Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

http://tesla-coin.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Eric Dollard Official Forum This forum is dedicated to the work of Eric P. Dollard. His Official homepage is http://ericpdollard.com

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 08-27-2015, 06:52 PM
trahedron trahedron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Exclamation Space / Counter-space & Electricity / Di(a)electricity

Can someone provide a clear definition and example(s) of Space vs Counter-space and Electricity vs Dielectricity?

Any explanations in your own way of understanding it is certainly welcome!

Some friends and I have had quite the debate about this and it seems that every time we think we have it, something throws a wrench into the concepts. I thought it might be beneficial if we can get a solid definition down for these especially after their usage in the last conference by Eric.

That was a nice presentation by the way Eric, but it definitely left some of us hanging at the end as far as wanting more tie-in and clarity, especially regarding the (a)ether!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 08-27-2015, 11:01 PM
spacecase0's Avatar
spacecase0 spacecase0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 223
I have looked in to this lots as well,
as far as I can tell there are a few things they use for each term,
seems to be confused and muddled in there minds as well

the other thing I see is that they define the terms referencing other undefined terms in a circular way,
at least they need to go back to actual physical experiments or concepts if anyone else is to understand this mess
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-02-2015, 06:36 PM
trahedron trahedron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
So after digging a bit more, I think we need to really study Rudolf Steiner, George Adams and Louis Locher-Ernst to come to a full understanding of counter space.

Just stumbled across this page on counter space.

Regarding dielectricity, I have, I believe, at least come to the conclusion that dielectric material would be material that can retain charge, but is traditionally considered an insulator. Eg. ceramic and water (pure water). I need to dig a bit more into this to really work out a proper "definition".

I will be looking more closely at this in the near term and if anyone has any additional insight or input, please feel free to chime in.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2015, 12:20 PM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 782
The proposition of an ideal insulator supports a jaded view of how the properties of dielectric materials separate charge.

The variety of dielectric materials have a continuum of K values.
Some have a strong affinity for positive charges some for negative and others
in between.

For a specific dielectric under specific conditions a variety of paths and barriers exhibit geometries giving rise to various transformations. When these transformations happen
within a negative resistance region a quantum mechanical event outside our physical dimension is thought to be that path.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-06-2015, 04:45 PM
spacecase0's Avatar
spacecase0 spacecase0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
The proposition of an ideal insulator supports a jaded view of how the properties of dielectric materials separate charge.

The variety of dielectric materials have a continuum of K values.
Some have a strong affinity for positive charges some for negative and others
in between.

For a specific dielectric under specific conditions a variety of paths and barriers exhibit geometries giving rise to various transformations. When these transformations happen
within a negative resistance region a quantum mechanical event outside our physical dimension is thought to be that path.
reading that makes me want to make capacitors with 2 dielectrics, one on each plate, then test the K value, and then reverse the polarity on the capacitor and then test the K value again
if they are not the same, it might verify that idea
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-08-2015, 03:16 PM
trahedron trahedron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Exclamation Space and Counterspace: A New Science of Gravity, Time and Light

Nick C. Thomas has a very interesting book titled "Space and Counterspace: A New Science of Gravity, Time and Light"

In it he gives the most rigorous explanation of counterspace that I have encountered hitherto now. He has another book that apparently goes much more in-depth and I will be looking forward to reading that in the near future, but I wanted to include an excerpt here for everyone's review as I think it will bear some fruit for our ability to understand counterspace:

Quote:
Negative space is also customarily referred to as counterspace. Let us see if we can grasp an idea of it. First imagine yourself standing outdoors on a clear starry night. You can look in all directions, and ideally you occupy one point in the universe with everything else all round you, reaching far away to the infinite distances even beyond the stars. Space seems to extend infinitely far away outwards and in all directions at once. Imagine yourself at the centre of a luminous sphere (say sodium yellow) which is growing outwards from you at an ever increasing rate. As the sphere grows the curvature of its surface decreases, as can be appreciated by comparing the curvature of an iridescent soap bubble with that of the surface of a still lake. The latter has the same radius as the Earth itself, very much larger than the soap bubble. Indeed it appears to be flat, and it is only when we observe the sea horizon carefully that we come to realize it is curved. So as our luminous sphere grows ever larger its surface is getting ever flatter. When only the size of the Earth it already seems locally flat to us. What when it is the size of the orbit of Pluto, or of our galaxy? Very much flatter still! If we allow our sphere to grow indefinitely large, we must conclude that its surface becomes ever more flat until in the limit it becomes quite flat like a plane. But to become quite flat it must become a plane, in which case it ends up ceasing to be a sphere at all. This can only happen if opposite points of all its diameters 'meet at infinity' so that it becomes two superimposed planes. This idea is described quite rigorously in projective geometry. We then discard the redundancy of two planes and speak of the ideal plane at infinity. This is not pan of Euclid's geometry, for in that geometry infinity cannot he reached even in imagination. In the last two centuries the human mind has started to grasp the notion of Infinity with some precision, and so in projective geometry we speak of parallel lines meeting in a so-called ideal point at infinity, that is, in a point of our ideal luminous plane at infinity. These points are not like ordinary ones as they cannot be reached physically, and they are added to Euclidean geometry to yield projective geometry. It is as though we closed off our open Euclidean box with a 'lid' which is our luminous plane at infinity. It takes some practice to realize that the lid is really a plane and not a huge sphere. Were it a sphere then it would have an 'outside' and then space would not be closed at all. But a plane has no 'outside' and strangely we find that it is a remarkable plane that only has one side! It must, or space would not he closed off by it in an unbounded way.

