Energy and Polarity

[witsend]

Joit,

Third, i have NO intention, NONE WHAT SO EVER, to debunk this thread.
if corrie feels that i am not welcomed and will ask me to leave,
i'll do just that with no hard feelings or play the idiot like juju did in my thread.

Hi Agent.A. I'm sure we're all interested in everyone's thesis here. But I think the intention in this thread is to find out where Aromaz's thinking takes us? I'm sure that our members of this forum are well able to support alternate view points. Personally I'm very interested in everyone's ideas. They're crucial. I'm sure that most of us subscribe to this energy source. The thing now is to find out what we're subscribing to - is my take.

[juju]

Lol

1. revenge
2. vengeance
3. retribution
4. retaliation
5. comeback
6. sword
7. avengement
8. requital

if that is because of me, do it in my own thread, not in aromaz thread, nobody have to pay for my mistakes!

[Inquorate]

@ agent a - I assume you watched the videos I posted the links to?

Then you would know that this

YouTube - Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version

Is 'proof' of the aether.

[Agent.A]

@witsend,

...
But I think the intention in this thread is to find out where Aromaz's thinking takes us
...

well, corrie gave some answers in page 1, some in 2, and the rest in 3.
he also said that he will give the rest when the right time comes.

in the mean time, if im not wrong, that leaves the rest of us with time to ask questions,
point to flaws or things we feel thay are right and develop these ideas, exchange knowledge and thoughts and 'BrainStorm'. no ? i got it all wrong ?

this is the process of development if im not mistaken ...

again, i have no reason to 'derail this train' and i find it astonishing that when
the source of any idea/thought/theory is being asked about the response is :
" you are a moron, go figure by yourself"



if this is a closed party, somebody forgot to put the sign 'Closed to OUTSIDERS' in the threads name.

but, since corrie wrote in the very first post,

...
I would like to buy popcorn and coke while (hopefully) watching this devellopment.

if i misunderstood that, well, a moron i am


@CatLady




@Inquorate

every video, reference, pdf, doc, txt, image, WHATEVER, that somebody posted in this forum since 2000,
i've downloaded to my archive to keep and check and watch and learn.
( i mean, of those threads that i've found interesting. LOTs of them are )

so, yes, i watched your videos and i have questions about them,
but, as i've already seen and felt, asking questions here is a tricky business.

[Aromaz]

I appreciate everyone and anyone to contribute. instead I found a whole UGLY page #3 of mostly JUNKFor me, Energetic Forum is a place to relax, share thoughts and ideas, be happy and peaceful together. A community if you like.

Please; CONTRIBUTE, CONSTRUCTIVE, peaceful and friendly.

Let us go on to Page #4 and start working together in peace please?

[Jbignes5]

Alrighty then!

There you have it.

Now that we have that cleared up lets do it!

Aromaz have you read my theory here? I wanted to know from you where it might have gone wrong in your eyes?

[Aromaz]

Reply #4

LOL It seems that everyone has their own ideas about this. But to get back to Aromaz's ideas - I think your introduction to the topic is very well written and very thought provoking.

Still not sure how you see that first energy and I rather sympathise with Agent.A's argument. Is that first 'energy' just a jumble of little photons? How else do they manifest as photons? In other words, what brings the photon into being as an identifiable spherically shaped piece matter from 'nothing'. To me that's the question that is more to the point. What comes from the void to materialise into anything at all?

I can see how they would materialise provided that the energy itself is material. Maybe just a very small value of the photon itself?

Growing Cycle:Degenerating Cycle:

[Aromaz]

. . .Aromaz have you read my theory here? I wanted to know from you where it might have gone wrong in your eyes?

Nothing has gone wrong. All are theory, none with concrete proof; therefore everyone is equally right.

That said; in comparison with my theory we do have a problem. Yours is based on the issue that gravity, polarity and particle are present. Me on the other hand propose they were not there from the beginning; had to come into existence from an energy source we only recently discovered as being 'most likely' to exist and to be the most abundance in the Universe.

