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

https://www.teslastarter.org


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 12-05-2015, 03:34 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
counterspace

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
I am a firm believer in ether (or aether if you prefer the old ways), but also there I see no need for counterspace.

I am fully aware of the fact that the word 'dimension' is not fully understood by many and that some of those have given it different meanings. But in mathematics and physics it is clearly defined, and I stick to those definitions. If you mean to say something else, use another word. Space as we perceive it has 3 dimensions, which are all measured by the same unit (meter). The fact that they are all measured by the same unit or the fact that they are interchangeable does not make it 1 dimension. So if someone says space has 1 dimension, then he redefines the word 'dimension'.

Rudolf Steiner is an example of someone who thinks deeply but not clearly, and I have the impression that his counterspace again differs from both EPD's and Nick C.'s, but until I can find his definition I have no absolute proof.
Aarons piston with vacuum and pressure, escapes me completely. I read the words and an image of a gasoline engine forms in my mind, but how that relates to space-counterspace... I have not the faintest clue.
A piston wasn't part of what I personally posted, what I did post is still in my post.

You say you believe in the aether and see no need for counterspace. However, you would have to define what qualifies something as space? Can there be space with no aether and if not what do you call it? It would be the opposite of space.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote

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

  #62  
Old 12-05-2015, 03:52 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
Hi Ufopolitics,

Please don't worry too much about my understanding of Euclidean geometry... I'll manage, trust me.
Euclidean Geometry basically the part that concern Us about Counterspace...is the fact that from a Point...he can start drawing very complex 3D Volumes...just by "extrusions", projections, rotations, as linear and curve paths...that by leaving behind a solid trace...they form solid objects.

A fact is...that Euclidean Geometry is exactly the way Nature creates everything around us...


Quote:
I am a firm believer in ether (or aether if you prefer the old ways), but also there I see no need for counterspace.
That is a VERY good advance!...to -at least try- to believe in Ether...and if you do so...please, note that Ether "lives" in Counterspace.


Quote:
I am fully aware of the fact that the word 'dimension' is not fully understood by many and that some of those have given it different meanings. But in mathematics and physics it is clearly defined, and I stick to those definitions. If you mean to say something else, use another word. Space as we perceive it has 3 dimensions, which are all measured by the same unit (meter). The fact that they are all measured by the same unit or the fact that they are interchangeable does not make it 1 dimension. So if someone says space has 1 dimension, then he redefines the word 'dimension'.

Ernst.
Ernst, please realize that We, (mankind) have only created/invented an "Encasement", based on only three parameters to define -by space limitation- a very complex word as is Dimension...

When we set those three x,y,z axis, we are actually tending a spatial limitation, a "fence" to say that volume exist there, be able to draw it, build it etc,...or whatever "fits" within those parameters, based on also "an invented coordinate system" to then say that IS "Our Three Dimensions"...

The same exact thing happens with TIME...we invented a Clock...the hours, the minutes, the seconds and so on...BUT, is that really Time as in our Universe?...or is it a System invented to be able to define just a "local" fraction of its immense real meaning?

Will our conceived "Local Earth Time" could predict far away Galaxy events or planets rotations, displacements taking place in our whole Universe Space?...or it would only be "applicable" to Earth Time?

I know it is very hard to get out of an "Established BOX" my friend...but only if you could step "outside" for a little bit of time only...then look at it...you will realize we are all enclosed in a fictional, man invented reality.

So, could we step out of it for just some brief, but deeper analysis?

Later on you could return back to it, and throw away the keys if you prefer...


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
 

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-05-2015 at 05:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-05-2015, 03:58 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,266
Fun with Geometry.

Art since cashed in all of his chips.

Back in the olden days...... AAA? ERNST?





__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 12-05-2015 at 04:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-05-2015, 05:20 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
I have read both, and can now confirm that the anthroposophical counterspace of Rudolf is NOT the counterspace of Eric. It is in fact just a different approach to describe normal space and to include 'the infinite'. This is very tricky and easily deceiving because 'the infinite' does not exist.
Example:
how many points are there between 1 and 2? answer: infinite.
how many points are there between 1 and 3? answer: infinite.
Yet there must be twice as many points in the latter case since it can be divided into two parts equal to the first.
Or worse:
if I take a line of 1 long, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
if I take a square of 1x1, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
Yet there are an infinite number of lines in the square, so the second answer should be infinite squared. But infinite² = infinite... so infinite is infinitely more than infinite...

Including the infinite in geometry is a starting point for much confusion and error...
I understand Rudolf's desire to define such space, as it stems from an ancient understanding that the universe is created from 2 forces, one outward directed, destructive, male force and one inward directed, creative, female force. In his view space is defined in a 'male' manner so he wants to add a 'female' counterpart to it. But if you read it carefully both describe the same space, he just changes the way of describing it.


Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-05-2015, 07:40 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
Dollard - Counterspace

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
I have read both, and can now confirm that the anthroposophical counterspace of Rudolf is NOT the counterspace of Eric. It is in fact just a different approach to describe normal space and to include 'the infinite'. This is very tricky and easily deceiving because 'the infinite' does not exist.
Example:
how many points are there between 1 and 2? answer: infinite.
how many points are there between 1 and 3? answer: infinite.
Yet there must be twice as many points in the latter case since it can be divided into two parts equal to the first.
Or worse:
if I take a line of 1 long, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
if I take a square of 1x1, how many points are there? answer: infinite.
Yet there are an infinite number of lines in the square, so the second answer should be infinite squared. But infinite² = infinite... so infinite is infinitely more than infinite...

Including the infinite in geometry is a starting point for much confusion and error...
I understand Rudolf's desire to define such space, as it stems from an ancient understanding that the universe is created from 2 forces, one outward directed, destructive, male force and one inward directed, creative, female force. In his view space is defined in a 'male' manner so he wants to add a 'female' counterpart to it. But if you read it carefully both describe the same space, he just changes the way of describing it.


Ernst.
The Steiner concepts I believe are early inspirations about these concepts in general and are not meant to be identical comparisons to Eric's work. There were early Borderland's articles on Steiner's Counterspace concepts that are probably still on the web.

The concept of the male/female are still analogous to Eric's perspective. Here is a quote from the first chapter in A Common Language for Electrical Engineering (Lone Pine Writings)...

"Energy, in its most arch-typical form, is embodied in the phenomenon of Electricity, but what is Electricity? 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 cm squared is what you pay for in "real estate", counterspace in per cm is the space between the lines on a ruler, or between molecules in a crystal." - Eric Dollard

I'll see Eric in a few days and if time permits, maybe will try to do a video interview going over some of these topics.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-05-2015, 08:14 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
Now I see that even here people have different definitions of counterspace.
Ufopolitics seems to follow Steiner. Aaron says (?) to follow Eric, but doesn't. Eric describes it mathematically as something with a unit of 'per meter' (as I did in my countertime example, which is NOT time in reverse, plse reread my post) but in words he describes it more like the opposite of space (which is completely different from his mathematical description): bring two plates closer together then the space between them decreases and the counterspace increases.
The latter is in the direction of what Aaron says but 'space devoid of ether' (if my interpretation is correct) again is something else.

Can you have space without ether?
Theoretically (mathematically) yes! no problem. And I would call that space. Why would it be the opposite??? Is a car without gas the opposite of a car?
Physically, no! as that would conflict with the definition of ether.
Ether does not reside in counterspace (wherever that might be) it is here everywhere filling up space. It conveys electric and magnetic forces which could not exist without a medium filling up the space (not counterspace!) between objects that act on each other without physical contact. (so in a way you could say that ether creates that physical contact)
Back to the car without gas, space without ether would be dysfunctional space. It has all the properties to call it space (it can hold objects), but it does not function in a physical sense as 'normal' physical space would (light can not pass). Exactly as the car, it is still a car, only it does not drive.

