Why an ether/aether?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:03 pm

Altonhare wrote:
It doesn't matter what word you use, what matters is the nature of that which you are using this word to refer to. Traditionally this word has been used to refer to either A) Invalid/contradictory hypothesis or B) A rehashing of the corpuscular hypothesis.
So it's an aether or situation?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by altonhare » Sun Nov 16, 2008 6:06 pm

So it's an aether or situation?
-GC

First time I've lol'd in a good way on this forum, thank you GC.

In all the literature I have read on the subject, these are the two descriptions I have seen given to the aether.



Thank you for that article on Tesla, I enjoy reading about him, he was a most peculiar and fantastic person.
How can I prove aether exists? The only other alternative offered is empty space or the vacuum.
-Divinity's quote

There is an alternative, actually. The alternative is that everything is physically interconnected, as I have hypothesized.
How, therefore, could two particles become entangled (or waves even) if there is nothing between them?
-Divinity's quote

The answer is that the two "particles" are not discrete, separate particles but rather are connected by a chain along which they send signals (light or w/e) and pull on each other (gravitation). The aether is unnecessary.

So, again I ask, why an aether?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

lizzie
Guest

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by lizzie » Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:43 pm

Alton Hare said: So, again I ask, why an aether?
Indeed, so I say again, why NOT an aether.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by altonhare » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:56 am

lizzie wrote:
Alton Hare said: So, again I ask, why an aether?
Indeed, so I say again, why NOT an aether.
I have given reasons why the aether hypothesis should be discarded AND posited an alternative hypothesis. We shouldn't cling to the aether just because it's familiar or because we don't like the person posing a different hypothesis.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by altonhare » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:07 pm

kevin wrote:Lizzie ,
by a nose, but it was a two lap spin, and She lapped Altonhare, so it's by a full circulation and a nose.
Kevin, follower of aether.
And this is the problem with modern science. People obstinately following what is plainly either a contradictory or impotent hypothesis in favor of a consistent explanatory one. This is what the particle physicists have been doing for over 80 years, clinging to their particle hypothesis and defending it however possible. Mainstream physicists will never admit that particles are inconsistent with almost every observation at this point because of the enormity of the embarrassment involved. Over 80 years of money and intellectual application to a hypothesis that is powerless to explain the majority of observations. Critics have been silenced by an avalanche of math that only a few can understand when math has no power to resolve these issues. They tell you that you can't talk about physics because you can't solve differential equations or don't know how to work with matrices. We don't count deer to explain why the deer population fluctuates! The extremely rare few who understand the math but still criticize are, at best, ostracized as "mere philosophers" and at worst proclaimed cranks.

It is time for a paradigm shift. It is time for a new hypothesis that explains physically why light appears to "wave" and travels rectilinear. A hypothesis that physically connects every object in the universe. Not some cosmic self contradictory continuous yet deformable fluid. Certainly not just a bunch of tiny particles either! That doesn't connect everything, it just puts a bunch of "somethings" between "everything"! A hypothesis that anyone can visualize and understand qualitatively.

We have developed impeccable math, yet still live with contradiction. We have correlations for deer but we still cannot say what a deer is. We have wave equations for almost every interaction of electrons/protons/quarks/etc. but cannot say what any of these are. When we say the electron is a wave we are pointing at a deer and saying it is a running. The deer is running, so what is waving? It is way past time to put do wn our abacuses and slide-rules, stop counting deer, and formulate hypotheses about WHAT is waving. It is time to stop the bean counting and stamp collecting, it is time to start doing science.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by StevenO » Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:56 pm

altonhare wrote:It is time for a paradigm shift. It is time for a new hypothesis that explains physically why light appears to "wave" and travels rectilinear. A hypothesis that physically connects every object in the universe. Not some cosmic self contradictory continuous yet deformable fluid. Certainly not just a bunch of tiny particles either! That doesn't connect everything, it just puts a bunch of "somethings" between "everything"! A hypothesis that anyone can visualize and understand qualitatively.
That paradigm shift already exists for about 50 years. It is called the "Reciprocal System" theory of Dewey Larson, where he shows that the basic constituent of our Universe is pure 'motion' and every other physics phenomenom follows from that. Without paradoxes that is. Your aether is then the basic motion system of reference, which is motion at lightspeed outward into all directions. That motion is the reference, so equivalent to no physical activity. That explains e.g. why far away galaxies seem move apart at lightspeed: outside the influence of gravity they increasingly show the reference motion. A photon is a single vibrating unit of motion. In Larson's work straightforward explanations for all physics phenomena can be found without paradoxes, though sometimes with surprising results: how about...there are no subatomic particles inside an atom, only compound rotating photons ;)
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by junglelord » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:00 pm