So we stand looking at the stars and realize that our ordinary consciousness is poised between a point which is our location in the universe, and a mighty plane beyond the stars and galaxies themselves. That this is so may be regarded as one reason why the non-Euclidean geometries were not welcome. Whether the universe is actually 'flat' and Euclidean, or whether it is open or closed in the non-Euclidean ways we described before, has not been decided by cosmologists. So we may take the liberty of imagining the Euclidean polarity between centre and periphery as we did. This characterizes our consciousness of ordinary space. We now seek to turn this whole picture inside-out to approach a concept of counterspace.

To do this we use the concept of polarity frequently used in projective geometry. There is a remarkable symmetry between points and planes, for example three points determine just one plane provided they do not all lie on the same line, for two of them determine a line and then we can imagine a plane turning about that line as axis until it contains the third point. There is only one such plane. On the other hand three planes determine just one point, again provided they do not all contain a line in the way three pages of a book do. An example is the point at the corner where two walls and the floor of a room meet. If we swap the words 'point' and 'plane' in the statement 'three points determine just one plane,' we get the polar statement which is also true. Notice that lines play the same role in both cases: the three points must not lie on a line, and the three planes must not share a common line. Conventional science is essentially point-based in its outlook, considering particles which are supposed to be (fuzzy) points, and even reducing fields of force to particle-like discrete entities. Force is supposed to arise by contact, so that if one thing hits another force arises, and fields are reduced to very mysterious particles which hit other particles to cause force. Although the mathematics makes the whole thing appear much more sophisticated, that’s what it boils down to. But, as projective geometry shows by means of polarity, every geometrical statement involving points implies another involving planes. Since the point-based approach has been so fruitful in physics we might suspect that bringing in a plane-based one might also be valuable.

This is the basis of our approach to counterspace. Rudolf Steiner experienced it directly through out-of-the-body experiences, but we can approach it by analogy in our ordinary consciousness using polarity. It must be borne in mind throughout that this is only a ‘crutch,’ but a very useful one.

Polar to the situation of standing at (ideally) a point and looking outwards, we imagine our consciousness rooted instead in a plane and looking inwards. When we looked at the stars we arrived at the ideal plane at infinity, so the polar of that will he an ideal point towards which we look inwards. It seems more natural and certainly accords with experience to say 'inwards.' This ideal point represents an infinite inwardness in polar contrast to the infinite outwardness of the plane at infinity. We can sense that the quality of this is quite unlike that of empty space, and inwardness is just what is lacking in our current scientific paradigm. We can now imagine ourselves in the cosmic periphery looking inwards from all directions at once at a yellow spherical surface that is shrinking away from us inwardly ever towards that ideal point without ever reaching it, just as our original expanding yellow sphere could never reach infinity physically. But, we now come to an interesting question about expansion and contraction. In space we can imagine the expanding sphere to increase its radius by one kilometre every second, say, so that we have a series of distances from its centre which mark off equal steps in equal times, and clearly this can proceed as long as we like without the гаdius ever becoming infinite. In counterspace the shrinking sphere must like wise follow 'equal steps' if we imagine the polar situation, but that is not possible based on radius as we understand it, as equal steps in that sense would soon reduce the radius to zero. That would be a spatial interpretation based on our ordinary consciousness rather than a counterspatial one. Instead we imagine some other counterspatial measure which can change by 'equal steps' without ever reaching the centre. Now, if we take the reciprocal of the radius we have a quantity that will become infinite when the radius is zero. That is, if we take the radius — say 10 — then the reciprocal is 1 divided by 10. If the radius is one millionth then its reciprocal is 1,000,000 and so on as the radius decreases. ‘Equal steps’ requires a little bit of maths to explain, but if the radius is repeatedly halved the corresponding counterspace quantity is repeatedly doubled, and the center cannot be reached in a finite number of steps. This is a spacial model we can think with our ordinary consciousness, but it does accurately model a different kind of quantity in counterspace which we will refer to as turn, which measures the separation between planes. …
There is more and I will attempt to transcribe this further and edit this post once I have time so to do. I believe that this information is actionable and of value and welcome any input on the perceptions that this may assist with. I think it would be of further value if we could illustrate this or create additional (friendly) analogies that would be more approachable.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-16-2015, 03:10 PM
trahedron trahedron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Lightbulb Projective Geometry: Creative Polarities in Space and Time

Just an interesting term that has been thrown about as well for Counterspace by the fascinating author of Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism:
Quote:
"Unmanifest and unmodulated inertia."
(That playlist is incomplete, but the most convenient collection of videos to consume by him that I've found pre-rolled.)