I do not believe that we (mankind) invented space by inventing a way to describe it (Cartesian or polar coordinates), nor did we invent time by inventing a clock and calendar.
Time and space were there already and we invented ways to measure and describe it.
It could be possible that there are more than the 3 (space) dimensions that we perceive and it is possible that time, as we perceive it, is part of a larger multidimensional system, we can not possibly know for sure.
So now I am out of that established BOX, ready for a deeper analysis?
How does this relate to counterspace?

Well... you guys sure keep me busy this Saturday!


Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-05-2015, 09:00 AM
Dog-One's Avatar
Dog-One Dog-One is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 265
Arrow @ufo

Sent you a PM.
__________________
 

Last edited by Dog-One; 12-05-2015 at 09:01 AM. Reason: cleanup
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-05-2015, 10:35 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
Counterspace

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
Now I see that even here people have different definitions of counterspace.
Ufopolitics seems to follow Steiner. Aaron says (?) to follow Eric, but doesn't. Eric describes it mathematically as something with a unit of 'per meter' (as I did in my countertime example, which is NOT time in reverse, plse reread my post) but in words he describes it more like the opposite of space (which is completely different from his mathematical description): bring two plates closer together then the space between them decreases and the counterspace increases.
The latter is in the direction of what Aaron says but 'space devoid of ether' (if my interpretation is correct) again is something else.

Can you have space without ether?
Theoretically (mathematically) yes! no problem. And I would call that space. Why would it be the opposite??? Is a car without gas the opposite of a car?
Physically, no! as that would conflict with the definition of ether.
Ether does not reside in counterspace (wherever that might be) it is here everywhere filling up space. It conveys electric and magnetic forces which could not exist without a medium filling up the space (not counterspace!) between objects that act on each other without physical contact. (so in a way you could say that ether creates that physical contact)
Back to the car without gas, space without ether would be dysfunctional space. It has all the properties to call it space (it can hold objects), but it does not function in a physical sense as 'normal' physical space would (light can not pass). Exactly as the car, it is still a car, only it does not drive.

I do not believe that we (mankind) invented space by inventing a way to describe it (Cartesian or polar coordinates), nor did we invent time by inventing a clock and calendar.
Time and space were there already and we invented ways to measure and describe it.
It could be possible that there are more than the 3 (space) dimensions that we perceive and it is possible that time, as we perceive it, is part of a larger multidimensional system, we can not possibly know for sure.
So now I am out of that established BOX, ready for a deeper analysis?
How does this relate to counterspace?

Well... you guys sure keep me busy this Saturday!


Ernst.
I do recommend that people pay attention to Eric's work on the subject even though I see counterspace as something different because if people stick to his work, it is all engineerable and it works. A belief in counterspace isn't necessary to demonstrate the unaccounted for disappearance of a large amount of RF energy between two coils on a Cosmic Induction Generator (energy desynthesis or destruction of energy).

The idea of counterspace however offers a seamless and sensible explanation for all of these effects, which cannot be explained by conventional terms. Basically, I have yet to see anything debunk any part of Eric's theories, meaning they actually are theories that have stood the test of time and based on many experiments on the bench, math on paper, etc. they all suggest that Eric is incredibly right on. Any theory to the contrary would have to fall to the side and not just be relegated to a postulation, but would have to simply be erased as a mistake.

Lines on paper - those are simple analogies to give the idea but show what counterspace is for simple comprehension. Counterspace does apply there, but is not the same counterspace as space and counterspace in terms of energy disappearing into counterspace.

A car isn't defined by the gasoline in the tank, but space is defined by the existence of the aether so I don't believe your comparison is valid.

Space without objects can only hold objects if space can exist without the aether and I don't believe it can.

The aether exists in various densities, which determines the speed that light is propagating through it. The more dense, the slower and the less dense, the faster. The idea that aether is incompressible is not a fully defined concept and does not exclude the possibility for aether to be more or less dense. Therefore, aether is more dense in a higher gravity environment and less dense in a lower gravity environment.

Space with aether offers the ability for objects to exist at different sizes. An object would be smaller under high aetheric density and would be larger under lower density aether - from an absolute perspective. To an observer in each area, they couldn't tell the difference since they are subject to the same size fluctuations caused by the density of the aether, their perception is subject to it and the light in that area is subject to it.

Therefore, space with aether is what is responsible for distance to exist. From an absolute perspective, higher density a certain distance is shorter and high lower density it is longer. Everything in space with aether is subject to this compression and decompression but to the observer in each area, they can't tell the difference. Inside of the space with aether, the space can be measured with a coordinate system of x, y and z to determine the size of an object.

Time is simply the progression of movement of mass through the aether. We happen to believe we are measuring time by simply looking at periodic movements of an object moving in the aether that we count in certain divisions called a clock. A child on a swing - if swinging 24/7 with a consistent periodicity, we can count those swings and it is just as much of a clock as any other. When we measure time, all we're doing it simply measuring movement through the aether.

The rate at which time ticks is solely based on one factor and that is the density of the aether. In high density aether, there is more resistance to the movement of the mass through it and therefore time ticks slower and in a lower density area, time ticks faster since there is less resistance to the movement of the mass through the aether. These relativistic type effects are very real, but BECAUSE OF the aether, which Einstein was too much of a narcissistic egomaniac to ever admit, but he did come close when he commented many times on the work of Dayton Miller.

If there is no aether, there is no time since there is no space.

If the aether diminishes to the point where the density is so low that it is basically non-existent, there is no longer any ability for distance to exist because there is no more space. Light cannot move through that area because the aether is not there, an object cannot exist in that area because there is nothing to sustain its existence and there is no longer any measurable space for any object of any size to exist.

That is the only true vacuum in my opinion because it is quite literally, empty in the most absolute sense of the word. It is a complete void and is the lack of space.

This does bring up the possibility of having space and counterspace exist simultaneously in the same "space" and it doesn't contradict what I mentioned above. We can create localized areas that are void of the aether that deflect the aether around it and such an object could move without inertia since the aether is not able to penetrate and induce the counter force to resist its movement. That would be an example and still may be different than the counterspace Eric is defining. I'm definitely going to be asking him some questions and I'd encourage anyone that wants to ask Eric to send him a letter to his Lone Pine address - he will write you back.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-05-2015, 10:35 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,266
Trying to go over terms is like trying to reason why we used
the field lines of force for magnetism, for the last 100 years
as a way of expressing what we thought it was. But it is always
more than we thought so we come up with more terms to explain
what we saw in an experiment.

Of course this is not the end.

Since the 1800's we have accumulated more experimental data so
our need to explain effects is growing and so are the term lists we
have chosen to call it.

We put the guys name on his discovery, but that is only the start
not the end. After 50 men with definitions of their findings are all
placed at the same table we must find out how they can all be
knitted together into one big happy family.

As a for instance when men from the 1800's gathered experimental data
they might have used a cup of water with 2 electrodes in it to show
bubbles of gas and their explanations for the gas. They didn't have many
of the devices we have today so we have more results.

Results that do not line up with present theory so terms will be replaced.

Just look at how many men with their documented effects were thrown
out of the scientific arena. we need to call our new found data something.

We will never arrive, forever we will learn new things and never come
to a full understanding of the SELF EXISTENT ONE. Learning and growing
time without end. Now having said that, how many new terms do you
figure we will have accumulated in another 400,000 years, or 400 billion
time without end?

We are created in the image of the limitless SELF EXISTENT ONE.

The few terms we have today are just a tiny list though we find them
almost impossible to retain. We will grow as will our new list of explanations
will, time without end.

That is the wonder of our created being.

Enjoy it, you are they only one. There are no others like you a tiny
piece of the larger picture, a chip off the old block as they say.

And just one man can and will change the world.

So what does the term "COUNTER=SPACE" mean? It is our way of saying
we found a cause and effect that is not yet found on the books so this
is our best stab at adding a new idea into the ever growing mix.

