Secrets of the Aether, Questions and Answers

[Plasmatic]

That is the offical view of both science and APM and the EU.

Care to quote a single instance of this in the E.U. published materials?

[altonhare]

There is no 'material'

Is the official view of APM?

That is the offical view of both science and APM and the EU.

I'm sorry I do not want to derail this thread further, I asked a simple question, but it is ludicrous and outright dishonest for JL to claim *anything* about the "official view of science". Perhaps the Pope can announce the "official view of Catholicism", maybe, but Science is not Catholicism and JL is not the Pope. This claim is outrageous, dishonest, and arrogant.

Material is charge at the quantum level, that is by nature non material.

Material is non material? But everything is non-material? What sense does it make to say that everything is something it's not? Why use the word "material" at all here? JL just got done agreeing that there is no material! Yet he states that material is charge, which he states exist, and is non-material! JL is trying to tell us that everything is non-material but then goes back and says that something IS material, but it's also non-material. Which is it!? I just wanted to know the official view of APM.

I am not trolling, JL cannot answer a simple question without contradicting himself. He is setting up a situation where he cannot "be wrong" because he claims to represent diametrically opposite viewpoints. I can disagree with GC on some things without getting worked up because at least he makes explicit statements about his stance, he doesn't hop back and forth so he can appear to represent all standpoints.

If GC wants to state that everything is non material I can disagree quietly and move on. But JL claims everything is non material but then claims it's material, too. The line has to be drawn somewhere on what comprises an acceptable argument!

[junglelord]

Yes you are trolling.
Also your the Rope Pope.

What science other then Newtonian Mechanics says that matter is solid?????
Quantum Physics is solid?????
Charge is solid?
And your not trolling?

Exactly what is solid about an atom, e- or p+?
Riddle me that Mr Rope Pope.

Well it appears Divinity's link sums up about everything, including ongoing debates on this forum.
This guy is very clear, atoms are charge, and not material in any sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6396723343
Its all about perception.....your beliefs, and how Newtonian Perception is engrained in our "logic". Clearly he denies this false logic and I agree 100% with everything he says and I will add something profound to his model. My own thesis on the Extra Cellular Matrix, Adheasion Molecules, The Cytoskeleton and quantum biophysics. However like I always say I see the world 180 out of phase with the global perception. Newtonian Perception.

Newtonian Mechanics applied to every thing, dispite the fact that they do not apply to quantum domains.
I studied Biophysics until I realized that the DNA infact is controlled and not the controller. Newtonain logic says that DNA controlls everything, while it is the total opposite...DNA only does what it is told to do, it is a blueprint, nothing more. The decision to read the blueprint is up to the Protein. The structural protein is the one who decides everything, especially what genes are turned on and when that occurs. Yet the world "believes" that DNA controls the cell, the brains if you were. Take the DNA out of the cell and it can live and function for up to three months...try that with your brain.

So it is very true that when a Newtonian "fact" like Materialism is touted around as the proverbial godsend to logic, well its not. The idea that all material comes from a material source is a key point of contention. APM says that non material is the source of all material. That is clearly not Newtonian thinking. It is however backed up by this wonderful analysis of "what is real"

The Structural Approach to Knowledge will peel away all that Newtonian Limitations.
I know for a fact that many cancers are based on the structural relationship to the Ground Substance (connective tissue)and how that influences the DNA to matastisize via its coupled harmonic relationship to the Tensegrity Structure of the Cytoskeleton and its relationship to Adhesion Molecules that connect electrically and structurally to the Extra Cellular Matrix via the Cellular Membrane of the cell. The use of gravity as a tool to balance the human structure in the gravity field and the manual approach to applying energy to fascia and connective tissue as a tensegrity structure can fix a lot more then chemical approaches. This however is not understood by very many and the pharmalogical approach is the one that is forced on you, the Reductionism of Newtonian Mechanics and Determinism of Newtonian Mechanics. While the entire structural model, tissues and field of gravity is ignorned. Meanwhile structure and function cannot be seperated. Misalignment in gravity will cause collapse of the structure and this will cause collapse of function. Consider how the cancer cell determines to pick up and move, this is important.

