An Ether-Based Creation Model

In this case what strikes as most bizarre is he completely misinterpreted some of my questions, in multiple tries.Also when he stated my questions he reworded them. I guess that part doesn't matter, since his answers were all content free, meaningless, jargon. Not once has he employed any of the numerous suggestions on how to improve his model and his explanations.This is why those rare few creationists that finally wake up to reality are so notable...because it hardly ever happens. I'm really glad I was so young when I realized the religion and magic had no answers to anything and certainly not anything important.

In case you didn't get the joke, "Choppin' broccoli" is exactly what you sound like. There's no substance at all in what you're saying. The people on this thread want you to record some proper songs but you're just choppin' broccoli. The war in Ukraine is serious. Covid-19 is serious. Inflation is serious.If you want your "model" to be taken more seriously, put it in limerick form.

My Ether Model makes the most sense. Should we continue with the model currently accepted in physics? - There was a "Big Bang" and "then atoms appeared."

Your "model" doesn't make a lick of sense to anybody but you. If it did make sense, you could show it to scientists.It isn't even a real model. It's just a bunch of random musings. Of course. For one thing, it has allowed us to put men on the moon and bring them back. The currently accepted model works. You're just showing your complete ignorance of the currently-accepted model. You're trying to think outside the box when you don't understand the box. You're trying to tear down the house when you don't know how to build a new one.Learn something before you criticize the people who know.

I think that is pretty unlikely. He thinks magic aliens are sending him coded messages about ether.

With my ether model, and its concepts of design and maintenance in the cosmos, one's cosmological perspective changes completely. Instead of a universe determined by randomly-acting quantum forces and quantally structured bodies, which we simply observe and devise theories and hypotheses for, the universe becomes a designed world maintained through an ether-based otherworldly technology.The ether is the key to using an etheric technology and manipulating the etheric forces that, according to my Model, underpin our quantum world. One important purpose in this is to maintain the magnetism-dependent stability of our world of quantum forces and quantally- structured bodies, in the face of the effects of the ethereality of vast outer space.When we marvel at the super-vastness of the visible universe, one should keep in mind that much of that is purposefully related to that goal of stable cosmic maintenance.

So basically, ether is magic aliens.

As I may have mentioned before, you can't think outside the box effectively until you understand the box. A change in your "cosmological perspective" isn't really relevant unless you understand the existing perspectives. And you don't seem to.

Very skinny aliens.
They have negative fat.

Yep, the math should confirm that.Finally, some real answers!

I disagree with your implication that my Ether Model's perspectives and differences with respect to the currently accepted models of cosmology and physics is due to my "lack of understanding" the mainstream models.I think that the main factor involved in the differences rests in the major disconnects in fundamental theoretic assumptions, between my Ether Model and the mainstream models. Just one example lies in how each model views the question as to the nature of elemental force-units. In the standard model, the smallest known units are called neutrinos. They are viewed as having been derived from larger units in the cosmos. (In other words, larger units produce these "smallest" units (meaning they are the smallest units we are able to detect with our technology.)In my Model, on the other hand, the smallest units are referred to as (still more-rarified, than neutrinos, and undetectable for us) elemental ether units. These ether units are viewed as having originated first-causally from original space, and (in my Model) they produce all the larger units, up to the size-scale of quantum units, through a vibratory-contact mechanism. (As two elemental ether units combine into a ("Yin and Yang") couplet unit, the (now doubled-up) vibratory "nodes" combine with a matching pair of vibratory nodes of a second couplet, forming a tetrad unit. Then rapidly-multiplying other contacts produce larger and larger units, up to the size of quantum units, through a "lock and link-up" mechanism.In the standard model, larger units produce the smallest units. -In my Ether Model, it's just the opposite - the smallest units produce the larger units.This is just one illustration of the vast fundamental differences between my ether model and the standard model, and why I object to attributing "important differences" to one model "not understanding" the other. The important disconnects involve much more than that.

The main factor is that the mainstream models produce predictions that can be experimentally tested.As best we can tell, your model (if it even is a model), produces no testable predictions at all.

His model is pixie dust.Utterly pitiful.

Can you explain this more fully please?ABE: I have to say that your descriptions and clarifications of "mainstream models" didn't increase, or even agree with, my understanding of mainstream models.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

It's not an "implication"; it's a flat-out statement: You do not understand the mainstream models. You don't even understand what a model is, much less have the wherewithal to overthrow what thousands of scientists have spent millions of person-hours building. Where do you get your ego?