It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLL: Are you Relativist or Dynamic Aetherist?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
This is just a simple poll to discover who on ATS is a follower of Einstein's Relativity Theory?
and who is a follower of Tesla's Dynamic Aether Theory?

I would ask ATS members to state which camp they fall into and a brief description of why they have decided upon a particular theory.

Let me begin with my own disposition which is towards the Tesla Dynamic Aether Theory.

Now although i am no expert on physics, i have been an avid follower/reader of the various theoretical attempts at explaining our reality over the years and i have come to the conclusion/gut feeling that Relativity is wrong, for me it implies a prison from which we cannot escape and is full of ambiguities and bodged fixes that defy logic and observation.

Tesla Dynamic Aether Theories however, seem to offer a simple elegant way out of our current dogma towards the possibility of FTL travel and unlimited energy.
The Dynamic Aether theory can explain the Casimir effect and the Accelerating Universal Expansion where Relativity cannot.

I will not go into great detail as yet, as it is my hope that once we have established who is in which camp, we can begin to have those threads detailing the pros and cons of each theory.And i look forward to a vigorous defense of each.

And so i ask you ATS members...

Are you a Relativist? or are you a Dynamic Aetherist?

And why?

Cosmic...




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I don't think the speed of light is a barrier, but I think that primarily because I think we have been visited, so my reasoning isn't scientific, its anecdotal.
Engineers have told me that the constant in Einstien's equation contains too much wiggle room to be entirely accurate.
ergo My opinion on this subject is uneducated.
I think that the leading edge of the photon's waveform does break the speed of light as it propogates.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Stand with Tesla.
His work remains unusable to us through illuminati lies.
But if you read what is available a different model will be evident.
Growing up in science you will always get a professor that tells
you we are told working models that might not be the best but
have been agreed upon as teachable.
We can't teach what Tesla discovered?
Why?
It's not because any model will not fit.
The reason is where the Tesla theory will lead.
Tesla said he could make straight electricity.
He said he could make radium.
Radium in a small amount was said to be able to power a town
with electricity.
Radiation alpha and beta rays are electricity.
The followers of Dr Moray use lithium compounds that exhibit
radiation on demand and the generators are still made today
and overseas shipments are some how sought to be prevented
by the commerce department or other science authority
according to a Mr Lyne.
Only one science discovery by Tesla not told or used.
Does Tesla completely outline this method, we can't tell.


lyne lithium


[PDF] William Lyne's Research Supports Ultraviolet Light Transmutation File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Lithium is the most active of all elements, and is perhaps the most ... Space Aliens from the Pentagon second edition August 1995 by William R. Lyne ... fedgeno.com/.../william-lynes-research-supports-ultraviolet-light-transmutation.pdf - Similar


Thats the first link.
ED: Well what is the aether theory it was not scraped it is used by
the Illuminati. A double set of books.
There is enough money behind them to set up many erroneous
projects. They do not send any one in the Tesla direction as standard
practice. So does the aether theory include radiation forever to be
a constant electrical source. Or radiation to collect Helium for use
as a working gas for mechanical generators.
The Tesla defined a medium that carried the waves from his coils as
sound or pressure waves.
This should still be true.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
To my understanding, the aether theory was proven wrong with the Michelson–Morley experiment. I don't think either are entirely correct, although each may explain some effects that that the other model can not explain.

[edit on 21/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I’m sorry to disappoint you, Cos, but Tesla’s ether was a gas; mine is a solid. I’m no mathematician, but I’m pretty sure both special and general relativity are compatible with my model (except that GR could use an adjustment to account for the finite speed of gravity). For that matter, it should be a simple matter for a mathematician to derive special relativity from my model of particles (pairs or groups of shear waves orbiting one another at the speed of light).

So I believe in both relativity and ether, but not Tesla's brand of ether.

While Tesla was undoubtedly a genius, I think his greatest talent was in the science of flim flam. He raised large amounts of cash to persue projects that had no chance of working. His promises of free energy were just pipe dreams.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Michelson-Morley merely proved that Earth does not drag the ether with it. This in no way falsifies ether theories, such as my own, which do not involve ether dragging.