A Jitterbug occurs that decouples the cell to allow it to matastisize....this is very important in cancer research and was the clue that led me to understand that DNA is always controlled by the structure of the enviorment it is grounded to and how that directly influences the Cytoskeleton geometry to spontaniously disassemble and reassemble. DNA is the gonads of the cell, not the brain. The Membrane is the brain according to the speaker and I agree with that relationship. He explains how receptor and channel proteins cause Confirmation Change *structural* of the Protein. We must also include the purely structural knowledge that I have worked out. We must integrate Adheasion Molecules, Extra Cellular Matrix and the Cytoskeleton as they are integrated via the Cellular Membrane. It is the controller of DNA in every respect. Adheasion Molecules, ExtraCellular Matrix, Cytoskeleton, Cellular Membrane, Protein Confirmation....all structural knowledge that controls the functions of the DNA and the cell itself. Structure and Function cannot be seperated, and Structure controlls all Functions, not vica versa. This can happen spontaneously based on the dynamic movement of the cytoskeleton, this geometric transformation called the Jitterbug. This means function can change spontaniously.

I will say that again, SPONTANIOUSLY. This Jitterbug activity is clearly explained in the video as well. Life is Proteins that move....not DNA. The geometry of the cytoskeleton is a Tensegrity Ichosahedron when it is healthy. Yeah back to that darn old Sacred Geometry. Controlling the DNA.....OH MAN I AM STILL GEEKING OUT OVER THIS VIDEO.

Thanks Divinity, much love.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Kevin,
You wrote:

Also because the aether is all permeating, we again have been fooled into the illusion again of it not existing, it is everything, and only turns into matter and mass at the geometric points that enable it to turn into matter and mass, ...

Brilliant.

And for any nay-sayers who happen to be passing by, before you roll out the old 'how do you get the material from the non-material' refrain: the answer is that you don't. There is no 'material' - it is a false dichotomy. There is only the 'non-material' - All is Mind; the Universe is mental. It is Mind which dictates (Wills) the flow of the Stuff on Kevin's lattice. It is Mind which dictates how and when something 'physical' will manifest. And there is only one Mind but it has many thoughts.
Life is but a dream....

Hi Grey Cloud and junglelord

My heart raced when I read what Grey Cloud had mentioned as quoted above. Thanks junglelord for your affirmation that it is also the view of APM that all materials we perceived as physical in our perception are non-material at quantum level. I will pursue APM work wholeheartedly as much as I could with your this affirmation.

Similarly, the view of UVS is all physical forms in universe are vortically weaved from non-material.
This is covered in "Unisonal evolution mechanism".

This guy is very clear, atoms are charge, and not material in any sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6396723343
Its all about perception.....your beliefs, and how Newtonian Perception is engrained in our "logic".

JL

Junglelord, many issues addressed in this video by Bruce Lipton rings with me.

I have an article on "Logic and belief systems", was written for you and Grey Cloud, some of the content was inspired by your posts, such as synergetics and tensegrity. It illustrates how pseudo logicians apply lame logic that in their delusions would cause all sort of misinterpretations they are so confidence of, such as "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter who have no idea about natural negations that causes cognitive paradoxes on localized perceptions. Is pleasantly surprised that Bruce Lipton has covered much of it from another stance.

Best to you all.

[bboyer]

That is the offical view of both science and APM and the EU.
All material is only charge at the quantum level.
There are no solids, no particles and no material at the quantum level.
That is quite true and always has been.

Only you seem to believe that material is real at that level.
I believe you call them ropes? Material ropes is your label.

We do not buy that. Charge is not material.
Never was, never will be.
Material is charge at the quantum level, that is by nature non material.