Unless I understood your question wrong?

[Aromaz]

[witsend]

First, in my theory as above we have to differentiate between the PURE ENERGY of the origin and that which we today accept as energy. The original energy release from the Big Bang is what I today see as the possible Aether or Dark Energy. Since we do neither understand nor are we able to define it properly; we have to theorize around that.

Here aether theories and dark energy are a little bit at variance. Our mainstream scientists are looking for a particle that may be the basis of dark energy. But it is proposed that the particle may be a boson - which, like the photon, has an integer spin and is not subject to the exclusion principle. Here's the problem. If it is a boson then in all other aspects it does not conform to the standard model of particle physics. It does not reflect light nor emit light. It is only evident through gravitational lensing. And yet - to account for the 'hidden mass' of galaxies - it is required that there is something like ten times more of this hidden mass than is evident in the actual mass of those galaxies. Then to compound this problem - space itself would need to comprise about 96% of this energy which also implies that even more of this particle is extant in space and would possibly shape space itself.

If, as you seem to suggest, our aether is fundamental to the particle, be it photons, electrons, protons or neutrons or even neutrinos, then space would comprise this aether energy that has nothing to do with the dark matter that mainstream propose.

The only physicists that have proved dark energy - or something relating to dark energy - are our string theorists as Cat has suggested. But they see this as a kind of form structure - like structured scaffolding - that holds matter bound inside that structure. But that matter is proposed to be arbitrarily amassed - which leaves many questions relating to the apparently predictable behaviour of matter. In other words they see it as a static field that does not afford a causal link between the behaviour of particles. They're still looking for that link.

I think what we're all referring to as this aether energy field is something that is dynamic or active and that it is, itself, responsible for the energy that we see and use in matter. What I am asking you is this. Could it be that the photon - which you correctly see as the fundamental particle - could it be that it, itself, comprises composites of an even more fundamental aether particle? Just a thought?

[witsend]

Big Bangs

The 'Big Bang' theory is actually not a theory at all. It's a proposal. And there is a growing number of physicsts who do not subscribe to this. The 'growth' of stars and star systems have been recorded from nebulae. Our astrophysicists have actually recorded the emergence of stars from nebulae. It may well have been the origin of our own galaxy. In other words it is equally possible that something formed nebulae out of the vacuum and such nebulae are the source of all matter.

This, in turn, would suggest that the origin of matter did not require that first 'big bang'. Matter may not therefore need to emanate from any such event.

[witsend]

Expanding Space

If space is expanding - and that at PACE - then it would be impossible for two galaxies to 'merge'. Galaxial collisions have been seen - often. It can be argued that their velocities exceed the rate of expansion. But that is contradictory. If the proposal that their trajectory through space is determined by the expansion of space then one must assume that the rate of their trajectory through space is determined by that rate of expansion. Otherwise - if their trajectory through space is determined by their own velocities then they are NOT moving as a result of the expansion of space.

[witsend]

Here's a picture of a nebula - The Creation.

[sucahyo]

No one want to differentiate between energy that is useable for us and energy that don't? measureable and unmerasureable?



@Aromaz, your photon is different from the photon of a laser?

here his simplest experiments that can proof that an atom can be at more then one place at the same time, and that the reality behaves in accordance to the observer.

i cannot find the experiment of the 2 shooting electrons in oppose direction, one of them passing a magnet, and both will change in same direction... i will send you soon i find it...

Double slit experiment:

YouTube - The Infamous Double Slit Experiment

YouTube - Double Slit Expr.

While juju believe atom is in two places at once, I think the experiment shows that the photon move in a longitudinal way, not tranversal, so it is not scalar.

[witsend]

No one want to differentiate between energy that is useable for us and energy that don't? measureable and unmerasureable?

? Not sure of your point here sucahyo.