My Model for Acustic Levitation

[stereologist]

43 minutes ago, MichaelMD said:

You are taking the ether model into complex areas of theory.  By citing relativity and the speed of light as a crucial parameter of cosmic reality, extending that question to my model of the ether would require me to draw at least one serious disconnect, between this standard theory, and my ether model.

 

In my overall cosmic model, the speed of light (speed of the electron/photon unit) became established in the very beginning of the universe, when, as part of a creational design, quantum electrons were mentally projected (by a partially-etheric, transiently partially-quantized, Entity) through a then-"virginal" (not yet quantized) ether medium; the ether reacted to that by chain-reactionally reproducing, on a vast, designed, cosmic scale, quantal units such as protons, electrons, and atoms, due to the ether's "ultimately" refined, and unique, properties, relative to larger and larger force-units. Subsequently, as a result, no other force-units, or anything else, in our universe can travel faster than the electron. (I won't try to go deeper into this sub-model of mine here.)

More garbage. This is called word salad or verbal vomit.

Here is what you posted: "If as I claim the ether is too fine-tuned, or rarified, to detect with our technologies"

Now you continue to make up stories about something you have no idea even exists, for which there is no evidence for, etc.

Don't quit your day job. Your fantasy writing skills are horrible.

[MichaelMD]

On 12/7/2022 at 11:08 AM, Desertrat56 said:

You lost me at the term "ether units".

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-ether-definition-uses-effects-formula.html

So what exactly is ether ? Ether is an extremely flammable chemical and one of the first anesthetics. Technically, it's any compound where an oxygen atom is bound to two carbons, called alkyl groups, on either side, as shown here. We can use the letter 'R' to represent the alkyl groups in a diagram of the molecule. 

 

 

There are many specific types of ether depending on what the 'R' group is. One of the most common ethers is diethyl ether, which is used as an anesthetic and a drug as mentioned earlier. Diethyl ether is shown here.

https://www.tutorialspoint.com/solidity/solidity_ether_units.htm

https://www.languagesandnumbers.com/articles/en/ethereum-ether-units/

https://coinstove.com/learn/ethereum-units/

Ethereum units are actually called Ether units. Ethereum is the name of the technology that supports the Ether cryptocurrency. Find out more in this breakdown of what is Ethereum, or find out how to buy Ethereum.

 

If you re-read my opening Post, it gives a model for first-causal formation of a universal ether from original space. The Model claims that original space "shimmered" due to its purity and self-compatibility, with ultimately-tiny elemental units reciprocally oscillating with each other. Then, the Model claims, oscillatory fatigue induced these elemental point-like localities ("units"), which happened to neighbor each other to fall toward each other, in Yin-and-Yang fashion. This would have broken an original perfect symmetry between first-causal, or elemental, units, and converted them from mutually oscillating to independently vibrating, so that they now would have been capable of interacting with each other, as their vibrations came into contact. My opening Post goes on to a model for how a universal ether formed like this could have led to the formation of larger and larger units, up to the size of atoms.

[+Desertrat56]

4 hours ago, MichaelMD said:

If you re-read my opening Post, it gives a model for first-causal formation of a universal ether from original space. The Model claims that original space "shimmered" due to its purity and self-compatibility, with ultimately-tiny elemental units reciprocally oscillating with each other. Then, the Model claims, oscillatory fatigue induced these elemental point-like localities ("units"), which happened to neighbor each other to fall toward each other, in Yin-and-Yang fashion. This would have broken an original perfect symmetry between first-causal, or elemental, units, and converted them from mutually oscillating to independently vibrating, so that they now would have been capable of interacting with each other, as their vibrations came into contact. My opening Post goes on to a model for how a universal ether formed like this could have led to the formation of larger and larger units, up to the size of atoms.

There's that word again, and I already gave you the current definition of it, but you insist on using it.   Have fun with your imaginary "science".   Do you want a discussion or confirmation that you are a genius?   The later won't happen here, but you could respond to replies to your posts as if you actually read them and  want to understand them, that is what discussion is.   

