Recovered: History of the Z Pinch and Theta Pinch Rewritten!

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

I should also add that I don't necessarily expect that I, or the people here now, will complete this process. But, I think that we can all play a part in the big picture (I think of it as "Open Source Physics"). In my own view, I feel it's just as likely that we'll soon have some very intelligent and open-minded quantum mechanics expertise appear on these forums.

We don't have to wait for them though. We can already start the process of laying down a philosophical and strategic framework for solving these problems, and attempt to get started on the problem. We can arrive at many conclusions on these sorts of things merely by identifying the problems with the dominant paradigm and establishment's attempts at solving these problems, and correcting them. In particular, if we can manage to encourage lots of lines of investigation rather than discourage them, then I think that we will create the environment that creativity demands to flourish within, and we will have accomplished something that very few forums can lay claim to. The key is to never stray too far from a philosophy of skepticism. If it turns out that David Thomson advocates things that are just not supported by the facts of what we already agree upon, then we have to revert back to a salvaging process to identify what pieces we can extract, or what parts we wish to remove. In this way, Thomson still gets credit for those aspects that he gets right. We can open source this process by keeping the discourse as much as possible on the conceptual level. Mathematics will probably be a bit more useful to us when it's time for a technical review. One of the mistakes that the mainstream has fallen into though is in trying to discredit novel ideas on the basis of the mathematics that supports the conventional views. We have to be very wary of this. Many simplistic attempts to discredit the Electric Universe through mathematics had the superficial appearance of being valid. But, they're in fact more "pseudo-pedagogical" (Hannes Alfven's term); they appear to help, but they in fact cause more harm than is readily apparent. Figuring out how to properly utilize mathematics to identify the correct framework is going to be incredibly difficult. I don't yet have a clear philosophical stance on this yet, and I'd appreciate others' ideas in this regard.

Some of you may not realize that David Talbot has been a strong supporter of David Thomson for some time now (I think I'm allowed to say this publicly ...), but at the same time, David Thomson's terminology (as well as his insistence that space is 5-dimensional) has been a persistent problem for other EU advocates and have generally led to Thomson's material being dismissed without rigorous review. Thomson attempts to work in some astrophysical concepts like "dark matter", and this is a turn-off for many advocates of plasma-based cosmologies. But, what I think that Talbot realizes is that Thomson's theory is not reliant upon those concepts one bit. David Thomson is just trying to explain what he currently knows of astrophysics in terms of his own paradigm. That his paradigm can accommodate something like dark matter, or that he uses such a term without concern, does not mean that his approach is incorrect or that these attempts (like his religious forays) are integral to his theory. He didn't design his paradigm with EU in mind. It's our job to see if the two can be made to meet up.

OP "pln2bz"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

David Thomson does not make his case on his website. I'm going to have to purchase his book. What you have to realize about Thomson though is that he spent many years of his life studying religion. It's as much a part of him as the science. I'm not a religious person one bit, but many great scientists have been very religious. We can't let it bother us.

I don't recommend even bothering with his website. What's there will likely turn you off.

David Thomson's terminology (as well as his insistence that space is 5-dimensional) has been a persistent problem for other EU advocates and have generally led to Thomson's material being dismissed without rigorous review. Thomson attempts to work in some astrophysical concepts like "dark matter", and this is a turn-off for many advocates of plasma-based cosmologies. But, what I think that Talbot realizes is that Thomson's theory is not reliant upon those concepts one bit. David Thomson is just trying to explain what he currently knows of astrophysics in terms of his own paradigm. That his paradigm can accommodate something like dark matter, or that he uses such a term without concern, does not mean that his approach is incorrect or that these attempts (like his religious forays) are integral to his theory. He didn't design his paradigm with EU in mind. It's our job to see if the two can be made to meet up.

Turned off indeed , I wish I could post some personal comments of his that illuminate the very core of his perspective on Physics!!! However there may be other things he says that arent nonsense , but I havent seen any as a result of his very unobjective epistemology and mysticism.

I want to caution you in this regard , or at least to point out that Einstiens thoeries directly correlate to his philosophy as laid out by himself. All people do this wether they know it or not. That is why "All" folks who wish to be responsible with their values need to study Philosophy!!! All concepts arise from this foundation ,Metaphysics and Epistemology.
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason I like Tom Beardens work is because he agrees with Boyd Bushman on many levels. We will not find our work in mainstream education. We must search the history books and observe nature. A new field is required to balance the books. Wilbert Smith, Tom Bearden, Konstatine Meyl, Aetherometry all appear to be talking about the same thing. A Scalar Field from which Electricity and Magnatism are a subset.

