Using a contiguous universal ether for unifying cosmic forces

Michael Anteski said:
quantum_wave,

In my ether model, the 'waves" we observe in our quantum-order energy systems represent curving entrainments of ether units underlying the quantum units. The elementals are resonating with each other, and concomitantly generating larger and larger particle-capacity units, on up to the quantum units. The quantum order units just happen to be the smallest ones we are able to detect. -Curving pathways are also seen in particle research, such as the track-patterns that sub quantum units follow after particle collisions. -In mt ether model, all these curvilinear processes reach back, etiologically, to the first Yin and Yang units that broke perfect symmetry, first-causally, and then led to the formation of elemental ether units.
Click to expand...
I always try to help people shape their models to overcome what I perceive as flaws (lol, yes, it was I who said that). You have my take on your efforts, and your further explanations are reinforcing my view that it is too contrived. It seems to be a forced effort to explain an ether model by suggesting you have some source of knowledge, through you success in decoding an other-worldly document. You are struggling to make sense of it yourself, and that leaves the reader confused and skeptical.

Two things, which I think I detect, and 1) is you are trying to explain a perfectly symmetrical state as the beginning, and explaining the first event as Yin and Yang units that occurred to break the symmetry. Symmetry sometimes seems to be offered as an explanation for the preconditions to what is now the grand old universe, but there is never an explanation for cause of symmetry breaking that isn't something already inherent in the state of perfect symmetry. For example like quantum fluctuations, if they weren't always there, where did they come from and 2) it still begs the question of where did the pre-universal state of symmetry come from; how do we explain its existence before those Yin and Yang fluctuations?
 
Last edited:
Michael Anteski said:
"God, cosmic universe, creation?" - My source of info gives the description as being that a mentally-produced etheric projection, or propulsion, of the smallest, and fastest, etheric units (which I referred to as "electronics") set off a self-replicating self-propagating process in the ether which, following the "judicious directions" in the mental projection, led, in a series of programmed steps, to the universe we have now.
Click to expand...

Reality is produced mental projection?
 
In line with my above question...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2...xperiment/

EXCERPT: It’s official: the universe is weird. Our everyday experience tells us that distant objects cannot influence each other, and don’t disappear just because no one is looking at them. Even Albert Einstein was dead against such ideas because they clashed so badly with our views of the real world.

But it turns out we’re wrong – the quantum nature of reality means, on some level, these things can and do actually happen. A groundbreaking experiment puts the final nail in the coffin of our ordinary “local realism” view of the universe, settling an argument that has raged through physics for nearly a century.

Teams of physicists around the world have been racing to complete this experiment for decades. Now, a group led by Ronald Hanson at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands has finally cracked it. “It’s a very nice and beautiful experiment, and one can only congratulate the group for that,” says Anton Zeilinger, head of one of the rival teams at the University of Vienna, Austria. “Very well done....”
 
Hey, if we do live in a "The Matrix" then I'm sure quantumn entanglement and observer-effect phenomena conserve a lot of processing power. ;)
 
origin said:
At what point is this horrific caricature of a science thread going to be chucked into the cesspool? It is not even pseudoscience, it is just random noise....
This is so Victoresque but with more sciency sounding words.
Click to expand...

origin,

I did not intend for my last post to be interpreted as a full scientific description of how my ether-model views quantum order "waves." -The post was meant to reply to quantum_wave's post of last Sunday ("clear that up..." -Quantum_wave had shown interest in the ether model, and had just been discussing the topic of "waves." -My post was was given as a rough idea of how the ether model would apply to quantum waves.
 
Michael Anteski said:
origin,

I did not intend for my last post to be interpreted as a full scientific description of how my ether-model views quantum order "waves." -The post was meant to reply to quantum_wave's post of last Sunday ("clear that up..." -Quantum_wave had shown interest in the ether model, and had just been discussing the topic of "waves." -My post was was given as a rough idea of how the ether model would apply to quantum waves.
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it, all of your post amount to little more than gibberish.
 
Spellbound said:
In line with my above question...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2...xperiment/

EXCERPT: It’s official: the universe is weird. Our everyday experience tells us that distant objects cannot influence each other, and don’t disappear just because no one is looking at them. Even Albert Einstein was dead against such ideas because they clashed so badly with our views of the real world.

But it turns out we’re wrong – the quantum nature of reality means, on some level, these things can and do actually happen. A groundbreaking experiment puts the final nail in the coffin of our ordinary “local realism” view of the universe, settling an argument that has raged through physics for nearly a century.