Edited December 20, 2022 by Desertrat56

[MichaelMD]

On 12/20/2022 at 12:26 PM, Desertrat56 said:

There's that word again, and I already gave you the current definition of it, but you insist on using it.   Have fun with your imaginary "science".   Do you want a discussion or confirmation that you are a genius?   The later won't happen here, but you could respond to replies to your posts as if you actually read them and  want to understand them, that is what discussion is.   

Your preoccupation with different usages of the word "ether" makes a bigger issue of it than it deserves. A number of theorists besides me have used "ether" in referring to a "something" thus-far scientifically-undefined that underlies, and possibly-underpins, the forces science has been able to define.

 

It is true that the word ether has been also used in other contexts as you say, but that is a relatively minor semantic issue.

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, MichaelMD said:

Your preoccupation with different usages of the word "ether" makes a bigger issue of it than it deserves. A number of theorists besides me have used "ether" in referring to a "something" thus-far scientifically-undefined that underlies, and possibly-underpins, the forces science has been able to define.

 

It is true that the word ether has been also used in other contexts as you say, but that is a relatively minor semantic issue.

No one has used the word "ether" to describe what you are describing since the early 1900's and those were all psychic and new religion people.   When you make something up it would be better to also craft your own words to describe it instead of using old theosophy words.   Theosophy is no longer in style.  Maybe you need to read some stuff about starseed children, crystal and rainbow children that (in the 80's) were being born on to the planet to save us all.

Like I said before, using the word "force" instead of "ether" would make much more sense, but I guess you never saw the star wars movies.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Desertrat56

[stereologist]

On 12/20/2022 at 8:24 AM, MichaelMD said:

If you re-read my opening Post, it gives a model for first-causal formation of a universal ether from original space. The Model claims that original space "shimmered" due to its purity and self-compatibility, with ultimately-tiny elemental units reciprocally oscillating with each other. Then, the Model claims, oscillatory fatigue induced these elemental point-like localities ("units"), which happened to neighbor each other to fall toward each other, in Yin-and-Yang fashion. This would have broken an original perfect symmetry between first-causal, or elemental, units, and converted them from mutually oscillating to independently vibrating, so that they now would have been capable of interacting with each other, as their vibrations came into contact. My opening Post goes on to a model for how a universal ether formed like this could have led to the formation of larger and larger units, up to the size of atoms.

This is just made up word salad of no use. You posted that this ether cannot be detected yet you make up properties.

None of this is of any value.

 

[stereologist]

On 12/20/2022 at 12:26 PM, Desertrat56 said:

There's that word again, and I already gave you the current definition of it, but you insist on using it.   Have fun with your imaginary "science".   Do you want a discussion or confirmation that you are a genius?   The later won't happen here, but you could respond to replies to your posts as if you actually read them and  want to understand them, that is what discussion is.   

Thanks for putting science in quotes since this word salad is not science or anything even remotely like science.

[stereologist]

If this were science then there would be predictions. Those predictions would be tested and either confirmed or rejected.

 

[MichaelMD]

On 12/22/2022 at 10:44 AM, Desertrat56 said:

No one has used the word "ether" to describe what you are describing since the early 1900's and those were all psychic and new religion people.   When you make something up it would be better to also craft your own words to describe it instead of using old theosophy words.   Theosophy is no longer in style.  Maybe you need to read some stuff about starseed children, crystal and rainbow children that (in the 80's) were being born on to the planet to save us all.

Like I said before, using the word "force" instead of "ether" would make much more sense, but I guess you never saw the star wars movies.

I don't know if you follow any of the scientific discussions on the Internet or on Cable television. -Just the latest one I watched, on "How the Universe Works," the subject was what physics now refers to as "dark matter," and they talked at length about the fact that, in Cosmology, it is undeniable that "something" exists in space that represents a large part of what makes up the universe, and "we still have no idea what it is." (This from a panel of distinguished authorities in physics and cosmology.)

 

I propose that a fresh approach is what is needed.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, MichaelMD said:

I don't know if you follow any of the scientific discussions on the Internet or on Cable television. -Just the latest one I watched, on "How the Universe Works," the subject was what physics now refers to as "dark matter," and they talked at length about the fact that, in Cosmology, it is undeniable that "something" exists in space that represents a large part of what makes up the universe, and "we still have no idea what it is." (This from a panel of distinguished authorities in physics and cosmology.)