In my model, particles consist of pairs or groups of ethereal shear (transverse) waves orbiting one another at the speed of light (which is also a shear wave). At the Planck scale, ether resembles a foam. The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a super-universe. Each cubic meter of our ether consists of googols of sub-universe galaxies. To drag the ether, ethereal waves would have to rip apart the cosmic foam of the subunivese. I suspect both the shear waves and the pressure waves (dark energy) are such tiny ripples that they barely shake sub-universe galaxies as they pass. So ether dragging simply has no place in my model.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I’m sorry to disappoint you, Cos, but Tesla’s ether was a gas; mine is a solid. I’m no mathematician, but I’m pretty sure both special and general relativity are compatible with my model

So I believe in both relativity and ether, but not Tesla's brand of ether.
Well if yours is a solid then yes, Einstein would approve because he made quite clear that experimental evidence shows it cannot be like a liquid or gas:

Ether and the Theory of Relativity --- Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.


When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the ether hypothesis found fresh support. It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid.
So you've got a transverse wave problem if you try to hypothesize a fluid (or a gas) ether, only a solid will allow transverse waves according to Einstein.
====================================


Originally posted by Cosmic4life
This is just a simple poll to discover who on ATS is a follower of Einstein's Relativity Theory?
and who is a follower of Tesla's Dynamic Aether Theory?
This may be a false dichotomy, it doesn't necessarily have to be either or and there are other options to believe in as Phil pointed out.

I did a search for "Dynamic Aether Theory" and only got 9 hits and one of them was in ATS which is almost a record low number of hits. One of the hits I got may explain why. When someone on physicsforums asked about Dynamic Aether Theory and described why they have ruled out a static Aether theory but still think a dynamic aether theory may be possible, the response was that the proposal was the same as "Ether Drag":

www.physicsforums.com...


Essentially what you are proposing is the same as "Ether drag", a proposal that has already been made. The problem with it is that it doesn't jive with certain astronomical observations, namely stellar aberration...
To return to light, Ether drag would mean that there is would be no stellar aberration and we woudn't see the stars shift positions.But we do see stellar aberration and the M&M experiment does not detect a aether drift, either.This rules out both rigid Aether(Aether drift and stellar aberration) and a "fluid" Aether(no Aether drift and no stellar aberration.)
I'm not allowed to post the whole explanation, just a snippet, so you have to refer to that link and read the thread, it's quite interesting.

Edit to add:basically he's saying we have experimental evidence that rules out both static and dynamic aether.

I'm open to new ideas and new experiments, but the experimental results so far contradict the existence of aether. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, it might only mean we haven't come up with the right theory and experiments for it yet. When we do conduct experiments that detect its existence, then you might convince me, until then all I have to go on are the experimental results we have which say there is no aether, static or dynamic.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I'm neither a Relativist or Dynamic Aetherist. I'm a kinetic sapient scientist.




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
... When we do conduct experiments that detect its existence, then you might convince me, until then all I have to go on are the experimental results we have which say there is no aether, static or dynamic.


The recent Chinese experiments in so-called “quantum teleportation” might be what you’re waiting for. They claim to have sent information via quantum entangled photons instantaneously over a distance of 16 km. They clarify that the signal was instantaneous only in the reference frame of what they’re calling the “quantum ether”. In Earth’s reference frame, they say the signal arrived before it was sent.

I suppose they invented this “quantum ether” to avoid making the unpopular claim that there is a luminiferous ether. If there is any kind of ether in which a signal may cross a finite distance instantaneously, that means that the two events, sending and receiving, were simultaneous in that reference frame. According to special relativity, events that are simultaneous in one reference frame cannot be simultaneous in another reference frame (the relative motion of which is not perpendicular to the line connecting the two events). This is made clear by the SR time formula, t’ = γ(t-(vx/c²)).

A reasonable guess at our motion relative to the ether is that it is the same as our motion relative to the cosmic microwave background.