Of course. I had that revelation in college when they said electrons become photons.
That is they exchange what they are, primary angular momentum.
So it is with the nucleus.
:D

StevenO, HI BUDDY!
Long time, no see.
:(

Glad to see your still with us. Miss your always insightful delights.
Drop around more often, the place needs more suprebright minds like yours.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:20 pm

Hi StevenO.
You wrote:
Your aether is then the basic motion system of reference, which is motion at lightspeed outward into all directions.

I would re-word that to:' The aether is the basic (fundamental) reference for the motion. The aether itself doesn't go anywhere as it is already everywhere. Aether was here before the light.
Light is too slow.
Grey Cloud he say: Dark + light = solid object.
Please do not reply in technical terms, it would be wasted on me. :)
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

Plasmatic
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by Plasmatic » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:31 pm

It is called the "Reciprocal System" theory of Dewey Larson, where he shows that the basic constituent of our Universe is pure 'motion' and every other physics phenomenom follows from that.
:shock: I wish I could say you where joking.... Would you care to show me "motion" as an entity?
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:42 pm

Plasmatic wrote:
Would you care to show me "motion" as an entity?
Entities are rarer than ens teeth.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by junglelord » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:13 pm

Motion is not real, not an entity?
:shock:

Life is only life due to motion, therefore motion is life. Life is an entity. It creates more entities due to love and lust. Thats what life is all about. Your a student of words with no life, no love, no lust. I have life and have it abundently due to love. Even lust is more real than Ayn Rand's puppet messages.

A Heart is motion, it produces more motion known as Bloodpressure, which creates a motion in the brain. Love is somewhere in between.

A mind without motion is a vegetable!
Are you saying your a vegetable?
I am coming pretty close to believeing that.

A mind in motion is alive.
Would you care to see a mind in motion, ie thoughts?
Try an ECG or MRI!

Otherwise you'll try to make a vegetable out of everyone.
With no heart, no mind, no emotions.

Love is a PHI Spiral.
:D :D :D :D :D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Divinity
Guest

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by Divinity » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:33 pm

junglelord wrote:Motion is not real, not an entity?
:shock:

Life is only life due to motion, therefore motion is life. Life is an entity. It creates more entities due to love and lust. Thats what life is all about. Your a student of words with no life, no love, no lust. I have life and have it abundently due to love. Even lust is more real than Ayn Rand's puppet messages.

A Heart is motion, it produces more motion known as Bloodpressure, which creates a motion in the brain. Love is somewhere in between.

A mind without motion is a vegetable!
Are you saying your a vegetable?
I am coming pretty close to believeing that.

A mind in motion is alive.
Would you care to see a mind in motion, ie thoughts?
Try an ECG or MRI!

Otherwise you'll try to make a vegetable out of everyone.
With no heart, no mind, no emotions.

Love is a PHI Spiral.
:D :D :D :D :D
Junglelord, this is beautiful.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by altonhare » Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:08 pm

StevenO wrote:
altonhare wrote:It is time for a paradigm shift. It is time for a new hypothesis that explains physically why light appears to "wave" and travels rectilinear. A hypothesis that physically connects every object in the universe. Not some cosmic self contradictory continuous yet deformable fluid. Certainly not just a bunch of tiny particles either! That doesn't connect everything, it just puts a bunch of "somethings" between "everything"! A hypothesis that anyone can visualize and understand qualitatively.
That paradigm shift already exists for about 50 years. It is called the "Reciprocal System" theory of Dewey Larson, where he shows that the basic constituent of our Universe is pure 'motion' and every other physics phenomenom follows from that.
This is so incorrect. Nothing "is motion". This is the first contradiction, GC pointed this out too.
StevenO wrote:Your aether is then the basic motion system of reference, which is motion at lightspeed outward into all directions. That motion is the reference, so equivalent to no physical activity.
Aether is a system of reference? A concept? A concept is a relationship among objects, so what are the objects involved in this system of reference?