 

I propose that a fresh approach is what is needed.

That's fine, but dark matter has evidence of its existence. In fact, the evidence for it's existence goes back nearly half a century.

Suggesting that your story telling and dark matter are related is just more unevidenced story telling.

It is very clear in your posts that your idea is 100% speculation. It's not based on evidence. Until it is evidenced based it remains of no value.

[+Desertrat56]

10 hours ago, MichaelMD said:

I don't know if you follow any of the scientific discussions on the Internet or on Cable television. -Just the latest one I watched, on "How the Universe Works," the subject was what physics now refers to as "dark matter," and they talked at length about the fact that, in Cosmology, it is undeniable that "something" exists in space that represents a large part of what makes up the universe, and "we still have no idea what it is." (This from a panel of distinguished authorities in physics and cosmology.)

 

I propose that a fresh approach is what is needed.

If you ever want to see how the scientific method is used and works I suggest you watch a show called Rocket City R e d n e c k s   They develop a hypothesis, design a test (usually with inexpensive materials and a limited time frame to create) and they run the test, usually multiple times and discuss the problems with their tests, what could be done differently etc.    Your theories are nothing if no one can test them, and no one will want to test them if you misuse words to describe your theories because no one will understand what you are talking about, and it has already been called word salad.  Watching those videos you mentioned is fine if you even have a basic understanding of what they are talking about but it seems you fixate on certain words and don't really get the gist of what is actually being talked about.

P.S.  Oh Good Lord!  the filter took out the word in the title of the show!  

Edited December 25, 2022 by Desertrat56

[stereologist]

If you are young you can always check out Scooby Doo. That show has Velma that figures out the cases through observation, collecting evidence, reasoning, and deduction.

 

[MichaelMD]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:05 PM, stereologist said:

If you are young you can always check out Scooby Doo. That show has Velma that figures out the cases through observation, collecting evidence, reasoning, and deduction.

 

As possibly the last post in this thread on my Ether Model. -  I consider this to have been a good Thread, including a rational new model for electronic and photonic transmissions, based on its model for quantum entanglement. I think the Thread should deserve a better last-word than Stereo's blanket debunking posts.

[+Desertrat56]

8 hours ago, MichaelMD said:

As possibly the last post in this thread on my Ether Model. -  I consider this to have been a good Thread, including a rational new model for electronic and photonic transmissions, based on its model for quantum entanglement. I think the Thread should deserve a better last-word than Stereo's blanket debunking posts.

He wasn't debunking, he was jokingly telling you that you need to learn more about science and critical thinking.  He isn't always good at communication, (as most of us are not until we practice and even then can be confusing) and he does like to poke fun.   If you are not tough enough to take that benign comment then you might want to arm yourself with some education before you post another one of your ideas, as well as learning to thicken your skin.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Desertrat56

[stereologist]

16 hours ago, MichaelMD said:

As possibly the last post in this thread on my Ether Model. -  I consider this to have been a good Thread, including a rational new model for electronic and photonic transmissions, based on its model for quantum entanglement. I think the Thread should deserve a better last-word than Stereo's blanket debunking posts.

Your model is not rational. Quantum entanglement comes from the mathematics of QM. It is a prediction that turned out to be correct.

So far you have made a lot of statements about something you claim is not known. You've assigned properties to something you claim is not known.

What is really funny to me is that you made a testable claim in this thread and yet you've never shown that testable claim to have ever been tested. But we all know that the testable claiim has been observed in QM and it fails showing that your model is clearly flawed.

I would recommend learning how the scientific method is applied.

[MichaelMD]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:24 PM, stereologist said:

Your model is not rational. Quantum entanglement comes from the mathematics of QM. It is a prediction that turned out to be correct.

So far you have made a lot of statements about something you claim is not known. You've assigned properties to something you claim is not known.

What is really funny to me is that you made a testable claim in this thread and yet you've never shown that testable claim to have ever been tested. But we all know that the testable claiim has been observed in QM and it fails showing that your model is clearly flawed.

