An Ether-Based Creation Model

If this was all just my imagination, how could it be this wide-ranging and remain logical?

You could be imagining that it is widespread and you could be imagining that it is logical.If it is not just your imagination, then there should be some evidence that you can point to. Thus far, you have not provided any.

I have no idea what you mean by wide ranging and it only seems logical to you.

Tolkien's world was wide-ranging and logical. The Marvel Universe is wide-ranging and logical. The beauty of imagination is that it IS wide-ranging and (sometimes) logical.

The Ether Model within this Thread deserves serious consideration as an alternative to standard physics theory. Criticism that it's not wide ranging enough or not logical should raise specific points in the Thread to be debated.Where else is there a detailed scientific model ranging from first cause through creation to our present world?In courts of law, circumstantial evidence reaches a point where it at least deserves to be seriously considered.

quote

---

The Ether Model within this Thread deserves serious consideration as an alternative to standard physics theory

---

It deserves to be discarded as meaningless drivel.

quote

---

Where else is there a detailed scientific model ranging from first cause through creation to our present world?

---

It’s not a “detailed scientific model”. In fact it’s none of those things.

quote

---

In courts of law, circumstantial evidence reaches a point where it at least deserves to be seriously considered.

---

Then you should seriously consider the possibility that you are an ignorant crank posting arrant nonsense.

As far as I can tell, you have not provided any circumstantial evidence.

To try to put the latest exchanges of disagreements in a context I consider fair -Criticizing my Ether Model on a basis of its disconnect with modern quantum theory would be impossible for me to reply to, because of the key fundamental disconnect between my Model and Physics' standard model - involving a Big Bang, their key dismissal of the ether, and so on. My Model is based on proposing the undetected existence of a universal ether which underpins the quantum dynamics we observe.It would not be fair to argue with my Model based on the present assumption of the consensus that the standard Model is established factual reality, which I suspect underlays the criticism. In fairness to this Ether Model, that kind of assumption should not be used to dispute it.The only way to pointedly argue against my Model would be to cite specific points I made, and point out internal inconsistencies or internal fallacies in logic.

Oh I’ll be absolutely fair. It isn’t a model, it’s a collection of buzzwords with no meaning. Complete drivel. Utterly worthless.

I can't speak for others, but my criticism is your complete lack of any supporting evidence. You speak in specifics about something that remains undetected.There is no "fairness" involved in science. Present evidence if you want to convince your critics. Somewhere up-thread you implied that you got you "model" from some kind of coded messages from aliens, without any supporting evidence, and you expect us to take you seriously?There are still many mysteries and unknowns in physics, but you have not attempted to demonstrate how your model would contribute an improved understanding of any of them.

That is precisely why your model must be rejected. You have no evidence. The standard model has literally 100s of millions of data points to its efficacy from almost a hundred years of bubble chambers to the LHC. There is evidence for the standard model. We know it is incomplete but we have hard physical evidence the standard model is a legitimate physical phenomenon. You provide no such evidence of your Ether.Math is the language of science. If you don't speak it you have no voice in any debate. You have provided no model (real model as in mathematical structure) for science to even consider.​Science is the study of nature. Nature does not deal in fair. Such a concept does not exist in nature or science. The only things we care about are the legitimacy of the physical observations and the structure of the math used to describe the phenomenon. You have provided neither.If you want consideration of your Ether, you ARE REQUIRED to provide a consistent rigorous mathematical framework showing the operations of your model and you ARE REQUIRED to provide physical evidence of its efficacy.1. Physical evidence
2. Consistent rigorous mathematical frameworkUntil you punch BOTH tickets to the pleasure of the science community then you have nothing to present to us. Your model exists only in your mind and will not be considered until you provide both of the above.And, frankly, a complaint of not fair is a childish lamentation unworthy of any legitimate scientist. Your "model" is based on your wishful thinking and undetected entities your mind has conjured. That is religion.Unexceptable.

You're in luck.
This is exactly how Science is configured in order to shift paradigms.Modern Quantum Theory, however, isn't used to criticize your Ether Model. Only reality is.
If your Ether Model doesn't explain reality... then it's useless (and wrong.)Modern Quantum Theory does explain a lot of reality... and really well.
Your job will be to show how your Ether Model explains all the reality that Modern Quantum Theory already does... and then... ALSO explains parts of reality that Modern Quantum Theory has difficulty explaining.That's it.
Replace and move on with something better! The power of Science!All you have to do is explain how your Ether Model explains reality better than the Modern Quantum Theory.People criticizing you are not using Modern Quantum Theory to say your Ether Model is bogus.
They're using Modern Quantum Theory to say Modern Quantum Theory explains reality better than your Ether Model... and this makes your Ether Model... less useful in explaining reality.Why would we switch from something that explains reality better to something that explains reality worse?Stop worrying about Modern Quantum Theory. Science only cares about explaining reality. Explain reality better... and you'll see progress. Don't explain reality better... and, well... you get what you're getting right meow.

You keep saying that but it still isn't true. No, every hare-brained idea does NOT "deserve" scientific consideration. You have no "detailed scientific model" without some connection to the real world. Science requires evidence. Then go sell it in a court of law. Science is not a court of law. The principles that govern a court of law have no significance here.

Well, that sure isn't what we see in your ether "model." You have presented nothing scientific or detailed.Where we do find detailed scientific evidence and reasoning is in physics textbooks and university courses in quantum physics, particle physics, astrophysics, thermodynamics and numerous other scientific courses.We know so much about physics that we can write thick, heavy textbooks on all the different branches of physics. "Deserves serious consideration as an alternative to standard physics theory", seriously? You have not demonstrated a single flaw in standard physics theory, or presented any alternatives.Vaguely, talking about "first causal jiggly units" and thinking it challenges all of physics or even a teeny, tiny part of physics, is just plain silly.

I'll reply to your mention of thermodynamics as one of the reasons to reject this Ether Model.In this ether model, thermodynamics isn't a feature of the ether. The ether units interact with each other coolly at all times. One ether unit interacts with another through contact vibration, which is always linear, and "cool."The quantum units associated with an impulse through the ether follow a different kind of pathway, and the quantum units interact with each other non linearly, which is what produces the heat. So "thermodynamics" is viewed quite differently with the ether model than how quantum physics views it.