The system of reference is motion at light speed? What are you even trying to say? Some objects that comprise this conceptual "aether" are always moving apart from each other at c? Why are they doing that? This motion is the same as no physical activity? What does this even mean? All the objects moving at c engage in no physical activity? What do you mean by physical activity?
StevenO wrote:A photon is a single vibrating unit of motion.
A photon (object) IS motion (a verb)? Is a lion the act of hunting? Is a ball the act of bouncing? As GC pointed out in the exist thread, no object is what it does. This is yet another contradictory and nonsensical statement.
StevenO wrote:In Larson's work straightforward explanations for all physics phenomena can be found without paradoxes, though sometimes with surprising results: how about...there are no subatomic particles inside an atom, only compound rotating photons ;)
So an atom is a bunch of rotating motions... of what? What is rotating and moving? This is another theory full of contradictions. It is also yet another act of disregarding the scientific method, i.e. evading the hypothesis. It does not present any actual object, instead it reifies concepts like motion and spin and treats them as objects. By doing so it prevents actually saying anything meaningful. It proposes an aether and defines it as a concept but does not tell us what actual objects are involved, again stealthily avoiding actually saying anything meaningful. He makes all the same errors the rest of mainstream physics makes i.e. he relies on the sleight of hand known as "reification".

It is also nothing like the paradigm shift I am talking about. I am talking about a rope/chain physically connecting every object along which light signals are sent and along which every object pulls on every other object (gravitation).
Motion is not real, not an entity?
-JL

Still you have not grasped anything Plasm or I have said. Motion is a relationship among entities. You cannot point to a picture or a model of motion. Motion does not have shape, it is a relationship among shapes. Only humans avoid defining their concepts in terms of shapes and thus make their concepts meaningless.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by altonhare » Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:31 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:
altonhare wrote:JL you're so dense it's impossible to actually have a discussion with you.
Alton,
Have you read Plato's Allegory of the Cave? If not give it a go and see where you and Junglelord fit in.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/ALLEGORY.HTM

You might want to try the Divided Line while you are at it.
I haven't yet read TDL, but I have evaluated the Allegory of the Cave, and have some commentary.

Plato asserts that the prisoners will conclude that the shadows are "real" because it is all they can observe. The issue here is not whether the shadows are real (exist) or not, but if they are entities (objects) or relationships among entities (objects). We don't prove existence/reality. I will argue that an objective prisoner can only explain the shadow phenomenon by concluding that the shadows exist as a a relationship among objects.

I will place myself in the position of the prisoner. I must decide if the shadows ahead of me are "real" i.e. do they exist. To entertain this question I must first decide what real/exist means. I consider that reality is simply whatever I see, feel, etc. i.e. reality is my experience. However I notice that the other prisoners do not always agree perfectly. Some prisoners see only what's over there, some see only what's over here. Can there not be shadows nobody has ever seen far away? Is a shadow not there if I close my eyes? Reality cannot be defined in terms of my observation, it must be defined such that something exists whether I observe it or not. Saying otherwise results in paradox and contradiction. Having thus concluded that an existence must possess some quality(ies) independent of observation, I proceed to determine what quality(ies) there is/are.