A better explanation than the old one that allows everyone's effects
to fit together more perfectly. Well, the best we can for now til another
50 effects are introduced.
__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 12-05-2015 at 11:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-05-2015, 03:42 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,347
Induced Voltage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
The answer is simple, as Ken has written on his book...and I have quoted here on the first post of this Thread:
Quote:
Magnetism is dimensional, the dielectric is intradimensional, or in counterspace, and only when these two Ether fields move against each other over time is there electrification, which is the Ether in a modality of dynamic polarization.
Thanks for the reply Ufo,

I understand this to say that in your experiment (post#1) when you moved the large coil up and down on the magnet that you were actually moving a dielectric field in counterspace against the magnetic field in real space. And that it was the these two fields moving against each other which caused the plus-to-minus sine like wave to appear on the scope (induced alternating voltage).

O.K.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-05-2015, 04:25 PM
Ben2503 Ben2503 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 198
Puzzled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Yes, definitively an electromagnet and a magnet project different fields...

If we were in a stage of Higher Civilization scientific levels...where we all have recognized the Aether back again as the main force that creates and moves everything at universal scale...then I could explain that difference easily...but I will try in the best of my ability without perturbing other closed minds...by keeping it all still in a "Theory"...

Say that every time we create a Permanent Magnet by dumping a fast and high DC-Coil electrification to a ferromagnetic mass...we are not just "aligning" straight all particles into microscopic domains within that object that run from end to end without any recognition of domain walls typical explanation from old concepts...But instead all we are doing is opening a permanent Aether gate that concentrates right at the center plane of that volume...to create both known polarized and spatial ends...and vualá we have a Magnet.

Then we could conclude that an Electromagnet is just a Permanent Magnet in a starting process... where that "Aether Gate" is just a "momentary" one, because we have not provided the required energy dump to open it permanently...and it is dependent upon the fluctuations of our source feeding that coil...for example, if it was an AC Source, the sine wave +/0/- fluctuations will cause gate to open-close-revert...if it was a pulsed DC +/0/+...then open-Close deal...or if just a straight, linear DC...that does not reach the top values to fully open it...resuming that in all three cases of electromagnets, the gates would be very different than the one formed permanently on a magnet. Therefore, none of their projecting fields would be the same.

However, an electromagnet has properties that a permanent magnet could never do, just because its permanently situation...

But then again...that was just "Theorizing" ....


Regards


Ufopolitics
Hi UFO.
There are 2 things that puzzled me:
1. You placed the permanent magnet on a steel plate, so the blochwall or dielectric thingy must have been pulled downwards. Below the centre of the magnet right? Then you put steel on the top, thus I expect that the dielectric thingy moves back to the center.
So if the movement of dielectric thingy induces the voltage, I would expect that the maximum induction would be in the middle of permanent magnet and not on the top.
2. Now if I put a piece of steel on one of the poles, What would happen to the shape of the magnetic vortex and why?

thanks for your time.
Best regards,
Ben
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-05-2015, 04:41 PM
Dog-One's Avatar
Dog-One Dog-One is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
So what does the term "COUNTER=SPACE" mean? It is our way of saying
we found a cause and effect that is not yet found on the books so this
is our best stab at adding a new idea into the ever growing mix.
The easiest (for me) way to embody this idea it to think of a capacitor. When you reduce the distance between the plates, the volume (i.e. the space) shrinks, but the capacitance increases. The only way this could happen is if space itself has an opposite, a reciprocal. When you squeeze out space, it seems likely you are actually filling the void with counterspace. Because of the Aether, a true void cannot exist--it must contain space or counterspace; empty is not an option. So I suspect some sort of membrane exists between the two. Mathematically I have no idea how this membrane would be described, but it must be there, it must separate space from counterspace.

Aaron, this would be a great question to formulate for Eric, since it is so fundamental to our understanding.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-05-2015, 05:22 PM
Ben2503 Ben2503 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 198
Really??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
The idea of counterspace however offers a seamless and sensible explanation for all of these effects, which cannot be explained by conventional terms. Basically, I have yet to see anything debunk any part of Eric's theories, meaning they actually are theories that have stood the test of time and based on many experiments on the bench, math on paper, etc. they all suggest that Eric is incredibly right on. Any theory to the contrary would have to fall to the side and not just be relegated to a postulation, but would have to simply be erased as a mistake.
Are there any UT video's on his experiments? (BroMickey will probably be able to find it )

Quote:
The aether exists in various densities, which determines the speed that light is propagating through it. The more dense, the slower and the less dense, the faster. The idea that aether is incompressible is not a fully defined concept and does not exclude the possibility for aether to be more or less dense. Therefore, aether is more dense in a higher gravity environment and less dense in a lower gravity environment.
Really how can you be so sure? Did you device some experiments that support that theory. I f you did, man you can rock the Scientific Scene.

Quote:
Space with aether offers the ability for objects to exist at different sizes. An object would be smaller under high aetheric density and would be larger under lower density aether - from an absolute perspective. To an observer in each area, they couldn't tell the difference since they are subject to the same size fluctuations caused by the density of the aether, their perception is subject to it and the light in that area is subject to it.
Ok so if I understand correctly. Aether is like a gas that compresses the 'bodies' that are submerged in it. Like a balloon in a vacuum chamber (= low pressure) that expands when you pump the air out. Then the aether inside the 'body' will cause the 'body' to expand. The mass of the body will remain the same, the density of the aether becomes less, and therefore the volume of the body becomes bigger?

Quote:
The rate at which time ticks is solely based on one factor and that is the density of the aether. In high density aether, there is more resistance to the movement of the mass through it and therefore time ticks slower and in a lower density area, time ticks faster since there is less resistance to the movement of the mass through the aether. These relativistic type effects are very real, but BECAUSE OF the aether, which Einstein was too much of a narcissistic egomaniac to ever admit, but he did come close when he commented many times on the work of Dayton Miller.

If there is no aether, there is no time since there is no space.

In outer space the resistance of the aether must be very low, because the planets have incredible masses and move at incredible speeds, thus the time must move a very high speed. Right?

So if the time moves fast then everything else must be moving slower when speed is expressed in delta distance / delta time? Or faster because also distances change? Or both and cancel each other?

You have an interesting theory Aaron.

Best regards,
Ben
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-05-2015, 07:17 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Thanks for the reply Ufo,

I understand this to say that in your experiment (post#1) when you moved the large coil up and down on the magnet that you were actually moving a dielectric field in counterspace against the magnetic field in real space. And that it was the these two fields moving against each other which caused the plus-to-minus sine like wave to appear on the scope (induced alternating voltage).

O.K.

bi
Nope,

That movement of the larger coil over the seating magnet was JUST to demonstrate Faraday's Induction. There are absolutely no movements of both spatial and counterspatial fields there...it is simple, if we do just like microwatt did on his experiment...dumping a magnet through some copper tube, there would not be fields movement within magnet...therefore, no dielectric displacement/no electrification.

As am sure you do not need any further explanation on Faraday Induction...right?...even the wrong one but Iknow you agree with it.
__________________
 

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-06-2015 at 04:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-05-2015, 08:00 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben2503 View Post
Hi UFO.
There are 2 things that puzzled me:
1. You placed the permanent magnet on a steel plate, so the blochwall or dielectric thingy must have been pulled downwards. Below the centre of the magnet right? Then you put steel on the top, thus I expect that the dielectric thingy moves back to the center.
So if the movement of dielectric thingy induces the voltage, I would expect that the maximum induction would be in the middle of permanent magnet and not on the top.
Hello Ben,

Friend, you are forgetting a very essential part of video...the very first observation I show...that when iron cylinder is approaching magnetic field (or when iron is under the influence of a polarized field, could be N or S) there appears a secondary dielectric field right on the tip-surface of iron, Ken calls it a "projection" .

Now, this newly formed counter field on iron cylinder, together with the existing magnet dielectric establish what Ken calls a self voidance or attraction as we say...

On page 71 of Wheeler's Book writings about the attraction (Center Picture) between two magnets separated by an air gap powdered with iron filings (the typical image that has lasted for 200 years):

Quote:
Ken Wheeler's Book P71...whereas the middle picture is a negative pressure counterspatial voidance sink. Since the center picture is diagramming the Ether returning to counterspace, that picture is showing the formation of the new dielectric inertial plane between two inverse spin fields and two separate magnets about to become one single magnet.
Now, between iron-magnet that formation of the new field does not take place right in the middle space between them, but instead, like I showed on video...right on the end surface of cylinder...but, no matter what, the effect described is exactly the same as with another magnet's pole in attraction mode.