This is a really good book to use in conjunction with the work of Nick Thomas when trying to really rein in an understanding of counterspace:
Projective Geometry: Creative Polarities in Space and Time

While it seems that some believe that there is no way to conceptualize or represent counterspace with geometry, these authors, who are advanced students of Rudolf Steiner's school of thought, seem to have the keys. I find this interesting of course in conjunction with Eric's observations and remarks, especially in his presentation from this past July. In Nick Thomas' book, he draws some remarkable conclusions about the interconnectedness of space and counterspace and just how that occurs. It has serious implications on how we can therefore take advantage of this and its unfolding geometry while bringing it into quantifiable scientific research.
__________________
 

Last edited by trahedron; 09-16-2015 at 03:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-20-2015, 05:28 AM
trahedron trahedron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Nick Thomas, in "Science Between Space and Counterspace: Exploring the Significance of Negative Space" says,

Quote:
"Steiner reported that in a higher state of consciousness a different kind of space is experienced that is polar opposite to our ordinary Euclidean one. Such a consciousness looks in from the periphery towards an unreachable inwardness in contrast to our normal consciousness which looks out from a centre towards an unreachable outwardness, i.e. towards an outer infinity."
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-25-2018, 04:35 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 782
What is counterspace ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trahedron View Post
To set straight what Eric Dollard said. To try to get counterspace to show on search engines.

What is counter space (counterspace) def reference to lecture Eric Dollard - Origin of Energy Synthesis
https://youtu.be/cCJcU7INwnU?t=4537

An example: Such as the space between molecules in a transistor.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 02-25-2018 at 04:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-25-2018, 07:42 AM
ricards ricards is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 223
negative space?.. counterspace? why complicate things?..
the word 'negative' and 'counter' has meaning IMO that will just complicate "The concept"...
It you would look at it really it is just and still 'space' its just that you have a determined boundary.. and you had an 'Inside Space' based on that boundary and an 'Outer Space' based on that boundary .. in reality its still space.. you can define your boundary as small as those molecules or anything smaller than it, and still have 'space'.. no one can really define the smallest..

I agree with most eric dollard concepts but not all.. one is the adaptation of this 'Counterspace'..
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-07-2018, 03:12 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricards View Post
negative space?.. counterspace? why complicate things?..
the word 'negative' and 'counter' has meaning IMO that will just complicate "The concept"...
It you would look at it really it is just and still 'space' its just that you have a determined boundary.. and you had an 'Inside Space' based on that boundary and an 'Outer Space' based on that boundary .. in reality its still space.. you can define your boundary as small as those molecules or anything smaller than it, and still have 'space'.. no one can really define the smallest..

I agree with most eric dollard concepts but not all.. one is the adaptation of this 'Counterspace'..
I have never been able to make any sense out of it or find a useful purpose for it. If anyone can I'd enjoy looking it over. Meantime here is what borderlands has to say about it.

THE IDEA OF COUNTERSPACE – Borderlands
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 03-07-2018, 03:19 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecase0 View Post
reading that makes me want to make capacitors with 2 dielectrics, one on each plate, then test the K value, and then reverse the polarity on the capacitor and then test the K value again
if they are not the same, it might verify that idea
here is an interesting capacitor demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ckpQW9sdUg

The charge does not build up on the plates

here is one for the 'Dia-"
http://server17.how-why.com/blog/Dia...plyComplex.pdf
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 03-07-2018 at 04:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-07-2018, 04:10 AM
ricards ricards is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I have never been able to make any sense out of it or find a useful purpose for it. If anyone can I'd enjoy looking it over. Meantime here is what borderlands has to say about it.

THE IDEA OF COUNTERSPACE – Borderlands
thanks for the link but It's just as I said, the Idea of Negative or Counter space just complicate things..
quoting from that link
Quote:
Let us now try to picture the properties of the negative or counter-Euclidean type of space. The first thing to observe is that such a space is determined by a point-at-in-finity (the counterpart of the plane-at-infinity on which Euclidean space depends). A point-at-infinity is, then, the Absolute of this space, by which is meant a point functioning mathematically as infinitely distant—but not necessarily (and this is important) in the infinitely distant plane of ordinary Euclidean space. Conceivably, no doubt, the point-at-infinity of a negative space might also be infinitely distant in the space of Euclid, but it need not be so; above all, it will not be so in our present context, where this geometry is related to the living, germinating processes which develop on the Earth
maybe I just don't get it.. or that they can't explain it very well..

how can someone define a point at Infinity?... or a plane at infinity..
I don't Understand the author's "Point" .

