• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ether Model is Key

MichaelMD

Member
Mainstream Physics rejects ether theory on the basis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) in 1887. Any ether was assumed to necessarily have to act as the medium for light transmission, and the MMX used optical measurements of refracted light, the results of which, they concluded, showed there is no ether.

I propose that their assumptions were false and did not prove the absence of an ether. If an ether happened to be composed of ether-units that are extremely tiny, or refined, much smaller than the photons that transmit visible light,,there would not exist an inertial interface for the ether and light to interact, so that the ether could act as a "medium" for the light.

In my own Ether Model, however, this line of reasoning, although rational and valid, has no bearing on the actual transmission of light, which actually is transmitted via an electrical-vibratory, linear, contact-mechanism through the ether, with no inertial motion involved.

Using such an concept of Ether, the stability and orderliness of quantum systems, such as that of atomic structuring, requires an underpinning matrix of elemental, uniform, quantum-building-block ether units, which form a vibrating continuum of linear transmissions that connect quantum units that are related and similar. -Quantum entanglement (Q.E.) is a prime example of this effect. Q.E. is not just a rare and peculiar laboratory finding.

Compare the straightforwardness of this Model with rival mainstream models of quantum physics, such as string theory, with its eleven dimensions.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Mainstream Physics rejects ether theory on the basis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) in 1887. Any ether was assumed to necessarily have to act as the medium for light transmission, and the MMX used optical measurements of refracted light, the results of which, they concluded, showed there is no ether.

I propose that their assumptions were false and did not prove the absence of an ether. If an ether happened to be composed of ether-units that are extremely tiny, or refined, much smaller than the photons that transmit visible light,,there would not exist an inertial interface for the ether and light to interact, so that the ether could act as a "medium" for the light.

In my own Ether Model, however, this line of reasoning, although rational and valid, has no bearing on the actual transmission of light, which actually is transmitted via an electrical-vibratory, linear, contact-mechanism through the ether, with no inertial motion involved.

Using such an concept of Ether, the stability and orderliness of quantum systems, such as that of atomic structuring, requires an underpinning matrix of elemental, uniform, quantum-building-block ether units, which form a vibrating continuum of linear transmissions that connect quantum units that are related and similar. -Quantum entanglement (Q.E.) is a prime example of this effect. Q.E. is not just a rare and peculiar laboratory finding.

Compare the straightforwardness of this Model with rival mainstream models of quantum physics, such as string theory, with its eleven dimensions.
Okay, I'll bite.

What reasonable test could possibly refute your theory? Or do you not understand that term?
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Design your experiments
Are you seriously telling an 82 year old retired physician and antirelativist "tinkerman" to take his ether theory to a peer reviewed scientific journal and get their opinion before posting his stuff here in RF. LOL! (a) If he got rave reviews of his theory from a non-mainstream scientific journal, would'ja esteem him more? For some reason, I doubt it. (b) Do you have any idea what the likelihood is of a mainstream scientific journal giving his stuff a "passing" grade, much less a rave review? zip, nada, not happening. Geez Louise, let the ol' fart post till someone has to carry him out the door. I think it's great that he can still type a coherent sentence, even if I don't agree with him. At least he's not claiming that the Vatican is out to get him with its death ray or that male owned science has oppressed female biological life on O stone for too long. Besides, if he's posting on RF, he's not driving. I say: Save a life, encourage Mike to post in RF. LOL!
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Are you seriously telling an 82 year old retired physician and antirelativist "tinkerman" to take his ether theory to a peer reviewed scientific journal and get their opinion before posting his stuff here in RF. LOL! (a) If he got rave reviews of his theory from a non-mainstream scientific journal, would'ja esteem him more? For some reason, I doubt it. (b) Do you have any idea what the likelihood is of a mainstream scientific journal giving his stuff a "passing" grade, much less a rave review? zip, nada, not happening. Geez Louise, let the ol' fart post till someone has to carry him out the door. I think it's great that he can still type a coherent sentence, even if I don't agree with him. At least he's not claiming that the Vatican is out to get him with its death ray or that male owned science has oppressed female biological life on O stone for too long. Besides, if he's posting on RF, he's not driving. I say: Save a life, encourage Mike to post in RF. LOL!
God spare us from retired doctors and electrical engineers trying their hand at reinventing relativity and quantum theory! :rolleyes:

Michael Anteski has had a blog running on sciforums for several years now. He's a harmless ether crank. I presume he came here after getting the bum's rush on all the serious science forums.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Are you seriously telling an 82 year old retired physician and antirelativist "tinkerman" to take his ether theory to a peer reviewed scientific journal and get their opinion before posting his stuff here in RF. LOL! (a) If he got rave reviews of his theory from a non-mainstream scientific journal, would'ja esteem him more? For some reason, I doubt it. (b) Do you have any idea what the likelihood is of a mainstream scientific journal giving his stuff a "passing" grade, much less a rave review? zip, nada, not happening. Geez Louise, let the ol' fart post till someone has to carry him out the door. I think it's great that he can still type a coherent sentence, even if I don't agree with him. At least he's not claiming that the Vatican is out to get him with its death ray or that male owned science has oppressed female biological life on O stone for too long. Besides, if he's posting on RF, he's not driving. I say: Save a life, encourage Mike to post in RF. LOL!

