer]

Getting a Paper published in a mainstream science publication, when your material is this different from the "Standard Theory" isn't really possible. and getting an article published in an "alternative" publication doesn't accomplish anything.
All I have available would be in a few Internet scientific forums, like this one.

First, if you have a viable theory, it would be quite hard to publish it, but it would not be impossible. I have my ether theory published:

I. Schmelzer, A Generalization of the Lorentz Ether to Gravity with General-Relativistic Limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242, resp. arxiv:gr-qc/0205035.

I. Schmelzer, A Condensed Matter Interpretation of SM Fermions and Gauge Fields, Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009), resp. arxiv:0908.0591.

So, it is really hard, but not impossible. But, judging from your second line, you have nothing than a few words. At least you have presented nothing else here. Not a single formula. So you have nothing publishable even in "alternative" publications.

 

[Michael Anteski]

It will be easier to be published in a mainstream publication with an article based on interpreting topics like "SM Fermions and Gauge Fields" than an article proposing a drastic new theory that would change Physics. -I have tried, but usually don't even get a reply from the editors, other than one saying "I wouldn't know where to start."

To give a more detailed description of this ether model's view of quantum entanglement - So-called quantum entanglement represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being kinetically "walled off," like the cool "arms" of a quiet, purring, ether mechanism, which can turn itself on and off, by itself, at any time.

The model's confrontation with Standard Theory doesn't necessarily have to be a pedantic standoff. -There could be a potential field test to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and then check the system for lowering of densities inside the system. That effect does not occur with known forms of energy. -I have a procedure that is supposed to do this, but it would be expensive to run the test (up to 8 figures in terms of dollars), and no financial sponsor.

 

[Schmelzer]

The response "I wouldn't know where to start" is a good one.

My recommendation: Learn physics. Learn, that means, the established theories (GR, quantum theory, the SM) to see how a theory of modern physics looks like (this is something with a lot of formulas which you have to understand to work with them), what one can do with these theories (compute predictions about some real experiments). Then, try to learn and understand what are the open problems of these established theories.

And after this you can start to think if your ether ideas may be somehow useful to solve one or another of these problems, without destroying all what these theories have already reached in a quite satisfactory way.