eric dollard explained the simplicity of the counterspace very well IMO.
"Lines Between a Ruler"

in "Centi"meters the counter space is measured in Per Centimeters while space is measured in "Milli" Meters...
in "Milli"meters the counter space is measured in Per Millimeters while space is measured in "Micro" Meters.. and so on up to where someone brain can think of....

so why call it "Counter" Space or "Negative" Space if its not really a negative or an opposite(counter), if its not the opposite..

another example is A 240 cm^3 glass filled with water..
the glass is "Full" and no more 'space' for additional water, there is a 240 cm^3 of water in a 240 cm^3 of space
the density of water is 1g/cm^3, there is 1 gram of water PER cubic centimeter of 'space'.

they are not really opposite...
in a sense we are actually already using the concept of "Counterspace" but it is much much better if we don't call it that..
__________________
 

Last edited by ricards; 03-07-2018 at 05:05 AM. Reason: ml to cm^3
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-07-2018, 04:41 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricards View Post
thanks for the link but It's just as I said, the Idea of Negative or Counter space just complicate things..
quoting from that link


maybe I just don't get it.. or that they can't explain it very well..

how can someone define a point at Infinity?... or a plane at infinity..
I don't Understand the author's "Point" .

eric dollard explained the simplicity of the counterspace very well IMO.
"Lines Between a Ruler"

in "Centi"meters the counter space is measured in Per Centimeters while space is measured in "Milli" Meters...
in "Milli"meters the counter space is measured in Per Millimeters while space is measured in "Micro" Meters.. and so on up to where someone brain can think of....
you wont get any argument from me on that

Remember the LC transmission lines Eric taped, two types, series C and series L, well he referred to the series C as the counter space of the series L if that helps.

Like you I see no purpose for it.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-08-2018, 12:32 AM
Sputins's Avatar
Sputins Sputins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricards View Post

eric dollard explained the simplicity of the counterspace very well IMO.
"Lines Between a Ruler"

So why call it "Counter" Space or "Negative" Space if its not really a negative or an opposite(counter), if its not the opposite..

another example is A 240 cm^3 glass filled with water..
the glass is "Full" and no more 'space' for additional water, there is a 240 cm^3 of water in a 240 cm^3 of space
the density of water is 1g/cm^3, there is 1 gram of water PER cubic centimeter of 'space'.

they are not really opposite...
in a sense we are actually already using the concept of "Counterspace" but it is much much better if we don't call it that..
The way I see it is, the water that fills the (conventional) space of the glass 240 cm^3 and the glass is full.

The Counterspace component isn’t the 1g per cubic centimetre (which is a measurement of weight) the Counterspace component is the internal structure of the water, ie between the lattice of atoms that make up the volume of water, within the H & O atomic structure, which is the Conuterspace or Interspace within the given volume of water.
__________________
"Doesn't matter how many times you kick the coyote in the head, it's still gonna eat chickens". - EPD
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-08-2018, 06:28 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,789
counterspace

With the Cosmic Induction Generator for example - the actual experiments show that a lot of the RF literally disappears between the coils and cannot be accounted for - the desynthesis of energy or the destruction of energy.

Where did it go? It disappeared into "counterspace" or another "dimension" for simplicity - like subspace in Star Trek terminology where communications go through subspace and bypasses the need to travel a distance. So although the lines on the ruler could be an analogy to counterspace and the space between the lines is the space, in the context of the CIG, it is the opposite or perhaps the complement of space.

For example, yin and yang are not opposites, they complement each other so maybe it is a similar comparison.

My interpretation above could be incorrect but I did specifically talk to Eric about his interpretation of counterspace in regards to the energy that simply disappears between the coils with the CIG and he did bring it up that it could be considered going into a different dimension.

Keep in mind about the Steinmetz reference or something like this that if there is the CIG system and the coils are far apart that if you're at the location of one, you may find yourself simultaneously at the location of the other.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-09-2018, 01:49 AM
Sputins's Avatar
Sputins Sputins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputins View Post
The way I see it is, the water that fills the (conventional) space of the glass 240 cm^3 and the glass is full.

The Counterspace component isn’t the 1g per cubic centimetre (which is a measurement of weight) the Counterspace component is the internal structure of the water, ie between the lattice of atoms that make up the volume of water, within the H & O atomic structure, which is the Conuterspace or Interspace within the given volume of water.
Given that if the 240cm^3 of water could be placed within a conductive container (anode) and a (cathode) also placed within the water, whereas the anode and cathode supplied with a given DC electric flux, the water itself (being a dielectric in pure form) would a charge to the supplied voltage and retain some of that charge after the supply was removed. So it becomes a capacitor of sorts. Counterspace is related to dielectric materials and capacity. The Dielectric component of the Electric Flux has the ability reside in Counterspace.
__________________
"Doesn't matter how many times you kick the coyote in the head, it's still gonna eat chickens". - EPD
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:42 PM
trahedron trahedron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
With regards to counterspace and the idea of dimensions, I no longer subscribe to the idea of "dimensions" as they have been presented hitherto. I think they are a complication and that everything exists in a so called "3D Space". I think that the concept of "counterspace" is the act of looking INWARD from our level of perception and otherwise we're just looking OUTWARD.

