Using earth derived quantum evidence for cosmic-origin theory

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.