The point here is that the Range from both Dielectric Fields displacing towards a voidance plane is what generates that spike charge...so, it must be higher on the top section of magnet, because that is where both dielectric planes are moving towards until final contact.


Quote:
2. Now if I put a piece of steel on one of the poles, What would happen to the shape of the magnetic vortex and why?

thanks for your time.
Best regards,
Ben
If any piece of steel would be approached or contacted any magnet, that contact end pole would expand towards the iron mass.

If it is a South....then that iron mass would become an extension of that south pole...and so on with North.

AND, NOT the entire pole though!...but another part of that pole would remain at magnet.

Quote:
why?

First you must understand what happens to dielectric field under viewing film when two magnets approach by alike poles...I have shown that image here a lot...they become one magnet and both dielectric planes from each magnet rushes towards the center or contact gap surfaces.

Then with iron occurs a very similar process, except that the highest force is on magnet, not on iron, therefore dielectric still remains within the magnet, but displaced off center towards the iron mass...I showed that on the first part of video Ben.

This Voidance acceleration is higher from two alike poles than it is between iron and magnet.


Hope is clear now!


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
 

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-05-2015 at 08:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-05-2015, 08:17 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog-One View Post
The easiest (for me) way to embody this idea it to think of a capacitor. When you reduce the distance between the plates, the volume (i.e. the space) shrinks, but the capacitance increases. The only way this could happen is if space itself has an opposite, a reciprocal. When you squeeze out space, it seems likely you are actually filling the void with counterspace. Because of the Aether, a true void cannot exist--it must contain space or counterspace; empty is not an option. So I suspect some sort of membrane exists between the two. Mathematically I have no idea how this membrane would be described, but it must be there, it must separate space from counterspace.

Aaron, this would be a great question to formulate for Eric, since it is so fundamental to our understanding.

Hello Dog One,

That was an excellent comparison to a Capacitor!, thanks!

Quote:
Every appearance of magnetism in the macro, or extra-atomic volume, has a reactive recoil wrongly conceived of as a conjugated pole, however this is not the case as the dipole nature of magnetism is a spatial abstraction. Its appearance is both an action and recoil from the inter-atomic counterspatial dielectric capacitance resultant from a magnets creation in electrification of a ferrous or quasiferrous (neodymium composite or otherwise) mass.

Now some words from Ken on Counterspace...:

Quote:
Counterspace is just a conceptual means of speaking about the Ether plane, where everything is produced, and all fields are based in this ‘medium’. Tesla knew this, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Maxwell, and even the fool Einstein, before he lost his mind, agreed that
understanding is impossible without the Ether.

Regards



Ufopolitics
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-05-2015, 08:29 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog-One View Post
Sent you a PM.
Got it, thanks!

And I responded...
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-05-2015, 08:50 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
About this Thread...

Hello to All,


The way I planned to discuss and write this Thread is as follows:

First Part we will be discussing the Attraction Modes, from iron to steel and from Magnet to Magnet...and the Dielectric Field displacement differences generating a charge...

Plus other experiments to demonstrate Dielectric Field Plane difference from just a "Bloch Wall" or Domain Wall.

On the Second Part (SCIFI Induction) I will be demonstrating the "Counter-Voidance" or Repulsion Interactions between Magnetic Fields like Polarizations. This part is far more complex than attraction, and I will be showing first experiments through videos and the development and construction of the first ever known...Repulsion Field based Generator...

As Ken Wheeler describes on that same page 71 about Repulsion...:

Quote:
Two likewise spin fields causing deflection; this is mirror membrane Ether deflection, this is
literally extremely high-pressure space
So far, based on Faraday's Induction...we have considered that only in Attraction mode there are the famous "lines of force" or a "Field of Force"...while the Repulsion shows as "No Field"...so, let's see that...

In this Part 2 it should be understood, that Ken Wheeler's Theory is fully proved, since "Previous Art" has never recognized the Repulsion as even a Field, nor as a method to Induce any currents or voltage in any conductor.


However...I will keep going forward...

The Final Part Three (Spirits in the Machine), is fully about Counterspace, Dimensions and Magnetic Field "Ghosts" through Ferromagnetics...I call this part "The Grace Shot" to end this games about the wrong Magnetism Concepts...

It is extensive material, not only from the writing and CAD images, but the building of models (in Animated 3D CAD plus the Real Deal) plus the originating simple experiments to prove what I write, then to batch render all in Videos...meaning, not a "piece of cake" at all...so, please be patient with me here...


Regards



Ufopolitics
__________________
 

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-05-2015 at 09:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-05-2015, 08:50 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
density of the aether

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben2503 View Post
Are there any UT video's on his experiments? (BroMickey will probably be able to find it )



Really how can you be so sure? Did you device some experiments that support that theory. I f you did, man you can rock the Scientific Scene.



Ok so if I understand correctly. Aether is like a gas that compresses the 'bodies' that are submerged in it. Like a balloon in a vacuum chamber (= low pressure) that expands when you pump the air out. Then the aether inside the 'body' will cause the 'body' to expand. The mass of the body will remain the same, the density of the aether becomes less, and therefore the volume of the body becomes bigger?




In outer space the resistance of the aether must be very low, because the planets have incredible masses and move at incredible speeds, thus the time must move a very high speed. Right?

So if the time moves fast then everything else must be moving slower when speed is expressed in delta distance / delta time? Or faster because also distances change? Or both and cancel each other?

You have an interesting theory Aaron.

Best regards,
Ben
Start with these videos just to get a feel for what Eric is getting at: Transverse & Longitudinal Electric Waves and Tesla's Longitudinal Electricity - Eric P. Dollard - Official Homepage

The pictures you see here: The Landers Facility of Eric Dollard and Walter Deroche - Eric P. Dollard - Official Homepage is an Alexanderson type network, which is a transmission network for receiving Earth signals for earthquake prediction. This kind of network uses electrostatic (longitudinal instantaneous/extraluminal) signal propagation instead of electromagnetic (transverse) that is limited to light speed. Watch those videos above first.

RCA Marconi station in Bolinas, California was a massive Alexanderson network used for ship to shore communication with Naval ships during the war. There is no time delay between the transmitter and receiver getting the signals. At Landers in the pics above, signals on the Alexanderson type network were received FASTER THAN (before) normal electromagnetic antennas received the signals.

If electromagnetic is limited to light speed and the longitudinal transmission is instantaneous and it is measurable, then that shows Eric has more credibility than those who cannot perform such experiments. dR_Green showed some of his crystal radio tests using a Tesla resonant transformer version of a crystal radio and received signals from the AM station through the ground BEFORE the antennas received electromagnetic signals through the air.

Counterspace in the context of what Eric's work is about is theoretical of course, but there are many experiments that suggest his theory is correct more than the evidence available against it meaning any theory that does not allow extraluminal propagation of signals is simply wrong and can no longer be a theory. So, I'd have to say his model prevails above others since he has hard core experimental results that demonstrate just what his theories predict.

As you mention, the aether in a way does compress the bodies in it but instead of compressing them, I'd say it pushes down on them and that is the effect of gravity - mass displacing the aether and the aether moves back in the direction from where it was displaced in dynamic fashion and exerts the push and that holds things to the ground. Like a bowling ball in a bathtub of water, the water pushes back on all sides of the ball. Of course that example is inside of gravity itself, but it makes the point.

As far as the compression you mention in the context that all objects' absolute size is dependent on the density of the aether - everything is becoming smaller and larger from an absolute viewpoint but what causes the change in the density - the more massive an object is, the more aether is displaced per volume of space so the gravity would be higher on the surface of that object than a less massive object. Density of the aether can be manipulated with electrostatics as well as by higher mass.