Hey; I’m straying from the topic. I explained all this in the discussion of “Quantum teleportation achieved over ten miles of free space”, just in time for that discussion to die of old age. I invite you to revive that topic and respond to my post there.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Just a small correction to aid the understanding of Tesla Dynamic Aether Theory.
Tesla states that this Aether acts as a solid to heat and light while at the same time behaves as a fluid to solid matter.
At no time did he ever state that his Aether was a gas.
I hope this clarifies just what kind of Aether Tesla was describing.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Cosmic4life]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Just a small correction to aid the understanding of Tesla Dynamic Aether Theory.
Tesla states that this Aether acts as a solid to heat and light while at the same time behaves as a fluid to solid matter.
I hope this clarifies just what kind of Aether Tesla was describing.


That might have been a statement by Tesla saying what others
have said how the ether behaves.
Not necessarily his finding of the 'medium'.

As strictly as I can recall the Tesla findings with his coils revealed
an insulating liquid with immersed carriers as the 'medium'.
Thus he moved electricity with high voltage to overcome the insulation
and moved the carriers back and forth with frequency finding a one
way flow.

See starting in Lecture

ED: As you can tell that would be radio waves.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phractal Phil
 


Now Phil i will not stand for any description of Tesla as a flim-flam or con-artist.

Tesla has to be ranked next to da Vinci in stature as a scientist and an inventor/engineer.

He invented radio not Marconi.
He invented AC current which we all use.
He would have delivered free energy from resonating the Schumann cavity if Morgan had not blackballed and derailed him.
Simply google list of inventions by Nikola Tesla.
There are 300, happy reading.
Oh and those longitudinal Scalar waves, yep Nikola Tesla.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Michelson-Morley merely proved that Earth does not drag the ether with it. This in no way falsifies ether theories, such as my own, which do not involve ether dragging.


Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the Earth does not travel through an aether, rather that:

A. The Earth would have to drag the aether with it.
or
B. The Aether doesn't exist.

en.wikipedia.org...–Morley_experiment

[edit on 21/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


The next to last paragraph of the Wikipedia article you cited says:

Einstein derived the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction from the relativity postulate; thus his description of special relativity was also consistent with the apparently null results of most experiments (though not, as was recognized at the 1928 meeting, with Miller's observed seasonal effects). Today special relativity is generally considered the "solution" to the Michelson–Morley null result. However, this was not universally recognized at the time. As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a different concept of ether that was not a "ponderable medium" but something of significance nonetheless.


What this means is that the length contraction (together with time dilation, which is not mentioned) of the Michelson-Morley apparatus exactly nullifies the naively predicted effect of the ether wind. The only effect SR doesn’t nullify is the effect of ether dragging. So the null result of the experiment rules out ether dragging, but it is consistent with an ether wind, which this type of apparatus cannot detect.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Hi Cosmic,

An interesting Question, one which I feel will be on the cards for quite some time to come, as the Science establishments grip on 'The Standard Model' is so tight any evidence to the contrary has mathematicians working all the hours to come up with a 'fix' to ensure the standard model is retained.

Both Einstein and Tesla had descriptions of our reality, neither in my opinion had it wrong.

Though Where Einstein found something that was outside of his model he would try his best to steer it back to his route theory, Tesla didn't have a route theory and so his experimentation led him down a road with no restrictions and the conclusions he made were logical yet unpalatable for many physicist due to the large leaps in the theory with no direct math to back it up.

But what about today, what about our understanding of Quantum Mechanics and the two ways of thinking of these two eminent scientists??

Firstly and fore-mostly, Although there are many many unanswered questions Einstein has a theory that can be tested and found to be correct at our level of reality.

Tesla however until this very day was unable to produce the mechanisms behind his finding.

Quantum Mechanics has led us to a greater understanding of the nature of reality, it has allowed us to see that although Einsteins equations work at this level of reality, the laws break down at the fundamental level of reality.

We are now beginning to understand what Aether actually means. In a recent experiment it was found that space-time is dragged around when a mass is spun, such as our planet, this is called the Lense-Thirring Effect
You can learn more about this here..

A SIMPLE PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LENSETHIRRING EFFECT BASED ON EMQG THEORY


We use ElectroMagnetic Quantum Gravity (EMQG, ref. 1) to provide a simple physical model of the Lense-Thirring effect on the earth. The Lense-Thirring effect is a tiny perturbation of the motion of a free-falling particle near a massive rotating object, first calculated by the physicists J. Lense and H. Thirring in 1918 using general relativity. The Lense-Thirring effect can also be thought of as the ‘dragging of inertial frames’, as first named by Einstein himself.


This experiment is actually a point of reference for both models you have pointed to.

In General Relativity it seemingly validates the idea of 'gravitons', yet in Quantum Gravity it validates that Matter is not suspended within space-time but matter is generated by space-time.

In other words, The Aether is in fact Space-time itself. But not in the rubber-sheet like manor pointed to by the standard model, but at its fundamental level the Aether is the sea of potentiality that is Quantum Foam.

the Aether is Space-Time at the Planck lengh. It is at this level of reality that matter and energy is manifested from. At this level of reality our universe is infinite in both properties and potentials.

So to conclude, Einstine seemingly had the edge, due to his math and the predictions that are testable. Yet it was Tesla whom in my opinion had the right idea.

Where Einstein was able to describe very accurately a small proportion of reality, Tesla was able to intuitively describe the bigger or deeper if you like levels of reality.

Good discussion, Star and Flag,

all the best,

Korg.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Just a small correction to aid the understanding of Tesla Dynamic Aether Theory.
Tesla states that this Aether acts as a solid to heat and light while at the same time behaves as a fluid to solid matter.
At no time did he ever state that his Aether was a gas.
I hope this clarifies just what kind of Aether Tesla was describing.
I just read Korg Trinity's post and along with this post it points out that we need to define some terms here, so we are talking the same language.

You mentioned two types of aether in the OP yet I've seen probably 5 types discussed in this thread so we're not all on the same page.

First, can you provide some links to information about Tesla's ether to support the claim you just made in particular and explaining Tesla's ether in general?

The two definitions of aether used by Einstein are discussed in wikipedia:
Luminiferous aether
The traditional luminiferous aether involves the propagation of light:

In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.
Then Einstein came up with a different definition, he called the "aether of special relativity" and the "aether of general relativity" but the scientific community never accepted or used his terminology:


After arguing that in special relativity motion is relative and acceleration is absolute, he said that even the "aether of special relativity" (aether = the four-dimensional space-time) is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether (aether = gravitational field), as well as matter influences the structure of the aether.
So this is something different than the luminiferous ether, and refers to what in our modern day terminology we might call the fabric of space-time. I think this is what Korg Trinity refers to in one part of his post, but since the scientific community calls this the fabric of space-time, then perhaps we should too, or if we refer to it in Einstein's terms I suggest we use the terminology "Einstein's " to distinguish it from commonly accepted usage of the terminology in the scientific community. Then of course we have Phractal Phil's Ether, no problem there he says he has his own theory and that's fine with me because he's defined it. So that makes 4 definitions.

Then in Korg Trinity's post there are references to even more definitions of aether which the scientific community has assigned other terms to.

You can see the problem where even Einstein used the same term to refer to two different things though at least he referred to it as "aether of general relativity" to distinguish it from the luminiferous ether he abandoned in 1905:


the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians like John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found no support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
So the luminiferous ether that Einstein abandoned in 1905 is not the same as his new aether which we now refer to as the "fabric of space-time" and use the famous rubber-sheet analogy.

The scientific community is a tough crowd, they accepted Einstein's Theories, but not his new, different use of the word aether.

Here are the first 4 definitions discussed:
Luminiferous aether - When you use the word aether, this is what I believe is generally understood.
Tesla's Dynamic Aether-Hopefully a link provided by you can help us define that better.
Einstein's "aether of general relativity"- this is different from the traditional aether and nobody in modern times calls this aether but instead the "Fabric of Space Time"
"Phractal Phil's Aether"-he has defined this for us so we're clear on that.

