Secrets of the Aether, Questions and Answers

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Sovereign,
you wrote:

It makes more sense to me to say that objects have always existed and will always exist.

One may say whatever one wishes, that is not the issue.

[Solar]

My apologies in advance. I've tried on several occasion to make my way through this thread but as of yet it remains quite disjointed and too cantankerous to endure. Just a few questions there JL. From the thread "Why an Ether":

Aether is a quantum two spin rotating magnetic field that donates charge to the circular string mass of angular momentum as it encapsulates it.

-Is the 'donating' of "charge" considered to be some form of "charge exchange"?

-As the "primary angular momentum" (aether) donates charge to the string mass, which also appears to be a form of angular momentum as you've phrased it above, is there a perceived increase in the mass of the existing matter that already contains - or has already been formed - from the primary aether?

Matter does not make fields. Aether is a magnetic field. Magnets get there resoance from their spin alignments and how that couples with the aether itself. The aether makes the field, not the magnet.

-What is it about the magnet that makes the aether, as "primary angular momentum", appear to be more concentrated in the spacial region that the magnet occupies?

-I'm also curious as to how a magnet, even the common bar magnet, seems to carry the aetheric "torsion" that was induced with the original formation of that bar magnet, where ever it goes. No matter where I move a magnet it remains a magnet and maintains that aetheric torsion. This would seem to speak to an interesting characteristic about the "primary angular momentum" in that, once induced, the torsion - if it is a torsion - that produces the aetheric "field" that we call a "magnetic field"; is unique to the matter around and through which this feature occurs. As if the object possesses a positional "hole" in the aether that said aether constantly tries to fill dynamically on the fly.

Unless, due to the conductance of the aether as "primary angular momentum" having been set in motion about a magnet during its formation (Maxwell says "twirl" not "curl") was the result of such powerful electrical forces that the electromagnetic "inertia" of the aether simply hasn't stopped rotating in the aetheric "reference frame" while we keep looking at the metal of the bar magnet befuddled with regard to the properties of the space surrounding it and it's hypothetical "action at a distance" peculiarities.

This is because it is a quantum 2 spin rotating magnetic field, light is a quantum 1 spin angular momentum, and matter is a quantum 1/2 spin of encapsulated angular momentum and aether combined.

According to what you have stated, again *IF* I'm understanding you or APM, the underlined portion above doesn't sound right. You have stated that the aether *IS* a sort of "non-material" "primary angular momentum", yet the above appears to use both terms in the sense that they are two different things when saying "encapsulated angular momentum and aether combined". Any APM specific clarification greatly appreciated.

Lastly, I've tried to get a general understanding of some aspects of APM on more than one occasion including reading most of the main website and some of D.T.'s blog. When it is that you combine multiple theories together in one thread it makes digging for the pertinent APM aspects difficult because the focus is far too all inclusive of so many other theories. I think I can see some aspects a bit more clearly as a result of the work of Harold Aspden owing to what I find to be the ease of his nomenclature. In addition, I think Aspden has a simple test that one can perform which I'll try to dig up. At any rate, ONWARD!!

[junglelord]

Hi Solar.


A few misconceptions I will clear up.
Aether is NOT angular momentum.

The rest of the misconceptions that continue are one and the same, if I read your thought process properly, is incorrect.

Aether and angular momentum are totally seperate things, yet somehow you have the aether as primary angular momentum. The rest of the off road stuff comes from that detour.

Magnets are no different then any other matter. Magnets are simply in spin resonance with themself and the aether field. This allows them to couple to the aether. Aether is the field. Aether is everywhere. That resolves action at a distance via spooky means.

This is because it is a quantum 2 spin rotating magnetic field, light is a quantum 1 spin angular momentum, and matter is a quantum 1/2 spin of encapsulated angular momentum and aether combined.

Read it again carefully please.
Light is pure primary angular momentum, while matter is captured light, (primary angular momentum) + aether which encapuslated the primary angular momentum, it is now matter because of this dual relationship. All of the properties of matter such as charge and magnetism are donated via the source, Aether, as it is the rotating magnetic field.
The field makes the matter via this encapsulation of light. The source of all matter is light and aether.

Aether is not angular momentum, light is, aether is a two spin rotating magnetic field.

So we have three items that are carefull explained, so please why the rearrangement confusion.
I have never said aether was angular momentum, infact I keep saying it is not.

1. Aether, which is a quantum 2 spin rotating magnetic field, it is everywhere and is the source of all charge and magnetic fields.

2. Light is best understood as primary angular momentum, it is not matter or aether, it is light. It has a quantum spin of 1.

3. When Aether encapsulates light, it becomes matter. Matter therefore is number 1 + number 2 = number 3. Matter such as e- and p+ have only a 1/2 quantum spin number.