I would recommend learning how the scientific method is applied.

Point of information: I have never stated that my ether model is 
"not testable." I have mentioned that a test could be done, but I gather you overlooked that statement. -A field test could be possible, if serious scientific interest were gotten. A test like I'd propose would be quite expensive, and would require a very novel type of approach, scientifically. Not in a laboratory, a more natural setting, employing new kinds of test materials, to elicit evidence of a hitherto-undiscovered kind of energy.

[CuriousEye]

On 10/5/2022 at 9:05 AM, MichaelMD said:

I have done a line of research leading to a new model to account for Acustic Levitation (A.L.)

 

To start at the very beginning, my scientific model proposes that original space was very self-compatible, such that it contained ultra-small, or elemental, point-localities which were oscillating in reciprocity with each other. Then, the model proposes, oscillatory fatigue set in, inducing the points to fall toward each other, as "Yin and Yang" couplets. The "points" in space now would have transitioned from reciprocally oscillating to independently vibrating, and would be capable of interacting with each other, as their vibrations came into contact. Space would have then consisted of a universal etheric matrix consisting of vibrating elemental units, between which there would be tiny, less-energic, spaces to allow the units room to vibrate. If a pair of Yin Yang couplets contacted each other, their matching vibrations would have formed larger tetrad units. In this way, larger and larger energy units could be formed in the etheric matrix, up to the size-scale of quantum units and atoms, through this kind of (possibly-instantaneous) "lock and link-up" ether mechanism.

How this model would explain A.L. would be clearer if one first examines another unexplained phenomenon, Quantum Entanglement (Q.E.). With this model, Q.E. would represent radiated packets of etheric energy having the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units would be the only actual participants in Q.E., with the pair of quantum units kinetically "walled off" like cool arms of a quiet, purring, universal, ether mechanism. -A key part of this model of Q.E. would be that the two quantum units, like all larger energy units, were originally formed through the same "lock and link" interaction, between much-smaller ether units, so the larger units would retain an ability to interact vibrationally with ether units in the ether matrix all around them.

In A.L., focusing intense sound waves of a suitable frequency of vibration upon a solid body can sometimes produce levitation of the body. -The way this ether model would explain it would involve the concept that the energy of the vibrating waves would be conducted down the entire range of energy units making up the structure of the body, from its atoms down to the ether units at the tiniest size scale. Units of the ether, both in the ether matrix around the body, and the ether units in the body itself, would undergo an increase in their rate of vibration, in which ether units, that had been vibrating relatively quietly and randomly, switch to a faster vibratory rate, which would increase the interaction between all the ether units, including those inside the body. This in turn would decrease to number of quantum units inside the body, as the body becomes more "etheric," and lighter, and could even levitate the body itself. One could call this process "partial transient de-quantization" of the body.

 

  

 That's the point-zero hypothesis all over again. Replace your supraluminary etheric fluid with "Dirac Field" and ambient energy, and you'd just turned the vulgar all-feared notion of "magics" into a quantum mechanics hypothesis. Which is certainly not a first. 

[MichaelMD]

On 2/23/2023 at 2:22 PM, CuriousEye said:

 That's the point-zero hypothesis all over again. Replace your supraluminary etheric fluid with "Dirac Field" and ambient energy, and you'd just turned the vulgar all-feared notion of "magics" into a quantum mechanics hypothesis. Which is certainly not a first. 

You Post contains references to older ether theories, such as that of a "luminary" or "luminous ether", and of an "etheric fluid." My Ether Model differs from those of ether theorists who proposed a luminous ether or a fluid type of ether. The central concept of my Model is that of a universal (first causal) ether matrix consisting of elemental units that vibrate (they had arisen from a condition of original space which consisted of point-like elements that had been in a state of oscillation.) My Model of the origin of an ether would be in correlation with the ancient depiction of a pair of elemental-type points combining in "Yin and Yang" fashion.)

 

In my Ether Model, no truly-fluid medium would be involved. 