EU theory, and its "official view," as presented and represented by the leading proponents of such (Thornhill, Scott, Talbott, et al, aka the Thunderbolts Team) speaks for itself, and quite elegantly so, through the published material as referenced from the main Thunderbolts site and its pages, such as the Resources page. Period. The material<>non-material debate, including the subject of this thread (APM and SOTA), is not part of that presentation, and an implication or direct statement to the contrary is inappropriate at best.

[altonhare]

Does JL really propose that not a single scientist will state that the universe is made of objects i.e. is material? Do you speak for the entire scientific community JL? Have you read each paper on the subject, interviewed every inquisitive mind on earth? Assuming you had, would that make the non material "hypothesis" correct, simply because everyone you label "scientist" ascribes to it? You have to realize the ridiculousness of your statement.

Of course charge is not "solid". Charge is not a thing, charge is what something does.

Of course quantum physics isn't solid. Quantum physics is a discipline of study, it's not a thing either.

What science other then Newtonian Mechanics says that matter is solid?????

We don't hypothesize that matter is solid in a theory. That doesn't make any sense. We define matter as solid and everything else as not solid. Or you can define it the opposite way if you wish.

Exactly what is solid about an atom, e- or p+?
Riddle me that Mr Rope Pope.

What's "unsolid" about them? Last I checked they were pretty hard to break apart, and when broken many of the constituents are, thus far, "unbreakable" according to TSM.

The idea that all material comes from a material source is a key point of contention

Material doesn't "come from" some source like your water comes out of your faucet. An object exists, always has existed, and always will exist. There isn't some Grand Fountain of Material spewing forth objects new objects from nothing. Something does not come from nothing nor vice versa.

The video's an hour long O.O. I will have to get back to that.

[Plasmatic]

Junglelord wrote:
The idea that all material comes from a material source is a key point of contention

Well Im glad you agree with me! Its the fundamental debate at the heart of the validity of APM IMO! Of course you do realize what category this debate falls in dont you?????

[junglelord]

Atom smashers, break atoms all the time into quarks of fractional charge. Hell even Light can enter and leave an atom...how solid is that? This switching of photon to e-, real solid stuff.

It is not, it is charge and magnetic fields and both are non material. So all matter is non material.
Case closed.

By the way that video is two parts, so its 2.5 hrs and the thread is ready in the human section.
Tell me over there why everthing he says, that agrees with me 100% and disagrees with you and plasmatic for all the same reasons, and why your newtonian logic does not apply, go tell me over there how this is not so.

Meanwhile back at the ranch....
Light is pure angular momentum.
Aether is the field that pervades....there is no action at a distance.
Matter is light (angular momentum) encapusled by Aether....frozen light....that is EM + ES + Magnetic fields.
Light is not solid even frozen when encapsulated by aether...it takes on the attributes of aether at time, which is charge.

There is no material from material....it is all non material.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Vincent and thanks for the kind words.

I enjoyed your essay. The logic gates and logical negation struck me as similar to Parmenides' concept of dialectic (at least as I understand it). Logic (rhetoric and sophistry) argues about whether the left or right gate is the better choice. Whoever can come up with the most convincing story, then that is the gate which is chosen. The dialectic method is to decide the end point and then think through the implications, pro and con, of using the left gate; do the same for the right gate and then decide which is the better course (i.e. the one which gets you where you want to be with the minimum of fuss).
Lawyers do rhetoric and sophistry, philosophers used to do dialectic but there are no philosophers nowadays.

I enjoyed your solution to Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles is involved in another running paradox in the Iliad. Achilles is chasing Hector around Troy but cannot catch him. Hector is running around Troy trying to escape Achilles but can't get away. The issue is resolved by Athene stopping Hector. Cause and effect; action and consequence. There is always effect from a cause and there is always consequence from an action - you can't run from that. Hector's mind (Athene) tells him this and he stops to face the consequences, in this case Achilles whose mind is very focused and his will is adamantine (his armour from Hephaestos).