[Solar]

Thank you. You did understand my confusion as to whether or not the aether unit and primary angular momentum were separate aspects.

In the APM, the mass of the electron cannot exist
apart from its quantum of action, which is angular momentum. In the APM, we call this
quantum of action primary angular momentum and view it as a particular form of existence.19 In
addition, primary angular momentum, which does not exist within the Aether, names dark matter
(in the sense widely used in modern astrophysics). When dark matter is absorbed into a quantum
Aether unit, the Aether imparts various qualities of charge to the primary angular momentum,
and thus it becomes visible matter (and antimatter). - A New Foundation for Physics

So: primary angular momentum = quantum of action = Planck's quantum of action

Which: "does not exist within the Aether"

...making them two seperate things

Dark matter views as primary angular momentum, which exists outside the charge structure of
the quantum Aether unit. Empirically, there is a vast sea of dark matter that does not interact
with visible matter, except gravitationally. This is because primary angular momentum does not
have inherent strong charge or electrostatic charge. The Aether unit imparts these two charge
characteristics when primary angular momentum is absorbed.

...

A cavity forms between the proton and electron that encapsulates dark matter existing between
Aether units. This encapsulated dark matter becomes the neutrino.

Now. Somehow the separately existing primary angular momentum becomes the "circular string mass of angular momentum", the loxodrome - which is also conceptually known as a "Rhumb line" (crosses all meridians at the same angle) as it "encapsulates" or absorbes 'dark matter' (as primary angular momentum) and "imparts various qualities of charge to the primary angular momentum ..."?

Is the loxodrome based on a quantum constant? How is the "characteristic" of charge being 'imparted' to "dark matter" as primary angular momentum? Is there a type of "displacement" via "expansion" going on in there?

Then you say: "Light is pure angular momentum ..."

...which is "captured" or "encapsulated" via 'absorption' by the aether 'unit'. That is confusing in relation to light as angular momentum because both "dark matter" and Light are considered to be angular momentum. Is there a transference of angular momentum via geometrized phase-transition?

And then:

Angular Momentum - Light, the transmission of light, the absorption of light, and the emission of light are described in terms of angular momentum. Also, all subatomic particles (onta) are angular momentum. Angular momentum is the primary state of matter. - Aether Physics Model

Also

The Aether - The Aether is historically discussed as an undetectable substance that carries light waves across the Universe. The Aether Physics Model shows the Aether is made up of quantum units of rotating magnetic field that define the boundaries and quantities of primary angular momentum. The Aether is mathematically quantifiableAether Physics Model

... "boundaries and quantities of primary angular momentum". It appears here that the case is that "dark matter", light, "onta", the "circular string mass" or loxodrome, photon, matter, absorption of light, transmission of light, emission of light etc are 'phases of the 'Primary' angular momentum? Simply given different names to indicate how DM as "primary angular momentum' becomes geometrized?

Are these, or is one to equate the phases of geometrization of "dark matter" as primary angular momentum with the concept of "quantum phase-transitions"?

Here is a an interesting "drawing" of "Light With Orbital Angular Momentum".

"In an ordinary light beam, the electric fields (arrows) at every point of the cross section are in the same phase; they are synchronized. In a beam with orbital angular momentum, different points on the cross section are in different phases ...

representing a phase difference of 180 degrees from the top. The color wheel, from blue to red, denotes a range of phase from 0 to 360 degrees (0 to 2 pi). Note that in light with orbital angular momentum, the direction of polarization (denoted by the direction of the arrow) does not change across the cross section. The fields only point up or down, with different phase delays in different places.

Is it possible, or correct as a tool for understanding, to consider the graphical representation of the aether unit as giving account of geometrized "quantum phases" of the "primary angular momentum"?

[junglelord]

http://www.aip.org/png/2005/229.htm
Thats a wonderful link, thanks.

You now see the way the entire expression of light is slowly changing even in the public concept. Angular Momentum is the building block of all things via its relationship of aether. On its own, as in a photon, it is still the essential unit of measurement and understanding. This is what is common between matter and light is the angular momentum. You got it now Solar. Geometry is an integral part of reality and is a dimension. This is the next step. You got all the parts now lets re-organize the SI Units via quantum constants. This series of quantum limits are the structural framework on which APM is built. This directly brings up the fact that Dimensions need to be re-organized. Mass is a dimension. Spherical Geometry is a Dimension. Just take it at face value as the right way to express the quantum domain. This is now a simple model. Mass NEVER changes. The mass of an e- NEVER changes. The two mass constants are e- and p+. The EM charge that is donated via the circular string of mass scanning an aether unit is a relationship of its mass. So EM Charge is different for each sub atomic distributed charge units because its Mass is different. Meanwhile ES Charge is the same for all sub-atomic distributed charge units as the aether ES charge is constant. EM charge is therefore a relationship of mass to aether while ES charge is the aether unit of charge itself. The two charges are then quantified as seperate primary forces. EM charge is the force that holds the nucleus together. The so called gluon is EM Strong Charge. That is a major accomplishment. Now lets go further. ES charge is the reason we have the electron shell. The next relationship is how the two geometries integrate. This is the cause of the so called weak force that accounts for radioactive decay. Now in one fell sloop, by quantify ES Charge as fundamental and not a expression of EM Charge, we have solved three problems.