 

As for the "luminous ether" concept, in my Model, light, or photonic-type, transmissions occur between pairs of energy foci that share a common vibratory pattern (photonic type vibratory pattern through the ether matrix). This concept of photonic (or, for that matter, electronic) transmissions resembles my model for quantum entanglement, except that in entanglement, an energy differential does not exist between the pair of quantum-order foci.

[MichaelMD]

A simpler, more concise, approach to the Ether Model in this Thread would be to think of it as "quantum/atomic focal point: aura: ether matrix."

 

The "aura" concept,although not accepted in the field of modern physics, is commonly used by theorists in alternative physics and in the occult sciences. -It is often stated that "everything (referring to quantum/atomic objects along with their smallest building-block units) has an aura."

 

In my Ether Model, this leads to a simple way to think generally of physical phenomena. -A quantum/atomic focal point (such as a pair of closely-related but separated quantum units in spontaneous combustion) would have an aura, composed of etheric building-block components (not solely elemental ether units, but also larger, intermediate-sized, etheroidal units, all of which are in a state of interaction with the larger atomic and sub atomic units inside the quantum object. In my Ether Model, these etheric auric units are also in continuity with, and interacting with, etheric units making up the ether matrix in space around the object. 

 

To simplify conceptualizing this Model, one can think of it as "quantum focal point: aura: matrix." This can apply not just to understanding quantum entanglement, but also other transmissional phenomena in physics. 

[+joc]

On 4/7/2023 at 8:12 AM, MichaelMD said:

The "aura" concept,although not accepted in the field of modern physics

The problem with auras is that they are not accepted in the field of modern physics.

[MichaelMD]

I'll take the liberty of commenting how my Ether Model would look at the view of "light is old and stars are cold."

In my Model, light transmissions primarily involve etheric forces, and the quantum photons we observe are not "old" when the transmission reaches us, because The photons as we see them are newly-generated by the etheric and etheroidal components of the light beam, all along the path of the light beam.

 

Using this model, the "landmark" observation of Eddington (supposedly proving that space or spacetime is curved, according to Einstein's relativity) does not necessarily represent a star's light beam curving around the sun during an eclipse, but instead could well represent an optical effect only, as the photonic forces of the light beam from the distant star interact with other photonic forces they now encounter, stemming from photonic field-lines associated with the sun, as "active," recently-generated, photons in the distant light beam interact with newly-encountered solar photonic forces. 

[Rlyeh]

On 12/15/2022 at 3:20 AM, MichaelMD said:

There could be a way to detect an ether, using a new approach, but science isn't open enough, to allowing challenges to their standard models, to look into what they regard as a "drastic" alternative theoretic model like mine. 

How would you detect ether without science?

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, MichaelMD said:

Using this model, the "landmark" observation of Eddington (supposedly proving that space or spacetime is curved, according to Einstein's relativity) does not necessarily represent a star's light beam curving around the sun during an eclipse, but instead could well represent an optical effect only, as the photonic forces of the light beam from the distant star interact with other photonic forces they now encounter, stemming from photonic field-lines associated with the sun, as "active," recently-generated, photons in the distant light beam interact with newly-encountered solar photonic forces. 

Do you have any evidence of photons interacting with one another?

[MichaelMD]

On 4/9/2023 at 4:40 PM, Rlyeh said:

Do you have any evidence of photons interacting with one another?

I here used the words "photons interact" loosely, compared to the usual usage. What I meant was that the overall pattern of photons visible to us (and Eddington) would be distorted because there were visible (quantum) photons coming toward us from different angles (seeing light from the distant star, appearing with light associated with the Sun. Thus, an optical distortion of the overall light could have resulted.

 

Our atomically-structured eyes, of course, only see the quantum-order photon units.  Associated etheric (and in my Model etheroidal) photonic units are also present in the overall dynamics.

[MichaelMD]

On 4/9/2023 at 4:35 PM, Rlyeh said:

How would you detect ether without science?

I do have a potential field-test protocol for demonstrating a physical effect which would only occur if it were coming from Ether, but it would be expensive to set up such a test, and I haven't found a sponsor for it. It would not be in the usual categories of science, and not primarily involve laboratories or the like, but rather would use natural test materials, and be done in a natural setting.