EVIDENCE OF GOD - Aether Physics Model

As soon as you said BEWARE, I stopped reading your post Divinity. I appreciate your concern, but let me be aware, and not BEWARE. There is no danger here.

peace out,
Nrg

BEWARE? I'm with NRG I don't need to BEWARE of anything. I choose to Be-Aware.

Thanks Divinity for starting this superb thread

and thanks to all who have been contributing even
those with different perspectives -- I capture
more Knowledge when there is different "theory"
and views thrown at me at one time...

Keep it coming

You know what they say

KNOWLEDGE + WISDOM + LOVE = ETERNAL TRUTH (GOD)

I've never thought of empty space as really being empty! Our atmosphere alone is filled with oxygen and carbon dioxide, etc., so empty it is not. And it's all useful, too. :-)

I see the irony of Plasma being referred to as the 4th state of matter, and yet I see why they must think so, too. States are merely different levels of the SAME THING. So, what difference if Plasma is considered a STATE? Is it because Plasma is NEUTRAL and completely without cause and effect?

You say Electricity is the Cause, and if I'm understanding you, Plasma is the in-between stuff, i.e. in between CAUSE AND EFFECT? A non- subjective/non-objective carrier of Electricity/Information? Is Plasma a bridge? A Life-Boat upon the waters of Consciousness? I'm trying to visualize metaphorically the function of Plasma, so bear with me in my clumsy attempts to understand. Thanks.[/Quotes]


Good place to start visuals:

"It is because all objects possess the property of charge that we can explain the Universe from an electrical perspective."

" charge as a property rather than a 'dimension' or 'space' etc.

"That is, it's something which is posessed, not something within which something else exists."

EDIT to replace messy post.





Good place to start visuals:

"It is because all objects possess the property of charge that we can explain the Universe from an electrical perspective."

" charge as a property rather than a 'dimension' or 'space' etc.

"That is, it's something which is posessed, not something within which something else exists."

For the sake of visualizing: An apple has WITHIN it the property of charge, which takes it from a seed to an apple? If this is correct, where did the seed come from? A previous apple, of course. Where did the First Apple come from? The original charge? Did the charge precede the apple? What causes anyTHING endowed with CHARGE to become what it appears to be? For example, what made an apple an APPLE?

The Electric Universe seems to be INFORMATION, but what separates one charge from another to manifest different items and/or forces, for example? The human body is made of cells, and stem cells are those which can manifest into a variety of different body parts, like an arm or an eye. It seems then that the INFORMATION of ALL body parts is within the stem cell. So, in terms of cells, the stem cell is the Mother of all cells. Who or what is the Father?

Shamballah!

AC440846 - that's such a great post and great questions! It will take me a little time to prepare the answers for you but there ARE answers. I shall come back to you tomorrow morning, if that's o.k. I love your mind, AC!

318 - great to see you..thanks for your support

NRG - sorry if the 'BEWARE' upset you...perhaps Be Aware was more appropriate

Divinity,

Thank you. It wasn't you, it was me. I was angry at the world yesterday. Everything I looked at rubbed me the wrong way. After a good nights rest, I have a better perspective. Words are just words, if we can't learn to appreciate each other despite our differences, how can we grow?

Getting back to topic, I am no scientist and actually prefer to leave the nuts and bolts to the brainiacs, I do see an emerging "new" science. It is truly exciting to witness. Eventually, I can see the theories of Tesla, Einstein, Dan Winter, etc. each with their own contribution to make, merging into the unseen world of spirit, unleashing the unlimitted potential of the power all around us. Could it be that this power IS the aether model AND the God Particle, only separated by semantics? Like I said, I'm not concerned with the details, just the big picture - and it doesn't get any bigger than that.

Love,
Nrg

NRG....please don't worry - we are living in strange days, but thank you for your kind words. Love you,


I recently received (over on another forum) a very informative post regarding the views of Mr. David Thompson, Head of the APM Project, enlarging on the GForce and Aether Physics Model. (David's credentials are given below).

Div
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"David Thomson -- who claims to have unified the forces with his Aether Physics Model -- claims that all of the forces are in fact nothing more than manifestations of one primordial force, the GForce. This GForce has no physical explanation for itself, and yet, Thomson can explain how everything we see around us results from it. It's an interesting situation that he proposes because there is no explanation for the GForce that can be proven. People will in fact infer different explanations based upon their pre-existing tendencies (religious or non-).