APM has explained a unified field theory via what we already know by simple re- organization that could have been done by 1935, because the SI Units have the answers right there in Quantum Constants. The Unified Field is created by quantify ES Charge and by its relationship to EM Charge which already is quantified. This leaves us with gravity. A three force model. Elegant, razor sharp and very intelligent approach. Quantum Constants give us a whole new way to see the picture. ES Charge must be quantified. All charge is distributed. Since atoms are composed of distributed charge there is no particle and there never was. Atoms are shimmering clouds of distributed charge of very defined geometry. They expand and contract and wave. They appear as both particle and wave, yet they are neither, they are simply distributed charge. The particle zoo and atom smashing is wasteful time. A four force model that does not quantify ES Charge is not correct.

ES Charge must be quantified. EM charge is the gluon. The geometric relationship b/t these two distributed charges accounts for the Weak Force so that is not a force.

My own insight and contribution is that Tensegrity is the process via which matter is created. Fuller always said this, but I only delt with biological tensegrity issues. I had not looked further into Fullers work and Tensegrity is the EU and also how Matter is formed. Charge is continuous Tension and permeates the universe in the EU and so it does. Aether is continuous Tension. Matter is discontinuous and is the compression element in the EU/APM Tensegrity Principle I pointed out that was a original thought by Fuller anyway. This brings us to investigate Fuller, further. Synergetics was actually pointed out to me by a forum member who had a link to 72 hours of Fuller talking about everything he knew. Since Charge Geometry is Spherical, Fullers work is 100% in agreement and intelligent addition to the new thought process via this re-organization.

The harmonic relationship of all charge is a platonic solid as it changes frequency, it goes from one geometric platonic solid to another. Now by this I mean that the Distributed Spherical Charge has harmonic nodes that appear as the frequncy changes and when connected show themselves to be platonic solids. The way we generally see platonic solids is in the macro size in straight lines. This is not the quantum world. There are no straight lines in nature and this is true at the quantum level for sure. So imagine the lines that connect these harmonic nodes as traveling around the sphere of charge. No straight lines. Still a platonic solid. The work of Blazelabs and TreeIncarnation complement the APM Model by two basic methods. Blazelabs re-organizes the SI units into Space/Time Units. This is quite telling as well. Quantum limits also take precedent and many things are revealed via Plancks Constant and Plancks Length. TreeIncarnation has extended the work of Fuller which by its own geometry and revelations again complements APM.

The Distributed Frequency of the Quantum Domain is the more fundamental expression we should become aware of. We all understand linear frequency of the moon, earth and sun. That means that the two frequencies are the proper expression of what they call Time. Two Frequency domains, Linear and Distributed. Three Space Domains we all know and love. Length, Area, Volume. Volume, ES Charge, and Quantum Distributed Frequency are linked together. When the Aether unit encapsulates the angular momentum and creates matter via tensegrity, the third component, Volume has a integrated relationship with that scanning circular string of Mass the creates Quantum Frequency. This 5 dimensional unit is important and simple to understand. I hope you can see why this would be. You must visualize the string scanning the aether unit, as in the diagrams. The concept is important and fits together like a hand in a glove. The SI Units reveal this all by themself.

The SI Units needed to be re-organized since we understood the atom and the quantum constants. To have not done that is the secret to our own ignorance.

[altonhare]

Hi Sovereign,
you wrote:

It makes more sense to me to say that objects have always existed and will always exist.

One may say whatever one wishes, that is not the issue.

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?

I should say an object that exists has always existed and will always exist. The substantiation is that something cannot come from nothing nor vice versa.

[junglelord]

I believe it has been determined that this Ayn Rand stuff is NOT for this thread.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Sovereign,
you wrote:

It makes more sense to me to say that objects have always existed and will always exist.

One may say whatever one wishes, that is not the issue.

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?

I should say an object that exists has always existed and will always exist. The substantiation is that something cannot come from nothing nor vice versa.

