Why an ether/aether?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
In what are your chains moving. If, say, one of your chains moves to the left, then a) what was previously in the space/area into which your chain has moved and b) what is now in the space/area now vacated by said chain?

The chains are not moving "in" anything. Space is not an object.

A) No object is at the chain's next location.

B) No object is at the chain's previous location.

If not an object then what? There must be something as I thought you had established elsewhere that 'nothing' cannot by definition exist.

I'm stating that there is not an object there, and you're asking me what object(s) is/are there.

No, I am asking what is there if it is not an object and not 'nothing'. There must be a 'there' as you have stated that there is no object there. Is it an empty 'there'? There must be something if your chain has moved from 'there'.

[lizzie]

Aether Vibrations
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter6.html

Our universe is multi dimensional and it is made of one substance and one substance only! This substance is called aether and it is a vibrating fluid-like energy that permeates the physical vacuum. Matter as we know it is created moment by moment as a standing wave, a vortex in the physical vacuum. It is the condensed center of these vortexes that creates the illusion of a separate particle. All matter in the universe is interconnected since the particle fields extend to the far corners of the universe.

A precursor of aether physics is the Wave Structure of Matter theory by Milo Wolff. In 1986 Wolff formulated a theory that he called ‘the Standing Wave Structure of Matter’ (abbreviated to WSM theory). Independently Geoff Haselhurst came to the same conclusion about a standing wave theory for matter and they are working together as of 1998.

In the WSM theory matter is just the interference pattern of in and out waves. The in-waves of a given particle are the out-waves of another particle. In this way all matter in the universe is sustained and mutually dependent. In and out waves tie all the matter in the universe together.
Paul La Violette has developed a general system aether theory called subquantum kinetics.
From these observations, Paul La Violette reasoned that the aether may likewise spawn wave patterns from two aether states, two different aetherons, which continuously mutate from one state into the other and visa versa. In normal cases, the aether maintains its equilibrium state due to the second law of thermodynamics, however under critical conditions these aether transmutations like the predator-prey waves may become self-organising and form stable wave patterns. These wave patterns will become observable in our physical universe as electromagnetic energy, light.

David Thomson and Jim Bourassa both founded the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute and are independently developing an aether based model integrating, quantum mechanics, relativity theory and string theory. The model describes matter as a subatomic whirlpool, tornado or vortex in the aether. They call this vortex the Toroidal (A) Aether Unit (TAU). When combined in spherical configurations they form the nucleus and electron shells of the atom. Quantum AetherDynamics mentions that the aether has both mechanical and electromagnetic properties. The mechanical property is what gives matter its mass; it’s the angular momentum of the whirling aether energy. Mass is simply the inertia created by the aether vortexes much like the inertia that is created by a spinning top.

Sacred geometry plays an important role in the aether physics that we are presenting in this book. The reason is rather straightforward. When the universe is shaped from one substance and one substance only, then the only way to give the physical world a seeming separate appearance of individual material things is through form, since substance by itself cannot discriminate. Hence the geometry of the aether and how it is structured is the crux in creating the material world.

The secret of ‘Sacred geometry’ is not about geometry per se, it’s about vibrations that take on geometrical patterns! Contemporary scientists now tell us that in fact all of creation is the offspring of aether vibrations.

According to Daniel Winter the aether creates vortexes, little tornados of whirling and spiralling energy in the ocean of aether, our universe. The vortexes in the aether are like the little eddies in a river. The vortex is nature’s natural flow form for fluids.

If the universe is essentially created from one universal substance, the aether, it must be form that is used to create different and separate things out of this universal substance. The torus is nature’s perfect flow form to create a seemingly separate entity in the formless aether that is stable enough to last.

So matter is the stable flow form pattern emerging from the aether. It takes on geometrical shapes from a formless energy, creating the illusion of separate electron particles in the electron shells and the particles that make up the nucleus.

Another way of looking at the torus shape is regarding it as a form that can be perfectly described by a set of Phi spirals. Each Phi spiral is actually a series of pure sine waves. The Phi spiral is constructed from a series of harmonics with wavelengths that comply with the Golden Mean version of the Fibonacci sequence.

