The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points

Using earth derived quantum evidence for cosmic-origin theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,097 times Debate No: 55961
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Physicists now base their models of Cosmology on earth-based quantum obervations. In formulating a model like the "Big Bang," they assume that the origin of forces in the Cosmos follow the same patterns as our familiar earthbound phenomena.

This is to propose a new way of thinking about cosmic origins, based on the concept that forces more-ethereal than earthbound quantum forces are what underlie the origin of forces in the beginning, in Space, and that we should stop relying on earthbound quantum data ("quantum empiricism") in that area of theory.

I propose that Space came first. (Just because our inertial-world senses perceive apparent "solidity" around us does not mean that the elemental building blocks and elemental forces underlying "solid" bodies are truly "solid matter.") -I propose that in the very beginning, elemental spatial points were oscillating symmetrically in space in all directions., due to an inherent self-compatibility of Space. Eventually, this oscillation led to oscillatory fatigue, such that adjacent spatial points fell toward each other in a curving "Yin and Yang" fashion. Then, re-equilibration of the point-pairs (reversibility would be a necessary feature of any such process) with the original oscillatory setting brought about an interaction between unlike point-entities, breaking perfect spatial symmetry, and leading to directional (energic type) elemental, etheric, forces - a universal ether medium.

These etheric forces, being derived from a curvational ("Yin Yang") process and an oscillational process, would be curvational and pulsational, or vibrational. Being pulsational and curvational, these elemental forces would develop "nodes" which would serve as points of resonance between etheric energy units. -This model implies there is only one true form of energy, which is elemental, vibrational, and resonational. Larger energy units, such as electrons, are built up from the resonances of the elemental units.

The quantum-order effects physicists find here on Earth, such as spin, vectors, and so on, are merely superimposed "peudo" energy effects belonging to the larger energy units, but but the true energy process belongs to the elemental units which came from all the points of Space.

I submit that any other model for the origin of cosmic systems would have led to chaos, not uniform, orderly, organization of systems like atoms, planets, and so on.


I accept the challenge. From what I can understand, Pro contends that "earth derived" quantum evidence is the basis for popular cosmological models, and posits a new hypothesis instead. Unfortunately, it appears that what pro is positied appears to be pseudo-scientific babble, or at least will remain that way until pro can explain the new model further.

Concerns about the model proposed:

It appears that pro is slapping together several scientific sounding words, making some new words up (curvational) and hoping that the resulting sentences have meaning. I would like pro to give more information on the following items and terms using reference to modern physical concepts:
  • "Spatial points" that were oscillating
  • "self-compatibility of space"
  • how "oscillatory fatigue" (a process in which crack propagation in oscillating metal structures can lead to failure) can be applied to points in space
  • The mechanism of oscillatory fatigue
  • Where the energy of this oscillatory fatigue goes
  • Given we observe spontaneous symmetry breaking, I request a mathematical formulation of the spatial potential
  • "etheric forces"
  • "cruvational process"
  • "nodes"
Pro also makes the claim that "any other model for the origin of cosmic systems would have led to chaos". I wish for pro to support his claim rather than just assert it, and demonstrate theoretically or with reference to peer-reviewed articles how modern cosmology would lead to chaos. I would also ask pro, given he is disagreeing with the field of cosmologists, on what grounds is he basing his disagreement. Does he have access to data cosmologists don't, or does he believe that, without any formal instruction in cosmology, he has managed to outsmart the entire field of cosmologists?

Predictions of the model proposed

I request pro post a theoretical formulation of his model so that it can be tested against cosmological data. In addition, I request pro give a list of predictions which would allow his model to be tested.

Misunderstanding of modern cosmology

Pro states that modern cosmologicl models are based on quantum derivations. This is not correct. The Big Bang model of cosmic evolution is neither a quantum theory, nor is it based on quantum evidence. In fact, I wish it was, as uniting quantum mechanics and general relativity would then be a solved problem - but unfortuantely no one has found a way to do it so far. For those interest in getting slightly more technical, Big Bang cosmology essentially follows the Friedman equations [1], which have nothing to do with QM.

In addition to this, the evidence supporting a Big Bang model, including (but definitely not limited to) supernovae data (and general redshift data), large structure formation, BAO oscillations and the power spectrum of the CMB are all not quantum effect, and none of them rely on Earth bound laboratory experiments.

It would seem then that pro has misunderstood the basis of modern cosmological theories as well.


Pro, misunderstanding modern cosmology to have a theoretical basis in quantum mechanics, has proposed a new theory of... something. Pro fails to explain the shortcomings and observed problems of modern cosmological theories, and fails to address why his proposed theory is superior, nor how it is theoretically formulated, nor what predictions it makes, nor how it can be tested. Pro's proposed theory seems to be a nonsensical pseudoscientific stringing together of scientific sounding words that, at the moment, makes absolutely no sense to someone currently working in an interntional cosmology team. Pro's proposal is at the moment but fancy words strung together; if pro wants to make it scientific, he must address my previous points and make his model theoretically sound and testable.

(Note1) I am part of the Dark Energy Survey team as an honours student, in the OzDES (Australian) arm, for context. Proof can be provided as requesed


Debate Round No. 1


This is my argument for ether theory of cosmic origins, versus the Challenger's presentation of a quantist's overview.

First, it is questioned: what is the nature of spatial points? -The concept in the ether model I present is that of elemental points in Space - a setting that cannot be duplicated with any quantum-forces approach. However, the theoretic concept is that of shimmering juxtaposed elements, a setting which is self-enabling and which produces yaws among the points which are maintained through a cycling of configurational gaps which are shared by different points.

To the question: what is self-compatibility of Space? -Again, this would be a setting involving elemental points of Space and thus cannot be duplicated in our quantum setting. However, the concept is that of high-energy very-closely-apposed point-pairs which are similar to each other, and arranged in all conceivable alignments relative to other points.

Your next question, what is the difference between "oscillatory fatigue of spatial points" and the metal fatigue occurring in oscillating metal structures, is answered by noting that structural fatigue involves the inertial realm of energics, wheras in Space the process would be non-inertial (and extremely etheric.)

The answer to the next question, where does the energy of spatial-point oscillatory fatigue go, is best answered by referring back to the answer to the first question, and the concept of "yaws" produced and shared by adjacent points, the yaws being maintained by a cycling process within the newly appearing ether of space.

The next question, which requests "the math" for the concept of symmetry-breaking in the ether origins model, cannot be addressed because, again, we have no way to duplicate the extremely etheric space-origins setting in our quantum setting.

Answers to the next three questions - which request amplification of the ether-origins model's concepts of "etheric forces," "curvational process," and "nodes" - I don't feel require amplification. -There are numerous examples in particle experiments that show that non-inertial quantum-scale energy units follow curved paths relative to one another, and for the ether-model presented here, this curving type of process would have to have come down from ever-smaller etheroidal and eventually, elemental etheric units. The concept of resonational "nodes" is intuitive: the production of resonative nodes would arise from the combined effect of curvational forces which were derived from the "multiply shared yaw gaps" and the vibrations, from the pulsational oscillation that initiated the process.

The next question asks what makes me think I am smarter than cosmology quantists? I have to answer this with the admission that my ideas stem from an obscure informational source I can't go into in detail here. However, this does not seem germane to the debate.

My opponent states that the Big Bang model "is not a quantum theory." -I would categorically oppose this statement, because our data which the BBT is based on are obtained almost entirely from observations made from our earthbound quantum-forces-mediated setting. Even if theorists go from there to formulate partially-non-quantum constructs, they still are using quantum-derived data.

The question citing the Fiedmann Equations as a formidable reference point for deriving cosmological theories, I would answer similarly to the last question, with my concept that we are mistakenly counting on quantum data for cosmic theory. The Friedmann Equations largely rely on Einsteinian General Relativity. -This gets one into a complicated area of scientific history. Just prior to Einstein's deriving his relativity constructs, there was a famous experiment called the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX). It proposed that a universal ether would possess a "wind" effect, and that this wind could be detected by measuring optical diffractional differences of light measured at different angles. The MMX found no wind effect and concluded that this proved there is no ether. The MMX was meticulously performed and received tremendous publicity, and soon, physicists like Einstein were coming up with constructs based on the "no ether" concept. -In sum, I would simply submit that both quantum mechanics (QM) and General Realtivity (GR) are both nothing more than "children" of our earthbound quantum empiricism.

I would again counter the arguments about supernovae, redshifts, large structure formation and the CMB as basically involving the same problem from my vantage point as an etherist: they all rely on quantum data. -Specifically, the CMB would not necessarily be a remnant of a Big Bang, but rather represent the effects of unappreciated sub-quantum forces (etheroidal and etheric-elemental in scale) which are affecting the quantally-observable bodies' behavior in Space.

Lastly, the question whether there is any way to test this ether model: I do have a design for a field-test (based on information from an obscure source). The test would involve generating a selectively-etheric force-field and measuring densities. If an etheric energy is acting, it should be possible to detect a predicted decrease in the density of materials inside the test system. The test would be expensive to do and I don't have the funds to do it.


Thanks to con for the response, though I do feel impelled to point out that neither is "quantist" a proper word, but I also very clearly pointed out in my response that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the support for Big Bang cosmology.

On clarification:

I appreciate the attempted clarification of the concepts used originally by con, however I feel that now we have taken simply another step down a pseudoscientific rabbit hole. To take the clarification of these "elemental spatial points" to be "shimmering juxtaposed elements, a setting which is self-enabled and which produces yaws amuong the points which are maintained through a cycling of configurational gaps which are shared by different points", presents to me a lot of large words that, whilst having meaning individually, seem reminiscient only of woo (

Given my complete inability to be able to understand the idea being presented conceptually, I ask for the whatever mathematical background created by con to be presented to better aid my understanding and convince me that there is any substance in cons claims.

I would also enquire about the "obscure informational source", as I feel an understanding of the background to cons ideas would be also be a useful tool in aiding my, and other reader's, understanding of con's position.

On the purported quantum background

I have con again stating "quantum derived data" but then again does not justify this claim. Con simply continues to assert that observations like redshifting, large scale structure and the CMB all rely on quantum data, which is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, I cannot simply link to published articles showing how the evidence is used or why it is predicted without making this conversation too technical, but if con would like to explain on what grounds these hypothesis are quantum mechanical, or rely on quantum mechanical descriptions, I would be happy to go into more detail in my final comment.

For a simple example, we can just look at redshifting. Redshifting is the process of measuring the "elongation" of light as space expands. This is directly analogous to how an object receding away from you sounds deeper in pitch (elongated) than an object coming towards you. The sound of a race car as it passes by, for instance. This is a classical prediction, and was well understood before quantum mechanics was discovered.

Con also details the MMX experiment, which was an experiment that falsified static models of the ether. Of course, the MMX experiment is but one in a wide range of experiments having conclusively disproved all proposed aetheric theories. I have uploaded a scan from an old physics textbook detailing the most influential of those experiments (, to illustrate that every proposed athetic theory has been experimentally disconfirmed in multiple ways. I am curious why con believes his theory would not be so falsified.

I would also be interested in having con justify his assertion that the results of QM experiments are not valid (they are "pseudo" effects) outside of the planet. At the moment, this is both unjustified, makes no theoretical sense (QM is not dependent on gravity being a specific strength to start working) and also completely contradicted by evidence. If QM was not viable outside of Earth, than we should not observe QM effects outside of earth. A common undergraduate level concept of quantised energy is that of atomic transitions - in fact, it was this discovery in 1905 by Einstein that earned him the Nobel Prize ( If QM is not valid outside of Earth, I would ask then why we observe clear emission lines from atomic transitions in all stars and galaxies we observe? (

Testing the model

I am glad con states he has an experiment to test the model he has developed. If this is so, can I ask for the mathematical relationship con is going to be comparing his model against to determine if it explains the data? I would ask more questions about this test, but just like the original clarification, I have no idea what the conceprs con is talking about are.


Con has so far failed to present a scientifically viable or rigorous model for his idea, and has instead resorted to woo to try and make his idea appear credible. Con has presented no supportive background for his idea, and is unable to present any mathematical framework supportive of it.

Con's statements that modern cosmology is based on data pertaining to quantum mechanics is demonstrably incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of modern cosmology.

Con's attack on the universality of quantum mechanics is logically unsupported, theoretically nonsencial and directly contradicted by both intragalactic and extragalactic evidence.

In short, con has failed to make any form of convincing argument for the validity of his model, nor the invalidity of modern cosmological models.