The electrical potential must pre-exist its non-material and material realizations of the electronic device,...

Exactly. Yin must precede yang. See this great article:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHPHIL/YINYANG.HTM

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

Sostenuto (sustained) - duration - persistence.

I also liked these two definitions:

involution - An act or instance of involving or entangling; involvement, the state of being involved.
evolution - Any process of formation or growth; development.

Cyclical time, descending and ascending cycles. Brahma breathes out, Brahma breathes in.
According to my understanding of things, we are in the process of moving from involution to evoltution. We have been entangling and involving ourselves in matter and the material. We are being human.
We will now begin to grow and develop.
We have reached the bottom of one spiral and will now work our way back up the other one.

[Edit] Forgot to ask who wrote this:

Confusion inherently occurs when we try to comprehend by means that have limited bandwidth in a spectrum to interpret a natural phenomenon that apparently is a constituency of infinite frequency spectrums and not knowing what exactly is referenced to.

It's very good.

[Plasmatic]

[quote="junglelord"]It is not, it is charge and magnetic fields and both are non material. So all matter is non material.
Case closed.

[quote]

Yet no proponent of this view can demonstrate a single instance of a "magnetic field" without pointing at material objects causing the effect! Dynamic relationships divorced from their causal primaries ,the essence of the whole Non material causation/ID nonsense.

[junglelord]

The EU is charge every where. It is therefore magnetic everywhere.
So the structure of the vaccum without matter is in constant dynamic resonace with both fields.
This is well known in quantum physics. Its called Zero Point energy and actually makes virtural atomic units.
So this is well known, observed and the Casmir Effect is one example of the field making matter.
So your chicken and egg dilemma is a material only point of view.
Matter makes fields you claim.
How do you prove that?
It is clear that fields make matter.
You seem so sure of yourself that the Matter makes the Field.
Yet you have no proof, and without APM have spooky action at a distance.
What is your field made of? What non material structural entity provides this action anyway in your view?
Some fluffy foofy wishy washy hocus pocus? You cannot give me a two sentance definition for mass, for field.


In APM there is no action at a distance as the Aether is the field.
Mass is what it is, a dimension. Mass never changes.

Aether acts as a perfect solid, perfect gas, perfect liquid, perfect plasma in its state as Aether.
It donates ES AND EM Charge attributes to Matter when it encapsulates Primary Angular Momentum.
Aether is a 2 spin rotating magnetic field...therefore the field makes the matter have attributes that is the source of and also is the magnetic field in the first place. So the magnet does not make the field...and the field is extended beyond the magnet, so your spooky action at a distance is way to vague for me. By denying APM you are chosing the latter.
LIght is Primary Angular Momentum, it is not EM and that is another thing that you either need to accept or move on.

Matter is frozen light, for lack of a better term. This is well understood as atoms absorb light and it becomes a e- and then the e- disappears and the photon reappears speeding merrily off. None of this stuff is solid in the first place....and Matter certainly does not make itself or fields...Fields make matter with entangled light.

Your body is examined via this energy all the time, x-rays, CAT Scans, PET Scans, MRI and yet you deny Energy as the source of your being, that your material existance is the source of all source.

I don't buy it for a second. Way to Newtonian for me. Its the year 2008, wake up and smell the coffee.
Quantum Physics rule the universe, not gravity.
This is the EU, remember?

As far as the chicken and egg thingy...the Non Material Egg came first.
I will let you figure out why. But of course you cannot for you will not open your eyes.
The Non Material Egg is the Structure that makes Material form.
The Structure is what matters here, not the non material part, which you can never get your head around, so why you take such a personal duty to follow APM where ever it goes to make sure everyone knows that you do not agree with it is so worn out at this point that it is a mission state ment for Plasmatic.