I believe that things can be greatly simplified once we start to go down this path.

Energy is infinite as far as the universe goes (bear with me, I know this sounds loaded at first). Measurements are contextual (by our nature of perception) within our "cycle" or universe (if we want to call it that; we could say at our level of scale).

We need to start looking at infinity as a circle representation rather than a number line representation as this will give us a more correct model and capacity to understand the nature of scale and what we perceive.

One thing I've been struggling with for a long time is the idea of an ether. I've come to accept that it is real (there are just way too many experiments that actually support it as well as the theorization and work of brilliant men), but it is hard to conceptualize it given our current scale-based perception.

However, after *beginning* to understand that what I just said, I can start to see that there is no singular ether or base/prime/beginning ether. There is an "ether" for each "universe" or cycle. (There may even be a universe in each ether "particle" (don't know about this yet). Understanding that energy is infinite while (what we call) "matter" (maybe better conceived as an aggregate of energy) is finite helps one to begin to understand how these confinements of universes works.)

For example, let's say we have a ruler, like Eric mentioned, we use it's markings to measure the macro level or our scale, but we CAN use the space in-between. As a matter of fact, the space in-between is infinitely subdivideable if we keep getting smaller and smaller. At some point it no longer makes sense TO US to subdivide the ruler, but it can be done forever (ie, it doesn't mean it cannot be done). The ruler can also be used to measure upwards as well by multiplying the ruler again and again and again ad infinitum. Now I agree that this ruler analogy doesn't make a lot of sense in reality, BUT when you say the ruler is energy THEN I can start to see what Eric is talking about (even if perhaps he hasn't explained it as clearly and as fully as possible).

Now I'm grappling with this next part, so please forgive me. I've not been able to work out really super clear analogies or details to paint this picture properly so I'm going to try to sling mud at the wall in hopes to get TOWARDS where I'm going (realizing that it's crazy imperfect and absurd).

Let's get a little goofy, while not being entirely off base as far as comparisons go, imagine for a moment that everything in OUR scale is at 1 Volt ( 1 Volt being entirely contrived since it's on our scale and completely making this up just to put it in context of electricity so pardon the absurdity of this comparison) - uhm, let's say maybe we're made up of simple particles that measure at 0.1 Volt per particle. 10 particles make up each thing in our universe. Then let's move down, can 0.1 Volt be subdivided? Well yes, we could say 0.1 Volt makes up some thing that makes us up, but then 0.01 Volt particles make up each of these 0.1 Volt things. This subdivision can keep going on infinitely because the idea of Volt or 1 Volt in the first place is made up and only really makes sense at OUR observational scale or point in existence. If we were to look at "infinity" as a whole (which again, doesn't make sense as we have to start seeing things in cycles), we might suddenly realize that we exist at 1,000,000,000,000 Volts or 0.0000000000000001 Volt. These measurements are all ultimately immaterial outside of our own context or point of perspective. The point is that intelligence, however it exists, and aggregates and so forth are all possible at any point in the scale up or down.

One problem we have presently is that we're pretty blind. Some of Eric's experiments are AMAZING and he's seen things happen that he cannot entirely explain. One reason for this is that we don't have a method to "see" these things at all levels of the spectrum at the same time. We have a very incomplete ability to observe what we're doing right now when we work with high or even very low energy levels and frequencies. If we could resolve our ability to see and perceive of more things I think this dimensionality question and the discussion we've been having would self-resolve.

At any rate, I have a lot more I could say, but I've blathered on long enough and I'm sure a lot of what I said will seem strange at first. I've spent a good number of years thinking about all of this and trying to pull things together in a unified fashion, but terminology and contextual understanding keep getting in the way when I work with various brilliant theorists. These are some humps we have to move over and pronto.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-09-2018, 08:39 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,789
spacial dimension

Quote:
Originally Posted by trahedron View Post
With regards to counterspace and the idea of dimensions, I no longer subscribe to the idea of "dimensions" as they have been presented hitherto. I think they are a complication and that everything exists in a so called "3D Space". I think that the concept of "counterspace" is the act of looking INWARD from our level of perception and otherwise we're just looking OUTWARD.
It is helpful to understand not just Eric's perspective on dimensions - it is the actual proper definition of dimensions in regards to space.

There is no 3D space, space is one single dimension. What you refer to as 3-dimensions are not dimensions but are coordinates. x, y and z are coordinates within the single dimension of space. If x y z are dimensions, that means you and I are in different dimensions and that would be ridiculous. You and I are obviously at different coordinates, but are in the same dimension of space.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-09-2018, 11:06 PM
trahedron trahedron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Right. I wanted to do away with the term "3D" in what I wrote but just went ahead and used it since I was already going on so much. Spot on and well stated, thanks.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-11-2018, 07:27 AM
ricards ricards is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by trahedron View Post
....

