Michael V wrote:kevin,
kevin wrote:In this electric universe I propose that no-thing is moving, that the aether is a fixed solid.
That the memory surrounding so called real bodies is displacing upon the fixed aether, enabled to do so by the dual of spin universal electric potential.
The illusion to ourselves been part of that memory of Earth is of movement, but that it is illusion.
That at all scale all so called real bodies are actually composed within their memory torroidal bubbles, and that no-thing actually exists except within it's unique memory.
The duality of opposite spin flows in torroidal fashion centred about the heart centre, thus polarity and equator are formed at all scale.
No-thing is seperate except as been within it's own memory field.
You are assuming seperateness, I am not.
Your assessment of the nature of the universe is the complete opposite of my own, and, more importantly, is the complete opposite of the data provided by our senses and thus of our internal visualisations of the world. The world and the cosmos and the very thoughts that provide us with sentience tell us that motion is real.
So I repeat my objection to your approach/conclusion. If the moving universe of our senses and the very nature of our thoughts, is so utterly and completely opposite to reality, the reality you describe, then what justification can you provide yourself regarding the accuracy of your conclusions. If the universe is the solid delusion that you imagine, then the concepts of torroidal, bubbles, spin, flows, heart, centre, polarity, equator, Earth and "ourselves" are all a complete and utter delusion from which no meaningful models can be constructed and no meaningful conclusions can be extracted.
Effectively you are stationary in a room with all your senses obscured and from this complete lack of information, you proceed to give a detailed description of the pictures on the wall. All despite the fact, that by your theoretical premise, you have not even the slightest clue of what the pictures look like or even what a picture is, let alone what a wall is. If the universe is really so totally, completely and utterly nothing like we imagine in very single possible way, which is what you are suggesting, then we have absolutely no tools whatsoever in determining its true nature. Let alone being able to have any confidence at all in what ever conclusions we are able to make.
All that said, your lunacy of invention describes a well thought out model/scenario and is certainly the result of prolonged contemplation. And so, I am curious, not so much in your theory (sorry about that), but rather how you find confidence of conclusion from a model so defined as to remove any possible link between what we can know through sensory data and internal cognitive visualisation (i.e. thoughts) and the nature of the reality you describe. By contrast, I would suggest that from our sensory data and more precisely from our cognitive sentience (since all sensory data is definitionally the result of neural interpretation processing), one of the few things that we can have full confidence in is motion. I would further suggest that within your model is a great deal of motion, but that you instead choose to describe it differently: "memory", "electric". In this I must reveal my struggle with your distinction between "nothing" and "no-thing". One problem being that "no-thing" implies the validity of the concept of "things", and thus destroys your argument.
I am interested in your thoughts.
Michael