Boyd Bushman on Nature does not speak english.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMzHTER ... re=related

Tom Bearden's webpage
http://www.cheniere.org/toc.html

What interest me most about these two men and their observation is that they come from Black Ops which are the real deal concerning the next step in physics with real world applications. Russian Scalar Weather Radar aka the Woodpecker and companies like Lockheed are where Tesla technology is/was being implimented. Bearden and Bushman are therefore at the top of the functional models as far as I can see because of their positions and information and technology that the average professional person would never know about. Black Technology is black for a reason.

_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote

What interest me most about these two men and their observation is that they come from Black Ops which are the real deal concerning the next step in physics with real world applications. Russian Scalar Weather Radar aka the Woodpecker and companies like Lockheed are where Tesla technology is/was being implimented. Bearden and Bushman are therefore at the top of the functional models as far as I can see because of their positions and information and technology that the average professional person would never know about. Black Technology is black for a reason.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, we can and do productize many things without fully understanding them. You've actually just encapsulated one of establishment science's arguments for believing in things like quantum mechanics. This is why it's possible that the military could be employing longitudinal EM wave technology and yet not fully realize the implications for cosmology, astrophysics, the standard solar model, etc. Until we are having successes with predicting physical phenomenon based upon a quantified conceptual understanding of subparticles and the aether, we are perhaps doing nothing more than succeeding through trial and error.

I do not bring this up to induce any great controversy. I think your justification is still valid. I'm just trying to introduce additional context. What I'm curious about whether or not these people attempt to detail the structure of the aether based upon what they know?

OP "pln2bz"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:39 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe contextually that the aetherometry is the scalar field. I believe both camps point to a primary underlying homogeneous field that is the missing equation in todays model of the universe.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Wilbert Smith from his book The New Science. Contrasted to what Boyd Bushman says. They are both telling us the same thing. Asking questions, the language of the universe, the role of theoretical math and modern models. They point the direction to the primary field. We are talking about an EU model and therefore the primary scalar gradient homogenous field lies hidden all around us. EM are vectoral subset fields of the primary field. Gravity is a subset of the Scalar field and Electricity, a closed longitudinal field line. It cannot be cancled or opposed, only bent because it is a closed field line. The application of the Rule of Quadrature (Right Angles) explains the three fields properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw

We find ourselves in this Universe, and we are aware of it. We strive to understand it, and to do so we use all means at our disposal. We observe and speculate; we look and sometimes we find; we ask many questions and get many answers. If the questions are proper we get proper answers, but if they are not proper questions we get indefinite answers or no answers at all.

Sometimes we cannot distinguish between cause and effect or the phenomenon and the effect of the phenomenon. Sometimes we mistake the shadow for the substance and pass by the reality while we pursue the image.

Often we are so enamoured of our own brilliance that we cannot see the little glints of Truth that line our way. Many shining nuggets of Truth lie buried at our feet and if we are not too proud to dig we will find them.

There are certain fundamental Truths in this Universe and if we are prepared to accept them we can use them as tools for its better Understanding.

No principal can be described or satisfactorily defined except in terms of concepts which are more basic, until one basic concept is reached which in itself cannot be defined at all, but which will define all other concepts.

The Universe contains no anomalies, and the appearance of an anomaly is warning that our understanding is inadequate. Anyone who is at all familiar with modern physics is, no doubt, appalled at its complexity, confused by the many correction and perturbation factors, and amazed at the many weird theories propounded in all sincerity to explain observations in terms of "established principles". Anomalies are the rule rather than the exception, and the amount of data which just won't fit is colossal. All in all it is fairly obvious that this view of the Universe is bogging down and we are in reality conjuring up a mathematical monstrosity and raising it to Deity status. It is truly the modern Golden Calf.

Mathematics must be the servant of Understanding and not its master. Equations, by their very nature, cannot discover; they can only yield relationships derived from the initial statements and which were inherently in them when they were stated.

Truth is not hidden; it is available to all and is the same for all. Apparent differences must be due to inadequate understanding.