Let's get a little goofy, while not being entirely off base as far as comparisons go, imagine for a moment that everything in OUR scale is at 1 Volt ( 1 Volt being entirely contrived since it's on our scale and completely making this up just to put it in context of electricity so pardon the absurdity of this comparison) - uhm, let's say maybe we're made up of simple particles that measure at 0.1 Volt per particle. 10 particles make up each thing in our universe. Then let's move down, can 0.1 Volt be subdivided? Well yes, we could say 0.1 Volt makes up some thing that makes us up, but then 0.01 Volt particles make up each of these 0.1 Volt things. This subdivision can keep going on infinitely because the idea of Volt or 1 Volt in the first place is made up and only really makes sense at OUR observational scale or point in existence. If we were to look at "infinity" as a whole (which again, doesn't make sense as we have to start seeing things in cycles), we might suddenly realize that we exist at 1,000,000,000,000 Volts or 0.0000000000000001 Volt. These measurements are all ultimately immaterial outside of our own context or point of perspective. The point is that intelligence, however it exists, and aggregates and so forth are all possible at any point in the scale up or down.

....
my take on that is you somehow is forming a concept of "Voltage Gradient".. I think that is true..
the ionosphere voltage gradient is higher than the voltage gradient here on the ground, that would mean there is a potential difference (voltage) exist from the ionosphere to ground.. that is why most lightning discharges protrude to ground.. but not all right?. some lightning discharges are from cloud to cloud.. it would mean that a point up there is of a higher voltage gradient than the voltage gradient at another point also up there... but it doesn't mean that if a lightning discharge was formed.. the voltage gradient up there was gone.. It only balanced its potential. there still exist a voltage gradient from ionosphere to ground.

i really can't help to relate to gravity.. most people who have experimented with high voltage would understand that there exist a current that attracts a charged plate to an uncharged plate and not just positive to negative terminals... to neutral objects as well.. this I believe is what maxwell called "Displacement Current" a current that displaces..

If the Ionosphere is of a higher voltage gradient than the ground/core. a displacement current should exist from the ionosphere to ground.. incidentally. we have a force that is the same exact downward force to earth called "Gravity".

what about "Aether"... it is a theoretical substance that is supposed to be the medium for gravitational force..

now isn't that an intriguing "Coincidence"?..

I don't think this is something new to you too since your also studying aether..

relating to the topic.. If someone who will use the term "Counterspace" to explain that, I doubt it would be this short and simple...
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 03-12-2018, 04:04 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
This kind of space—the polar counterpart or, in a sense, the “negative” of Euclidean space—has indeed been conceived, at least as a possibility, by geometricians from time to time.1But from a physical point of view, its properties appeared too paradoxical, while in the purely formal sense it promised nothing new, being to the space of Euclid, so to speak, as the mould is to the cast in every detail.
THE IDEA OF COUNTERSPACE | AetherForce
Quote:
Thus Electricity, in order to manifest, a UNION must develop. This is the union of the “male”, or projective, and “multiplied by” the “female”, or receptive. Hereby, the male is the dielectric field in counterspace (of per centimeters), and the magnetic field or female in space (of centimeters squared). Space in c.m. squared is what you pay for in “real estate”, counterspace in per c.m. is the space between the lines on a ruler, or between molecules in a crystal.


Now our wheels even more stuck in the mud! But we have important clues, namely that of polarity, not plus or minus so much but more like male or female. This thought follows from Goethe to Tesla and Steinmetz. Thus Electricity, in order to manifest, a UNION must develop. This is the union of the “male”, or projective, and “multiplied by” the “female”, or receptive. Hereby, the male is the dielectric field in counterspace (of per centimeters), and the magnetic field or female in space (of centimeters squared). Space in c.m. squared is what you pay for in “real estate”, counterspace in per c.m. is the space between the lines on a ruler, or between molecules in a crystal.

For the Electricity extant between a pair of wires in your lamp cord, the closer the wires, the more capacitance, and thus the more Dielectricity. Conversely, for the same cord, the farther apart the wires, the more inductance and thus the more Magnetism. Therefore it is seen that the smaller the space (the more counterspace) the more Dielectricity that can be stored, and conversely the larger the space between the wires (the more real estate) the more Magnetism that can be stored. Very simple, do not let your mind make it any more complicated than that!

Now let us reach out for a few quantative relations: The product (line, cross, or dot – unrestricted) of the total amount of Dielectricity multiplied by the total amount of Magnetism (when both are in union) gives the total quantity of Electricity. We will call this quantity of Electricity the letter “Q” and name this “The Planck” after Max Planck. For the Einsteinischen dimensions of the Planck are Energy – Time, but let us not think backwards – ass. Saying this in engineers lingo, the quantity of Electricity Q is given as Watt – Seconds – Seconds or Watt Seconds squared.

