An Ether-Based Creation Model

Michael MD writes: Your question about specific properties the Higgs boson has, does not enter into my Ether Model.

Message 509

Tanypteryx writes: Yesterday I saw an article about new more precise measurement of the mass of the W Boson. Particle Physics Shock: Most Precise Ever Measurement of W Boson Mass Differs From Standard Model Prediction

Mike writes: In my Model, the key units forming atoms during Creation of our quantum world were electrons and protons.

OK, no ether at this stage.

Mike writes: Creation of our world, then, was done from a partly-quantized, partly etheric, creational "base" within a macrocosm, an "ether world," that preceded it... ... by creationally passing electrons from that "base" through the ether. (The base had become partly-quantized, fortuitously, by virtue of the fact that the radiations of ether units in the area of the base happened to be especially linear).

Can you describe what happens when something becomes partly-quantized?

Mike writes: creationally passing electrons from that "base" through the ether.

I am not familiar with the term creationally, can you please explain what it means?

Mike writes: radiations of ether units in the area of the base happened to be especially linear

Are these electromagnetic radiations? What wave lengths? Linear relative to what?

Mike writes: Then a creational Entity projected quantum electrons, through the ether, to produce a quantum universe,

Wait, what creational Entity? Projected "quantum" electrons, with what, an electron gun like in a cathode ray tube?

Mike writes: the advantage of such a universe, compared to an ether world, being that things would become more magnetically stable, than with the ether macrocosm.

What makes magnetic stability advantageous? Can you describe this magnetic stability?

Mike writes: As the electrons passed through the ether, the units of the ether underwent a shift toward the formation of quantum units - protons - in reaction to the negative charge of the speeding electrons.

I wonder why they never noticed this effect at in any of the collider experiments?

Mike writes: This took place as a self-sustained chain-reaction, throughout this region of the ether, which had been creationally programmed.

Creationally programmed how and by who? There's that word creationally again.

Mike writes: With this model, various units like muons, bosons, and others, that physicists have discovered using accelerators and colliders, are not importantly relevant. They just happen to be what has been left over, once atoms have been forcibly smashed.

Nice to see you using science to sweep a a whole field of physics into the dustbin.

quote:

---

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

---

(I didn't discuss neutrons together with the creational model of electrons and protons, because it would be beyond the present theoretical vista, in terms of current quantum theory. (Neutrons have been found to exist, as such, only inside atoms. Outside of the atom, they decay into a proton, electron, and an antineutron. This area of theory is not for me to discuss

Hmmm, I would say this is actually where you should be directing observation, if you ever want to detect ether.

Mike writes: Going back to another post of mine in this thread, I did discuss how my ether model would view the question of cosmic muons. Muons have been observed bombarding, and penetrating into, earth. -Physics currently attributes these muons to "particle interactions" as cosmic rays hit the outer layers of earth's stratosphere. -With my ether model, however, the source of such muons would more likely be as a kind of "stardust" component in space which arise from vast cosmic collisions, strong enough to split atoms of the cosmic bodies involved, with the muons being one prominent by-product.

I had not considered the "stardust" component before.

Mike writes: (The concept of the electron/photon unit having been the key unit in the creation of our quantum universe is consistent with the observation that its velocity (speed of light) is the highest speed limit in the universe.)

Is this part of the whole E=MC^2 thing?

At times I feel like Mike has discovered a trove of possible story plots Terry Pratchett discarded.

At least he's not talking about neutrons!

I'll answer your questions one at a time.

1. Question as to "electrons forming protons as they (electrons) passed through the ether." - The concept here is that negatively-charged electrons would interact, etherically, with all the ether units in the universal ether matrix, generating positively charged protons. (My ether model says that the electrons were originally formed from ether units themselves, and so, like all quantum units, retain an ability to interact with the elemental ether units everywhere in the ether matrix.
2) What does "partly quantized" mean? - The idea here is that there was an "ether world" that existed after the ether formed first-causally from original space, and in this ether world, there were ether units in motion, in the form of ether radiations, because once the ether formed, and all the (now vibrating) units started interacting, there should have been localized areas where the radiations happened to be more linear and less randomly directed, than other areas of the ether. In that area, the more linear, or parallel, motion of the ether units tended to make them line-up with each other as they interacted vibrationally with each other, and become better organized into larger units like quantum units and atoms.
3. How was "creational passage of electrons through the ether" done? -From our present vantage point, we have to entertain that, possibly, creational movements of electrons could have been done in the form of mental projections, because the creator would have been more highly etherically attuned than we are, being in an area which was was only partly quantized, and still highly etheric, and different from our more-quantal, less etheric, world.
4. Why is our quantum world more "magnetically stable" than the preceding ether world? - That would be because things in our world are quantally-structured, so their structural stability depends on quantum units and atoms. -In an ether world, one can imagine how the higher degree of ethereality would confer less magnetic stability.
5. Question about how collider experiments in physics would differ from the model of electrons speeding through the ether. - The collider experiments involve quantum/atomic units. My model of creation is basically different, in the theoretic sense, in that the ether plays a key role. There is no comparing the two.
6. How would a "programmed" creation work, as a "chain reaction?" -The idea here is that a creator had some experience projecting creational energy-units locally, before going on to use it in creating a universe, and thus would have had the ability to judiciously apply those forces in such a way as to form a well-designed, or programmed, universe.
7. What is "stardust?" My ether model is basically different from that of physics, which says there is no ether. -With my Model, as various cosmic worlds collide,(so-called "Worlds in Collision") there would be a huge amount of debris, such as atoms of different kinds, along with smashed atoms and their smaller sub-units, like muons. "Stardust" would be a term referring to all these materials circulating all around the universe.
8. How does Einstein's E=mc^2 relate to this ether model? -I don't see any major conflict between them. In both cases, energy contained inside atomic and subatomic units is enormous.