You said, "The mass of the body will remain the same, the density of the aether becomes less, and therefore the volume of the body becomes bigger?."

The ABSOLUTE volume of the object changes meaning let's say you had God's perspective that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a local reference point within any particular area of aether at various densities, what would you be able to witness?

You would see 2 identical objects in different areas of density. In high density, the object would be smaller and in low density the object would be bigger. HOWEVER, if you were in the area of high density, your perception, speed of light is slower, your ruler is shrank down, time ticks slower, but to you since everything is subject to that same effect, you will measure the object at 3x3x3 inches for example.

If you were in a lower density area, from an absolute perspective, you would be larger, the object is larger, your ruler is larger, etc... time ticks faster and light moves faster. You will in that area still measure the object at 3x3x3.

It is an fluid dynamic aetheric relativity model. The observer in those areas cannot see a difference since they are subject to the same changes in the density of the aether. All light leaving remote areas of the universe traveling to Earth is slowing down and speeding up and slowing down and speeding up as it moves through the aether at various densities. When it gets to us, we're measuring it from our own aetheric density and will measure it at light speed even though using that to calculate the distance is an effort in futility because we are unable to realize that it was not at a constant speed during its trip but moved with great variability.

In outer space as you mention, the aether has low resistance, that is to low mass not moving or away from all mass where it is at a baseline density if you want to call it that. But, if you take an object with mass and accelerate it through the aether, that object interacts with MORE aether per unit of absolute time meaning an apparent increase in the density of the aether is created relative to the object moving through it so for the person moving with this object, the clock would slow down as there is more resistance to the movement of the object through the aether as it accelerates - again, because it encounters more aether per unit of absolute time, which means that the density of the aether relative to the mass is increasing greatly.

When the object slows and moves at a constant steady slow snail's pace, it experiences much less aether per unit of absolute time and therefore the clock ticks faster since there is less resistance to the movement of that mass moving through it, light moves quicker, etc... all compared to an absolute reference point but the observer moving with that mass can't tell a difference.

I have spent many years looking for common ground between the ideas put forth by Bearden, Bedini, Dollard, DePalma and others - and I see that those who have results that I have witnessed are basically all explaining the same things in their own language. Bearden sharing the ideas of breaking the symmetry of the flux in the quantum mechanical vacuum with a dipole is the same thing as polarizing the aether - it is 100% identical but are explained with different vocabulary, etc... based on everything that I have witnessed with people that have experimental results that most people don't have, I would say that my perspective on this is a very valid legitimate theory because the entire thing as a whole fits seamlessly together and nothing has shown to violate what it predicts. It predicts the Bifeld-Brown effect (before I ever knew about that effect), it predicts the Casimir effect, relativistic effects of mass/aether interchanges, gravity, gravitational attraction, all results in Bruce DePalma's experiments, etc... it accounts for what conventional theories don't so therefore, they're wrong in my opinion.

My perspective doesn't contradict what Eric is talking about. There are communication differences between all these commonalities and I'm doing my best to verify that the best I can because I'm not attached to my own beliefs and want to know what needs more clarification, etc. or what might be dead wrong. So far by doing this in an intellectually honest way with myself, I have only seen that the model is becoming strengthened with each new revelation that I pick up from Eric or others.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-05-2015, 08:56 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
counterspace vs true vacuum

@UFO,

"Counterspace is just a conceptual means of speaking about the Ether plane, where everything is produced, and all fields are based in this ‘medium’. Tesla knew this, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Maxwell, and even the fool Einstein, before he lost his mind, agreed that
understanding is impossible without the Ether. "

Yes, that is what I mean by this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
This does bring up the possibility of having space and counterspace exist simultaneously in the same "space" and it doesn't contradict what I mentioned above.
My mention of counterspace is not the same as Eric's because I used the term to define a true vacuum - void of aether and Eric's is a reference to the aetheric realm so to speak. That is why I said nothing I'm talking about contradicts what Eric is talking about. I should use another term rather than counterspace - such as Vacuum or Void because that is what it is, but too many people have their own ideas about what Vacuum means but they forget that the existence of the aether means it is not a vacuum. People say vacuum when they should be using the term Plenum...

plenum (n.) 1670s, "filled space" (opposite of vacuum), from Latin plenum (spatium) "full (space)," neuter of adjective plenus "complete, full" (see plenary). The meaning "of a full assembly of legislators" is first recorded 1772.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 12-05-2015, 11:53 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dog-One View Post
The easiest (for me) way to embody this idea it to think of a capacitor. When you reduce the distance between the plates, the volume (i.e. the space) shrinks, but the capacitance increases. The only way this could happen is if space itself has an opposite, a reciprocal. When you squeeze out space, it seems likely you are actually filling the void with counterspace. Because of the Aether, a true void cannot exist--it must contain space or counterspace; empty is not an option. So I suspect some sort of membrane exists between the two. Mathematically I have no idea how this membrane would be described, but it must be there, it must separate space from counterspace.

Aaron, this would be a great question to formulate for Eric, since it is so fundamental to our understanding.
Hey Dog, "Sup"? Long time no see.

Good brain pattern display as always. The void Aaron is talking about?
It is the absences of the SELF EXISTENT ONE, I don't want to know or
experience any of that. I/m gonna stick with good stuff.

However I do know people who talk about moving the Aether around to
form more of a void in front of their crafts while the pressure of Aether
on each side and behind the craft move it forward.

Moving at 2X the speed of light can only be realized by the use of Aether
space so negative and positive Aether must exist.

As we continue to go more toward the negative or absence of Aether we
might eventually reach a void?

Pure speculation. I'm done.

I give you Eric

__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 12-06-2015 at 01:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-06-2015, 03:02 AM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
Aaron, I see that you have created a whole theory covering many aspects of science and that counterspace is only a small part of your theory. I must second Bens opinion that if you could prove it, we would enter a new scientific era!

There is a way to match Eric's mathematical explanation with some of the remarks here. Let me show you:
If I have a volume of space, let's say 1 m³ with 1 gas molecule in it, then that gas would have a density of 1 molecule/m³.
If I now leave everything the same but only reduce the volume to half its size, then the density would double to 1 molecule/half m³ = 2 molecules/m³.
So I have something that increases when I reduce the volume and its unit is 'per volume' (/m³).
This 'thing' is closely related to density, which has a unit of 'quantity per volume'.
But the big question now is "can this 'thing' hold anything?" Or referring to the above example, is that molecule in space or in counterspace? And if it is in space, can it move into counterspace? And if it has moved to counterspace, can I still see it?
I hope you will agree that the above defined 'thing' matches Eric's mathematical explanation of counterspace and also the 'capacitor example' presented here by Dog-one.

I do not see how to reconcile this with Aaron's "space-without-ether", nor with Steiner's "female-model-of-space", nor with Ken's "ether-plane".
I interpret "ether-plane" as a matter of scale. On my macroscopic level I can have a gas, zooming in, I would see molecules, zooming in further, I would see atoms, zooming in even more, I would see electrons, protons and neutrons,.... , zooming in all the way I would finally see ether. This zoom-level I would call "ether-plane", but that is probably not what Ken means, as it is just 'normal space zoomed in a lot'.
And on Aaron's idea, since there is no space without ether, what is the point of talking about it? Also how can something disappear into or appear out of this thing that does not exist? Come to think of it, didn't you actually say that counterspace does not exist?

Now, if ether were not filling up all space, how can magnetic and electric forces and light pass through space?



Ernst.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-06-2015, 05:17 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
energy, dissipation, gravitational attraction, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
Aaron, I see that you have created a whole theory covering many aspects of science and that counterspace is only a small part of your theory. I must second Bens opinion that if you could prove it, we would enter a new scientific era!