Debate Round No. 2


I will try to address my opponent's points one by one as before, although it appears to me that his arguments now seem less inquisitive regarding my alternative cosmological model and his questions seem less confrontational and more assertional-consensus. I gather that his impression was that the details I added in my second debate did not measure up to what he desired.

He was dissatisfied with my attempt to add theoretic details about "elemental spatial points" and how this could have produced an elemental energic ether. -One theoretic detail I could add at this point would involve the concept that once a focal "anomaly" appeared in the otherwise-homogeneous first-causal Space, this exact change would then have propagated throughout Space. That would be an important part of the explanation for how a single "Yin and Yang" "disturbance" could have led to a uniform elemental ether in all of Space and thus how a uniform unit-based medium was established which could then serve as the template for organized cosmic systems like atoms, planets, and so on.

As for my opponent's repeated request for "mathematical substantiation" for my Model, I can only reiterate the counter argument I made before, that inasmuch as we do not have an ether-based technology or any way of measuring or quantifying etheric phenomena, in our earthbound quantally-mediated setting, of course I cannot give mathematical evidence for my Model.

As for my Opponent's request for further information about the "obscure source" of information I mentioned in my last Argument, I will only mention that cryptography (code breaking) was involved. There is an element of confidentiality here, with the related question, should there be indiscriminate dissemination of those details. In any case, I would again state my opinion that it is not german to this debate.

My Opponent states his disagreement with my argument regarding redshifts, large scale structures, and the CMB - my position that they just represent more examples of our using quantum derived observational data, and thus do not necessarily demand correlations with my Ether Model (due to our lacking the etheric data needed for such a comparison), He rejects my position and remains an adherent of the consensus position. -I might make another try to clarify my position on these points. In my Ether Model, the near-earth realm, where we make our observations of the cosmos from, is more magnetically-energized, and more highly quantized, than Space. Thus, in my Model, Space is more etheric, and there is a disconnect between our earthbound setting and what is actually going on in Space, as opposed to what we assume is going on according to our basic understanding of how quantally-mediated phenomena behave when mostly-quantal forces are acting.

It might be clearer if I use a specific example of how this disconnect manifests, specifically, the question of Time and how time can vary. -It is known that time can pass at different rates, for example, the rate time passes for a body in motion compared to a body at rest, or the rate time passes for a body in space, compared to the rate time passes near the earth's surface. -In my Ether Model, this is answered in the following way: Time is a rate, and reflects the rate of vibration of the elemental units comprising a body (see my sub model for the production of vibrational resonance for elemental ether units). -So when a body is in motion, its elemental energic units are resonating at an increased rate with the elemental units in the body's surroundings, which raises the vibratory rate of the elemental units in the body, and changes the rate of the passing of time for the body. (This type of rate change for time has been shown for atomic clocks.) -Similarly, if a body is in Space (in an orbiting satellite, for example), its elemental units are now resonating with the more-etheric, less energized/less quantized) elemental units in Space, the body's elemental vibratory rate slows, and the body's time rate slows. -In my Ether Model, the vibratory rate of a body's (say a clock's) elemental units is passed along to larger units via resonance: from elemental ether units to etheroidal units, then subatomic and atomic, and then to the (inertially energic) clock itself.

Maybe this specific example of how this Ether Model is applied will make the Model clearer to my Opponent.

Lastly, my Opponent cites the fact that there were repeated attempts later in time to refine the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX), such as by Dayton Miller, and even Albert Michelson himself (who always maintained that he himself believed in the ether, although it had been his MMX that brought down the theory of an ether.) -From my perspective as an etherist, the "damage had already been done." It was the MMX itself which led to subsequent theories of the cosmos, such as Einsteinian General Relativity, which were predicated on the concept that the cosmos now had to be explained without the presence of a propagative ether medium. (One should also remember that in the time of the MMX, physicists believed that "solid particles" like electrons moved through space like throwing a baseball, and that electrons orbit atomic nuclei in neat discrete orbitals - concepts that even quantists today don't accept. Yet GR lives on...