Although you will hear Wal Thornhill and a handful of others dismiss Thomson's APM as mystical or metaphysical in nature (metaphysical in that it requires the existence of an invisible aether), it appears that based upon my own readings and personal communications with Thomson, the APM is actually quite compatible with Ralph Sansbury's model (which Wal Thornhill advocates). We are in the process right now of trying to understand exactly how compatible the two are, and where they differ.


Of particular importance is the fact that Thomson has generated an electron binding formula that works with reasonable statistical deviations for all of the elements of the periodic table. He does this by describing quantum structure and by invoking the existence of a vortex-based aether. Now, traditionally, such dramatic claims would have warranted some deserving attention. But, you will generally find that Thomson is typically dismissed by people who refuse to actually read his APM. I'm about 1/3rd of the way through it myself now, and I've been pleasantly surprised by most of what I've found".


Dave Thompson/Jim Bourassa
--------------------------------
In February, 2002, David Thomson discovered the Aether Physics Model. Jim Bourassa was seeking a mathematical basis for his Planck-scale Aether hypothesis. They decided to join their research, resources, and talents to fully develop the model, and incorporated the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute in 2003, with David Thomson as Science Director, and Jim Bourassa as Executive Director. Since then, their combined efforts have produced substantial progress in the quantum field, and they are poised to create the next major revolution in physics.

David Thomson and Jim Bourassa presented the Aether Physics Model (white paper) before the Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT 2006) conference in London (image above), the SSE 2007 annual conference, and to private groups of interested scientists. Their white paper has also appeared in Infinite Energy Magazine in issue 69 (September/October 2006).

...Continuing on from the previous post. Please note the last sentence regarding Quantum Mechanics:


It does appear that you can make quite a bit of progress by just carefully contemplating the units of physics -- which is what Thomson advocates. Units should have physical meaning -- as opposed to merely representing some mathematical convention. In particular, it appears that conventional science has bastardized many physical units so badly that apples are often equated with oranges (E=mc^2, for instance).


The first step that one must take in order to unify the forces is to take a closer look at the units themselves. When David Thomson did this, he came to realize that there are in fact two distinct charge carriers: the electrostatic charge is in fact different from the electromagnetic charge. That few others are taking this approach concerns me somewhat. Even those people who dismiss Thomson's work have never claimed that he is wrong on this point. They may agree in principle with Thomson on this point, but they never go through the process themselves of rigorously re-evaluating the units of physics.


Until this becomes standard practice for all Electric Universe advocates and a conversation that we are all at least familiar with, I worry that we are merely spinning our wheels here. But, more than that, I believe that there can be some argumentative progress on the point of physical units. When people, for instance, are explained that quantum mechanics assumes ideal point sources for particles within their calculations, it's not hard for them to realize that this is nothing more than an idealization. When we dive into conversations about what a neutrino and all of the various particle and subparticles are, based upon experimentation, it becomes clear that quantum mechanics was constructed in an ad hoc manner not much differently from the standard astrophysical models.

:sunplasma:

Based on the APM Model, I will explain it as I understand it (not easy because it's still complex and at the theoretical stage).

Firstly, let me say this - the APM is a Holistic theory, i.e. it's consistent in that the Laws are the same for everything which exists. There is no hierarchy in nature - everything has its own unique contact to the Gforce, and all is equal and made from the same 'stuff'.

Everything starts as a 'non-material structure'. This structure then ALWAYS creates a vortex (whether it's going to become a galaxy, a rock or a mosquito).

Examples of a 'non-material structure' would be, say, frequency, mass, length and charge which are all measurable.

From the vortex stage (via the principle of Energy = Information), matter or events occur depending on the information contained in the energy. The 'non-material structure'(which is invisible but real) has to exist in order for SOMETHING to exist.

I quote from Junglelord (Thunderbolts forum), whom I consider to be a resident genius. I hope you can follow what he's saying because this is probably the most complex it gets and is extremely accurate, IMO:

The vortex is the structure of the dimensons of charge. That is the non-material structure of the fourth dimension in APM and that creates function (field, force) (structure and function cannot be separated).

The fourth dimension of continuous tensional charge overlayed by the discontinuous compressive of angular momentum forms matter (sub-atomic particle). The structural engineering principle that applies is Tensegrity (continuous electric charge tension with discontiuous compression spin.)