There is a way to match Eric's mathematical explanation with some of the remarks here. Let me show you:
If I have a volume of space, let's say 1 m³ with 1 gas molecule in it, then that gas would have a density of 1 molecule/m³.
If I now leave everything the same but only reduce the volume to half its size, then the density would double to 1 molecule/half m³ = 2 molecules/m³.
So I have something that increases when I reduce the volume and its unit is 'per volume' (/m³).
This 'thing' is closely related to density, which has a unit of 'quantity per volume'.
But the big question now is "can this 'thing' hold anything?" Or referring to the above example, is that molecule in space or in counterspace? And if it is in space, can it move into counterspace? And if it has moved to counterspace, can I still see it?
I hope you will agree that the above defined 'thing' matches Eric's mathematical explanation of counterspace and also the 'capacitor example' presented here by Dog-one.

I do not see how to reconcile this with Aaron's "space-without-ether", nor with Steiner's "female-model-of-space", nor with Ken's "ether-plane".
I interpret "ether-plane" as a matter of scale. On my macroscopic level I can have a gas, zooming in, I would see molecules, zooming in further, I would see atoms, zooming in even more, I would see electrons, protons and neutrons,.... , zooming in all the way I would finally see ether. This zoom-level I would call "ether-plane", but that is probably not what Ken means, as it is just 'normal space zoomed in a lot'.
And on Aaron's idea, since there is no space without ether, what is the point of talking about it? Also how can something disappear into or appear out of this thing that does not exist? Come to think of it, didn't you actually say that counterspace does not exist?

Now, if ether were not filling up all space, how can magnetic and electric forces and light pass through space?



Ernst.
Yes, I do see your example is correct that density increases as volume decreases. It is like power increasing as time decreases for x amount of energy.

As far as how the "thing" can hold anything, might need clarification on what you mean, but I would say the molecule is in space. I believe that every bit of matter must have a constant interaction with the aether in order to perpetuate itself as matter.

It is like a living aerobic organism except that a living aerobic organism needs oxygen and without it, it will die, but will still exist - it will just be dead.

But for matter itself, it lives off the aether in order to sustain itself as matter. If there is no aether, there is no source potential to perpetuate its existence not just on the atomic level, but subatomic then down to the aetheric level. Light can't exist in the Void or true Vacuum, neither can matter so an area without aether in my opinion can hold nothing because it is nothing.

As far as counterspace goes in the context of it being the ambient existence of the aether in space... the aether is symmetrical and homogeneous in nature until there is a potential difference within space to create a potential difference such as the terminals on a battery.

The aether is bipolar so the charges are separated and are available in a polarized fashion at the terminals. If you put a bulb there, the aether moves to the terminals and over the wires through the load back to the terminal of opposite potential. So the battery never ran out of anything, the source potential came externally from the battery. When we use energy to "charge" a battery, we're simply separating and polarizing the electrochemistry in the battery in order to create a high and low point with a common connecting sitting inside of space (aether).

When the load is running, part of the polarized aether helps to power the load and the other part moves into the battery at its opposite potential terminal, goes into the battery and then repels and scatters and disorders it's like charges on the side of its like potential terminal. That scattering reduces the separation in charges in the battery and therefore reduces the voltage on the battery.

So the battery never ran out of anything, its internal chemistry simply became unpolarized and we pay to polarize it when we "charge" it up. All the potential and source charge that actually did the work came directly from the aether, it gets dissipated and disorganized and goes right back into counterspace or its default ambient existence.

I do believe the aether is bipolar. Energy is simply the organized potential encountering resistances, which causes a disordering of the polarized aether at those points of resistance and there is dissipation at that point. The dissipation of that organized potential simply goes right back into a state of non-polarization with the rest of the ambient aether. This process is the destruction of energy and polarizing the aether in order to give it a high and low point to polarize to and move over in order to do work is the creation of energy. The dissipation of polarized aether back to a symmetrical state in the ambient aetheric flux is the process of polarized aether moving back to counterspace.

Energy always is and only can be created or destroyed - it never changes form because while the polarized aether (the voltage potential) is moving over a circuit (the dielectricity), it is in the SAME FORM as it was in counterspace, it is simply separated from it's opposite charge meaning it is polarized. Energy doesn't change from one form to another, that has always been the complete opposite of reality.

1. You create a dipole or potential difference and that polarizes the aether.

2. You apply a load to the dipole and the separated and polarized aether moves over the circuit to supply the source potential to do the work, not he power supply. The power supply only creates a potential difference within the aether in order to polarize the aether so that it can enter a circuit and do work.

3. Work is done and any place in a circuit where work is done - the polarized aether meets a resistance and this disorders and unpolarizes the aether at those points and causes it to dissipate right back into the ambient aetheric flux of counterspace, in my way of explaining it.

Energy is just the process of taking polarized aether and disordering it. The dipole polarizes the aether, lets the aether in to do work and that work is energy - hence, we just created energy out of thin air. Then, the dissipated polarized aether, which is now disordered dissipates right back into the aether so we just destroyed energy right back into "thin air." There is no changing forms for the energy because it is in the same form, just polarized or non polarized. When it is polarized, it is all like charges on each end of the dipole and condensed, but it is still the same form that it was. This is why there is no such thing as conservation of energy because nothing is conserved in the system itself, energy is created out of thin air, which is the work it does and it dissipates right back while the energy is destroyed.

The only thing that ever happens normally is that a dipole is created, polarized aether comes in to do work and it is dissipated right back into an unorganized state.

That is how something seems to appears from and disappears into counterspace.

I think aether is space and therefore "fills" up space. In the area of a void or true vacuum, I don't believe either dielectricty or magnetism can exist. We see galaxies accelerating away instead of slowing down as a normal big bang entropic model would suggest at the far edges of the Universe. Space is stretched so thin there between the galaxies that the density of the aether is abnormally low or non existent. In those areas, I don't believe light can transmit through those areas, but CAN transmit around those areas wherever the aether is at. The aether causes gravity and the lack of it causes antigravity or the repulsion of matter and this repulsion is what causes the negentropic acceleration of the galaxies at the far edges of the Universe, in my opinion.

It would make sense to explore gravitational attraction first so the above makes more sense.


That is a diagram from Chapter 7 of my book The Quantum Key.

If you have 2 large bodies floating in space (in the aether) and they are off by themselves away from each other, their mass displaces a certain amount of aether that is rebounding back to the center of the mass that displaced it to begin with.

However, if 2 large bodies are near each other, the amount of aether that is BETWEEN them is divided between each proportionate to their own mass. That means that since the aether available between them is divided and shared with another mass, there is no longer a symmetrical push all around the object. You have the weakest push on the object on the side facing the other object. Since that is the case for both of them, the aether is strongest on the other sides and the aether will push them together and that is what causes gravitational attraction.

If you have a wet bar of soap in your hands and you squeeze on it symmetrical all the way around, it will just stay there. But squeeze it on one side harder than the other and it will be pushed in the direction of the weakest push on it and it will fly out of your hand. That is what the aether is doing to each object - pushing them towards each other.

For another example, if you have 2 plates, those plates displace a certain amount of aether proportionate to the mass of those plates. If you bring those plates together close enough, you cross a threshold where the amount of aether between the plates is less than the aether on the outside of both plates. Therefore, these 2 plates will be pushed together. This is what causes the Casimir Effect. It is a form of small scale gravitational attraction and the effects are measurable. There are all kinds of long winded explanations that are lost in insanity of why this happens, but if you look at it for what it is and see how it is in alignment with natural principles, it is common sense.

Without the literal fabric of space to be there surrounding those galaxies, there is nothing to cause inertia and those runaway galaxies can accelerate under negative resistance in a way that would follow an exponential curve instead of complying with anything remotely close to the inverse square law.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-06-2015, 05:29 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
gravitational attraction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
It would make sense to explore gravitational attraction first so the above makes more sense.


That is a diagram from Chapter 7 of my book The Quantum Key.
As a side note, in one of the Tesla Society lectures Eric gave, he actually shows a virtually identical diagram talking about gravitational attraction! He uses some different terminology, but the principle is exact. I put it in my book in about 2006-2007 and that lecture of Eric's wasn't even available until a couple years ago even though it was filmed earlier, the Tesla Society never released it. I don't recall the lecture or where it was, but it is one of the long presentations in the Free Videos link on Eric's website Eric P. Dollard - Official Homepage - The only man who has replicated Tesla's wireless transmission technology. - blew me away when I saw that.