I can feel the chains against my arms and legs, separate from me. Why are they separate? Why do I perceive that shadow AND that one. What makes that shadow different from the other one, why are they distinct? What makes the chains distinct from me? What is the difference between a shadow there and a shadow not there or a chain there and a chain not there. By this line of reasoning I realize the fundamental question is "What is the difference between something (shadow, chain, etc.) and nothing (no shadow, no chain)?" The chains bind me down, could the difference be that something resists my movement while nothing does not? If the chains were not there (nothing) I could raise my arms! But what if I weren't there and the chains were? Would not the chains still be there even if I am not there to test if they are resistant? I find myself again searching for an objective criterion, one that does not require my presence to "test". I close my eyes and imagine the cave with nobody in it. The shadows are still there, the chains are still there. There is nobody to perceive them but they still exist. Objectivity demands it. What is inherent when there is no perception? I know it cannot be resistance/weight, that would require a person to test. Can it be color? No, it cannot. I close my eyes and feel the chains against my arms although I do not perceive their color. It cannot be touch either, the chains remain even if I do not feel them. Then I have a realization. The chains do not merge with my arms and I do not merge with the ground beneath me. One shadow is one shadow precisely because it is one shadow and does not simply meld with another one (become nothing). Something cannot come from nothing nor vice versa, this is just a matter of not contradicting myself, nothing and something cannot be the same or this line of inquiry is meaningless! If a shadow merges it's not a distinct shadow but rather a part of something else. Something exists if it does not merge with that which it is not. This does not require an observer. Something is either finite or it's not, this is not a matter of opinion, observation, or subjectivity. People may argue over whether something is finite or not, but the something does not change because of their arguments, it either exists or it doesn't all on its own. On the other hand "color" is something only a person perceives. Color is not required for something to exist. Additionally resistance requires a person to perceive it, to feel it. These are subjective, a rock does not inherently have the quality color or weight, inherently it only has a border defining it from everything else. If this were untrue then nothing would have a border i.e. everything would be borderless. There would be no individual things. Objects such as me and my chains exist precisely because they are finite, they do not spread out into everything else in the surroundings. If this were not the case what could it possibly mean to say "something"? What could it possibly mean to say "that rock" if it has no border to distinguish it as a rock? I refer to the finiteness of an existent as shape and call anything with shape an "object". I recognize that an existent does not have to be an object, but may be a relationship among objects. For instance this "cave of prisoners" exists because each of us is an object and so is this cave. The "cave of prisoners" phrase is a useful shorthand conceptual term to refer to each individual object involved in a specific arrangement.

I open my eyes and stare at the wall, examining the shadows. Are they objects? I watch a single shadow very carefully and it melds with other shadows sometimes. Why? It appears to have shape, appears to have a border. I remind myself that I am perceiving its shape. Objects may have shape independent of observation but I am evaluating the shape of the shadows in terms of my observation, so I must be careful not to contradict my own previous conclusions. If the shadows appear to have shape yet meld with each other I must explain this observational contradiction. There are two options. The first is that the shadows are objects and I am just wrong to think they are melding with each other. How do I reconcile this? It would cast into doubt all my observations, how could I be confident about anything if I pursue this line of reasoning? Recognizing that this might be the case, I determine to try to explain this observational contradiction without forfeit. I entertain the second option. This option posits that their shape itself is an illusion generated by the interaction of objects and I am correct in observing that their shapes meld with each other, making it impossible for them to be objects themselves. Is it possible for something to appear to have shape yet not be an object? This implies there is a second criterion I have not yet determined. I think carefully. I picture the cave again. Eureeka. It was so obvious. I can picture things by thinking, yet these things I am thinking of do not exist. The chains I am contemplating cannot bind me. I am imagining the chains falling apart from rust but the rust does not appear and make them fall apart. The images in my head have shape, yet they do not exist. There is a fundamental difference between shapes that do exist and shapes that don't. My thoughts exist, I do not deny that I am thinking, but the images I imagine do not exist. Shapes that exist affect each other because they have presence. The chains here bind me but I can imagine myself simply floating through them. Shapes that don't exist cannot affect other shapes. Indeed shapes that do not exist cannot *do* anything. No matter how hard I imagine a saw cutting off my chains, the saw in my head does not do anything, it does not cut my chains. Where is the imaginary saw? The answer is nowhere. It does not have presence. Therefore I conclude that an existent must have both shape and presence i.e. location. There is not a distance between the imaginary saw and my chains. This is different from 0 distance.

However the shadows are not in my head, they are there before me, but do they have presence? Do they have location? Is there a distance between me and the shadow or between the shadows? Is there a distance between me and the cave of prisoners? No, there is a distance between me and each prisoner and each chain and etc. Is there a distance between the group of prisoners on my right and the group of prisoners on my left? No, there is a distance between each prisoner. Is there a distance between the sounds I hear and the wall? No, there is a distance between me, who is hearing the sound, and the wall. If I can hear something that is not an object itself why can I not see something that is not an object itself? Indeed I observe that sounds appear to come from various places around me including the prisoners. Sound might be the projection of some object by another object (prisoner or whatever). When the object hits my ear I detect the sound. The sound is some relationship between me, the source, and some intermediary object(s). I do not need absolute certainty about the exact nature of the mechanism, just that it is a relationship among some objects. Suppose that sight works the same way? Suppose that objects are projecting certain objects that, upon reaching my eye, allow me to detect them. Perhaps these light-objects are projected and then bounce off every object they encounter, including my eye. When they hit my eye, my eye reacts in such a way to make me aware of it. How they are projected (perhaps how fast) determines what I perceive as color. This implies that, if a new wall were placed between me and the shadow wall, the light-objects from the new wall would reach my eye while the light-objects from the shadow wall would be impeded by the new wall, bouncing back and forth either eternally or at some small angle until they escaped the edges of the new wall and flew off. Is it possible that light-objects are shooting at the shadow-wall but that some are blocked by other objects? If this were the case I would see some light-objects bouncing off the shadow-wall and entering my eye in certain places but I would not see light-objects bouncing off the shadow-wall in regions blocked by other objects. The shadow is, I conclude, a relationship among the objects behind the prisoner, the wall, and the light-objects emitted by them

