An Ether-Based Creation Model

Message 509
OK, no ether at this stage. Can you describe what happens when something becomes partly-quantized? I am not familiar with the term creationally, can you please explain what it means? Are these electromagnetic radiations? What wave lengths? Linear relative to what? Wait, what creational Entity? Projected "quantum" electrons, with what, an electron gun like in a cathode ray tube? What makes magnetic stability advantageous? Can you describe this magnetic stability? I wonder why they never noticed this effect at in any of the collider experiments? Creationally programmed how and by who? There's that word creationally again. 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

---

Hmmm, I would say this is actually where you should be directing observation, if you ever want to detect ether. I had not considered the "stardust" component before. 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: OK, my question was actually: 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?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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