Ether model

[Michael Anteski]

We made the invisible Higgs boson appear and thereby confirm the Higgs field, with our maths and of course the collider at Cern.

The Higgs boson is claimed to be an "elementary particle" according to standard quantum theory. It conforms to the rest of quantum mechanics, in which fields, waves, vectors, spin, and other similar mechanisms mediate quantum forces.

This would not be related to my model of an underlying matrix-like vibratory ether. -If you check earlier in this Thread, I have given a model of the ether based on a first-causal universal oscillation of original space, which transitioned into a universal ether, which consists of elementary point-like units which vibrate. Having been derived ultimately out of original space, these vibrating elemental units have no mass. The larger energy units formed by these elemental units, such as quantum units, would be called "particle capacities," rather than "particles."

I was talking about the possibility of using maths at some future time, if science decided to pursue the idea of investigating and defining my type of ether, which has a different energic dynamics (vibrational) than quantum forces have, and which CERN talks about correlating with a "Higgs boson."

 

[Write4U]

Then, magnetic instability of this ether world led mentally-directing etheric Creator(s) of our quantum universe

How would this abstract ether produce magnetic instability?

And what are ether world mentally directed etheric Creators of our quantum universe ?
You do realize that the Higgs field might be called an etheric creator of mass and by extension be causal to gravity in a quantum universe.

Paul Dirac wrote in 1951:[7] "Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed.

If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether ...

We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an Aether".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Mechanical_gravitational_aether

Something like that? Or is it sentient?

 

[Michael Anteski]

How would this abstract ether produce magnetic instability?

And what are ether world mentally directed etheric Creators of our quantum universe ?
You do realize that the Higgs field might be called an etheric creator of mass and by extension be causal to gravity in a quantum universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Mechanical_gravitational_aether

Something like that? Or is it sentient?

First of all, you had original space, which was free of forces and self-compatible, which meant universal point=like oscillations of space itself. Then oscillational fatigue transitioned the oscillations to a universal vibrational ether, each point-like ether unit able to resonate energically with another as their outward vibrations contact.
This "first world" was purely etheric, with individual resonances leading to entrainments and other linkages producing larger "etheroid" units together with the point-like elemental ether units. This led to intense hyper-fluxes of ether energy, which eventually led to sapient entity(s) within this "ether world," or "ether macrocosm." Transient magnetism was possible within such a world, but the etheric macrocosm prevented stable magnetic structuring of magnetic foci. The sapient entity(s), energically able to focus magnetic forces, produced magnetic "island"(s) but there was too much magnetic instability. (Think of waking up with only nine fingers instead of ten.) So the next step was to creationally produce a more magnetically- stable macrocosm, our universe, using the etheric energy to channel quantum units, which were produced chain-reactionally, by directing electron(s) into a virgin (meaning yet-unquantized) ether (including antimatter being directed to black holes), through channels in the ether matrix, to produce our universe.

 

[Write4U]

This led to intense hyper-fluxes of ether energy, which eventually led to sapient entity(s) within this "ether world," or "ether macrocosm.

Nahhhhhh...

sa·pi·ent, adjective

1. 1.
   FORMAL
   wise, or attempting to appear wise.
2. 2.
   relating to the human species ( Homo sapiens ).
   "our sapient ancestors of 40,000 years ago"

noun,
a human of the species Homo sapiens.

 

[DaveC426913]

First of all, you had original space, which was free of forces and self-compatible, which meant universal point=like oscillations of space itself. Then oscillational fatigue transitioned the oscillations to a universal vibrational ether, each point-like ether unit able to resonate energically with another as their outward vibrations contact.
This "first world" was purely etheric, with individual resonances leading to entrainments and other linkages producing larger "etheroid" units together with the point-like elemental ether units. This led to intense hyper-fluxes of ether energy, which eventually led to sapient entity(s) within this "ether world," or "ether macrocosm." Transient magnetism was possible within such a world, but the etheric macrocosm prevented stable magnetic structuring of magnetic foci. The sapient entity(s), energically able to focus magnetic forces, produced magnetic "island"(s) but there was too much magnetic instability. (Think of waking up with only nine fingers instead of ten.) So the next step was to creationally produce a more magnetically- stable macrocosm, our universe, using the etheric energy to channel quantum units, which were produced chain-reactionally, by directing electron(s) into a virgin (meaning yet-unquantized) ether (including antimatter being directed to black holes), through channels in the ether matrix, to produce our universe.