Teams of physicists around the world have been racing to complete this experiment for decades. Now, a group led by Ronald Hanson at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands has finally cracked it. “It’s a very nice and beautiful experiment, and one can only congratulate the group for that,” says Anton Zeilinger, head of one of the rival teams at the University of Vienna, Austria. “Very well done....”
Click to expand...
That was a great link. I also came across another link about [/url=http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-squeeze-light-one-particle-at-a-time]"squeezed" light[/url], and think I might have to post them to CptBork's "Bell's Theorem and Non-locality" thread. The two links combined address some interesting facts about particles and energy at the quantum level that might be pertinent to the experiments.
 
quantum_wave said:
I always try to help people shape their models to overcome what I perceive as flaws (lol, yes, it was I who said that). You have my take on your efforts, and your further explanations are reinforcing my view that it is too contrived. It seems to be a forced effort to explain an ether model by suggesting you have some source of knowledge, through you success in decoding an other-worldly document. You are struggling to make sense of it yourself, and that leaves the reader confused and skeptical.

Two things, which I think I detect, and 1) is you are trying to explain a perfectly symmetrical state as the beginning, and explaining the first event as Yin and Yang units that occurred to break the symmetry. Symmetry sometimes seems to be offered as an explanation for the preconditions to what is now the grand old universe, but there is never an explanation for cause of symmetry breaking that isn't something already inherent in the state of perfect symmetry. For example like quantum fluctuations, if they weren't always there, where did they come from and 2) it still begs the question of where did the pre-universal state of symmetry come from; how do we explain its existence before those Yin and Yang fluctuations?
Click to expand...

quantum_wave,

I regard the origins /ether model I have presented to be more rational than the Big Bang model, which admittedly offers no idea of what "banged," how it banged, or what came before the Bang. I consider it intuitively clear that space had to come first, and that some sort of change in that space occurred, to lead to our kind of world. The only mechanism that seems possible is that originally, space had a "self-compatibility" in which point-localities of space were oscillating symmetrically and reciprocally, and that then, something occurred that broke perfect symmetry. -The ancient representation of "Yin and Yang" would appear to fit the description of such a first-cause mechanism, in that it shows a pair of identical, elemental-appearing, units that are combining, curvationally.

Oscillatory fatigue is known to occur in metals, so the concept of fatigue occurring during oscillation is not unprecedented. -Of course, inasmuch as metallic oscillatory fatigue is a quantum process, it can't be definitely correlated with oscillatory fatigue in first-cause space.

quantum_wave, I can't give you a full explanation for the hypothetical oscillating-point-localities property of original space. Original space was space as it existed prior to the first appearance of forces, so it no longer exists, and can't be tested.

(I don't believe the proposed Yin-and-Yang point-pairs that broke original symmetry could have themselves been the units of the ether that came to exist. That is because the Yin Yang point-pairs were symmetrical, and the units of the ether, in order to interact with each other ("resonate"), to produce our world of forces, would have had to have a dipolar feature (witness the "north pole/south pole" phenomenon in later energy systems). In my model for how the ether arose, the Yin-Yang units broke the symmetry of original space, and in doing so, secondarily produced vibratory elemental etheric units ("vibratory" as derived from the oscillatory). -As these elemental ether units vibrate, they vibrate first to one side, then the other side, which, as manifested resonationally, represents a dipolar feature.
 
Say we began the universe, for the sake of argument, in a speed of light reference. In a speed of light reference, space will appear contracted to a point and time will appear to stop. The concepts of space and time make no sense in a speed of light reference. Time and space are concepts connected to inertial reference.

Time and space only make sense in references that are slower than the speed of light. Therefore to make time and space appear from the C reference, we need to slow from C. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, therefore the creation of mass allows time and space to persist by creating an SR wall/partition between C and inertial, since this reaction is not directly reversible.

Say you were on the C reference and we apply the brakes to slow from C to C-. Time and space will appear, along with brake heat. The brake heat and space-time leads to particles, that can't move at C, for space-time persistence. With the reverse path back to C closed to matter, matter must find other ways to return to C. The most common way is conversion to energy at C through the forces of nature that move at C. Gravity also allows a path back toward C since gravity, in the limit, creates a space-time reference close to C; black hole singularity reference.
 
quantum_wave said:
That was a great link. I also came across another link about "squeezed" light, and think I might have to post them to CptBork's "Bell's Theorem and Non-locality" thread. The two links combined address some interesting facts about particles and energy at the quantum level that might be pertinent to the experiments.
Click to expand...
I fixed the typo in the "squeezed light" url:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-squeeze-light-one-particle-at-a-time
And I posted the two links on the "Bell's Theorem" thread for future reference.
 
