Michael MD writes:
To answer your question,my ether model would have to go through a number of steps, including a few basic assumptions that should be reasonable and logical.
In screenwriting, they call that "foreshadowing".
Thus, original space could well have been very self-compatible, where extremely-rarified, "elemental," or etheric, "points," or point-localities, were reciprocally oscillating, in a perfectly "pure" type of oscillation.
That's just word salad. It isn't logical or reasonable. It's as if you saw these terms in the back of a physics book and then randomly assembled them.
Eventually, a pair of adjacent points underwent oscillational fatigue, and fell toward each other, forming "Yin and Yang" couplets. (Oscillational fatigue is a known process. It occurs in metals.)
That is illogical and irrational. Just because metal fatigues does not mean that space has the same features. This is known as the false analogy fallacy.
Just these two snippets alone demonstrate that you don't have assumptions that are either logical or reasonable.
In my ether model, a creational Entity arose after the etheric processes in a local spot happened to be very linear, where the linearity of the ether units caused their vibrations to align mutually with each other, so that they entrained with each other, producing larger and larger units, up to the size of quantum units.
You also don't seem to understand the concept of assumptions. You don't take your hypotheses and present them as assumptions. That's not how it works. Assumptions are something that both you and I would agree to, some basic working principles. Assumptions are never the claim that you are trying to prove. You are essentially saying that if we assume your ether model then it is true. That's illogical and irrational.