Our physical senses are very limited and we can observe directly only certain aspects of our Universe, and these only within strictly limited ranges. However, as our understanding increases we are able to devise ways and means for extending our sense both in range and scope, which in turn leads to better understanding. But we must always remember in thus extending our senses to distinguish between the language of observation and its translation into the language of our senses, lest we miss the phenomenon while inspecting its effect. Also, since the information we get through extensions of our senses is essentially "second hand", we must be doubly sure that it is truly what we think it is, that it is in fact "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

There are two ways of "learning", memorizing and understanding. No matter how good memory is it can never do more than regurgitate that which has been assimilated, without form and undigested. A library is an excellent memory but its understanding is nil. Understanding however allows one to KNOW and is not limited to material which has already been assimilated. Further, understanding can extrapolate while memory cannot even interpolate.

Mathematics is a discipline in which many people have a fair understanding, and within which one facet of the Quadrature Concept manifest most elegantly. Geometry, complex algebra, and vectors all make use of a special relationship in which one line is at right angles to another. Various properties, some of which are obvious and some which are not so obvious, have been ascribed to this quadrature relationship between lines. In fact, whole mathematical philosophies have been developed around this relationship, and their practical application has given us electrical current, radio, aeronautics, and many others. In mathematics the Quadrature Concept manifests as two lines mutually at right angles, or to a line which has been subjected to an operation by the square root of minus one from its previous position. Successive operations yield relationships which are the cornerstones of various branches of mathematics. But the universal Quadrature Concept extends much beyond its mere mathematical application, interesting though this may be, and is in fact the Concept which links Awareness with the Concept which is fundamental.


http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm

_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

Last edited by junglelord on Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:02 am; edited 1 time in total

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: Reply with quote

We can already start the process of laying down a philosophical and strategic framework for solving these problems, and attempt to get started on the problem. We can arrive at many conclusions on these sorts of things merely by identifying the problems with the dominant paradigm and establishment's attempts at solving these problems, and correcting them. In particular, if we can manage to encourage lots of lines of investigation rather than discourage them, then I think that we will create the environment that creativity demands to flourish within

Just taking this out while I could quote both your last posts. Great inspiring writing, pln2bz, it got me all fired up and ready to go.
The creative initiative displayed and the proposed input delineated are heartwarming and suggestive.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that even the effort of starting such project will be at least productive in some sense.
And indeed if the persona, behind the different suggestive theories displayed in this thread and on this forum, can be left out in the equation, so a non-personal approach, then the comparing and extracting of the different parts could be very stimulating.
You said David Talbott has affinity with one of the sources named is a little bit reassuring for me, in the sense that I was in a little doubt if the activities, for instance in this thread, are appreciated by the thunderbolts-team.
I am also in a little doubt, as to what kind of modus operandi has to be evolved in this thread, so that the discussion of the several subjects contained in the proposed theories does not become a chaos.
Should there be a consensus on some subjects from the start and discuss those point by point or will it amount to free discussion throughout?

What I worry about is the advocacy of a particular framework to the exclusion of all others. That would seem to just be a process of copying. We need to analyze, compare and contrast. Maybe this is too lofty a goal, but there is no rush. Ultimately, our success or failure in understanding Tesla and a Theory of Everything will completely depend upon our procedure and strategy.......
the situation we're currently in -- where the conventional particle models appear to be wrong and need a replacement -- demands that we increase the breadth of our examination for a replacement. We need to try to perform a comprehensive review of what's out there before we settle on anything in particular.

Indeed it ought not be done in a frenzy and even , in my opinion, the concept of succes/failure should not be considered. The concept of building a comprehensive review in itself and making it work would already be a succes.
So would it be an idea to start of with starting with summing up some subjects that are common in the proposed theories?

May the Muses help us in this endeavour
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo

OP "StefanR"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: Reply with quote

A Soviet scientist, Ignatovich, has pointed out the same remarkable bidirectional wave structure inside the scalar potential associated with the Schroedinger wave equation itself. [See V.K. Ignatovich, "The remarkable capabilities of recursive relations," American Journal of Physics, Vol. 57, No. 10, Oct. 1989, p. 873-878. Ed.] And I've pointed out a mechanism by means of which you can make a quantum potential, so that separate things - even widely separated - can interact as if they were all pieces of the same system, and all located together at the same location. Further, I've pointed out that you can deliberately structure that quantum potential with a Whittaker bidirectional wave structure.