My Opponent might at this point cite observations such as gravitational lensing as support for GR. Yet bending of light from distant stars, around the Sun, can be explained with the Ether Model presented here. -When photonics are still in the neighborhood of the distant star, they are highly energized. Then (in my Ether Model) they resonate with photonic units in space (especially in the spatial pathway directed toward another star, such as our Sun), and those spatial photonics are much less energized than those near the distant star, so the star beam's units lose energy via resonating with the spatial photonics. Then, nearing our Sun, the starbeam's units once again encounter highly photonically energized units to resonate with, which "bends the beam" (as we see it from Earth.) -GR is not necessary to account for the lensing effect.


I intend to keep my final response short, as there does not appear to be much to address.

Con has again attempted to explain his theory, and continues to simply attempt to use woo. My opponent has failed to present his theory in any way that can be coherently understood, even by someone currently engaged in cosmology projects. "Ying and yang disturbance", "focal anamoly", "first-causal space", "uniform elemental ether", all of these are nonsensical terms without quantative or coherent description. Con also admits to being unable to provide a mathematical formulation in any way for his hypothesis, and admits that we possess no way of "measuring or quantifying etheric phenomena". Based on this, con's theory can safely be dismisses a pseudoscientific notions until a rigorous, testable, understandable hypothesis can be presented.

Con also continues to misunderstand modern cosmology by again simply asserting - even after my explanation of how the evidence is gathered and why it is classical in nature - that they use quantum derived data. Con then also fails again to actually support his initial assertion that quantum mechanical observations are only accurate around the planet Earth. Which means that even if con was correct in his idea the modern cosmology is reliant on quantum mechanics (it isn't), he still has no ground to stand on.

Finally, con simply asserts that his theory could also explain all the phenomenon that currently vindicates modern cosmology and general relativity. Given tha con has admitted he cannot provide any form of mathematical model which would create any predictions, this is obviously just another unfounded assertion.


In short, this has been a disappointing debate.

Con has failed to provide a single argument as to why quantum mechanics is not valid outside Earth's gravity well.

Con has failed to deal with observational evidence of QM working as predicted over extragalactic distances.

Con has failed to point out any problems in modern cosmological models.

Con has failed to produce a coherent alternative model to modern cosmology.

In short, con has made pages of assertions, and no substantative arguments, and his disagreement with the entire field of scientific experts betrays a lack of any formal education on the issue or understanding of modern cosmology.

I wish con the best of luck with his obscurely-cryptographically-sourced idea, however I feel that a lot of education on cosmology and science in general should be undertaken instead of online debates.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Samreay 7 years ago
I assure you, I didn't talk about fringe cosmology at all. Everything I've bought up should be in any introduction to cosmology course.
Posted by MichaelB 7 years ago
As "Con," while I appreciated to chance to debate my views in favor of an ether model for cosmic origins, I wish the debate had focused more on the crux of the debate, i.e., whether the Big Bang theory or an ether model like mine is more rational to address cosmic origins. The debate tended to be shifted toward peripheral areas of theories on cosmology, where my opponent had the advantage of being able to cite consensus views from the literature, but that made it too extensive an area of theory to debate meaningfully here.
Posted by Samreay 7 years ago
Thanks for the vote skepticalone. If you do have time, I have the final out of my "three debates to get verified" that needs voting. Its about ID, and I am kicking myself for not increasing the character limit because it mean't I couldn't dissect my opponents final argument (that I could respond to) in all the ways I wanted.

If you have time, its over here:

But if not, all is good, cheers mate.
Posted by Skepticalone 7 years ago
You're welcome! I have had debates I have put hard work into go unvoted. It sucks! I would be happy to vote in any future debates of yours. I do my best to remain impartial.
Posted by Samreay 7 years ago
Thanks for the vote, Skepticalone.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sidewalker 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's premise was misguided, his argument was incoherent, to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, it isn't even wrong. I suspect he is trolling rather than serious. Pro demonstrated a pretty good handle on the subject matter and was a lot more patient with Con's nonsense than I would be.
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed Con was not really sure what he was saying himself. The Michelson Morley Experiment mentioned by Pro was not adequately answered by Con. In fact, Con seemed to agree it was the death of the eather theory because of the other theories (such as Einstein's relativity) coming about soon after. This was a huge factor from my point of view. Also, there were several words with no definition in Con's arguments which supports the "woo" assertion by Pro. Con has no sources, and Pro was well supported (even if they were Wiki). Arguments, S&G, and sources to Pro.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.