Now, in one foot of lamp cord, bounded between the wires, I have say, one million Plancks of electric induction. The frequency is 60 cycles (377 radians) per second. Thusly the quantity of Plancks Q is being produced or consumed at a time rate of 377 radians per second, or in other words, Plancks per second, Q divided by t, the ratio of Q to t, etc. Hence the time rate of variation of the quantity of electric induction hereby gives; Watt seconds squared per second or dividing out, gives Watt seconds. But Watt seconds is the dimensions of energy. Well golly-gee Mr. Wizard, we have defined energy! And hereby energy is defined as the time rate of the production or consumption of the electric induction, or Q divided by t gives W.

It is that simple. So push the “Erase Button” on your head for two notions: Energy is the product of mass times the velocity of light squared, erased? Next, Electricity is the flow of electrons in wire, erased? Good!

In the previous transmission it was shown that the electric induction, bound between the wires of a lamp cord, was the union of two distinct fields of induction, the dielectric in counterspace, and the magnetic in space. These fields consist of discrete lines of force. Thus these lines exist as individual units or quanta of inductive force. Both fields exert mechanical force upon the bounding system of so-called “conductors”. These mechanical forces, those of the dielectric, and those of the magnetic, exert actions so as to increase their coefficients of induction, that is the dielectric “capacitance”, and the magnetic “inductance” are increased. Hereby, the dielectric field draws the conductors nearer to each other, increasing the counterspace. Conversely the magnetic field pushes the conductors away from each other, increasing the space. Hereby we may say that the dielectric field is contractive, and the magnetic field is expansive. Hence the resulting electric field of the union produces a resultant force upon the bounding conductors. This resultant force thus may be expansive, null, or contractive, depending upon the relative densities of the dielectric and the magnetic force fields respectively.

So now our previous discourse upon these matters brings important questions to mind that heretofore remained unanswered: First, how big is a Planck? In other words, how many Plancks per one second (unit time) equal one Watt-second (unit energy)?
Second, what ratio of dielectric field density to magnetic field density results in the contractive force just balanced against the expansive force, thereby canceling any mechanical forces upon the bounding conductors? Who can solve these important questions?

References:
1. Electro-magnetic Theory Vol. 1 by Oliver Heaviside.
2. Impulses, Waves and Discharges by Carl Steinmetz.
3. Electricity and Matter by J.J. Thompson.
4. Recent Researches Into Electricity. By J.J. Thompson
5. Discharges In Windings by E.P. Dollard
6. Occult Ether Physics by Layne

?Energy Defined? by E. P. Dollard ? Gestalt Reality
Way back in the very beginning wiht the male female analogy which does not take into account that she might have a headache


Quote:
Theory of electrical conductivity

The electrical current is a flow of electrons moving in conductors in one direction from anode (the negatively charged electrode) to cathode, charged positively. Electron, bonding atoms into molecules in the presence of closely situated (0.5 - 2 Å) energy minimums are able to move from one minimum to another with the high rate of speed (> 105 m/sec).

Single-electron dynamic pond is typical for metals. The electrical current theory, presented in this article, assumes the valent electron transfer from one bond to another. The study of the process kinetics of the electron transfer from one bond to another showed, that one electron moves from one bond to another much faster than the electron pare and that the transfer speed of electrons in the compounds with correlated bond (typical for the organic conductors) is significantly higher than in the compounds with the simple covalent bonds, typical for isolators. It is most important, that the conductance of the substances, in which atoms in the solid phase are connected with the single-electron dynamic bonds, have conductance 1020 higher, than the solid substances, in which atoms are connected with two-electron statistical bonds. Also, the increase of dynamic bonds in the system takes place during the polyeten, treated with halogen. As a result , the increase of the dynamic bonds quantity in polyeten its conductance raises by 8 orders - see the Table)

The preferable electron movement in the one direction from anode to cathode is determined by the degree of the filling in of the upper electron layers of the solid matter, which is taking place during the electron transition from anode into this solid matter until the outer electron sphere is saturated. Furthermore, one should assume the bonding type change and respectively expect the effect of the bonding type change on the scold matter conductance during the electron spheres of atom saturation (simpler speaking, it is a result of electron connecting to the atoms, bonded to the solid matters with different ore identical chemical bonds). It is supposed to expect in the semi-quantitative approximation, that the that conductance of the saturated with electrons atoms will increase with the increase of the affinity of atoms to electrons It is also expected, that the conductance decreases with the increase of enthalpy of the bond, broken during the electron attachment to one of the two atoms connected with this bond. Accordingly to the chemical bond theory, the enthalpy input in the bond energy of I2 molecule equals approximately a half of the bond energy, i.e. 0.72 eV. Iodine atom affinity to electron equals 3.06 eV. Respectively, the heat of reaction of the electron attachment to I2 molecule accompanied with the breakage of the co-valent bond in I2 molecule can be estimated by the value 2.34 of I2 (3.06 - 0.720= 2.34). Accordingly to the experimental data, the iodine molecule affinity the electron equals 2.55 eV. The analogous calculations for chlorine and bromine molecules gives the estimated values for these molecules affinity of 2.40 and 2.36eV, while the direct experimental determination gives the values of 2.38 and 2.55 eV respectively. For the additional verification of the affinity energy for the two-atom molecules, we estimated and compared with the experimental data the electron affinity to electron of Na2 and K2 using the identical methods. The comparison of the calculated and experimental data showed, that the calculated and experimental (in parenthesis) values of the electron affinity for those molecules is lower, than the ones for halogens molecules and are equal 0.2 (0.43) and 0.23 (0.5) respectively.