@Korg Trinity you have introduced additional concepts and definitions, I'll let you add those to this list of 4 if it's appropriate, but I have to ask is aether really the correct term? If so add them but I'm wondering if the scientific community calls those things aether and if not maybe we shouldn't either? I think most of them are discussed in that "Fabric of Space Time" link but maybe not all.


Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I suppose they invented this “quantum ether” to avoid making the unpopular claim that there is a luminiferous ether.
This is a 5th definition though not really, because as Phractal Phil astutely points out, they don't just call it aether, they call it "quantum aether". I don't think it is called something else ONLY because the term luminiferous ether is unpopular, but also because if it's something different, then it adds clarity to call it something else like "quantum ether" instead of "aether". So if we call this "quantum ether" I don't think it creates any confusion with "luminiferous aether" or Einstein's "aether of special relativity" as long as we are careful to refer to them that way and not just call them "aether" because they are all different things.

In order to get traction in a discussion of scientific concepts, I think definitions are critically important, and it's hard to gain any traction in a discussion if there's no common understanding or agreement of the terminology or definitions being used. So maybe we can rectify that somehow by defining some terms? My proposal would be that we use the terminology used by the scientific community and if we mean something else, define what we mean just as Phractal Phil has done when he referred to his own theory. If we don't agree on terminology it causes the discussion to degrade from the merits of a particular concept and evidence which supports it (or not), to people talking about 8 different concepts and calling them all the "aether".



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Tesla has to be ranked next to da Vinci in stature as a scientist and an inventor/engineer.

He invented radio not Marconi.
He invented AC current which we all use.
He would have delivered free energy from resonating the Schumann cavity if Morgan had not blackballed and derailed him.
Simply google list of inventions by Nikola Tesla.
There are 300, happy reading.
Oh and those longitudinal Scalar waves, yep Nikola Tesla.
We have to give Tesla recognition for AC electricity and other contributions of his, so no doubt he was a great man. However, my understanding is that later in his life he kind of "lost it" which doesn't make his earlier contributions any less valuable, but I don't think we can deny his full life's story. Regarding the "He would have delivered free energy from resonating the Schumann cavity if Morgan had not blackballed and derailed him.", please don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. What would stop anyone else, including you, from delivering "free energy from resonating the Schumann cavity" if such a thing were possible, irrespective of what did or didn't happen to Tesla?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Would it be a help or a hindrance if I give my ether a unique name?

Should I give it a descriptive name? I often call it the “ether foam”, but that might be confused with Wheeler’s “quantum foam”, which is quite different. When I want to be more specific, I call it “our ether foam, which is the cosmic foam of our sub-universe”.

Would I be accused of arrogance if I named it after myself? It is my own unique creation. The model as a whole has over a dozen unique features which, as far as I know, no one else has ever proposed; so it I think I would be justified in attaching my name to it. How about “Phil’s phoam”? Or my last name, “Janes foam”, “Janesian foam” or “Janesian ether”?

Maybe I should wait until I have formally introduced it in a discussion of its own, and then conduct a poll.

Thoughts, anyone?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
First thank you for the invite.
I have great respect for both Tesla and Einstein.

For me to explain, I must first explain how I have come to conclusions involving the subjects you have mentioned.
To understand the true nature of All, we need to first understand what has produced this Universe but to do this we need to back-engineer (unfortunately) as this Universe is the “Result” and Not the “Cause”, the human species we experience is also a part of the end result.

As this is a Scientific forum I am Not referring to any religious origin or for that matter any religious beliefs.

Through the R&D I have been involved with (“Interfaces” involving what produces our experience i.e. the Species and its Environment.)
Two things are in the Root of All.

1/.Awareness”.
2/.Communication” (which of course is a component of “Awareness”.)

If we consider the Universe or our environment it involves “Awareness” and “Communication”.
All that we see is “Geometric Communication”.

We recognise things by their shape?

And what happens to all that we are aware of, produces a Story, not unlike a children’s picture story book but with a twist i.e. having Senses other than just Sight.
So there is something which is producing Form, and as well as the Stories regarding everything.
There is also a Story being told with regards to the workings of the environment we experience and there is a reason for this.
The reason we all see or understand things differently is the result of a Paradox which is like a filter which all is experienced through.

It is my understanding, through Technologies I have witnessed over many years that Something which is Nothing and the Awareness of these “Opposites” has always existed.

This Component we call “Nothing” is far, far stranger than we can ever imagine..
Most can’t comprehend this “Nothing” at all and just dismiss it as “Something” which doesn’t exist.
On the Contrary this Component we call “Nothing” can, and does have “Shape”.
Strange? maybe be, but absurd? definitely Not.

Often we say, “there is nothing in there!”
This implies that this “Nothing” (Inner) is “Contained” in Something.
And in fact we can all Identify this “Component”, we call “Nothing”.
i.e. often we say “Something” Contains “Nothing”.
So the Shape of this “Nothing” is dictated by the Shape of what it is contained IN.

Another example relates to the “Absolute Centre” of anything. For example a Circle or Disc.
The Absolute Centre has No “Size” or “Shape” i.e. “Nothing” But…
As we know the Centre still exists?
So this “Nothing” is “Something”?

Another example;
If we are able to recognise this “Nothing” being Present in the case of an empty vessel, then by the shear fact of being able to recognising this “Nothing” says that this “Nothing” does exist especially in the empty vessel, or we would Not be able to be Aware of its existence?
And every “article” or “object” exists between the Absolute Centre and its Outer Parameters.
And everything that exists as “Manifested” or only “Concept” have both an “Inner” and “Outer”.

It’s enough to drive anyone to drink. LOL.

___________________


Something/Nothing and Awareness, has always been as Time is only an illusion produced by the fact our experience, involving the human species and its environment is of Sequential nature.

All comes from Nothing via Communication within Awareness.
So it is with this Universe or any other Universe it is Manifested through Communication of Awareness i.e. via Geometric Communication in the Form of Shape Position and Colour.
Sometimes as pictures and at other times in the form of Glyphs but either at the end of the day are Geometry (Shape) or “Communication”.

Where “Outside” (in other words Not included in the program of the human form, or this Universe) this Experience, all is contained within a “Static” Storage System. This exists between the 2 “Outer” Faces of a Plane which is a projection of Concepts in 2D. This comes from or is produced by a non-dimensional Source I suppose the closest word that describes it is “Awareness”.
Perhaps there is a better word that I can use but so far I know no other word to identify it.

It is by the introduction of a “Dynamic” process, that such information is “Compiled” and presented to the mind in a Dynamic Process from a “Stack”.

There isn’t a single “Component” of the Human Anatomy which is “Aware” of anything.
I challenge anyone to prove that any Component of their Anatomy is aware of their “Conscious Entity”.

___________________



But back to the subject.
All which is a part of this (little) Universe, exists in “Duality”. Often “Opposites”.
For example…

a. “Wave” theory & “Particle” theory
b. Left & Right.
c. Up & Down
d. Inner & Outer
e. Big & Small
f. Black & White.
g. Static & Movement

etc. etc. The One can Not exist without the Other.

“Awareness” or Consciousness which I call LIFE is like a “Comparator”.

___________________



The Nature of Communication in “Awareness” was produced by the First Conceptual movement (the Ability to “Compare”) of “To & Fro”.

It is said that Gray lacks Hue, but I beg to differ on this as we can obtain Gray through mixing Green and Violet (Complementary Colours) together…
As a result “Contrast” is Lost and we can no longer discern the Green from the Violet in the Gray !
So it is also the case, when we mix “Black” & “White” and loose the Contrast between the “Black” & the “White”.
So I refer to “Gray” as representing Darkness.
If we “Back-Engineer” From Gray, by separating out the Components of Gray, we get Black & White.
This gives us the “To & Fro” Action and can be achieved in 2 different ways…
I apologise for the poor Quality of these Animations.

a. Animation 01.


In the above Animation I have slid the Faces of the “Plane” apart, to try and show the separation of the Black & White (Black to the Back “Face” and White to the Front” Face”.)

Here is the Second method…

b. Animation 02.


This method of Separation can be interpreted in 2 Ways again….

a.. Separating into Black and White, where the “Outer” is White and the “Inner” is Black.
b. Where the Black appears to recede. (pass away from the Gray, leaving the near end White and the far End Black.)
This introduced the Concept of “Inner” & “Outer” Components.

The Particle which has been formed by the Separation of The Gray, or Lack of Contrast into its 2 Components Black & White can behave in 2 ways in the Toward and Away axis.

a. A single particle.
b. A multiple number of particles travelling along the axis, toward the observer or away from the observer..

In the case of the Single Particle one can Remain or be temporary.
In the case of the multiple particles this can ether give as the effect of a pulsing particle or a single particle depending on the gap between the particles.

And if we “Rotate” this Conceptually 90° around the Vertical axis in this case we find…

Animation 03.


Note the Duality comprising of 3 Components.

a. One End.
b. The Other End.

The 2 Ends forming “Opposites”.

3/. And that which is “In-between” i.e. a Conceptual Line I guess.

And again the Particles can behave in 2 Different ways.

a. A single Particle traversing across the observers vision.
b. A stream of Particles from a single source.

In the case of a stream of Particles the more the particles involved the more solid the line becomes.

The Second Concept; involved “Rotation” (Formed from the To & Fro Rotating about one of its Ends and its Second Form about its Centre).

Animation 04.

___________________



If we return to the first Animation 001. where we have a Plane with 2 Outer Faces conceptually we also have 2 Inner faces by the mere fact the “Outer” faces exist.

But in the case of the Inner Faces forming the 3rd Component (In-between) are said to produce an Astable condition between the Inner Layers, hence an oscillation between black & White Occurred.

As a result of the Astable condition involving the Black & White to separate and converge in 2 directions caused another State to exist between the inner surfaces which was in a circular fashion about an axis between the 2 Outer Faces.

The result of this astable activity between the 2 Outer faces resulted in the manifestation of what we call LIGHT today.
The Singular Source of Light has remained between these 2 faces.
Where any source of LIGHT appears today is controlled by the “Programs” contained between the “Outer” Layers, but this is another Story.
The nature of this phenomena is expressed in many different ways within our experiences…

As for the Aether…
I personally have not found evidence for the existence of a single Aether, but I have found the existence of states of stress within the “Partition Map” which All is Founded on. That is the base Conceptual Partition Map the Processing System of LIFE is based on.

But in saying this I have found similar behaviour patterns.
With regard to Relativity again I found similar phenomena in many areas but this is not the only phenomena which all is based on.

P.S.
There is evidence of another “Transfer Media” which can be manipulated within the “Communication” formats of “Awareness”, which are made from LIGHT in the form of a “Granule Texture” that is Holographic in the form and Nature involving a “Storage” and “Transfer” Media.
It is in this area of R&D (Mind “Interfaces”) I have been involved with over the last 17 years…
We can both detect and See this “Partition Map” very easily…
But how this is achieved I will leave for another Post.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
Would I be accused of arrogance if I named it after myself?
That's what I'm doing for now so as not to confuse it with the other topics, but should you choose to rename it later just let us know.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Here are the first 4 definitions discussed:
Luminiferous aether - When you use the word aether, this is what I believe is generally understood.
Tesla's Dynamic Aether-Hopefully a link will be provided to help us define that better.
Einstein's "aether of general relativity"- this is different from the traditional aether and nobody in modern times calls this aether but instead the "Fabric of Space Time"
"Phractal Phil's Aether"-he has defined this for us so we're clear on that.
Meaning you have defined it as something that is your hypothesis, that's enough for now but whenever you choose to reveal more details that's fine. If you plan to publish it maybe you should do that first.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join