A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Michael MD
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Michael MD »

As a "P.S." to my last Post, a key part of the model I gave for quantum entanglement would be the concept that elemental ether units responsible for quantum entanglement act in a perfectly-linear way.

In quantum entanglement, a pair of closely-related quantum units remain intimately-connected with each other in some mysterious way, even after being separated by a great distance. This puzzles physicists, because quantum units are believed to be discrete "particles," believed to represent the tiniest energy units that exist, and quantum units are known to interact with each other via mechanisms like spin, vectors, waves, and other non-linear mechanisms.

In my ether model, however, quantum units, like everything in our world, were, in the beginning, built up from entrainments of vibrating elemental ether units. Thus, the pair of quantum units in quantum entanglement would retain an ability to interact vibrationally through the ether, via the elemental building blocks they are made of (in addition to their known ability to interact through spin, wave, and vector mechanisms.)

The key concept in this model of quantum entanglement is that the "mysterious" linear-type of connection between the quantum units in quantum entanglement must be occurring via a different mechanism than quantum units usually operate through.

The conclusion has to be that quantum entanglement represents an undetected (by our physicists) mechanism of action entirely different from the kinds of energic forces we are familiar with.

Underlying our quantum atomically-structured world, there exists an undetected, unstructured, ether matrix, composed of a vast sea of elemental ether units, which, being identical to each other, and acting via a linear vibratory-contact mechanism, interact perfectly-linearly.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Walker »

I don’t get the linear aspect. Simultaneous connection over vast distances would eliminate time and thus any rational requirement for the linear.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Walker »

Even vibration from point A to B requires a progression of connection, a linear progression of the vibration in which at some point the vibration is at A, but not B. Simultaneous eliminates the factor of linear distance, which makes more sense of interconnectedness. However, the method must be physical, since only the physical exists.
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by osgart »

total assumption that only the physical exists, prove it. The ether matrix makes sense. Science will always be confounded if they don't wake up to the weirdness of reality.

there by logic must be such a force that manipulates matter .

it proves there are two different kinds of people in the world. one's who see more, and one's who see less.

You should take quantum entanglement at face value and wake up to the omnipresent forces of reality.

art, form,and function is of an ethereal nature. a creative force must be at work if you take things at face value.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Walker »

Well, there’s energy, but in the big picture that’s physical since matter and energy are interchangeable.

Besides, non-linear simultaneous effects are rather weird. In fact, what could be weirder other than fantasy.

Watch you don't get all those thoughts quantum entangled.

:lol:
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by osgart »

ha ha 8)
Michael MD
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Michael MD »

Walker wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 11:15 pm I don’t get the linear aspect. Simultaneous connection over vast distances would eliminate time and thus any rational requirement for the linear.
In my ether-model, Time is a rate which, for atomic physical entities like ourselves, reaches backward to the rate of vibration of the elemental ether unit. (The elemental ether unit is the ultimate "element," or constituent, of quantum units and everything else.) -If the surroundings are highly energic, as it would be near a planet or other magnetic-energy body, the rate of vibration increases, and time passes faster. -In far outer space, well removed from the energizing influences of cosmic bodies, the ether is less energized, the elemental ether units vibrate slower, and time passes slower. -This is a different model for Time than the standard physics model.

The concept in my model for quantum entanglement regarding "simultaneous connection" between quantum units, is that in quantum entanglement, it is radiated packets of ether energy, conveyed by multiple minute elemental ether units, which forms a conducted impulse through the ether matrix between the two quantum units, that is responsible for the entanglement.
Michael MD
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Michael MD »

Walker wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 11:16 pm Even vibration from point A to B requires a progression of connection, a linear progression of the vibration in which at some point the vibration is at A, but not B. Simultaneous eliminates the factor of linear distance, which makes more sense of interconnectedness. However, the method must be physical, since only the physical exists.
The basic concept for how vibration in the ether works, is that the elemental ether units, as they vibrate outwardly, form "loose" connections from one elemental unit to the next one. (You could think of it as the elemental units having "nodes" which transiently connect up.) -Since the basic ether units are elemental, they are identical to each other, so that as they form these connections, the resonances are perfectly linear.
Michael MD
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Michael MD »

Walker wrote: Wed May 24, 2017 11:16 pm Even vibration from point A to B requires a progression of connection, a linear progression of the vibration in which at some point the vibration is at A, but not B. Simultaneous eliminates the factor of linear distance, which makes more sense of interconnectedness. However, the method must be physical, since only the physical exists.
The basic concept for how vibration in the ether works, is that the elemental ether units, as they vibrate outwardly, form "loose" connections from one elemental unit to the next one. (You could think of it as the elemental units having "nodes" which transiently connect up.) -Since the basic ether units are elemental, they are identical to each other, so that as they form these connections, the resonances are perfectly linear.
Michael MD
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Michael MD »

Walker wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 1:35 am Well, there’s energy, but in the big picture that’s physical since matter and energy are interchangeable.

Besides, non-linear simultaneous effects are rather weird. In fact, what could be weirder other than fantasy.

Watch you don't get all those thoughts quantum entangled.

:lol:
In my ether model, you need to conceptualize "energy" differently than energy interactions with quantum forces. -Since the energy in the ether of my model is perfectly linear, it would not generate any heat. The customary laws of quantum thermodynamics would not apply. Quantum forces are non-linear, and generate heat. Heat is non linearity. If you think of the differences between the two kinds of energy in this kind of way, it's not actually "weird."
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by ken »

Michael MD wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:40 pm Even if you were to cite physics theories about Higgs bosons creating matter, you'd still have to account for where Higgs bosons came from. -There had to be a starting point - space itself.
Why do you propose there "had to be a starting point"?
Michael MD
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Michael MD »

I think most people would agree that intuitively, cause-and-effect dictates that there had to be a starting point for the universe, after which changes appeared, leading to our kind of world. It's an assumption based on logic and intuition.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by Impenitent »

watchmaker, watchmaker...

-Imp
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by ken »

Michael MD wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:16 pm I think most people would agree that intuitively, cause-and-effect dictates that there had to be a starting point for the universe, after which changes appeared, leading to our kind of world. It's an assumption based on logic and intuition.
Does it really matter what most people think? If so, how and why does it matter?

To Me, and I might be the only One, intuitively, cause-and-effect dictates that there could NOT be a starting point for the Universe, nor for anything for that matter. The only actual defining starting point for any thing is done only by the separate labels we human beings give to and place on things.

How did you come to the conclusion that cause-and-affect dictates a starting point? I am more inclined to see that cause-and-effect logically and intuitively does not have a starting point. Maybe you could give a logical explanation of how exactly cause-and-effect could dictate a starting point?

I would have thought if some thing was caused by some thing prior, then logically there always has to be some thing prior causing-and-effecting. Where and how could there be a start, to any thing, let alone the Universe, Itself?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: A Challenge to the "Big Bang" Type of World-View

Post by ken »

Michael MD wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:42 pm It makes more sense than saying anything (like matter) just exists without a model for its origin. No, space had to come first.
Does assuming there was an origin make sense? Does assuming anything, before actually knowing, really make much sense?

Why do you assume space had to come first?

Why can there not always have been matter, with a distance between those particles of matter, called space?
Post Reply