Question5: Can you make that last part a little simpler?

A: What that means is that in QM, there's a special kind of potential you can make, that can connect spatially separated things and translate energy between them, in hidden fashion and essentially instantaneously. This "connection at a distance" directly results in action-at-a-distance.I've advanced the mechanism for making one of these quantum potentials, so it is subject to laboratory test. Further, in that artificial quantum potential you make, you can put in a hidden EM wave Whittaker structure - hidden "pipes inside spacetime" itself, so to speak. Then you have established hidden EM-wave-energy channels through spacetime, connecting widely separated entities together. You can then put energy and specific energy patterns - vacuum engines, if you will - directly through those hidden channels. You can have the hidden energy emerge at a distant point and interact in and on a distant physical system there. This distantly-emerging interaction energy can be positive (disordering, or scattering) or negative (reordering). Transmitting scattering energy, you get distant heating - the production of heat energy at a distance. Transmitting reordering energy, you can extract energy from the distant object or system through those hidden channels, accomplishing distant electrostatic cooling.

The other thing to note is that EM energy transmission through the hidden channel is not limited to the speed of light. The speed of light refers to energy transmission through 3-space, and the internal channel refers to energy transmission around 3-space, or in other words, through hyperspace. And it's testable on the laboratory bench.

Good. Intuition relatively confirmed. One of the first things that occurred to me as I read the Aetherometry 'expression' of this all pervading "potential", as Beardon expresses it, was the "action-at-a-distance" concept. This concept would actually be a misunderstanding. An illusion. A paradox.

Whether as LDM waves, scalar, "vacuum energy", Aether et al there apparently would be no 'place' where this homogeneous field isn't. Therefore, setting up (transmitting) a frequency within it would then allow the reception of that frequency via a resonant receiver appropriately tuned. Apparently on a supraluminal basis. That 'frequency' would not be bound by the speed of light limitation or concept because there is no 'space' to travel from/to when you have, and can, affect something that is basically 'everywhere'. You're basically effecting the whole of one field. Therefore, the 'speed' of travel from one point to another would be an inapplicable concept because you would not have a 'speed' of 'travel' over a 'distance' relationship.

Or am I off base with that?

OP "Solar"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Whether as LDM waves, scalar, "vacuum energy", Aether et al there apparently would be no 'place' where this homogeneous field isn't. Therefore, setting up (transmitting) a frequency within it would then allow the reception of that frequency via a resonant receiver appropriately tuned. Apparently on a supraluminal basis. That 'frequency' would not be bound by the speed of light limitation or concept because there is no 'space' to travel from/to when you have, and can, affect something that is basically 'everywhere'. You're basically effecting the whole of one field. Therefore, the 'speed' of travel from one point to another would be an inapplicable concept because you would not have a 'speed' of 'travel' over a 'distance' relationship.

This is very interesting stuff. We can only get so far with the Thomson materials available online, but observe the similarities in language with the APM. I do not claim to vouch for all of these statements, of course. I present them merely for the sake of observing the conceptual similiarities. From http://www.16pi2.com/blog/index.htm ...

In a recent article on Space Daily:

"The interferometer is constructed in such a way that it can detect a change of less than a thousandth the diameter of an atomic nucleus in the lengths of the arms relative to each other.

"On February 1, 2007, the Konus-Wind, Integral, Messenger, and Swift gamma-ray satellites measured a short but intense outburst of energetic gamma rays originating in the direction of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, located 2.5 million light-years away. ...

"During the intense blast of gamma rays, known as GRB070201, the 4-km and 2-km gravitational-wave interferometers at the Hanford facility were in science mode and collecting data. They did not, however, measure any gravitational waves in the aftermath of the burst.

"That non-detection was itself significant.

"The burst had occurred along a line of sight that was consistent with it originating from one of Andromeda's spiral arms, and a binary coalescence event--the merger of two neutron stars or black holes, for example--was considered among the most likely explanations. Such a monumental cosmic event occurring in a nearby galaxy should have generated gravitational waves that would be easily measured by the ultrasensitive LIGO detectors.

"The absence of a gravitational-wave signal meant GRB070201 could not have originated in this way in Andromeda..."