Touché.
 

MichaelMD

Member
Okay, I'll bite.

What reasonable test could possibly refute your theory? Or do you not understand that term?

There is no test to "refute" the Theory, mainly because in our quantized world-setting, we aren't able to detect such ultra-refined forces as the ether.

To demonstrate the ether, you would have to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and show that things in its vicinity have a decrease in their densities, from the presence of heightened amounts of ether forces ("levitation" effect.)
 

MichaelMD

Member
Are you seriously telling an 82 year old retired physician and antirelativist "tinkerman" to take his ether theory to a peer reviewed scientific journal and get their opinion before posting his stuff here in RF. LOL! (a) If he got rave reviews of his theory from a non-mainstream scientific journal, would'ja esteem him more? For some reason, I doubt it. (b) Do you have any idea what the likelihood is of a mainstream scientific journal giving his stuff a "passing" grade, much less a rave review? zip, nada, not happening. Geez Louise, let the ol' fart post till someone has to carry him out the door. I think it's great that he can still type a coherent sentence, even if I don't agree with him. At least he's not claiming that the Vatican is out to get him with its death ray or that male owned science has oppressed female biological life on O stone for too long. Besides, if he's posting on RF, he's not driving. I say: Save a life, encourage Mike to post in RF. LOL!

I don't know how you got my age, but this old guy still goes to a gym regularly, among other things.

The interest of editors of most, if not all, mainstream scientific journals centers around consensus quantum physics. Their position is that the Michelson-Morley Experiment, in its many versions, "proved there is no ether." -Over a period of years, I have tried submitting this kind of material to them, getting responses like "I wouldn't know where to start," and "where are your mathematics."
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
I don't know how you got my age, but this old guy still goes to a gym regularly, among other things.
:) Your profile info told me.

Screenshot_2020-01-21 MichaelMD.png


I was born in 1948, so you're just 11 years older than me.

The interest of editors of most
:D No surprise to me. I'm a baptized and confirmed antirelativist and a veteran of the relativist/antirelativist war that raged hot and heavy in the first decade of the 2000s, and which continues but has been subdued considerably by prompt banishment from mainstream science forums. I myself managed to get banned twice for merely acknowledging my antirelativist position and affirming that I sought an answer to a question but wasn't interested in debate. Broke my heart. LOL!

I never had a theory of my own, so I had nothing to publish. But I came across several guys who were touting their own theories and told me of their own challenges in trying to get their version of ether-based theory published. For the record, I'm not big fan of the ether-based models because, invariably, they prove to be quasi-relativistic, i.e. saner but still too much relativism in them for my taste. I favor the boundless, eternal, absolute space and time approach.

"where are your mathematics."
No mathematics will kill a theory dead in its tracks. Personally, I'm a near-boob in the mathematics department, more so as I age. But I admire them what can work their magic with math, [even the relativists, although I don't tell 'em] especially when they talk trigonometry which still mystifies and awes me.

this old guy still goes to a gym regularly, among other things.
Great! you're a better man than I am. I've faded a lot in the past 20 years and seem to be fading faster daily. I'm still on the horse and enjoying the view, but I don't try as hard to get him to walk faster or straight.

Live long and prosper.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
:) Your profile info told me.

View attachment 36427

I was born in 1948, so you're just 11 years older than me.


:D No surprise to me. I'm a baptized and confirmed antirelativist and a veteran of the relativist/antirelativist war that raged hot and heavy in the first decade of the 2000s, and which continues but has been subdued considerably by prompt banishment from mainstream science forums. I myself managed to get banned twice for merely acknowledging my antirelativist position and affirming that I sought an answer to a question but wasn't interested in debate. Broke my heart. LOL!

I never had a theory of my own, so I had nothing to publish. But I came across several guys who were touting their own theories and told me of their own challenges in trying to get their version of ether-based theory published. For the record, I'm not big fan of the ether-based models because, invariably, they prove to be quasi-relativistic, i.e. saner but still too much relativism in them for my taste. I favor the boundless, eternal, absolute space and time approach.