When these Phi spirals circle around the torus they meet and interfere. As a result of this interference two new additional waves will be created. What is important to notice is that both new waves will have wavelengths that are again in the Fibonacci series. This allows that the interference will be non-destructive since the interference will simply result in more harmonics in the Fibonacci series.

[Divinity]

Thanks Lizzie, that post pretty much says it all for me. Brilliant.

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
In what are your chains moving. If, say, one of your chains moves to the left, then a) what was previously in the space/area into which your chain has moved and b) what is now in the space/area now vacated by said chain?

The chains are not moving "in" anything. Space is not an object.

A) No object is at the chain's next location.

B) No object is at the chain's previous location.

If not an object then what? There must be something as I thought you had established elsewhere that 'nothing' cannot by definition exist.

I'm stating that there is not an object there, and you're asking me what object(s) is/are there.

No, I am asking what is there if it is not an object and not 'nothing'. There must be a 'there' as you have stated that there is no object there. Is it an empty 'there'? There must be something if your chain has moved from 'there'.

1. Space is not a physical object.
2. The chain does not occupy space like a fish occupies water or a bird the gas we call air, water and air refer to physical objects
3. The chain is NOT in or within space like a swimmer is in or within water. Water refers to a physical object. It does not move THROUGH space any more than an astronaut moves through space. You cannot move THROUGH nothingness because nothingness has no borders from which to gauge motion.
4. Therefore, when the chain moves, it leaves no hole behind capable of being filled.

When I say "there is not an object at location X" it means that no object that exists is the set of distances away from every other object that exists specified by location X.

A link of chain is 4 away from A, 3 away from B, and 9 away from C. This is location Y. Location X is 3 away from A, 2 away from B, and 8 away from C. There is no object at location X. Then the link is at location X. There is no object at Y.

[altonhare]

All matter in the universe is interconnected since the particle fields extend to the far corners of the universe.

But space is infinite, it has no "corners" or "boundaries".

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

1. Space is not a physical object.

Okay, it is not a 'physical' 'object'. Then what is it? Is space the nothingness referred to below?

3. The chain is NOT in or within space.... You cannot move THROUGH nothingness because nothingness has no borders from which to gauge motion.

Are you saying that your chain is in nothingness, i.e. that which is composed of entirely nothing? Your chain is not in or within space but the atoms are? Then how do atoms connect/relate/interact to/with the chain(s)?

4. Therefore, when the chain moves, it leaves no hole behind capable of being filled.

Eh? What if another chain moves in behind it? And into what did the original chain move in the first place?

A link of chain is 4 away from A, 3 away from B, and 9 away from C. This is location Y. Location X is 3 away from A, 2 away from B, and 8 away from C. There is no object at location X. Then the link is at location X. There is no object at Y.

But there are still locations A, B, C, X, an Y are there not? And these locations are in 'nothingness' according to the above. But you also said that there are no borders in 'nothingness' with which to gauge motion, so by the same token there are no borders with which to gauge location surely?

[Grey Cloud]

All matter in the universe is interconnected since the particle fields extend to the far corners of the universe.

But space is infinite, it has no "corners" or "boundaries".

Is this fact or just your opinion? Either way I would be interested to know how the conclusion was arrived at.

[bdw000]

alton:
The link itself is not made of parts. By definition it cannot be broken (or else it was made of parts) or deformed (else there would be space within it for parts to move into). However the links fit inside each other conferring flexibility to the chain overall.

You still have not answered why a chain STRETCHING to accomodate two atoms moving further apart is not deformation.

There is a big difference between a bicycle chain spinning around the gears, and stretching across the continent (and that is a valid analogy compared to atoms throughout the universe). That is deformation in my book.

[altonhare]

Okay, it is not a 'physical' 'object'. Then what is it? Is space the nothingness referred to below?

The word "space" refers to a concept, a relationship among objects. Specifically it refers to the concept that two or more objects are not in contact i.e. that they are separate.

3. The chain is NOT in or within space.... You cannot move THROUGH nothingness because nothingness has no borders from which to gauge motion.

Are you saying that your chain is in nothingness, i.e. that which is composed of entirely nothing? Your chain is not in or within space but the atoms are? Then how do atoms connect/relate/interact to/with the chain(s)?

When you say that something is or isn't "in/within" space you are treating space as an object. Space is a concept. I do not sit inside distance, love, or tyranny.

I state that the chain, or any object, is not "in or within space" because it is illogical to talk about something being in/within a concept.

Therefore atoms are not "within" space either. If I've said this somewhere I misspoke. Atoms/links/etc. interact by colliding. This means there is 0 distance between them.

4. Therefore, when the chain moves, it leaves no hole behind capable of being filled.

Eh? What if another chain moves in behind it? And into what did the original chain move in the first place?

If another chain moves in behind it, that's fine. I understood your original question as referring to the motion of a single object.

Your repeated questions in the vein of "into what did X move" are treating space as an object instead of a concept. I define space as a concept, not an object, so your questions don't really make sense. It's like asking someone why they dropped a penny, they say they didn't, then you ask them "but why did you drop it?"

I know you view the universe as being filled with some kind of fluid aether. As such it is intuitive for you to think of objects "moving through something". In chain theory objects just move. Space is the conceptual separation between objects.

But there are still locations A, B, C, X, an Y are there not?

A, B, and C are objects. The location of A, for instance, is the set of distances from A to every other object (in this case B and C). We refer to the location of A as X and say that A is at location X.

And these locations are in 'nothingness' according to the above.

I never said a location was "in nothingness". Location is a concept, not an object. We don't place concepts "inside" objects. I don't put love in a box.

But you also said that there are no borders in 'nothingness' with which to gauge motion, so by the same token there are no borders with which to gauge location surely?

Location is the set of distances from an object to every other object. Each object's border is the reference by which we gauge location. Motion is defined as two locations of an object.

Is this fact or just your opinion? Either way I would be interested to know how the conclusion was arrived at.

I'll not answer the first question until I know the difference between a fact and opinion, according to you.

The conclusion is arrived at by applying identity. Space is not an object, therefore it does not have a border.

[altonhare]

You still have not answered why a chain STRETCHING to accomodate two atoms moving further apart is not deformation.

I never, ever, not once ever, said the chain stretches to accommodate the motion of two atoms. You either did not read my explanation of how atoms move or have not quite understood it yet. Perhaps reread the responses I gave you before and ask a question specific to that response, so I can locate precisely where the miscommunication is.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
Okay, my mistake. I thought you were referring to space as in where astronauts go to work rather than space as a concept.
You wrote:

I state that the chain, or any object, is not "in or within space" because it is illogical to talk about something being in/within a concept.

Chains are objects is what I understand from this. And these chains are distributed throughout the Universe as I understand things from your previous posts. (As I said way back when, I have trouble visualising things like this).

Atoms/links/etc. interact by colliding. This means there is 0 distance between them.

Okay, so what makes the chains move? What makes them stationary?

Did the chains produce the atoms? Is an atom always attached to a chain (whether the same chain or a different one, say after a collision)? In other words, are there 'free' atoms?

Which came first the chains or the atoms? Are they coeval?

Am I correct in thinking that I, for instance, am a knot or entanglement or semi-permanent 'collision' (or result thereof)? If so, then what dictates how long the knot, etc, endures?

If any of this has been addressed elswhere feel free to direct there. I have been trying to keep abreast but may have missed some things.

I'll not answer the first question until I know the difference between a fact and opinion, according to you.

Fact as in provable, either by experiment or direct observation etc. Opinion as in best guess, belief, estimation etc.

[kevin]

Altonhare,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB_sjWtbl8w
Kevin

[altonhare]

I'm glad you and I could have some productive discourse Grey Cloud, and I appreciate your interest in chain theory. I can't answer everything right now but will as soon as I can.

[Rockstander]

Alton;


I have been lurking for a while and relate to the Ideas proposed by the EU in general and this forum by extension. My background is a B.S.E.E. with minors in Math and Physics plus 40 years working mostly in Power Conversion Equipment Design with excursions into Analog, Digital circuit design, Test and Specification Preparation. Now retired these 16 years.

Although I have some disagreements with you, I find substance in your approach.

I find that my "Rock of Understanding" has an entry in the book of Isaiah that can be read to lend credence to your Theory to wit:

Isa 42:5* Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
The word translated :<and stretched them out> is from Strongs:

05186 hjn natah naw-taw'

a primitive root; TWOT - 1352; v

KJV - stretch out 60, incline 28, turn 16, stretch forth 15, turn aside 13, bow 8, decline 8, pitched 8, bow down 5, turn away 5, spread 5, stretched out still 4, pervert 4, stretch 4, extend 3, wrest 3, outstretched 3, carried aside 2, misc 20; 215

1) to stretch out, extend, spread out, pitch, turn, pervert, incline, bend, bow
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to stretch out, extend, stretch, offer
1a2) to spread out, pitch (tent)
1a3) to bend, turn, incline
1a3a) to turn aside, incline, decline, bend down
1a3b) to bend, bow
1a3c) to hold out, extend (fig.)
1b) (Niphal) to be stretched out
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to stretch out
1c2) to spread out
1c3) to turn, incline, influence, bend down, hold out, extend, thrust aside, thrust away

Grey Cloud wrote:Are you saying that your chain is in nothingness, i.e. that which is composed of entirely nothing? Your chain is not in or within space but the atoms are? Then how do atoms connect/relate/interact to/with the chain(s)?

I would say that your chain is a "Chain of Awareness".
Each end of a chain of "Awareness" terminates in an, at the moment undefined, "Element of Existence" and each such "Element of Existence" is aware, in an as of yet undefined manner, of every other "Element of Existence" occupying the Manifold in question.

Future questions to be answered:
what is "Awareness", "Element of Existence".

I offer that a "Positive Electric Charge" is in some Manner "Aware" of a "Negative Electric Charge" and of course Like Charges are also aware of each other in repulsion no matter the separation between, howbeit very slight in the extreme.

I use "Aware" so that I can suggest the possibility that there could be still Physical interactions that we have not yet discovered. I say Physical to cling to your desire for the substantive "Left Brain Analysis" as opposed to the, to me, not understood "Right Brain Poetry" presented by others.

Also the extent and description of the Manifold should be investigated to determine conformity with what ever constraints are caused by the ultimate definitions of "Awareness" and "Element of Existence".

Existence probably has some derivative relationship to the meaning of Life.

Rockstander
All else is sinking sand

[altonhare]

Okay, so what makes the chains move? What makes them stationary?

A link of chain is set moving simply by collision, by which I mean two objects are at 0 distance. Since objects have a boundary an object cannot cross or pass through another object.

Did the chains produce the atoms?

An atom is a particular arrangement of chain. Part of the theory is that there are loops in the chain and these are what we observe as atoms.

Is an atom always attached to a chain (whether the same chain or a different one, say after a collision)? In other words, are there 'free' atoms?

I wrote about the attachment/detachment issue at great length in the "exist" thread, so you might be interested in reading one of my long posts if this question interests you:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... a&start=15

The usual term for a "free object" is a "particle". It's defining characteristic is that the distance from a particle to every other object in the universe is always increasing. Every particle in the universe eventually moves away from each other indefinitely. Eventually particles don't interact anymore.

An object that is not free hasn't really been defined by the science community because physics never really made it past particles. A link of chain is not free because it is confined by the socket in which its ball resides.An aggregate of links is not free because it is confined by its connections to every other aggregate of links. In this way every object in the universe remains proximal i.e. the distance from a link to every other link cannot increase beyond some maximum value.

The observation known as light can only be explained by a permanent connection between the entities emitting/absorbing light. Therefore, if particles exist, we would not see them. But they could collide with us!

Additionally, there is no reason to rule out other chains that are not connected to our chain. We would not be able to see these "chain balls" because they cannot transmit light to us or influence us gravitationally. But, again, they could collide with us.

Although they would not make their presence known by light or gravity, they can still interact via magnetism.

Am I correct in thinking that I, for instance, am a knot or entanglement or semi-permanent 'collision' (or result thereof)? If so, then what dictates how long the knot, etc, endures?

You are an aggregate of knots, that would be correct. You are not a collision. The knots constituting you collide with each other.

A "knot" or loop is essentially stable, held together by the uniform tug on it in all directions by every other atom. It can come apart, however, when two atoms come too close together. When this happens the loops unwind and spread out, resulting in the plasma state. When they are pushed even closer together the nuclei are compressed. The nucleus is a convergence of one strand from every rope of chain that are essentially hooked around each other. When nuclei are pressed together hard enough the strands from either one begin to hook around each other. This is known as fusion.