I was not fully aware of the quantum implications of tensegrity, although I was fully aware of the molecular implications. Now that I see a Tensegrity Principle in action in all my studies plus making Dave Thomson aware of its implications in APM, I am not surprised to find this today. The Universe is quite orderly with only a few very basic constants. Everything else evolves from those basic quantum constants. Wave-particle duality is only an illusion. At the level of subatomic existence, nothing is solid and there are no particles.

(Quoting JUNGLELORD)




Hope this answers your questions,
Love Div
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"...he came to realize that there are in fact two distinct charge carriers: the electrostatic charge is in fact different from the electromagnetic charge."

Wow! Now we're talkin' !!

It seems to go back to the Mother/Father Principle, no? Which is why we as humans have a brain with two distinctly different hemispheres, and why we have a brain AND a heart, hm?

See, I think (and feel) that one can study the human body and determine how the Universe works, as well as study waves and particles or astrology or numbers/numerology. Each method of study all seems to lead back to the same Source with the same Principles and Laws. As above, so below. :-)

No one area of study is insignificant, and each and every one of us has the ability to know God/Source from these different perspectives, imho.

AC, thank you so much for your comments. You are so right, IMO. I have, so far, only touched on the mechanics of the human body and how it appears to have been built perfectly for a two-way relationship with the Gforce. I will definitely cover this later.

You are also right about the area of study because the implications of this APM theory extend to all aspects of our culture, which I will try to highlight as the thread goes on, too.

Yes, indeed, this is the point of the unified field, IMO..that each of us has a unique relationship with the Gforce, but only when our own free will permits. It's why those with an open mind have a better chance of relating to 'God' than those who are atheists or already committed to religion.

Science marrying spirituality is what I always dreamed would occur and we are witnessing that right now.

Love Div
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here here, Divinity. I think I have devoted my later years in life to marrying science and spirituality, and it, in my opinion, has not been in vain!

Thanks for all you do to bring us knowledge (for although I love the research, I am certainly far from understanding much about the sciences except on a remedial level!). It is much appreciated by this Grasshopper. ;-)

Dear Nrg and Divinity,

Love you both!

Ya, the "beware" statement cold-clocks me too, lol.

I really like "be aware" much better than "beware".

Scientific theories are just that... *theories*.

That includes the Aether Model (which DOES resonate mightily with me, personally)... the Electric Universe Theory... and traditional Science. *No one knows for sure* ~ and, thus, all is theory.

This being the case, as an individual I choose to remain *open* ~ and not pin my hat or my identity on any particular scientific theory, religion, etc.

The basis of the word "science" is the Latin "scio"... to know.

Scientific theories are not to be "believed in" like a religious faith ~ rather they are part and parcel of a deeper search for truth.

Just my "take"... Blessings to you both. Wasayo

Hello again!

Right after I wrote this, I checked my email and found this from the DailyOm. I think it says very well what I was trying "badly" to say here, lol. Wasayo

*******************


May 28, 2008


GATHERING INTELLIGENCE
Different Ways Of Knowing


We human beings have many ways of knowing what we need to know in order to get through our lives. One way of knowing things is to engage in a course of study in an academic environment. Another way of knowing things is simply to go through the experiences that come our way, making a conscious effort to learn from them. A third way in which people gain knowledge is through the vehicle of intuition, a gift some have more than others, but which can be developed in anyone. No one way of knowing things is better than another way, and they can all be useful at different points in our lives.

Most of us naturally gravitate toward one way of knowing over others, and this tends to be clear early in our lives. For the most part, we live in a culture that values a logical, mental approach to knowing things, so those with intuitive gifts may have been shamed, undervalued, or misunderstood in our ways. Many of us are working our way out of this incorrect value judgment, recognizing that our intuition, far from being wrong or untrustworthy, is a great gift. For those of us who conduct our learning in the thick of our life experiences, we may also have to make an extra effort to remind ourselves that our particular intelligence—often called common sense--while not always officially rewarded, has its own special genius.

Even though, in a given time or place, certain types of intelligence tend to be valued more than others, no way of knowing is inherently better than another. Once we understand this, we can value our own intelligence, as well as the different intelligences of the people we encounter. Sometimes, just understanding that we are coming at the same issue in different ways helps us to avoid an unnecessary conflict. When we value all ways of knowing equally, we benefit not only from what we have learned, and how we have learned it, but from all the other forms of intelligence we are open to honoring.