Michael Anteski said:
quantum_wave,

I regard the origins /ether model I have presented to be more rational than the Big Bang model, which admittedly offers no idea of what "banged," how it banged, or what came before the Bang.
Click to expand...
That is were speculation and hypothesis come into play. The departure point is Big Bang theory and the implied Big Bang. The speculation is about alternative ideas that are out there to explain a Big Bang. When you go there you are in Alternative Theories Forum territory, i.e. the Fringe :), so this is the right place to discuss it.
I consider it intuitively clear that space had to come first, and that some sort of change in that space occurred, to lead to our kind of world.
Click to expand...
I don't, but everyone has opinions. For me, if you want a personal opinion of how the universe works, it is OK to choose a speculative circumstance from some departure point in existing theory. Start with the implied Big Bang and you could have multiple Big Bangs; why just one. From there, Big Bang arenas intersecting and overlapping, causing a Big Crunch to form from the galactic material in each arena. The crunch reaches some critical capacity, and collapse/bangs. That is just one alternative; there are many others.
The only mechanism that seems possible is that originally, space had a "self-compatibility" in which point-localities of space were oscillating symmetrically and reciprocally, and that then, something occurred that broke perfect symmetry.
Click to expand...
Well, if you go the path that space was first, and changes in state occurred without any causes, known or speculated, then sure. But why go there when there is no explanation in that model for space itself or how it could undergo a change in state. "Always existed, the same as it is now", seems reasonable, given the various explanations possible, i.e. something from nothing, God did it, or always existed.
-The ancient representation of "Yin and Yang" would appear to fit the description of such a first-cause mechanism, in that it shows a pair of identical, elemental-appearing, units that are combining, curvationally.

Oscillatory fatigue is known to occur in metals, so the concept of fatigue occurring during oscillation is not unprecedented. -Of course, inasmuch as metallic oscillatory fatigue is a quantum process, it can't be definitely correlated with oscillatory fatigue in first-cause space.

quantum_wave, I can't give you a full explanation for the hypothetical oscillating-point-localities property of original space. Original space was space as it existed prior to the first appearance of forces, so it no longer exists, and can't be tested.

(I don't believe the proposed Yin-and-Yang point-pairs that broke original symmetry could have themselves been the units of the ether that came to exist. That is because the Yin Yang point-pairs were symmetrical, and the units of the ether, in order to interact with each other ("resonate"), to produce our world of forces, would have had to have a dipolar feature (witness the "north pole/south pole" phenomenon in later energy systems). In my model for how the ether arose, the Yin-Yang units broke the symmetry of original space, and in doing so, secondarily produced vibratory elemental etheric units ("vibratory" as derived from the oscillatory). -As these elemental ether units vibrate, they vibrate first to one side, then the other side, which, as manifested resonationally, represents a dipolar feature.
Click to expand...
Trying to figure things out by working backwards always ends with the question, "what came before that". You say we can't know because it is gone and we can't test if it no longer exists; empty space presents that problem, doesn't it. We have arrived at the divide between science and philosophy. If there is no scientific answer, go philosophical, lol.
 
wellwisher said:
Say we began the universe, for the sake of argument, in a speed of light reference. In a speed of light reference, space will appear contracted to a point and time will appear to stop. The concepts of space and time make no sense in a speed of light reference. Time and space are concepts connected to inertial reference.

Time and space only make sense in references that are slower than the speed of light. Therefore to make time and space appear from the C reference, we need to slow from C. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, therefore the creation of mass allows time and space to persist by creating an SR wall/partition between C and inertial, since this reaction is not directly reversible.

Say you were on the C reference and we apply the brakes to slow from C to C-. Time and space will appear, along with brake heat. The brake heat and space-time leads to particles, that can't move at C, for space-time persistence. With the reverse path back to C closed to matter, matter must find other ways to return to C. The most common way is conversion to energy at C through the forces of nature that move at C. Gravity also allows a path back toward C since gravity, in the limit, creates a space-time reference close to C; black hole singularity reference.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to understand your beginning "in a speed of light reference". I may not agree with your conclusions about what such a view might be; it is much like saying you are riding a photon. But if that is the perspective, how do you then conclude space will appear contracted to a point, and time will appear to stop. If you carry a watch with you on that photon ride, won't it look normal to you?
 
quantum_wave said:
That is were speculation and hypothesis come into play. The departure point is Big Bang theory and the implied Big Bang. The speculation is about alternative ideas that are out there to explain a Big Bang. When you go there you are in Alternative Theories Forum territory, i.e. the Fringe :), so this is the right place to discuss it.

I don't, but everyone has opinions. For me, if you want a personal opinion of how the universe works, it is OK to choose a speculative circumstance from some departure point in existing theory. Start with the implied Big Bang and you could have multiple Big Bangs; why just one. From there, Big Bang arenas intersecting and overlapping, causing a Big Crunch to form from the galactic material in each arena. The crunch reaches some critical capacity, and collapse/bangs. That is just one alternative; there are many others.

Well, if you go the path that space was first, and changes in state occurred without any causes, known or speculated, then sure. But why go there when there is no explanation in that model for space itself or how it could undergo a change in state. "Always existed, the same as it is now", seems reasonable, given the various explanations possible, i.e. something from nothing, God did it, or always existed.

Trying to figure things out by working backwards always ends with the question, "what came before that". You say we can't know because it is gone and we can't test if it no longer exists; empty space presents that problem, doesn't it. We have arrived at the divide between science and philosophy. If there is no scientific answer, go philosophical, lol.
Click to expand...

I object to your last two sentences. -You appear to state that a theory for first cause must be scientific, and then you appear to define "science" as "something test-able." -My position is that inasmuch as the pre existing conditions that led to first-cause are not possible to simulate under present conditions in our world, we need to form a most-rational theoretic model for the likeliest first cause. -My candidate, again must be space, oscillation, then breaking perfect symmetry, which generated a universal ether.

The Big Bang, as a model, is no more test-able than this one. (I don't accept that it is being "tested" when physics "supports" its Big Bang by using its familiar quantum/relativity cookbook approach. Even Big Bang physics admits they don't know what banged, how it banged, or what came before the Bang.)
 
Michael Anteski said:
I object to your last two sentences. -You appear to state that a theory for first cause must be scientific, and then you appear to define "science" as "something test-able." -My position is that inasmuch as the pre existing conditions that led to first-cause are not possible to simulate under present conditions in our world, we need to form a most-rational theoretic model for the likeliest first cause. -My candidate, again must be space, oscillation, then breaking perfect symmetry, which generated a universal ether.

The Big Bang, as a model, is no more test-able than this one. (I don't accept that it is being "tested" when physics "supports" its Big Bang by using its familiar quantum/relativity cookbook approach. Even Big Bang physics admits they don't know what banged, how it banged, or what came before the Bang.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for stating your objection and comments. I wasn't intending those two sentences the way they appear to you. First cause is a personal view of the explanation for the existence of the universe. Some models of cosmology fail to address the beginning ... but logically, there are three major possible explanations for the existence of the universe.

They are depicted on the sides of the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations which comes from descriptions of my model, with the imperative, "Pick One".

18d81d3e8cb3cc2b14e433fd3461ebdd_zps13d6faf1.jpg




In the ISU model there was no beginning, and it is built on the premise that the universe has always existed.

I like the fact that you have your own model, and my participation is intended as discussion of it, with comparison to my views.
 
God would be the Original Space it seems. Hence "something from nothing" is "God did it". Since God is primary mover, He coincides with reality. And thus manifests lower levels of reality such as our present universe.
 
Michael Anteski sent me a pm in response to my question and it was very fascinating. I hope he doesn't mind if I share it.

Spellbound said: ↑
That reality is produced mental projection. I.e. that the world we see before us is a product of mind, and thus having no distinction from it. It would really clear things up for me if you can indulge me (either from info of the source material or in your own words).

Thank you,

Nick.

Nick:

I derived the "mental projection and production of our universe" concept as one part of codebreaking studies that I have been doing, using a historical Document. The sub-model of how a sapient Entity could have projected forces that produced the universe is rooted in a complicated mix of theoretic ideas which come together from this decoding work of mine.

The source of information I have used has proven absolutely consistent, internally, both in the scientific-theory area and the other branches of informational messaging I've obtained, although, like the scientific models, which hinge on the currently-unconventional "ether" concept, these messages often deviate from our present concepts or beliefs.

If you are open to the "ether" model, the idea of a creational entity being able to project, or produce, an energy "force" field is logical. -By "force" field, I am referring to the idea that beings beyond our earth-surface realms have long possessed an energy technology based on harnessing ether forces. They are "bathed" in an etherically-energized ambience that confers to them energic powers, in this case in particular mental powers, that can render them capable of energy-manipulating abilities which the likes of us earthlings don't even imagine are possible. (My term "force" field refers to my concept that ether energy is all around us. Everything is made of elemental etheric units. But technologically, beyond our earth technology experience, it is also possible to generate amplified field-levels of etheric energy, i.e., a "forced" field of ether energy)

I have gone into the theoretic details of an ether-model, as to how it would fit with our quantum scientific models, on earth, in a number of posts in the Forum, if you want to check into this more deeply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top