No mathematics will kill a theory dead in its tracks. Personally, I'm a near-boob in the mathematics department, more so as I age. But I admire them what can work their magic with math, [even the relativists, although I don't tell 'em] especially when they talk trigonometry which still mystifies and awes me.


Great! you're a better man than I am. I've faded a lot in the past 20 years and seem to be fading faster daily. I'm still on the horse and enjoying the view, but I don't try as hard to get him to walk faster or straight.

Live long and prosper.
Blimey! Two for the price of one, eh? :D
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There is no test to "refute" the Theory, mainly because in our quantized world-setting, we aren't able to detect such ultra-refined forces as the ether.

To demonstrate the ether, you would have to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and show that things in its vicinity have a decrease in their densities, from the presence of heightened amounts of ether forces ("levitation" effect.)
Then you just admitted that you do not have a theory. In the world of the sciences it is so useless as to be "not even wrong".
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Then you just admitted that you do not have a theory. In the world of the sciences it is so useless as to be "not even wrong".
You are far from the first to reach that conclusion about dear old Michael. See post 185 of this thread for instance: Michael Anteski's Ether model | Page 10 | Sciforums

P.S. Actually some of the early reactions on that thread make amusing reading, three years on. I had forgotten.......;)
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Readers, in case anyone is tempted to spend more time on this, Michael claims, or used to claim, his "ether model" is based on secret codes incorporated into the US Declaration of Independence.

Yup. Really. :confused:

See posts 71 and 79 of the attached for references: Michael Anteski's Ether model | Page 4 | Sciforums

What we have here is an ongoing box-of-frogs situation......
 

MichaelMD

Member
Then you just admitted that you do not have a theory. In the world of the sciences it is so useless as to be "not even wrong".

I hoped to get a reply, referring to specific scientific points, for me to be able to confront any rival model(s) with my own ether model. I am confident that my Model should have all the theoretic bases covered. There would be problems with such a confrontation with any model based on "no ether forces, just quantum forces exist," of course. -Confronting the general relativity model of Gravity, for example, would be awkward with my ether model, which proposes that the space between gravitating bodies contains more-numerous "etheroidal" units (larger than elemental ether units, but smaller than quantum units, so that they can diffuse through the quantum-atomic boundaries of the solid bodies, into the space between the bodies, and, since such intermediate etheric units are transitional between elemental ether units and quantum units, they "partially quantize" the space between the solid bodies, "tightening" the ether between the bodies, which is what pulls the bodies toward each other. -The basic idea here is that the "etheroidal" units, more highly energized than the spatial ether, having just emerged from the inside of the solid bodies, stimulate the spatial elemental ether units to align, rather than continue vibrating randomly, and thus entrain into additional etheroidal, and then quantal, units, quantizing the space and tightening the ether between the solid bodies.
 

MichaelMD

Member
There is no test to "refute" the Theory, mainly because in our quantized world-setting, we aren't able to detect such ultra-refined forces as the ether.

To demonstrate the ether, you would have to generate a selectively-etheric energy field, and show that things in its vicinity have a decrease in their densities, from the presence of heightened amounts of ether forces ("levitation" effect.)

To amend my reply, there actually have been experiments done in the area of sound waves that elicit apparently-etheric forces. It's been shown that densely focusing resonant-frequency sound waves upon a solid object can levitate the object. I haven't found a detailed theory explaining exactly how it occurs, but a few experimenters have speculated that closely matching the sound-waves' frequency of vibration (making them "more resonant") somehow aligns etheric components of the object, by percolating all the way down from atomic-level energy units, to some variety of still-more-rarified etheric components of the object. -Since the etheric components would be much smaller and much more numerous, the overall result is that the object itself becomes more etheric, and "lighter."
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Mainstream Physics rejects ether theory on the basis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) in 1887. Any ether was assumed to necessarily have to act as the medium for light transmission, and the MMX used optical measurements of refracted light, the results of which, they concluded, showed there is no ether.
If I understand it correctly, MMX assumes that the ether is an omnipresent static medium through which the planet and light waves travel, is this so?

Please anyone may respond.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If I understand it correctly, MMX assumes that the ether is an omnipresent static medium through which the planet and light waves travel, is this so?

Please anyone may respond.

When you resurrect a long dead thread it always make sense to look at how long ago the person that you are asking questions of was last here. The last time that he logged in was March 21, 2020. You are probably going to wait a long time for your answer.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
When you resurrect a long dead thread it always make sense to look at how long ago the person that you are asking questions of was last here. The last time that he logged in was March 21, 2020. You are probably going to wait a long time for your answer.

I'm curious as to your understanding of what "Please anyone may respond" means?
 
Top