__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-06-2015, 06:12 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,347
Hi Ufo,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Quotes from Ken Wheeler...1
Quote:
magnetism has but one movement not two, ..... a singular movement of the magnetic field itself. There are no static fields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
So in your experiment (post #1), if the magnetic field of the magnet is not static, it must be moving, or changing all the time. Why doesn't this changing magnetic field induce a voltage in the coil all the time, not just when you drop the iron slug on it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
That movement of the larger coil over the seating magnet was JUST to demonstrate Faraday's Induction.
Exactly. Movement of the coil or movement of the magnetic field; makes no difference to the Faraday relation. So back to my original question. If as Ken says, the magnetic field is not static, then why is there no voltage induced in the coil before you move it? Obviously it is in the magnetic field.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-07-2015, 12:26 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

Exactly. Movement of the coil or movement of the magnetic field; makes no difference to the Faraday relation. So back to my original question. If as Ken says, the magnetic field is not static, then why is there no voltage induced in the coil before you move it? Obviously it is in the magnetic field.

Regards,

bi

Bistander,

A Magnetic Polarized Vortex Field will not cause an EMF by having a coil also static, wrapped around it...just because it needs to have a forward movement over time, in order to generate a Gradient or a "Wave" to be transferred at different coil levels to the end terminals-destination point.

I can try to explain the above with two examples...both very similar.

One, you get a Drill with a bit on it...no matter how long or how fast you spin it...IF You do not put at least some forward force (push) towards the metal or whatever material you are trying to drill, the drill bit will never penetrate the material.

The same thing for a sheet-metal or wood screw...if you do not press the screw driver or power driver you will not get the screw in.

Of course, above examples don't apply for Hammer-Drills tools or if there is already a hole to be made bigger or to screw it...

Magnetism is the same exact thing...it doesn't matter if it is spinning with the coil around it...the spinning will remain in the same levels (turns) of coil and repeat...and will never reach the end terminals, much less will show a signal on scope.

Now about the Video I uploaded on first page...I am not moving either magnet nor coil or copper conductors...however, when the iron approaches the magnet the Dielectric is displaced towards iron...and since the Dielectric Field is what generates the spatial polarization (pole) therefore, it also displaces the polarized end towards iron...and this is the required push force that "pumps" the wave forward...

If You noticed (as I also mention it) the total displacement was only around 5 mm or less.

In other words...a differential gradient (or a Wave Potential Variation) through Time/Space.

Hope you understand it now.


Ufopolitics
__________________
 

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-07-2015 at 12:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-07-2015, 12:59 AM
MagnaMoRo's Avatar
MagnaMoRo MagnaMoRo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: I live on Earth with some 7 Billion others of my kind.
Posts: 81
My observations.

Hi all. Hi UFO.

I just looked at the opening video; read many but not all of the post, and just want to add my 2 cents.


Free falling bodies always travel in a strait line, regardless of whether that line appears strait to an outsiders frame of reference.

When we stand on earth, we may think we are standing still, but in actuality we are accelerating, in relation to the frame of reference of any free falling objects around us.

Hold out a ball and drop it! when you do, the ball is not accelerating. You are!
Proof: if you fall with the ball, you feel weightless. But,when your standing, the stress is felt by your body. This is because your frame of reference is under acceleration.

So, when you hit the ground after you jump you have to accelerate back into an already accelerating frame of reference. AND the further you free fall, the less time you have to get all your atoms up to speed with that already accelerating relative frame of reference.

When UFO drops that steel, Its own frame of reference stops accelerating. Then when it comes into contact with the magnet. All of the energy required to accelerate the frame of reference of the steel happens very quickly. The magnetic field too is displaced in that same moment, as the field itself has no movement until the collision. This is why the spike is so intense and so brief.

MagnaMoRo
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-07-2015, 01:18 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Yes, I do see your example is correct that density increases as volume decreases. It is like power increasing as time decreases for x amount of energy.

As far as how the "thing" can hold anything, might need clarification on what you mean, but I would say the molecule is in space. I believe that every bit of matter must have a constant interaction with the aether in order to perpetuate itself as matter.

It is like a living aerobic organism except that a living aerobic organism needs oxygen and without it, it will die, but will still exist - it will just be dead.

But for matter itself, it lives off the aether in order to sustain itself as matter. If there is no aether, there is no source potential to perpetuate its existence not just on the atomic level, but subatomic then down to the aetheric level. Light can't exist in the Void or true Vacuum, neither can matter so an area without aether in my opinion can hold nothing because it is nothing.

As far as counterspace goes in the context of it being the ambient existence of the aether in space... the aether is symmetrical and homogeneous in nature until there is a potential difference within space to create a potential difference such as the terminals on a battery.

The aether is bipolar so the charges are separated and are available in a polarized fashion at the terminals. If you put a bulb there, the aether moves to the terminals and over the wires through the load back to the terminal of opposite potential. So the battery never ran out of anything, the source potential came externally from the battery. When we use energy to "charge" a battery, we're simply separating and polarizing the electrochemistry in the battery in order to create a high and low point with a common connecting sitting inside of space (aether).

When the load is running, part of the polarized aether helps to power the load and the other part moves into the battery at its opposite potential terminal, goes into the battery and then repels and scatters and disorders it's like charges on the side of its like potential terminal. That scattering reduces the separation in charges in the battery and therefore reduces the voltage on the battery.

So the battery never ran out of anything, its internal chemistry simply became unpolarized and we pay to polarize it when we "charge" it up. All the potential and source charge that actually did the work came directly from the aether, it gets dissipated and disorganized and goes right back into counterspace or its default ambient existence.

I do believe the aether is bipolar. Energy is simply the organized potential encountering resistances, which causes a disordering of the polarized aether at those points of resistance and there is dissipation at that point. The dissipation of that organized potential simply goes right back into a state of non-polarization with the rest of the ambient aether. This process is the destruction of energy and polarizing the aether in order to give it a high and low point to polarize to and move over in order to do work is the creation of energy. The dissipation of polarized aether back to a symmetrical state in the ambient aetheric flux is the process of polarized aether moving back to counterspace.

Energy always is and only can be created or destroyed - it never changes form because while the polarized aether (the voltage potential) is moving over a circuit (the dielectricity), it is in the SAME FORM as it was in counterspace, it is simply separated from it's opposite charge meaning it is polarized. Energy doesn't change from one form to another, that has always been the complete opposite of reality.

1. You create a dipole or potential difference and that polarizes the aether.

2. You apply a load to the dipole and the separated and polarized aether moves over the circuit to supply the source potential to do the work, not he power supply. The power supply only creates a potential difference within the aether in order to polarize the aether so that it can enter a circuit and do work.

3. Work is done and any place in a circuit where work is done - the polarized aether meets a resistance and this disorders and unpolarizes the aether at those points and causes it to dissipate right back into the ambient aetheric flux of counterspace, in my way of explaining it.

Energy is just the process of taking polarized aether and disordering it. The dipole polarizes the aether, lets the aether in to do work and that work is energy - hence, we just created energy out of thin air. Then, the dissipated polarized aether, which is now disordered dissipates right back into the aether so we just destroyed energy right back into "thin air." There is no changing forms for the energy because it is in the same form, just polarized or non polarized. When it is polarized, it is all like charges on each end of the dipole and condensed, but it is still the same form that it was. This is why there is no such thing as conservation of energy because nothing is conserved in the system itself, energy is created out of thin air, which is the work it does and it dissipates right back while the energy is destroyed.

The only thing that ever happens normally is that a dipole is created, polarized aether comes in to do work and it is dissipated right back into an unorganized state.

That is how something seems to appears from and disappears into counterspace.