The LIGO system is designed within a four-dimensional frame of reference. Yet the Aether, which gravitational waves propagate through, is a five-dimensional structure. It is like expecting someone looking through a standard video camera to see with three dimensional vision into a room. The video camera transforms the reality of the three dimensional (volume) room into a two-dimensional (area) perspective. For example, if through the video camera we wanted to see behind an object in our view, we cannot move our head sideways to look behind the object. We are limited to the position and design of the video camera.

Similarly, the LIGO system was designed by people who deny the existence of Aether and don't understand its five-dimensional (space-resonance) structure. This prevents the apparatus (interferometer) from being designed properly and does not give the scientist the impetus to wonder what is behind the four-dimensional (space-time) world we see. The five-dimensional reality of the Aether looks upon our four-dimensional perspective much like our four-dimensional (space-time) perspective looks at a three-dimensional (area-time) TV monitor.

Being in a higher dimensional reality, we can see the limitations of lower dimensional reality, but lower dimensional reality must use its imagination to understand higher dimensional reality.

Isn't it amazing that instead of assuming or questioning the validity of their physics, the scientists simply assume there is something wrong with the Universe? They know there should be gravitational waves, but because they cannot detect them, they assume the gravitational waves are not there. Yet, the Sun shows us signs of gravitational waves over 100 times a year. These gravitational wave signatures are always associated with gamma ray bursts.

The Aether Physics Model is a properly quantified theory of the Aether, derived entirely from empirical measurements and constants. This theory clearly shows us that the Aether is non-material, five-dimensional, and very real. We even directly observe the behavior of the Aether as magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, solitons, phonons, frame dragging, and other non-material phenomena. Scientists simply turn their backs on the Aether Physics Model because they have convinced themselves there is no Aether.

How did they convince themselves the Aether does not exist? They used an interferometer to prove the Aether does not exist. They use the same concept to attempt to detect gravity waves. And despite having their satellites in space for over two years, they have not yet detected a single gravity wave, which was predicted by Einstein's General Relativity theory.

The Aether Physics Model also supports the existence of gravity waves, but not in the four-dimensional reality that the interferometer is built. The gravity waves exist in space-resonance, which has three dimensions of length and two dimensions of frequency. Space resonance is the same reality the Aether and photons exist in.

It is interesting that the same device that was used to disprove the Aether cannot detect the gravity waves that General Relativity theory predicts, and General Relativity theory was supposed to explain the Universe without Aether. Now, because the LIGO interferometer cannot detect gravity waves associated with gamma ray bursts, it is assumed that gamma ray bursts do not produce gravity waves, even though we can clearly see a gravity wave signature in the solar x-ray flux data every time a gamma ray burst is detected. Modern science is clearly leading us head on into a brick wall.

OP "pln2bz"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Five dimensions is Klauza Klein theory. I fully support that model as a way to envision the Unified Field Theory. Tom Bearden is in support of the Klauza Klein Model.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Five dimensions is Klauza Klein theory. I fully support that model as a way to envision the Unified Field Theory. Tom Bearden is in support of the Klauza Klein Model.

Cool!

My suspicion is that if I learn the APM and then we subsequently go through Tom Bearden's work, we're going to see a lot more conceptual similarities like this pop up. Where and if they differ, we can possibly even conceptualize tests that might identify the victor. Maybe not. We don't really know where it would take us, which is what makes it very interesting to me.

I also feel that we may be under appreciating our ability to evaluate these theories. When you read astrophysical press releases, it becomes second-nature to consider the press release in terms of the Electric Universe. I think that the only thing holding us back from utilizing that same ability to evaluate other potentially EU-compatible frameworks is our tendency to avoid picking up new frameworks. If we can get past that apprehension, I think that we'll get very far. After all, it's this EXACT problem that's preventing conventional thinkers from understanding the EU. We need to figure out a philosophical strategy for attacking the problem that integrates in corrections to their erroneous strategy.

OP "pln2bz"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote

A Soviet scientist, Ignatovich, has pointed out the same remarkable bidirectional wave structure inside the scalar potential associated with the Schroedinger wave equation itself. [See V.K. Ignatovich, "The remarkable capabilities of recursive relations," American Journal of Physics, Vol. 57, No. 10, Oct. 1989, p. 873-878. Ed.] And I've pointed out a mechanism by means of which you can make a quantum potential, so that separate things - even widely separated - can interact as if they were all pieces of the same system, and all located together at the same location. Further, I've pointed out that you can deliberately structure that quantum potential with a Whittaker bidirectional wave structure.