You have no intention of learning a single thing. Your rebuttals have made Alton happy and thats about it.
I know the personal crap is not allowed. But the "discussion" you are so called having is nothing near to what this is>

so I have to ask, what do you gain by this?
Tell me, I am curious as to why you feel the need to forever go and and on about spin being verb?
That is the chicken and egg question.
What do you gain by spending so much time trying to prove something wrong?

If it is wrong it will fall by itself, if it is right, nothing can stop it.
You do not know this rule????

I fail to waste time on endevors of this sort. What is wrong will fall, so who cares anyway.
What is right cannot fall, therefore charge rules the day, the hour, the minute, the second, the compton wavelength itself and the universe. Your waste of time is your own, but I thought that you might gain some insight about using your time wisely. I got a little hint for you. Gravity is wrong. I never bother telling anyone that. All I tell them is that the EU is right.
This in and of itself refutes gravity, so why do I need to go on and on about how wrong something is. I rather explain how simple the right model is. Since Newtonian Physics is your mental perception, your living in two worlds at the same time.
Your EU will become solid when you make it non material, until then its all newtonian and really a gravity view and materialistic principles....quantum physics does run on these principles, therefore quantum spin is a noun.

If your wise you will go support something you believe in, instead of wasting your time on something, that if your right in your infinite wisdom, will fall anyway, since you say it is such a miserable failure. Have a nice day.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

An object exists, always has existed, and always will exist. There isn't some Grand Fountain of Material spewing forth objects new objects from nothing. Something does not come from nothing nor vice versa.

An object exists, always has existed, and always will exist

This is an article of faith. You have no evidence or proof that an object has always existed or will always exist.

There isn't some Grand Fountain of Material spewing forth objects new objects from nothing.

I haven't noticed anyone saying that there is.

Something does not come from nothing nor vice versa.

Again, I've not seen anyone suggest it does.

[altonhare]

An object exists, always has existed, and always will exist

This is an article of faith. You have no evidence or proof that an object has always existed or will always exist.

We don't prove existence Grey Cloud, so your argument is misconceived. The statement I made is true pursuant to the definition of the word "exist" and the definition of the word "object". There is no proving involved.

You can state the opposite, that objects don't exist, by suitably defining the word "object" and the word "exist". This isn't an issue of proof or faith.

If you disagree with anything I said and care, then let's carry it to either my exist thread or one in a similar vein.

[Grey Cloud]

An object exists, always has existed, and always will exist

This is an article of faith. You have no evidence or proof that an object has always existed or will always exist.

We don't prove existence Grey Cloud, so your argument is misconceived. The statement I made is true pursuant to the definition of the word "exist" and the definition of the word "object". There is no proving involved.

You can state the opposite, that objects don't exist, by suitably defining the word "object" and the word "exist". This isn't an issue of proof or faith.

If you disagree with anything I said and care, then let's carry it to either my exist thread or one in a similar vein.

You are trying to weasel your way out of this. I will spell it out as you seem to have problems with plain English:
You wrote:

An object exists, always has existed, and always will exist

To which I responded:

This is an article of faith. You have no evidence or proof that an object has always existed or will always exist.

I did not ask you to prove existence.
I did not question whether anything exists.
I did not question whether there are objects.
My objection was to the statements:
a) that an object has always existed, and
b) that an object will always exist.
Note the word 'always' in your original comment, in my original response and in this current response.
That is an article of faith as you have no proof whatsoever that either a) or b) is true. Can you offer anything to substantiate either of those two claims?

[Sovereign]

I did not ask you to prove existence.
I did not question whether anything exists.
I did not question whether there are objects.
My objection was to the statements:
a) that an object has always existed, and
b) that an object will always exist.
Note the word 'always' in your original comment, in my original response and in this current response.
That is an article of faith as you have no proof whatsoever that either a) or b) is true. Can you offer anything to substantiate either of those two claims?

If an object hasn't always existed then that means it was created, which means it spontaneously gained LWH from nothing. It makes more sense to me to say that objects have always existed and will always exist.