This explanation seems more tenable than simply assuming my observation is wholly undependable. While this is always an option, what good does entertaining such an option do? If we assume our observations are meaningless we may as well stop inquiring about the world around us. If we accept instead that our observations must be evaluated by objective criteria and explained using a consistent, non self contradictory, rigorous method then we can formulate explanations that may have some use and may even be True. This method involves a hypothesis (definitions i.e. what is real/exist/object, one or more objects (shapes that are finite i.e. do not blend with each other such as light-objects, walls, prisoners, and chains), concepts (projection of a light-object from a wall or any other object), explanation (light-objects projected from behind me may be blocked by objects behind me) and conclusion (this explanation is better/worse than explanation B).

The objective prisoner who is freed will find a world of brightness and darkness, of shadows and not shadows. S/he will not think that shadows are more "real" than everything else, having already decided that the only explanation that did not involve denying any capacity for meaningful observation whatsoever demanded that the shadows were relationships among objects that exist. Any prisoner who decided the shadows were "real" was either deluded (didn't actually think i.e. disregarded the scientific method) or decided to give up on understanding/explaining observations. The ex-prisoner will be able to inquire further about the nature of light, true, and will pity prisoners who do not have the opportunity to escape the limitations of the cave. Such a released prisoner may notice that rocks break. If it breaks, how can it be an individual entity? It must be made of smaller entities. In carrying this to its logical conclusion the ex-prisoner decides that everything must be made of an unbreakable, undeformable entity, a "fundamental constituent". The only other option is an infinite regression. This ex-prisoner concludes that what s/he thought were entities before are actually arrangements of fundamental constituents. To identify "rock" the ex prisoner had to decide that this/these particular arrangement(s) of fundamental constituents would be referred to as "rock". When the rock breaks the ex-prisoner must decide that this/these new arrangement(s) must be referred to as rock1 and rock2 for instance.

I have argued in other parts of this forum that even a blind deaf man under anesthesia knows the difference between nothing and the bowling ball that just knocked him over. One moment he was walking and the next his legs were flailing about. Therefore someTHING must have caused that. What is something he asks? Well, the only way to distinguish something from nothing is that it is discrete, it has a border. Even though the blind man cannot visualize this he can understand that it is meaningless to say "something" unless that something is finite. If not, how would one distinguish between something and nothing? "Something" infinite has no border and so cannot come into contact with any "thing" else.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

kevin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Unread post by kevin » Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:27 pm

Altonhare,
If I could suggest SOMETHING?
There is a difference between NOTHING and NO-THING, and that difference is where I consider You are having a problem.
You must try and comprehend that all things come from no-thing, and that no-thing is everything.
Think of how the very planet under your feet grows, it does so through implosion of no-thing into matter and mass.
I know for certain that We are far more than the biological body that is evident to our dominant senses, but it exists in another state other than the 3D state of matter and mass, it is detectable via our own other state self, not via anything in 3D or constructed of anything in 3D, it permeates totally through 3D.
When viewing the heavens all 3D will see is 3D, no matter what machines are made or refined in any way.

Until We recognise the existance of other staes of existance, we will remain blind to them, but I assure You , in all honesty they are there, and you are part of that other state, the biological is a temporary vehicle utilised to observe the 3D .

The more sensitive amongst us can bridge across between and glimpse the other state, and to do that you need to recognise and accept that it is possible, otherwise there is a total veil drawn between them.

The mass and all we know is a mere consequence of what is everything, and it's totally alive.
kevin

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests