Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces

[nick c]

But more importantly, they didn’t advocate worldwide sterilization of all humans deemed not up to par.

Again, his thoughts on politics have nothing to do with his scientific theories. They have to be judged on their own merits. After WWII the USSR and US were in competition for the services of German scientists, nobody seemed to worry too much about what their politics were.

Proponents of the aether (which is the topic of this thread), routinely quote Tesla as though he were an authority on the subject. When in fact neither Tesla, nor anyone else since, can demonstrate that it even exists.

Good point and back on topic. The fact is that the conundrum concerns the concept of "action at a distance." The same criticism of the "aether" applies to the currently fashionable "space/time continuum" and the term "field" does nothing to explain action at a distance.

[Michael Anteski]

For new viewers of this Thread. which I initiated, I would point out that the last page or so of the posts have gone off-topic, into discussing various random aether theories, very different from the points I started the Thread with, in the beginning. I would recommend looking back further, and to look into the ideas I put forth in earlier pages, on "Aether the only Path to Unifying Cosmic Forces."

[JHL]

Oh, and as for 'numerology', (and while the following is not my field and I cannot comment on it as if it were), much there is to illustrate the geometric universe, Including what it seems to me would link well to the EU.

http://resonance.is/explore/quantum-gra ... s-release/

It is not my intention to deliberately derail this thread and turn it into a discussion of every crackpot and loony-tune that have infested the internet. But since you provided the above link to Nassim Haramein's theory, perhaps the readers should also be made aware of this article:

“In at least one lecture he claims to decode crop circles. Topics discussed in his 4 DVD set in addition to his unified field theory include: The Arc of the Covenant, Knights Templar, Emmanuel's Tomb, Kabbalah, Tree of Life Decoded.”

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein

So you'll make the same character assassination of Haramein that you had of Tesla.

My point is that when you slather fallacy on a person you do not discredit their whole work. Haramein's theories of physics and geometry are rather aligned with aether - or more vividly, with spontaneous order. And since that latter abstract is one many minds care not to entertain, preferring themselves hidebound materialist "scientists" rather than granting that they've been philosophically confronted not with just another turtle in the impossibly infinite stack of them that support Everything, or not just the furtherest turtle down, it somehow hovering on Nothing, they attack what they trust is character.

It's that blind trust I question, and from it, the ability to double-down on and repeat the same fallacy mere hours after it was first expressed. In the end it certainly appears an intention "to deliberately derail this thread and turn it into a discussion of every crackpot and loony-tune", as you call them. It's what you've done.

The alternative is to have the vision and integrity to look toward what you cannot yet see instead of damning what you've willfully misinterpreted.

[JHL]

The fact is that the conundrum concerns the concept of "action at a distance." The same criticism of the "aether" applies to the currently fashionable "space/time continuum" and the term "field" does nothing to explain action at a distance.

Exactly. Faithful, standard model, materialistic, secular mystical contortionists cannot grant you the right (or ability) to regard what they evidently have wrong. They'll also pay you the favor of ridicule when you try.

Meanwhile attraction at distance - the inherent, underlying, "sub-Higgs" physics of either Infinite or Finite Turtles - confronts us, as do hosts of other mysteries that physics cannot reconcile in that realm: Either everything functions by cause and effect, which is a material connection, or it functions by, for want of a better word, faith.

It functions because it has, it is, and it shall. Remember how Higgs was going to "lend" all particles mass? What, with little circuits and plumbing and things?

There is no cause and effect, there is only the dance of relationships. Whether "aether" or some other word is only a matter of semantics. We're observing effects, and not Fundamental Causes. We no more know the latter than we do how the Bang violated all laws in order to hand materialists their greatest miracle.

Ergo: G-d has been the entirely logical, rational construct devised by a self-conscious Universe with an apparent Purpose to observe. It is no less a miracle than the implied Alpha and Omega of Bangism, but G-d, at least, conveys and manifests meaning. There's no better endorsement for aether then it lends order to an otherwise genuinely mystical Everything.

[Michael Anteski]

JHL

I will repeat my complaint to you that I made about some other recent posters on my Thread. You enter references to other random aether theories ("Haramein, Tesla," etc.), which have nothing to do with the theoretic points I have made in this Thread, which i initiated, and your Post ignores my new Post complaining about just that.

I don't want to accuse anyone of trying to derail my aether model, but there have been quite a few posts lately which have been inserting concepts of the aether entirely different from from the aether model I propose.

