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.

 

The Aether Reality

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Drop your sarcastic tone and reply to what I actually said.


I don't need to, since you neglected to read my post before "replying" to it. OK, I'll type it up again for you:

it is preposterous to the point of stupid to say that


There are enormous changing forces all around us, that mainstream science primarily ignores.


If there is something we detect in the real world, science will take notice since it depends for survival, critically, on how well it reflects this world, so that it can make it work in ways we prefer. The monitor at which you are typing here on ATS does not explode in your face. The toilet you use, flushes as expected (I hope). This wouldn't be true if science was "ignoring forces".

I can say that you primarily ignore the host of flying invisible spaghetti monsters right over your shoulder. Same thing.




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



If there is something we detect in the real world


There's your catch. Who says we detect everything there is to detect? That's laughable.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



If there is something we detect in the real world


There's your catch. Who says we detect everything there is to detect? That's laughable.


Nobody says that. But poet1b is claiming that there are "enormous changing forces all around us" which we fail to detect. Is your argument that because we can not detect everything, it is plausible that we also do not detect "enormous changing forces all around us"?
edit on 17-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



If there is something we detect in the real world


There's your catch. Who says we detect everything there is to detect? That's laughable.


How can you tell that your liver is not connected, via subspace frequency, to the Eternal Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a neutron star? Can you disprove such claim?

But the main thing is, we don't claim to have detected "everything". If this was the case, we wouldn't have built the LHC, and I wouldn't have spent decades doing my part for this to happen. You statement is plain false. What else is new?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



How can you tell that your liver is not connected, via subspace frequency, to the Eternal Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a neutron star? Can you disprove such claim?


Nope. Nor would I desire to. Such knowledge would not change how I live my life.


But the main thing is, we don't claim to have detected "everything". If this was the case, we wouldn't have built the LHC, and I wouldn't have spent decades doing my part for this to happen. You statement is plain false. What else is new?


Certainly not your coarse tone.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Then I make an effort to live more and more positively each day. Or I could just do that anyway. There's no real harm in it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
** ATTENTION **

GET ON TOPIC

STOP DISCUSSING ONE ANOTHER.

or

BE POST BANNED.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


These forces are a result of the rotation of the Earth, while orbiting the sun, while our solar system circles the galaxy, motions that result in a constant change of velocity.

The half of the planet that is turning in the direction the Earth orbits the sun is accelerating, and the half turning away from the direction the Earth is rotating around the sun is de-accelerating.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





and the half turning away from the direction the Earth is rotating around the sun is de-accelerating.

In what way is it "de-accelerating"? It seems you're implying that it's slowing down.

The constant change in velocity is due to change in direction, not necessarily speed.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The half of the planet that is turning in the direction the Earth orbits the sun is accelerating, and the half turning away from the direction the Earth is rotating around the sun is de-accelerating.


You idea of "acceleration" has nothing to do with common notion of such, which is quite successfully used in science.

edit on 17-1-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


It is basic physics, try going on a amusement park ride, the same thing is in action.

Perhaps if you had a basic understanding of motion, you could grasp the obvious motion of the Earth I am pointing out.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If you have the slightest understanding of motion, you would easily see that my point is correct.

In my thirty years working in R&D with some of the best and brightest, it has always been clear that those who challenge institutional claims about science are the ones who are most competent, and the leaders in their field, while those who get angry about any notions beyond what little they were able to grasp in school are typically bureaucrats.

You have clearly demonstrate your level of knowledge.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


It is basic physics, try going on a amusement park ride, the same thing is in action.

Perhaps if you had a basic understanding of motion, you could grasp the obvious motion of the Earth I am pointing out.


Dude, I've been doing physics most of my life, and unfortunately I must confess you don't have a slightest idea of what you are talking about. If you don't believe me, read a decent textbook and do a couple of problems in each chapter.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That explains alot about the current state of modern physics.

I am speaking from experience, working in technology most of my life, actually making things happen in the real world. I certainly would never to talk to people the way you post on these boards.

You think you are the only person working in physics here on the boards, or the first time that I have ever pointed out this realty about motion to such people. A lot more intelligent people post on these boards, with a great deal more manners.

I don't know exactly what you do, but yoh have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about physics.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The half of the planet that is turning in the direction the Earth orbits the sun is accelerating, and the half turning away from the direction the Earth is rotating around the sun is de-accelerating.


In a weird way, you're right. Now that you've given me some sort of example of what you were talking about, I see what you're getting at.

Where you're going into the alfalfa seems to be you got the first part of an intro Newtonian physics class where they discuss linear motion and then stopped before you got to the rotary motion part. You get that in high school - they generally don't do circular motion because you get into basic trig.

Yes, if you look from an external reference at a spinning object, every part of the object looks like it's accelerating at different rates. Looking at it from a rotating reference frame of the spinning object, there is only one acceleration, it's constant, and it is toward the center of the spin. That's called centripetal acceleration. The component parts of the spinning object are being accelerated toward the center of the spin, and that's the only true acceleration occurring. The apparent acceleration seen from the outside that I think you're talking about is not a true acceleration.

But in a technical sense, yes, the component parts of the spinning object ARE being accelerated, toward the center of the spin, and that's centripetal acceleration, caused by gravity.

edits for technical accuracy and grammar
edit on 18-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



If there is something we detect in the real world


There's your catch. Who says we detect everything there is to detect? That's laughable.


Nobody says that. But poet1b is claiming that there are "enormous changing forces all around us" which we fail to detect. Is your argument that because we can not detect everything, it is plausible that we also do not detect "enormous changing forces all around us"?


If you cant detect something, you cant measure what said magnitude would be. If it hasnt been measured "enourmous changing forces" are just as possible as "stuff all".

The chances of these forces existing is increased by all the evidence.

Things like Dayton Millers etheric drift experiments en.wikipedia.org... but more so things like the Lie group E8 matching the flower of life pattern, which religion, mystics and scientists (except some recently) have known is the"enourmous undelying force"of creation. That also forms matter from platonic geometrics like the flower of life. And also many others including my "curving light wave" theory.

abzu2.wordpress.com...

Whats the chance of that? Anything like the chance of life arising spontaniously from primordial soup? More chance of an extended family winning the lotto every week for a million years. So unlikely its ridiculous.

"An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" is an example of peer reviewed material that gives Lie group E8 a similar definition. It is a serious theory with implications for just such an "unknown force" as we are discussing.


"An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"[1] is a physics preprint proposing a basis for a unified field theory, very often referred to as "E8 Theory,"[2] which attempts to describe all known fundamental interactions in physics and to stand as a possible theory of everything


ESTE



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I can say that you primarily ignore the host of flying invisible spaghetti monsters right over your shoulder. Same thing.


I'll have to take exception to your constant blasphemous ridicule of the sphaghetti monster. Go here for some truth son, god knows you need it - www.venganza.org...
edit on 18-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal

Here is some more descriptions of aether, also from "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin" . . .

Ancient esoteric knowledge says the female, negative polarity aethric element underlies this 3D one and that it is based on the flower of life/tree of life. It is the energy or prana/chi that mystics throughout the ages report seeing, the paisley of the 60’s, Celtic knot work, sacred geometry etc. . . .

Have you studied the work of Jon De Pew who has studied the work of Ed Leedskalnin?

The reason I ask is that on Jon De Pew's YouTube channel there is a video entitled "Flower of LIFE = MAGNETIC CURRENTS." Here is the description of the video:


Published on Aug 14, 2012

SACRED GEOMETRY represents the segmented BLUEPRINTS of MAGNETIC ENERGY & the NEUTRAL PARTICLES of MATTER




I'm wondering whether there is a relationship between your concept and De Pew's work.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


There was a chart posted recently describing the relationship between electromagnetics and aether. It was title "Harmony and Interference", on the physics and metaphysics thread. Paired with what you just posted, it should make a very interesting study.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join