[link to www.dailyom.com]

Hi again and again, Divinity!

On a related subject ~ I'm happy to see you referencing Walter Russell and his work about vortices. Magi knew him personally in the 1950's, and has long felt Russell was on the right track.

The APM is interesting indeed. Magi says to tell you that he agrees with Junglelord... and takes it a further notch ("way out there") ~ that Aether (being "invisible"... neutral, androgynous) ~ is an emanation from the Implicate Orders of Cause ("unseen") ~ which underlie our Explicit or 3-D Order ("seen").

Aether is "transitional", apparently, as is Plasma. Each can be an androgyny (neutral or no polarity)... or take on + (positive) or - (negative). They are portals... doorways to the infinite.

We both sense that all these new scientific theories are going to converge... unite.

The vortex is part of the hologram... and the hologram of life extends not just to this physical universe ~ but to Universal Mind or Intelligence... and other universes (which are "out there") for sure.

I love this thread ~ mega-interesting indeed! Wasayo

I'd like to ask a serious question of Christian's if I may.

Why is it you all have no use for science when it harms your case for God? Yet when someone comes up with a theory that might claim he is real suddenly science is the best thing since sliced bread?

You can't have it both ways. Either you belive sciance is right no matter what the answer is or you think it's all BS.

Changing your position when it suits your mood just makes your argument to none belivers all the more flimsy.

Why should I belive in your God when you can't make up your mind about who I should listen too in regards to his exsistance?

No one at this point can either prove or disprove the existance of any God or Gods. We may never be able to do either. What you need to do is convince me he exsists.

That is going to be far harder than trying to prove it ever will be.

Hello Divinity!

Of course, it is only natural that the rational and pious mind would love to find "evidence of God" amongst external exoteric phenomena.
"Proof of God" is such a wonderful concept as it seemingly would have the power to negate once and for all the importance of that contemporaneously discredited notion of "faith" in the collective mind of scientific materialism.
Yet isn't this against everything the masters have always taught, down through the ages?
That to realize the Divine/God/Absolute, we must stop searching information outside ourselves, and go within to discover the Reality of the Divine?
Again, are we really talking about 'God' in Aether Physics, or simply that which would be sourced in God, as is everything?

Just thinking out loud.....

"Eliphas Levi would then go on to state that this Aethyr or ‘menstruum’ as Aleister Crowley referred to it, was pliable and could be affected by a theurgic process so clearly argued in Isreal Regardie’s tome as mentioned above."

"Thus, the true and uncompromising Kabalists admit that, for all purposes of Science and philosophy, it is enough that the profane should know that the great magic agent called by the followers of the Marquis de St. Martin -- the Martinists -- astral light, by the mediaeval Kabalists and Alchemists the Sidereal Virgin and the Mysterium Magnum, and by the Eastern Occultists AEther, the reflection of Akasa -- is that which the Church calls Lucifer." Eliphas Levi

"What is the primordial Chaos but Aether?". Madame Blavatsky.

"." Not the modern. Ether; not such as is recognised now, but such as was known to the ancient philosophers long before the time of Moses; but Aether, with all its mysterious and occult properties, containing in itself the germs of universal creation. SDi332". Madame Blavatsky.

"Now, what does the modern science of physics know of Aether, the first concept of which belongs undeniably to ancient philosophers. (SDi485)". Madame Blavatsky.

"Thus whether the followers of the Royal Society choose to accept ether as a continuous or a discontinuous fluid matters little, and is indifferent to the present purpose. It simply points to one certainty: Official Science knows nothing to this day of the constitution of ether. (SDi487)". Madame Blavatsky.

"The knowledge of the real (not the hypothetical) nature of Ether, or rather of the Akasa, and other mysteries, in short, can alone lead to the knowledge of Forces. (SDi587)" Madame Blavatsky.

Before you go within Supersoul I personaly advise you check carefully what is happening outside. For a long time now, others have.

Why?

The Big Bang never happened, evolution is wrong, Jesus never existed.

I don't doubt there is a God but I guess you have a pretty warped idea what God is considering you believe in Jesus.

Awesome thread, Divinity! I don't understand a lot of it, but what my pea brain can pick up just amazes me!

You are a deep and wonderful person!