Theory of electrical conductivity
Every time I look at this counter space stuff I wind up back at the beginning, 'what for'? Immediately above is the way I was taught.

and then I suppose there is this:

Quote:
Current, Charge & Power – joules, coulombs, amps, volts, watts.

Current
Electrical current is the rate of flow of charge in a circuit. Current (I) is measured in amps (A), using an ammeter.

Charge

Charge (Q) is measured in coulombs (C). Each electron carries a tiny amount of charge, 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs.
charge = current x time
(coulomb, C) (ampere, A) (second, s)

Power

Power (P) is the rate at which energy is transformed in a device, it is measure in watts (W). 1 watt means that 1 joule of energy is transformed in one second.

power = energy transformedtime

Power, potential difference and current are related by the following equation;

power = potential difference x current

The energy transformed is given by;

energy transformed = potential difference x charge

Current, Charge & Power – joules, coulombs, amps, volts, watts.
forces one to ask 'whats missing' anything?
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 03-12-2018 at 04:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-20-2018, 03:16 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 782
When we have only a pure sine waves and collision results in deconstruction
it is easier to visualize when there is a spectra of waves.

Since complex numbers are useful to grind out answers and we are considering CIG we find ourselves reverse engineering algorithms for a physical entity.
There are few authors on the subject of CIG is difficult to follow. So we switch to light and it's rainbow of spectra.
In this way when we crunch numbers we feel that there is only a dark spot in the diffraction of other colors.

Deconstruction of light wave band thru a slot has a "path difference"
https://youtu.be/-FSxZhBxmsU

The fancy method with laser interferometer with a beam splitter raises the question ...
where does the light go ?
https://youtu.be/RRi4dv9KgCg
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 03-20-2018 at 03:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-25-2018, 03:37 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
When we have only a pure sine waves and collision results in deconstruction
it is easier to visualize when there is a spectra of waves.

Since complex numbers are useful to grind out answers and we are considering CIG we find ourselves reverse engineering algorithms for a physical entity.
There are few authors on the subject of CIG is difficult to follow. So we switch to light and it's rainbow of spectra.
In this way when we crunch numbers we feel that there is only a dark spot in the diffraction of other colors.

Deconstruction of light wave band thru a slot has a "path difference"
https://youtu.be/-FSxZhBxmsU

The fancy method with laser interferometer with a beam splitter raises the question ...
where does the light go ?
https://youtu.be/RRi4dv9KgCg
I dont think thats an appropriate question, since you cannot get constructive and destructive waves without interference. I think the better question is what is causing the interference is he over looking in his contraption.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-25-2018, 03:42 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Oh, for those interested, while looking for something else I stumbled across epd's description of what counterspace is. Its in the aarp talk that he did.

What the rest of us call a reciprocal '1/x' he calls counterspace. Hopefully this serves to help demystify it so its usable..
__________________
 

Last edited by Kokomoj0; 03-25-2018 at 03:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-27-2018, 08:12 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
I dont think thats an appropriate question, since you cannot get constructive and destructive waves without interference. I think the better question is what is causing the interference is he over looking in his contraption.
Good comment so then "what is causing interference"
Because white light is made up of ALL visible wavelengths, its colors can be separated (dispersed) by this difference in behavior. When light passes through glass, it encounters TWO interfaces--one entering and the other leaving. It slows down at the first interface and speeds back up at the second.

In a glass prism blue light refracts more than red light due to it's difference in wavelength. Red has a much longer wavelength than blue. Also when you combine the colors back together they appear white. https://youtu.be/uucYGK_Ymp0

The optical interferometer experiments measure the waves that are reflected back into the laser after being split shows that the dark spot is accounted for when both are the same frequency in which case we can look at amplitude of the resultant wave to either add or subtract depending on phase.

The quantitative method uses an imaginary unit. Whatever convenient form used, the i unit is useful for problem solving. Many people on this forum are familiar with both quantitative and the physical interference. They might consider the subject better taught in a more structured setting such as a classroom and would hesitate to comment but are not wondering where the wave went.

This is why Eric is humble giving these lectures. If a camera was pointed at the audience it might show
a variety of face expressions.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 03-27-2018 at 08:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-31-2018, 05:24 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
Good comment so then "what is causing interference"
lasers have 2 internal mirrors
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
space, eric, definition, counter-space, electricity, conference, solid, usage, left, wanting, tie-in, clarity, aether, end, presentation, hanging, nice, understanding, friends, explanations, diaelectricity, provide, clear, dielectricity, examples

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers