Logic and science and an electric plasma universe.

[Scott MC]

If plasma comprises 99.9+% of universal substance,
and plasma dynamics differ so radically from those governing solids, liquids, heat and gasses
then our knowledge of the actual universe stands at <0.1%.

[CTJG 1986]

I agree with you though I suppose that really depends on how you are viewing the universe.

If one accepts the standard model of atomic structure then up to 99.9999% of the universe is made of "empty space"(far from empty in an EU model of course).

Plasma is not "empty space" but ionized "physical" matter which resides in the 0.0001% of the universe that appears as visible/detectable "stuff".

So plasma makes up 99.9% of the 0.0001% of the universe that we(the establishment) know as "physical matter".

So really we only know of less than 0.1% of the .0001% of the universe.

A fraction of a fraction of what is really out there to understand.

But with complex theoretical mathematics we can come up with the "theory of everything" to explain all that vast nothingness that we know so much about..

[Scott MC]

Well, I meant the 99.99+% that isn't observable, that we are just waking up to, is plasma, mobile ionized matter.

What we can observe (solids, liquids, thermos and gasses) is a miniscule proportion, 0.01-%.

[mague]

There is no empty space. To quote Space Odyssey : "Its full of stars".

But serious. Its full of waves/photons. Depending on the point of view (sensor in device or telescope) ist is all luminous.

[CTJG 1986]

Well, I meant the 99.99+% that isn't observable, that we are just waking up to, is plasma, mobile ionized matter.

What we can observe (solids, liquids, thermos and gasses) is a miniscule proportion, 0.01-%.

Haha, I agree with you on that for the most part as I said in my first post, I was just poking fun at the fact that there are so many different perceptions of matter and what is or is not matter and "empty space" that around here I doubt you will find any consensus.

But yes I do agree that most of the 99.99%+ "empty space" is plasma, but I don't follow a particle model of physics and as such I haven't quite figured out exactly what plasma is based on my aetheric 'wave' model yet.

In a particle model what is between the electrons and ions and protons and what have you while 'free-floating' in the plasma if not 'empty space'?

Are there smaller and smaller +/- particles floating around between the electrons/ions as you scale down to smaller levels?

If so what are they floating 'in'?

Around here even something as simple as 'empty space' can become a quagmire wrapped in an enigma stuffed inside a mystery...

But I suppose this is the NIAMI boards so 'have at it' then.

[Sparky]

If so what are they floating 'in'?

It is amazing what has been invented from knowing only the effects.

When we finally understand what we are floating in, what will be possible.?

[CTJG 1986]

If so what are they floating 'in'?

It is amazing what has been invented from knowing only the effects.

When we finally understand what we are floating in, what will be possible.?

The impossible...

Probably lots of quantum "spooky" stuff and what have you.

[johnm33]

I'm still sold on this

KOILON--THE AETHER OF SPACE

The following account was written by C. W. Leadbeater in 1907. It is reproduced here as giving further essential details concerning the relation between the planes of nature and the structure of the Anu:

The scientific hypothesis is that all space is filled with a substance called aether, as to the constitution of which many apparently contradictory statements are made. It is thought to be infinitely thinner than the thinnest gas, absolutely frictionless and without weight, and yet from another point of view far denser than the densest solid. In this substance the ultimate atoms of matter are thought to float as motes may be seen to float in the air, and light, heat and electricity are supposed to be its vibrations.

Theosophical investigators, using methods not yet at the disposal of physical science, have found that this hypothesis includes under one head two entirely different and widely separated sets of phenomena. They have been able to deal with states of matter higher than the gaseous, and have observed that it is by means of vibrations of this finer matter that light, heat and electricity manifest themselves to us. Seeing that matter in these higher states thus performs the functions attributed to the aether of science, they have (perhaps unadvisedly) called these states etheric, and have thus left themselves without a convenient name for that substance which fulfills the other part of the scientific requirements.

Let us for the moment name this substance koilon1, since it fills what we are in the habit of calling empty space. What Mûlaprakriti or "mother-matter" is to the inconceivable totality of universes, koilon is to our particular universe-not to our solar system merely, but to the vast unit which includes all visible suns. Between koilon and Mûlaprakriti there must be very many stages, but we have at present no means of estimating their number or of knowing anything whatever about them.

To any power of sight which we can bring to bear upon it this koilon appears homogeneous, though it is not probable that it is so in reality. It answers to scientific demands in so far that it is out of all proportion denser than any substance known to us--

1 Greek word meaning "hollow" - C. J.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NATURE OF MATTER 17

quite infinitely denser--belonging to another order and type of density altogether. For the very kernel and nexus of the whole conception is that what we call matter is not koilon, but the absence of koilon. So that to comprehend the real conditions we must modify our ideas of matter and space-modify them almost to the extent of reversing our terminology. Emptiness has become solidity and solidity emptiness.
from
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm
if i had any idea how to calculate the speed of sound in an infinitely dense infinitely tense material I wouldn't be suprised if the answer had 186 or 300 in it

[katesisco]

For Johnm33, I really like Miles Mathis site; his charge field is photons spinning due to bombardment from other photons. So there really is no empty space. There is more 'charge' around mass as mass recycles matter. He says and I agree our system is unbalanced between matter and antimatter, which is a particularity to OUR system. I am not fond of gravity due to expansion but I don't think he is either.
I read Lloyd's post regarding transmutation of elements from 2009, but where do we go from here?
I have thought that our missing electricity strength is the cause of our gravity. I have zero idea of how the connection fits but there it is. If you consider that S W Carey saw expansion in the rocks, maybe that is where it went.
Science shows us exploded nova; I think they are seeing Tony Stark's new weapon and thinking that is all there is; but no, I think it is --as the joke goes---turtles all the way down. I think that there are varying degrees of explosion down to Earth's little pop gun. I think Sol was a red dwarf that 'went nova' and now has an iron core. Can it now go nova again? Yes, if the iron core is heated sufficiently we could have a planetary birth from the sun's iron core womb. Mythology says Jupiter did so, and Venus was the result. Earth in this progression did so also; only there was insufficient energy for ejection of a body from the iron core womb and we got batholiths (note Lloyd postulates they could be transmuted energy) and I am glad to see the reference to newgeology.us but more important is his essay on magnetic floor stripping. But of course, if you forego transmutation, we can claim the Moon is the result of an early birth from Earth's hot iron core womb.

It is sad but I think without this electrical energy that has gone missing (more matter than antimatter) we will not be able to 'id' gravity and its part in the fascinating interlock of magnetism, gravity and electricity.

[katesisco]

And you know, this idea of the Moon from Earth's iron core is not so weird if you consider that our core is actually a little marble rolling around in an iron shell. So now that science has nixed the plantesimal impact, I go with an iron core birth.

[Lloyd]

Gravity
* Kate, did you see my interview with Mathis a couple of months ago here? And did you know he recently changed his idea about gravity from being caused by universal expansion to being caused by universal spin? I'm not satisfied with that idea either, myself. I think he's right that charge is caused by photons being constantly emitted by matter, but I think gravity then would be the result of a low pressure area within matter, caused by photon emission, which would tend to use up available photons, so slow moving photons in the surroundings have higher pressure, which causes them to move back toward the low-pressure matter, pushing the matter particles closer together, i.e. gravity.
Moon
* It's doubtful if planets the size of Earth can eject moons. It seems that all they can do is blow off part of their atmosphere. Fred thinks Earth may have had a large atmosphere about the size of Neptune, but volatile gases caused it to explode numerous times, which eventually removed much of the atmosphere. Our Moon more likely came from Saturn or Jupiter. Did you read the Cardona Interview thread? Or Earth Was a Moon of Saturn thread?
Electricity
* And on the subject of electricity, have you read HOW a BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS, at http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf? Or read anything in Section 4 of his online book at http://milesmathis.com/.