Question5: Can you make that last part a little simpler?

A: What that means is that in QM, there's a special kind of potential you can make, that can connect spatially separated things and translate energy between them, in hidden fashion and essentially instantaneously. This "connection at a distance" directly results in action-at-a-distance.I've advanced the mechanism for making one of these quantum potentials, so it is subject to laboratory test. Further, in that artificial quantum potential you make, you can put in a hidden EM wave Whittaker structure - hidden "pipes inside spacetime" itself, so to speak. Then you have established hidden EM-wave-energy channels through spacetime, connecting widely separated entities together. You can then put energy and specific energy patterns - vacuum engines, if you will - directly through those hidden channels. You can have the hidden energy emerge at a distant point and interact in and on a distant physical system there. This distantly-emerging interaction energy can be positive (disordering, or scattering) or negative (reordering). Transmitting scattering energy, you get distant heating - the production of heat energy at a distance. Transmitting reordering energy, you can extract energy from the distant object or system through those hidden channels, accomplishing distant electrostatic cooling.

The other thing to note is that EM energy transmission through the hidden channel is not limited to the speed of light. The speed of light refers to energy transmission through 3-space, and the internal channel refers to energy transmission around 3-space, or in other words, through hyperspace. And it's testable on the laboratory bench.

Good. Intuition relatively confirmed. One of the first things that occurred to me as I read the Aetherometry 'expression' of this all pervading "potential", as Beardon expresses it, was the "action-at-a-distance" concept. This concept would actually be a misunderstanding. An illusion. A paradox.

Whether as LDM waves, scalar, "vacuum energy", Aether et al there apparently would be no 'place' where this homogeneous field isn't. Therefore, setting up (transmitting) a frequency within it would then allow the reception of that frequency via a resonant receiver appropriately tuned. Apparently on a supraluminal basis. That 'frequency' would not be bound by the speed of light limitation or concept because there is no 'space' to travel from/to when you have, and can, affect something that is basically 'everywhere'. You're basically effecting the whole of one field. Therefore, the 'speed' of travel from one point to another would be an inapplicable concept because you would not have a 'speed' of 'travel' over a 'distance' relationship.

Or am I off base with that?

No. You are correct with that. Phase waves travel faster than light. Our information theory says you cant extract information from them.

Aetherometry says you can.

Its not really 5 dimensions in the way that we think of dimension with some sort of wall between them, but rather 5 different energy levels expressed as dimensions. Which is what I think is correct anyway.
So a different dimension is a energy level or vibration that is not experienced by matter with our range of understanding.

From Aetherometry.

A new concept of energy and a new integral function for its forms
The fundamental aetherometric concept is the expanded function of energy. Energy is a five-dimensional event, capable of phase superimposition in multiples of five-dimensional events ('raising energy to the nth power'). With this new functional approach, the energy-event becomes a micromachine, a wave-synthesizer capable of fine-structure definition. Energy is not simply the potentiality of work, but work seen or unseen, useful or useless, converted or not.

Wave-synthesizer works by phase superimposition. That is the same technology used in musical keyboards...But applied to the universe.
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

OP "upriver"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Its not really 5 dimensions in the way that we think of dimension with some sort of wall between them, but rather 5 different energy levels expressed as dimensions

Oh really???

Similarly, the LIGO system was designed by people who deny the existence of Aether and don't understand its five-dimensional (space-resonance) structure.

_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:21 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I recognize the inherit necessity for more then one model. I see the relationship that Tom Bearden speaks of in a Klauza Klein model of a fifth dimension that is very small which is formulated with Relativity in mind.

I can make more inroads with the 6 dimensions of Wilbert Smith which is formulated without Relativity.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote

One can solve ANY problem when they are allowed to postulate invisible fairytale dimensions. This is going to ruin the very thing that makes E.U. valuable IMO , and I don't think ALL the "Thunderbolts Team" are on board with this stuff!!! I hope I'm not gonna have to be the lone voice of Objective caution against theories that are no different conceptually than Platos other realm of ideals and such! There are no infinite existents. A existent with infinite identity is one with no identity. A dimension that is every where is everything.There are no 2 dimensional existents only 2 dimensional concepts!
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

Last edited by Plasmatic MnemoHistory on Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:28 am; edited 1 time in total

OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"