If a poster doesn't want to discuss my model, of a universal aether mediated by contiguous, uniform, elemental, aether units, OK, but I object to interrupting my Thread by inserting different concepts entirely, while not comparing them to my aether model.

[Lloyd]

Michael, you should have your model updated somewhere and give the link to it and mention your main points and the evidence for them or the reasoning. Your model seems very vague, so I think you need to develop it in a lot more detail. The main thing interesting to me is your mention of psychic involvement. I'd like to see your model compared to Rupert Sheldrake's. I think you should also illustrate your model as much as possible. Like show what an a/ether unit looks like and what its properties and features are and how they relate to matter etc.

[Michael Anteski]

Michael, you should have your model updated somewhere and give the link to it and mention your main points and the evidence for them or the reasoning. Your model seems very vague, so I think you need to develop it in a lot more detail. The main thing interesting to me is your mention of psychic involvement. I'd like to see your model compared to Rupert Sheldrake's. I think you should also illustrate your model as much as possible. Like show what an a/ether unit looks like and what its properties and features are and how they relate to matter etc.

Lloyd,

I won't try to argue with your point that my model is "very vague." -I submit that in terms of cosmic origin (a key part of any model of cosmic forces) it's clearer than any others I know of, including Sheldrake's. Of course, as I've been saying, this Thread has gotten "vaguer" since a number of posters have been inserting other aether models at random without addressing any of the points I made in my aether model. (I'm not going to follow your suggestion to bring in Sheldrake's model, too.) All you need to do to clarify my Model's "vagueness" is to go back over the early pages of this Thread, where I presented my Model in terms of how an aether could have arisen from pure space and how that type of aether can account for the various phenomena I have discussed.

[Michael Anteski]

Michael, you should have your model updated somewhere and give the link to it and mention your main points and the evidence for them or the reasoning. Your model seems very vague, so I think you need to develop it in a lot more detail. The main thing interesting to me is your mention of psychic involvement. I'd like to see your model compared to Rupert Sheldrake's. I think you should also illustrate your model as much as possible. Like show what an a/ether unit looks like and what its properties and features are and how they relate to matter etc.

Lloyd

As a further follow-up to your Post, I will go ahead with your suggestion to clarify my model of how such an aether works.

I am not computer-savvy enough to be able to illustrate things pictorially, but I'll try clarifying in narrative form.

The aether originated from elemental oscillations of Original Space (a kind of space predating the first appearance of forces.) As I describe in detail, opening this Thread, these oscillations led to a vibrational (i.e., directional, or energic-type) aether composed of elemental, identical, aether units throughout all of space. Then, further interactions among the elemental aether units produced larger ("aggregative") "aetheroidal" aether units. -A resonance between two vibrating elemental units can be thought of in terms of each vibrating unit having a "node," and as the surrounding resonant aether induces a curvational effect on the two adjacent resonating units, their "nodes" interact to produce a loose resonational bond (not a fixed bond.) -Unlike the elemental units, aetheroidal units are a bit larger than elemental units, and are not all identical. Vibrational resonances between aetheroidal units would occur only between the elemental units that make up the aetheroidal units. -Whether larger aetheroidal units can also partake of spin-vector energic interactions, similar to quantum-scale units, I am unable to say, because we are not able to detect aetheroidal units (or elemental aether units either, of course.)

The next energy units up the size scale would be subatomic units like the electron and photon. Next, the quantum units that make up the atomic nucleus are familiarly known in quantum mechanics-theory. QM theory holds that there is no aether, space is "empty," that "elemental" units "such as the electron" are composed of "mass," and that basic energic forces, everywhere in the cosmos, occur via transmission of particles across space, just as they do in our familiar earthbound quantum energy systems. -Of course, QM works for many energy systems in our earthbound setting, but from my aether Model's perspective, such a model of forces should not be used to explain cosmic forces in cosmic space. where elemental aetheric units remain the basic energy matrix, and the aetheric type of energic transmission predominates (transmission of energic impulses by contiguous, vibrating, elemental aether units.)

[Michael Anteski]

Another way to look at the aether model I present, of an energic aether mediated mainly by elemental, contiguous, vibrating, aether units derived from original space, would be to compare it with the model of quantum mechanics, and the way QM models "elemental" forces, and the way QM models cosmic forces.

Granted, QM works for many energic phenomena in our earthbound quantized setting, in particular, those phenomena in which there is inertia and motion. QM's view is that the ultimate "elemental" units of energy are quantum scale units, like electrons, which exert their effects in "empty" space, and have "mass." Empirically, admittedly, this model works - for example, for phenomena like the light we see, which involves photons which we see with our earthbound quantum-tuned eyes, and for electrical phenomena, which involve motion of electrons, which we can measure and predict the effects of. QM also works for measuring the inertia and motion of celestial bodies in space. However, that doesn't mean we understand the true elemental forces at work.