Reporting, to have this thread and River's thread merged into one big "Word Salad" thread and moved to Free Thoughts forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, so this is an alternative theory; let's see what explanatory power it has.

...original space, which was free of forces and self-compatible...

What evidence is there to support this?

, which meant universal point=like oscillations of space itself.

How does that follow?

Then oscillational fatigue

What evidence have you that space is subject to fatigue?

transitioned the oscillations to a universal vibrational ether

What evidence is there to support this?

, each point-like ether unit able to resonate energically

How so?

with another as their outward vibrations contact.

What evidence is there to support this?

This "first world" was purely etheric, with individual resonances leading to entrainments and other linkages producing larger "etheroid" units together with the point-like elemental ether units.

What evidence is there to support this?

This led to intense hyper-fluxes of ether energy,

What evidence is there to support this?

which eventually led to sapient entity(s) within this "ether world," or "ether macrocosm."

So, your idea is predicated on the prior existence of life?
What evidence is there to support this?

The sapient entity(s), energically able to focus magnetic forces,

What evidence is there to support this?

produced magnetic "island"(s) but there was too much magnetic instability.

What evidence is there to support this?

creationally produce a more magnetically- stable macrocosm, our universe,

What evidence is there to support this?

using the etheric energy to channel quantum units,

What are quantum units?

which were produced chain-reactionally, by directing electron(s)

What evidence is there to support this?

through channels in the ether matrix, to produce our universe.

Wait - this whole thing came down to ... "and so it produced our universe"???

My pixie theory does way better than that; and it hardly uses more than a dozen totally made up salad-words.

 

[Write4U]

Michael Anteski said:
...original space, which was free of forces and self-compatible...

DaveC426913 said;
What evidence is there to support this?

I could almost agree with that, except for the term "original space" which is not self-compatible but circular.

Change the pre-BB term "original space" with "original permittive condition" and physical boundaries or questions about size become moot. Seems fundamental to me.

 

[Michael Anteski]

OK, so this is an alternative theory; let's see what explanatory power it has.



What evidence is there to support this?

How does that follow?

What evidence have you that space is subject to fatigue?

What evidence is there to support this?

How so?

What evidence is there to support this?

What evidence is there to support this?

What evidence is there to support this?

So, your idea is predicated on the prior existence of life?
What evidence is there to support this?

What evidence is there to support this?

What evidence is there to support this?

What evidence is there to support this?

What are quantum units?

What evidence is there to support this?


Wait - this whole thing came down to ... "and so it produced our universe"???

My pixie theory does way better than that; and it hardly uses more than a dozen totally made up salad-words.

DaveC,

Your questions suggest a lack of familiarity with physics. Your question "What are quantum units?" suggests you are possibly a comparative novice in the most basic concepts in physics.

I have already covered, in terms of my Ether Model, your other questions at various points of this Thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your question "What are quantum units?" suggests you are possibly a comparative novice in the most basic concepts in physics.

Great! Then you can simply provide a link to an existing definition.


16 outstanding questions.

 

[Write4U]

"What are quantum units?"

Qubits?

 

[Michael Anteski]

Qubits?

My Ether Model would describe quantum units as particle capacities, and not "solid particles." They have been formed, in relatively-energized local regions of the ether, by energic vibratory alignments, entrainments, and other linkages of elemental ether units, which linked to form the larger "quantized" units.

In Quantum Entanglement, it is the elemental units of the ether which are sole participants in the phenomenon. The pair of "entangled" quantum units remain perfectly connected despite being separated, by radiated packets of ether units having the same vibratory pattern. (The two quantum units having been originally formed by entrained alignments and other vibrational linkages of the elemental ether units.) These etheric "building blocks" of the connected quantum units continued to retain their ability to link up with other vibrating elemental ether units in the surrounding ether matrix.

 

[DaveC426913]

My Ether Model would describe quantum units as particle capacities, and not "solid particles." They have been formed, in relatively-energized local regions of the ether, by energic vibratory alignments, entrainments, and other linkages of elemental ether units, which linked to form the larger "quantized" units.