I think aether is space and therefore "fills" up space. In the area of a void or true vacuum, I don't believe either dielectricty or magnetism can exist. We see galaxies accelerating away instead of slowing down as a normal big bang entropic model would suggest at the far edges of the Universe. Space is stretched so thin there between the galaxies that the density of the aether is abnormally low or non existent. In those areas, I don't believe light can transmit through those areas, but CAN transmit around those areas wherever the aether is at. The aether causes gravity and the lack of it causes antigravity or the repulsion of matter and this repulsion is what causes the negentropic acceleration of the galaxies at the far edges of the Universe, in my opinion.

It would make sense to explore gravitational attraction first so the above makes more sense.


That is a diagram from Chapter 7 of my book The Quantum Key.

If you have 2 large bodies floating in space (in the aether) and they are off by themselves away from each other, their mass displaces a certain amount of aether that is rebounding back to the center of the mass that displaced it to begin with.

However, if 2 large bodies are near each other, the amount of aether that is BETWEEN them is divided between each proportionate to their own mass. That means that since the aether available between them is divided and shared with another mass, there is no longer a symmetrical push all around the object. You have the weakest push on the object on the side facing the other object. Since that is the case for both of them, the aether is strongest on the other sides and the aether will push them together and that is what causes gravitational attraction.

If you have a wet bar of soap in your hands and you squeeze on it symmetrical all the way around, it will just stay there. But squeeze it on one side harder than the other and it will be pushed in the direction of the weakest push on it and it will fly out of your hand. That is what the aether is doing to each object - pushing them towards each other.

For another example, if you have 2 plates, those plates displace a certain amount of aether proportionate to the mass of those plates. If you bring those plates together close enough, you cross a threshold where the amount of aether between the plates is less than the aether on the outside of both plates. Therefore, these 2 plates will be pushed together. This is what causes the Casimir Effect. It is a form of small scale gravitational attraction and the effects are measurable. There are all kinds of long winded explanations that are lost in insanity of why this happens, but if you look at it for what it is and see how it is in alignment with natural principles, it is common sense.

Without the literal fabric of space to be there surrounding those galaxies, there is nothing to cause inertia and those runaway galaxies can accelerate under negative resistance in a way that would follow an exponential curve instead of complying with anything remotely close to the inverse square law.

Excellent Aaron,

I agree 100% to all above...if you read Ken's Book it may use some different terminology, but the essence is exactly the same...and applied to magnetism, which the part am interested on.

For example He says that Energy occurs (runs) or Electrification takes place when the Ether is "disturbed" from its natural state and you write "disordered"...to me both are the same thing, different terms.

Now related to the batteries, which is not my stronger field...but it makes sense as well, chemicals get unpolarized and battery cease to output power...then comes "the charge" and restores back polarization, except -of course - when there has been serious deterioration of the metals involved, like the Lead and acid or the alkaline with the zinc or alloy...with very old batteries.

And I believe there should be a freaking way to make/design a battery where its compounds will "automatically" trigger the polarization back when there is a certain percentage of unpolarized chemical starting to take place...then something like a "Catalyst" will start making the opposite process, just like a charger does.

Something similar is what I believe Arie DeGeus did back in the eighties...and got him killed as well...an Energizer Bunny shot him...

sorry, black humor.


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-07-2015, 01:46 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,818
falling objects

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaMoRo View Post
Hi all. Hi UFO.

I just looked at the opening video; read many but not all of the post, and just want to add my 2 cents.


Free falling bodies always travel in a strait line, regardless of whether that line appears strait to an outsiders frame of reference.

When we stand on earth, we may think we are standing still, but in actuality we are accelerating, in relation to the frame of reference of any free falling objects around us.

Hold out a ball and drop it! when you do, the ball is not accelerating. You are!
Proof: if you fall with the ball, you feel weightless. But,when your standing, the stress is felt by your body. This is because your frame of reference is under acceleration.

So, when you hit the ground after you jump you have to accelerate back into an already accelerating frame of reference. AND the further you free fall, the less time you have to get all your atoms up to speed with that already accelerating relative frame of reference.

When UFO drops that steel, Its own frame of reference stops accelerating. Then when it comes into contact with the magnet. All of the energy required to accelerate the frame of reference of the steel happens very quickly. The magnetic field too is displaced in that same moment, as the field itself has no movement until the collision. This is why the spike is so intense and so brief.

MagnaMoRo
Non-Ferrous metal objects fall slower than other objects.

Objects, which are spinning will fall faster than other objects.



__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-07-2015, 01:54 AM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaMoRo View Post
Hi all. Hi UFO.

I just looked at the opening video; read many but not all of the post, and just want to add my 2 cents.


Free falling bodies always travel in a strait line, regardless of whether that line appears strait to an outsiders frame of reference.

When we stand on earth, we may think we are standing still, but in actuality we are accelerating, in relation to the frame of reference of any free falling objects around us.

Hold out a ball and drop it! when you do, the ball is not accelerating. You are!
Proof: if you fall with the ball, you feel weightless. But,when your standing, the stress is felt by your body. This is because your frame of reference is under acceleration.

So, when you hit the ground after you jump you have to accelerate back into an already accelerating frame of reference. AND the further you free fall, the less time you have to get all your atoms up to speed with that already accelerating relative frame of reference.
Interesting MagnaMoRo,

So, let me see if I got you right...when a plane is falling...actually the Earth would be its frame of reference...accelerating towards the plane?

I believe you are basing this on the Earth being on a constant acceleration travel, (along with all other solar system planets and the sun) which we actually do not feel...just because we are all "on board"...

Quote:
When UFO drops that steel, Its own frame of reference stops accelerating. Then when it comes into contact with the magnet. All of the energy required to accelerate the frame of reference of the steel happens very quickly. The magnetic field too is displaced in that same moment, as the field itself has no movement until the collision. This is why the spike is so intense and so brief.

MagnaMoRo
As Ken Wheeler writes...:

Quote:
Neither pole is attracted to or repelled by the other. Or, one might as reasonably and insanely assert that houses and trees which are being sucked into the cone of a tornado are attracted by the air itself, the wind rather than by the motion of the wind. The “magnet”, or electrified dielectric mass which it properly should be called, does to the iron filings exactly what the tornado does to the houses and trees.
Well, I know objects fall vertically when dropped..., and what I meant when I said that on video...is that this effect will not take place with the same intensity, If I just pass by the magnet upper pole with the iron bar, just like it would happen in a rotary system being the iron cylinder on the rotor...it must be approached straight down or in a vertical line to do that effect.

Besides your theory of accelerating frames of reference...what I notice primarily...is that when I dropped that iron cylinder two main forces were present...gravity fall by the weight of iron plus the suction from the magnetic vortex.

Actually the spike would be much higher if I use another cylinder magnet instead of the iron...however, due to the discussion between two Theories comparison I did not showed that experiment, just because I know Bistander or someone else would have blame it to the traveling magnetic field "cutting the lines of force on coil conductors" old BS...

But the fact, the real truth... is that the spike would be much higher by using a magnet striking another standing magnet of the same volume/mass*...because the dielectric planes from BOTH Magnets would be traveling to meet each others right at the contacting plane...from their middle sections respectively...so the displacement range-distance is double than with iron.

*I wrote the same volume/mass, because displacement of both dielectric planes do not take place in a balanced way if both magnets volumes are alike. EG: Smaller Cylinder versus bigger Cylinder magnets...(I already tested that option)

All this tests could be X-Ray with viewing film.

Now about your comment:

Quote:
The magnetic field too is displaced in that same moment, as the field itself has no movement until the collision.
That is negative, sorry...but this is a "progressing process" or "in crescendo"...and actually I have tested also with a cushion serving as a gap to smooth out collision...and the same effect takes place, except not as much as metal with metal...just because it takes about 1 mm less of travel distance from the 4-5 total that dielectric field moves.

The reason why not observed at simple sight is because it takes around 1/500 milliseconds for the frame time/spike...only very slow motion will show it.


Thanks for your comment, and theory...interesting though.


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
 

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-07-2015 at 02:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
magnet, dielectric, output, conductors, tests, displacement, video, magnetism, fields, move, moving, ether, difference, measurement, part, polarization, testing, piece, field, opposite, contact, directions, attraction, middle, top

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 11:33 AM.


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