Vocabulary

[danejean]

Hi All
Being new to this forum and after a quick reading(too quick I confess) I would like to know if ever the plasmic cosmos and electric universe are a new definition of the Aether of the ancients?
I hope I am hurting anyone.
Best
Dane

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Danejean and welcome aboard,
I hope you like worms because I think you might have just opened a can of them.

[mague]

Hello danejean,

i tend to say no. Plasma is ionized (charged) gas and the electric universe is roughly *cough* a circuit board.
The ancient aether has attributes of flowing currencies, but also a layer of a spiritual flow attached. Spirit/Chi cant be measured and is not part of the scientific EU.

[altonhare]

Hi All
Being new to this forum and after a quick reading(too quick I confess) I would like to know if ever the plasmic cosmos and electric universe are a new definition of the Aether of the ancients?
I hope I am hurting anyone.
Best
Dane

The problem with the aether is that it is a dead, invalid hypothesis.

If you propose the aether is an all-pervasive fluid that everything moves to you must state what it is made of. The only way for an entity to be compressible is for there to be space between its constituents for them to move into. This is why solids, liquids, and gasses are compressible. There is space between the atoms that the atoms move into. If you propose the aether is, indeed, made of little balls then there is space between the balls. All you have is the corpuscular (particle) hypothesis. If you propose that the aether is continuous (not made of smaller constituents) then it is also incompressible and nothing can move within it.

There is an alternative:

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

[bboyer]

Hi All
Being new to this forum and after a quick reading(too quick I confess) I would like to know if ever the plasmic cosmos and electric universe are a new definition of the Aether of the ancients?
I hope I am hurting anyone.
Best
Dane

Here's a link to an article written by a member of the EU/Thunderbolts Team, Wal Thornhill, which should give you some insight into the EU perspective of the aether.

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

Wal's home page: http://www.holoscience.com/index.php
Other EU, plasma cosmology resources: http://www.plasmaresources.com/essential_eupc.html

[Orlando]

Just a thought on Vocabulary and how it applies to the EU

Symbols=Letters
letters make sounds
sounds make words
words make sentences
A sentence is a complete thought!

There are no wrong theories, only the failure to communicate Ideas and share these to come to a Unified Perception
and Understanding in what we know to be true!

"Words are a symbol based programming language used in our thinking process
by using the proper terms one will clearly stand-by the observations"

Here is a good quote from:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... ether#dest

Matter and mass

Gravity acts in proportion to the mass of an object. What do we mean when we refer to the ‘mass’ of an object? "One of the most astonishing features of the history of physics is the confusion which surrounds the definition of the key term in dynamics, mass."[13] Early in the 20th century numerous textbooks equated the mass of an object to its weight. That equation led to confusion because it doesn’t explain why the mass of an object we measure on a weighing machine (gravitational mass) is identical to the mass of that object when we push it (inertial mass).

Another good example from the same site:

Ultimately cosmology must have no loose ends. The electric universe model is an attempt to connect many strands of knowledge. “Proposals that eventually pan out in the world are far more likely to exhibit narrative consistency - perhaps what Edward O. Wilson calls ‘consilience’ in his book of that name.”[27] “The goal of consilience is to achieve progressive unification of all strands of knowledge in service to the indefinite betterment of the human condition.”[28]

To which the real problem in our Society today is in this quote:

Big bang cosmologists have no narrative that can compete. But by the simple act of ignoring alternatives they reject them—if the public simply acquiesce and do not speak up.

Wal Thornhill

[13] G. Burniston Brown, Gravitational and Inertial Mass, American Journal of Physics 28, 475 (1960).
[27] W. Paschelles, New Scientist, 13 January 2007, pp. 18-19.
[28] Charles C. Gillispie, E. O. Wilson's Consilience: A Noble, Unifying Vision, Grandly Expressed, American Scientist, May-June 1998.


Nice Article , thanks

Peace
Or

[MGmirkin]

Symbols=Letters

Mmm, all letter could probably be called symbols. But not all symbols are letters. Set theory says the above is not logically valid. For instance. ! ? & ^ % are symbols but NOT letters. Ergo Symbols =/= Letters. There may be some common items between the two sets. But not all of one are necessarily members of the other. Or rather it's a one-way relation. Letters are, I think, a subset of symbols.

letters make sounds

Disagree. A letter or a symbol is inanimate and does nothing on its own. The human eye sees it, sends it to the brain which decodes it, infers meaning and associates a sound with the visual form or the abstract alphabetic representation (for those who can't see but can still mentally represent the letter / sound).

sounds make words
words make sentences

Yes, they can. Or they can make nonsense. Jabberwocky was a good example... ;o]

A sentence is a complete thought!

Not necessarily. Some thoughts require many many sentences to properly communicate. Even then many thought are incomplete or incomprehensible.

There are no wrong theories

Again, must disagree. Some theories are CLEARLY and demonstrably wrong. One can theorize WRONG things all day long if one wishes.

I could theorize that leprechauns evolved on Mars. While it can't really be proven or disproven, considering I just made it up I'd put good money on it being a VERY WRONG theory. Taking as it's assumptions that A) Leprechauns exist B) Leprechauns exist(ed) on Mars C) Leprechauns are/were capable of surviving on Mars D) Leprechauns evolved (as opposed to some more magical or metaphysical process), etc. Many assumptions of which are clearly iffy at best.

One could theorize that when a ball is dropped, it will float upward and into space. Barring one mistaking a balloon filled with helium for a ball (of the tennis, soccer, basket, or bowling variety), the theory would generally be rather WRONG. A ball will tend to fall toward the center of the Earth. I could theorize that if I have 3 apples and Suzy as 3 apples and we combined our piles of apples we would get 7 apples total between us. However, in the face of putting our apples together and having only 6 apples, the theory is demonstrably wrong. Unfortunately, NOT all theories are created equal.

Just saying.

Regards,
~Michael

[junglelord]

aether is a 2 spin rotating magnetic field, quite real, contrary to alton's dismissal.

[StevenO]

aether is a 2 spin rotating magnetic field, quite real, contrary to alton's dismissal.

Nope, the aether is a scalar motion at unit speed c and only motions differing from that are real.

Time for a new vocabulary ?

[Solar]

aether is a 2 spin rotating magnetic field, quite real, contrary to alton's dismissal.

Nope, the aether is a scalar motion at unit speed c and only motions differing from that are real.

Time for a new vocabulary ?

Nope. The Aether is a superluminal scalar motion of ambipolar 'radiation' and only motion differing from that are apparent.

[Tzunamii]

aether is a 2 spin rotating magnetic field, quite real, contrary to alton's dismissal.

Nope, the aether is a scalar motion at unit speed c and only motions differing from that are real.

Time for a new vocabulary ?

Nope. The Aether is a superluminal scalar motion of ambipolar 'radiation' and only motion differing from that are apparent.

Nope. Aether is a marmalade/peyote mixture sold on a reservation in Arizona.
I also believe that while not defined completely in any theory (yet), the idea is sound, and an understanding of our Electric Universe can only help clarify it further.

[junglelord]

I believe it is clear that EM charge is the cause of the "strong force".
I believe that ES Charge must be quantified. It is at present, not a quantified force.
The so called weak force is the proportional difference b/t EM and ES charge.
Mass is the linear aspect of EM charge. The rmf of the aether is the field observed b/t two magnets.
It is easy to prove that the aether has a conductance. The constants of the quantum domain, namely the Compton Wavelength for length, Coluombs constant for charge, the mass of the e- and the p+ are the two masses of the universe.
Neutrons do not exist alone and in 14 minutes they dissolve into a e-, p+ and the angular momentum of a neutrino.
The neutron is the result of aether folding. The e- and p+ are the result of encapsulation, like a spirograph.
Phi, Pi, e are the natural generators of the universe due to the spin ratios b/t 2spin rmf of aether and the intger 1/2 of the angular momentum that is encapsulated. This produces PHI on the second cycle. How perfect.

[StevenO]

I believe it is clear that EM charge is the cause of the "strong force".
I believe that ES Charge must be quantified. It is at present, not a quantified force.
The so called weak force is the proportional difference b/t EM and ES charge.
Mass is the linear aspect of EM charge. The rmf of the aether is the field observed b/t two magnets.
It is easy to prove that the aether has a conductance. The constants of the quantum domain, namely the Compton Wavelength for length, Coluombs constant for charge, the mass of the e- and the p+ are the two masses of the universe.
Neutrons do not exist alone and in 14 minutes they dissolve into a e-, p+ and the angular momentum of a neutrino.
The neutron is the result of aether folding. The e- and p+ are the result of encapsulation, like a spirograph.
Phi, Pi, e are the natural generators of the universe due to the spin ratios b/t 2spin rmf of aether and the intger 1/2 of the angular momentum that is encapsulated. This produces PHI on the second cycle. How perfect.

- The "strong interaction" is named that way because it is stronger than the other fundamental forces.
- There is no connection of QCD with QED or electroweak theory, so your link can just be a belief.
- There is no such thing as "EM charge"
- ES charge is already quantified
- If the aether has conductance why do I measure infinite resistance if I put my ohm meter into a vacuum?
- Could you describe how you measure the conductance of the aether?
- The Compton wavelength is a measure of mass, not length
- If e- and p+ are the only two mass units in the universe how are the other fundamental particle masses (neutrino's, muon, tau a.o.) represented?

Just questions to make sure we use the same vocabulary...

[altonhare]

- If the aether has conductance why do I measure infinite resistance if I put my ohm meter into a vacuum?

If you've measured an infinite resistance you have a magical ohm meter. Us humans can only measure quantities, you must have gotten your device from Merlin or Gandalf.

[junglelord]

ES is not quantified.
they have four forces....none of them are ES.

I believe its
1 strong
2 em
3 weak
4 gravity.

contrary to popular belief, the notion that ES is just an expression of EM is FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE.

The EM charge is the reason why the nucleus exists...not the so called gluon, which has never been found.
EM Strong Charge is only functional at a short distance. ES is functional over a long distance. The two charges are what makes up e- and p+. It is a functional system of three spins, Aether, EM, ES. The so called weak force is the proporitional difference b/t EM and ES. It is a three force model.
1 EM
2 ES
3 Gravity

The only fundamental units are those that can exist alone, thats p+ and e-. All other units disapper in 14 minutes or less....not fundamental at all. A Neutron is composed of a p+ and a e- and the angular momentum of a neutrino. In 14 minutes it unfolds into these three fundamental units. So I agree that one could and would include neutrinos as fundamental.