In Quantum Entanglement, it is the elemental units of the ether which are sole participants in the phenomenon. The pair of "entangled" quantum units remain perfectly connected despite being separated, by radiated packets of ether units having the same vibratory pattern. (The two quantum units having been originally formed by entrained alignments and other vibrational linkages of the elemental ether units.) These etheric "building blocks" of the connected quantum units continued to retain their ability to link up with other vibrating elemental ether units in the surrounding ether matrix.

Right. So. "Quantum units" are part of your idea - they don't exist as one of "the most basic concepts in physics" - certainly not anything anyone could know without you telling us.

Why hint otherwise, then turn around and contradict yourself?

15 questions unanswered. The biggest of them all being:

What existing science is your idea based on? Or did it spring wholly from your own mind?

 

[Write4U]

My Ether Model would describe quantum units as particle capacities, and not "solid particles." They have been formed, in relatively-energized local regions of the ether, by energic vibratory alignments, entrainments, and other linkages of elemental ether units, which linked to form the larger "quantized" units.

I think you are describing qubits. Qubits are not described as "solid particles"

In quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit (sometimes qbit) is the basic unit of quantum information—the quantum version of the classical binary bit physically realized with a two-state device. A qubit is a two-state (or two-level) quantum-mechanical system, one of the simplest quantum systems displaying the weirdness of quantum mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

If not what is the difference between a "unit of quantum information" and your "particle capacity" ?

 

[Michael Anteski]

Right. So. "Quantum units" are part of your idea - they don't exist as one of "the most basic concepts in physics" - certainly not anything anyone could know without you telling us.

Why hint otherwise, then turn around and contradict yourself?

15 questions unanswered. The biggest of them all being:

What existing science is your idea based on? Or did it spring wholly from your own mind?

DaveC

You have been asking questions I have covered at various parts of this Thread already.

Earlier in the Thread I mentioned that I have done a long term study of sets of codes in a historic Document (the Declaration of Independence) purportedly coming from an otherworldly source of scientific knowledge. The codes were first found by a Canadian author, Neil Dunfield (his book was "Not So Self Evident Truths" 1990). -Most of my ideas about Ether came from that source.

 

[Michael Anteski]

I think you are describing qubits. Qubits are not described as "solid particles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

If not what is the difference between a "unit of quantum information" and your "particle capacity" ?

Write4U

I think I misinterpreted what you were referring to in your Post by "qubits." I thought you were referring to the Post just before that by DaveC asking what I meant by "quantum units."

I see now you were referring to something having to do with quantum computers. That would not be related to my ether theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

You have been asking questions I have covered at various parts of this Thread already.

Great. Any of them based on existing knowledge? Or are they all from your head?

Earlier in the Thread I mentioned that I have done a long term study of sets of codes in a historic Document (the Declaration of Independence) purportedly coming from an otherworldly source of scientific knowledge.

Oh.
They're based on codes in the Declaration of Independence, put there by aliens.

We certainly have no reason to doubt the veracity of the source then.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U

I think I misinterpreted what you were referring to in your Post by "qubits." I thought you were referring to the Post just before that by DaveC asking what I meant by "quantum units."

I see now you were referring to something having to do with quantum computers. That would not be related to my ether theory.

I believe qubits are a natural expression of Universal Quantum Mechanics.

a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit (sometimes qbit) is the basic unit of quantum information.

However, quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a coherent superposition of both states/levels at the same time, a property that is fundamental to quantum mechanics and thus quantum computing.

What is possible in quantum computing is possible in nature itself.

"Natura artis magistra", nature is the teacher of art (and science)

 

[Michael 345]

Earlier in the Thread I mentioned that I have done a long term study of sets of codes in a historic Document (the Declaration of Independence) purportedly coming from an otherworldly source of scientific knowledge

Help me out please

The Declaration of Independence

Was it Independence from British? OR Aliens?

And how did Neil Dunfield twig there was a hidden code in The Declaration of Independence?

 

[DaveC426913]

And how did Neil Dunfield twig there was a hidden code in The Declaration of Independence?

Who knows? The internet sure doesn't seem to know about his book.

 

[Write4U]

Help me out please

The Declaration of Independence

Was it Independence from British? OR Aliens?

And how did Neil Dunfield twig there was a hidden code in The Declaration of Independence?

It's all explained in the movie "National Treasure"