I'm going to pick one at random:

4. Why is our quantum world more "magnetically stable" than the preceding ether world? - That would be because things in our world are quantally-structured, so their structural stability depends on quantum units and atoms. -In an ether world, one can imagine how the higher degree of ethereality would confer less magnetic stability.

OK, my question was actually:

Tanypteryx writes: Mike writes: the advantage of such a universe, compared to an ether world, being that things would become more magnetically stable, than with the ether macrocosm. What makes magnetic stability advantageous?

Why is it advantageous? Magnetic instability would seem to be more obvious when you look at our Universe.

You are just talking in circles without explaining anything so someone can understand. Mentally beaming electrons...really?

Tanypteryx writes: Mentally beaming electrons...really?

Once upon a time, when Dana Carvey was on Saturday Night Live, he was playing a rock star. He was supposed to be writing songs for a new album that he was supposed to start recording today - but he was in his hotel room, stalling, because he hadn't written a note yet. He decided to have some lunch and he was chopping broccoli. He started to sing, "Choppin' broccoli... choppin' broccoli... choppin' broccoli... choppin' broccoli... choppin' broccoli...."

I think that's a better hook than, "Mentally beaming electrons...."

"Choppin broccoli" has nothing to do with it. This Thread is An Ether Based Creation Model. If that's not serious, what is?

Lots of things are serious but this thread is not among them.

I does ALMOST rise to the level of a Shaggy Dog story.

Tanypteryx's Message 511 was in a serious vein, which started me thinking that posts would head into a genuinely-serious-dialogue trend. But now it seems like it could be going toward the "lightweight" type of responses.

This Thread is An Ether Based Creation Model. If that's not serious, what is?

Well, after all these posts we still have no clue how physics would be expanded to include your ether.

It doesn't seem to answer a single one of the questions physics is trying to answer.

We have known gaps in our knowledge, but your ether does not fit any of the known gaps.

You cannot point to a single anomalous observation that is a clue to your ether.

Your ether is just as imaginary as mentally beaming electrons.

My Ether Model has such a major fundamental disconnect with currently-accepted physics that the two could never combine in the way you mention, i.e., into "a new model that would expand physics."
Accepting an ether model like mine would necessitate almost a whole new library of work investigating and theorizing on etheric processes as the true forces underlying and underpinning quantum physics, a library section separate from the libraries now dealing with physics.

It ain't science or based on anything.

My Ether Model has such a major fundamental disconnect with currently-accepted physics that the two could never combine in the way you mention, i.e., into "a new model that would expand physics."

Well, that is not how science progresses. It's built on the knowledge we have already gained. There have to be clues that point to new phenomena and you have not presented any clues that even hint at ether. You have to explain things better than existing physics and so far you have not.

We have asked hundreds of questions but you give us the same sciency sounding words, but not a single coherent explanation.

Accepting an ether model like mine would necessitate almost a whole new library of work investigating and theorizing on etheric processes as the true forces underlying and underpinning quantum physics, a library section separate from the libraries now dealing with physics.

A whole new library, huh? Well you should get started on that with a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. The physics sections of libraries are full of papers documenting actual observations.

Accepting an ether model like mine would necessitate almost a whole new library of work investigating and theorizing on etheric processes as the true forces underlying and underpinning quantum physics, a library section separate from the libraries now dealing with physics.

Then maybe you should start doing that work and that investigation. Report back when you have something of interest that arises from your investigation.

You won't get anywhere by just waffling about vague ideas.

This Thread is An Ether Based Creation Model.

What I can never understand is why you creationists don't just come right out and say the obvious basis of your beliefs: "It was a miracle!" Instead, you go through such painful contortions to invent pseudo-scientific nonsense for the purpose of explaining away the miracle that you believe in. That just seems so counter-productive to your ultimate goal of "proving God." It makes no sense whatsoever (but then neither does anything else creationists come up with).

If that's not serious, what is?

One thing that we all have learned about creationism is that it is the furthest thing from something serious.