In contrast, using the contiguous-aether model can account for other phenomena QM cannot - for example, action-at-a-distance (which QM refers to "quantum entanglement," a clever phrase, but QM doesn't really know what is going on here). Also, spontanepous human combustion (which the aether model, unlike QM, could explain, as an energy-aura phenomenon). Also other "paranormal" phenomena including psychic phenomena. -And, as presented earlier in this thread, this aether model produces a very rational model for cosmic forces like gravity and electromagnetism.

The aether is the answer.

[Michael Anteski]

Addendum to last post -

When I likened the motions, of electrons in electrical systems and of photons in light propagation, to the motion of celestial bodies, with respect to those being "inertial," and therefore different from elemental aetheric energy which operates via vibration between contiguous energy units, that probably should have been amplified on.

The motions of electrons, photons, and other quantum scale energy units, operate via spin, and act across vectors of space. Thus their "inertial" motion varies from the inertial systems we observe, such as the motions of celestial bodies. However, for the purpose of comparing familiar forces to undetected aetheric forces, the principle is the same. Quantum systems operate non-contiguously, and from the perspective of comparing them to the way elemental aether energy operates, the difference, between "inertial" energy and aetheric contiguous energy, would be the same in both cases.

Thus "unexplained" energic phenpomena are all reducible to the difference between inertial-motion energy and aetheric contiuguous transmissional energy.

[Zyxzevn]

Found this paper about Aether:

http://worldnpa.org/the-alfa-model-abso ... le-aether/

[Michael Anteski]

What I read about the alfa model of the aether didn't give much if any idea as to "origins." -First origin would be an important, actually essential, part of a new cosmic theory. -The mainstream physics Big Bang theory doesn't have a true starting point (just an unknown "singularity"), but at least they try to present some idea of an "origin" for their model.

My aether model goes from A to B to C, etc., from first causal space as the starting point for derivation of the aether, to the cosmic forces we see now.

My aether model includes a new model for gravity, i.e., a gravity "without mass." Cosmic theorists typically hold that a model of gravity requires the concept of Mass as a discrete physical entity. However, in my model, where the aether was derived from original space, there is no such thing as "mass." Nevertheless, this model leads to a logical model of gravity.

In my model, oscillations of elemental contiguous points in original space (a kind of space prior to the first appearance of forces. Original space no longer exists, so this idea can't be tested, but it's the only "origins" model I know of that is sensible as an origin leading to the kind of world we see now), led to an energic aether composed of elemental, contiguous, vibrating energy units that are uniform and identical throughout all of space. (A previous Thread of mine goes into detail of how a single point-pair broke the perfect symmetry of contiguous points of original space, which was then propagated throughout all of space.) This model furnishes a most rational model for the subsequent formation of orderly cosmic systems like atoms, planets, etc.

The way gravity is explained with this model is that when two bodies are being attracted gravitationally, the elemental aether units of each body are in resonance with identical aether units in the space between the bodies. Thus, as the aether units of each body resonate with aether units between the bodies, the result is that the bodies themselves are attracted resonationally, or gravitationally. -Stated briefly, this could be described as "aether gravity's simple contiguity mechanism."

[leo vuyk]

Found this paper about Aether:

http://worldnpa.org/the-alfa-model-abso ... le-aether/

IMHO, there is a way out of the mass in motion problem, if:
The FORM and MICROSTRUCTURE of elementary particles, is supposed to be the origin of
FUNCTIONAL differences between Higgs- Graviton- Photon/Gluon-field and spinning propeller shaped Fermion particles.
If the vacuum is supposed to have resistance for these spinning propeller shaped
Fermions then this should be compensated by the energetic vacuum itself in
combination with a Fermionic propeller axis polarization and a so called Multiverse
based entanglement for each Fermion polarisation.
Cooper pairs are in that case, dual polarised connected non spinning-Fermion
propellers pushed from behind by the oscillating Higgs field.
See:
Mass in motion in Quantum FFF Theory http://vixra.org/abs/1108.0006

for more details: http://vixra.org/author/leo_vuyk
and: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93308747@N05/?details=1

[Michael Anteski]

This Post is not relevant to my Thread in any way. -Why don't you start your own thread instead of distracting viewers from the ideas in my model?

[leo vuyk]

OK I thought to be relevant.