Hi Alton,
You too are free to maintain that an object has always existed and always exist and I am not saying you are right or wrong. What I am saying is that you, or anyone else for that matter, have no proof so therefore it is an act of faith. Now you can claim that this is a hypothesis, preposition, theory or whatever but it still boils down to you not having any proof and it being an item of faith (even if it is only temporary, i.e. until it is scientifically disproved or whatever). Can you furnish me with an example of something which has always been or which will always be?
Leaving aside something coming from nothing, for all we know, the 'somethings' we observe today may have their origins in 'something' of which we today have absolutely no knowledge. Similarly, at some point in the future the 'somethings' we observe today may change into something of which we today currently have no knowledge.
To me, the position maintained by you (and others) is a cop-out. It is maintained because the alternative is to have to consider some sort of creation which, in turn, raises the spectre of a creator. This is not a problem to me as there is no god or are no gods. There were none is the earliest Vedic literature; the Egyptian neters were not originally gods; there are none in the I Ching, as a few examples. Modern science talks in terms of Boyle's law, Plancks constant or Birkeland currents etc. The ancients used gods, nymphs, fabulous creatures, etc to convey the same (or similar) information. They did this not because they were primitive and incapable of coming up with fancy-dan maths but because they viewed the Universe as working to the same rules at every scale so it was more intuitive (or common-sensical) to describe it in terms that were readily understandable.

[junglelord]

HI Solar.
I have been examining the issue of a photon and your question.
Primary Angular Momentum is the unit of exchange b/t a e- and a photon.
When PAM exists in the form of a photon its mass is equally divided between its existance as two units in this primary state. Konstantine Meyl, Dave Thomson, and Victor M. Urbina all have proposed a two unit model for the photon.
I also made a thread to this effect.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 17&start=0

Both Meyl and Thomson say it is a e- and e+(positron) together. Urbina says its two units but does not say what they are.
The Graphics on the Urbina page will explain a lot of things about the two unit model of light.

The two opposite particles, one matter one antimatter, cancel each other out as far as the observable mass.
That is because the PAM is in osciallaton b/t both states if I understand APM properly, and is both at the same time, half of it is e- the other half antimatter e+. Meyl says the same thing. A photon is a dual opposite vortex unit of a e- and e+ in his Scalar Theory.

Meyl says an e- is the same thing, a dual vortex of both a e- and a e+. That would be where the two seperate.
That is where Thomson is correct, as far as I am concerned. When a unit of matter an e- exists, it is not both matter and antimatter in that state. I never could get my head around that from Meyl. For light it makes total sense. Thats why the Mass appears to be zero. Thomson quantifies ES Charge as well as EM and has a two distributed charge unit. That is the divide when they approach a two charge unit e-. However both recognize the dual charge unit for both e and photon.

[junglelord]

I got it all correct except the fact that a photon is still encapsulated by the aether unit.
A photon is a e-/e+ traveling at the speed of c. Therefore it is still encapsulated.
My apolgies. I will give a more indepth account tomorrow.
Cheers

[Plasmatic]

I believe it has been determined that this Ayn Rand stuff is NOT for this thread.

As before no one except you has mentioned Rand whatsoever! Get over it.I dont see you complaining about the other "philosophies" being practiced/advocated as a system of interpretation of the subject matter in this thread, such as "prickly goop" i.e. contradiction and non identity!

Besides this perhaps youll demonstrate how Altons position has anything to do with what youve asserted anyway! A citation perhaps?

[junglelord]

Thanks for playing moderator of a thread you hate.
You have successfully derailed the thread AGAIN.


Ayn Rand is words.
This a word debate that has NOTHING to do with APM!
Get over it.

Hi Sovereign,
you wrote:

It makes more sense to me to say that objects have always existed and will always exist.

One may say whatever one wishes, that is not the issue.

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?

I should say an object that exists has always existed and will always exist. The substantiation is that something cannot come from nothing nor vice versa.

Now I will thank GC for resolving the debate of words.

[Sovereign]

Well I think I've read all of this thread finally and was wondering a couple things.
What does aether look like? And what does it's fundamental constituent look like?

[kevin]

Sovereign,
I believe that Marcel Vogel may have been the first person to capture an image of the aether, it may not exist in 3D as it transfers from another dimension to create 3D.
Therefore it may only be at this finite moment that it may be visible , if at all as it may already have transformed into whatever is the building blocks of 3D.
http://www.vogelcrystals.net/legacy_of_marcel_vogel.htm

He was particurally interested in the lattice geometry of substances as they formed, and was given a stunning zeiss microscope to work with when retiring from IBM.
I believe he caught the moment ice formed with this microscope.
he also had a device to measure his aura, or field about matter.
Kevin

[Sovereign]

Sovereign,
I believe that Marcel Vogel may have been the first person to capture an image of the aether, it may not exist in 3D as it transfers from another dimension to create 3D.http://www.vogelcrystals.net/legacy_of_marcel_vogel.htm

I scanned through that site but didn't see any drawing labeled aether. Any chance you could just link the picture?

Therefore it may only be at this finite moment that it may be visible , if at all as it may already have transformed into whatever is the building blocks of 3D.

What do you think the building blocks of 3D look like?