[Brian Jakub]

Mr. Nobody

I am glad you have a strong belief. But, a belief should always be leading you to a question or measurement with an observation that allows you to say I know.



I also believe that Darwinian evolution can logically be argued as a possibility with a slight, or some would consider major modification. Stephen Gould opened that door with his theory "Puncuated Equilibrium", which states evolution made dramatic jumps at certian times in the past. The problem is for those dramatic jumps to be statistically possible they would have needed some kind of intelligent guidance. I think it can logically be argued that the system or nature has evolved an underlying intelligence overtime to guide this evolution. This intelligence may only be detectable in the statistical analysis of the changes in genetic material as it evolves to higher life forms. It appears to me, statistical analysis demands that, without some sort of guidance the extreme variance and changes in the genetic code from lower to higher life forms, evolution is unattainable by chance. To me the argument should be, is what that intelligence is (an automated system like the innate behavior of animals or true intelligence making decisions like us humans.)

I too, believe that everything we observe today on the fundamental level appears to be randomn. But, there are some things in quantum mechanics that demand some sort of initial order for us to even be able to measure and observe, such as Planck's constant, fine structure constant, and relativity. No matter how far back we look into the universe those basic parameters appeared to exist. This is another place where it appears statistically impossible to have happened by chance. I think there had to be an underlying intelligence that at least set up the basic parameters for energy to be placed into, to form the patterns in the standing waves of energy we observe today as matter, and the medium that carries all electromagnetic energy, known as the aether.

If your belief demands that the wrong questions be asked, or the right questions be ignored out of hand, how will you get the right answers?

-----------------------------------
Dave,

I agree with you that the aether is the same stuff sub-atomic particles are made of.

I think there are two ways for an energy pattern to exist in the universe, one as an ever expanding wave, such as a radiowave traveling across the universe, or a wave traveling across a pond after a stone is dropped into it, or as a standing wave, as energy is stored in the space filled by an atom.

Since every atom of an element is basically the same, and all elements are constructed following the same basic rules, this implies some amount, maybe even a large amount of order, in matter. I think this is also shown by the distinct patterns observed in the spin of sub-atomic particles ( ie,1/2 spin of matter particles and whole spin of force particles).

If matter containing such order is what makes up the aether, then I think this would explain why the aether appears as a flat, or ordered matrix in the vacuum of space, and is bent or disorder where it comes into contact with matter, as Einstien showed in his General Theory of Relativity.

I think this would agree with David Bohm's "Implicate Order", and Rod Johnson's and David Wilcox's "Sequential Perspective".