>>>>>>While I've wondered if the similarities between life and the universe at large means that the larger universe is in some way connected to life processes (or may be a macrocosmic-scale entity of sorts), I might also turn the question around and ask: does life (as we currently know it) look the way it looks BECAUSE the universe is a plasma/electric universe.

I've begun to wonder this lately. When one considers it closely, then look at the world around us, much the same structures that are created through plasma/electricity in the lab also appear structurally in our bodies and in the bodies of other living complex and not-so-complex organisms.

So, I wonder if our evolution wasn't DIRECTLY guided by electrical/plasma processes, assuming that electrical/plasma processes are dominant over other processes in the universe and those same electrical/plasma processes are upwardly scalable as well as they are downwardly scalable.

So, I just wonder if our non-neutral electrical environment directly influenced what life structures would be created? Consider that the "skin effect" generally causes electrons in a conductor to flow around the surface, about like a "tube" of electrons. Likewise, electricity like to form vortices or spirals (Birkeland currents, etc.), as can be seen in high res shots of solar plasma tornadoes (the filaments around/in/over sunspots).

Very similarly, we have a vascular system that is basically composed of veins and other small tubular structures. As Peter Thompson notes on his web site:
[link to peter-thomson.com]
[link to www.peter-thomson.co.uk]

"Turbulence vortices are easy to produce by creating angled air currents and an updraft. Demonstrations of 'tornados' are all turbulence vortices. [...] Air can blow against an object and move and lift dust and light objects, but has very little shear strength and so cannot transmit energy through a column of air.

[... Explanation of charge sheath votexes ...]

Because all the particles are held very firmly in place [in a charge sheath vortex] the sheath can transmit large amounts of energy from one end to the other. The charged sheath vortex is the mechanism capable of transmitting the energy of a tornado from the clouds to the ground."

Now, if I'm reading some of the explanations right, the charge introduced into the turbulence vortex end up compressing the vortex and giving a slightly more (grasping for a sufficient word) rigid {?} structure (better at transmitting energy without flying apart from its own forces).

One might also note that lightning strokes produce tubular fulgurites (fused materials around the surface/"skin" of the bolt in sandy soils, or possibly other alterations in other materials).

Anyway, the vortex structure in plasmas seems to be a relatively stable one. I'm wondering if this played a role in the formation of tubular structures like arteries, veins, capillaries, etc. As the template was reproduced and variations were introduced which lent the structure more structural stability/integrity/rigidity... (Okay, granted, things like cells came about first, most likely, then the larger structures. However, I'm wondering if the structure the cells took in the macro-structures was directly patterned off the "easy" templates given by the electrical environment. IE, don't do things the "hard way.")

So, I suppose my point is that, if electrical/plasma interactions can create these basic structures stably, perhaps the electrical environment of our planet in its formative stages played a formative role in our own evolution.

I've wondered a bit at the resemblance between the overall structure of many plants like trees and the structure of a lightning bolt. In some ways I wonder if these similarities are pure chance or if there's something more to it. Perhaps that form was the most conducive to making use of or surviving electrical interactions? Or perhaps life simply initially grew along stable electrical pathways, and encoded the most efficient ways of recreating the same structure into its genes?

I don't know if that's a viable explanation or not. But life imitating or adapting to "nature" wouldn't really surprise me.

I also seem to recall that a while back there were article published relating to experiments to try to ascertain the origins of the most basic building blocks of life, like amino acids, DNA, etc. I'm pretty sure I recall the result indicating that the only way they could get the amino acids to form in the lab was through bombarding them with electric currents. Of course I can't find the article, now that I'm looking for it. But it must have been a good 10-15 years ago I read a brief summary of it. So, I may be way off base. But it was one of those things that kind of "stick with you," 'cause it seemed like an interesting result, and they were surprised that perhaps electricity in the early history of Earth may have played a role in the beginning of life. In reflection, I'm not entirely surprised (though, like them, I probably wouldn't have predicted it, per se).

We already know that many of life's processes are regulated through the nervous system through electrical impulses. So, it wouldn't be entirely surprising to find out that electricity may be required to form/perpetuate life. Perhaps that's why we have to keep a good balance of electrolytes in the body? To maintain our weak bodily electric field that keeps us up and running...

Likewise, since we know that plasmas form double-layers to separate one region from another, perhaps that's how some of the first life forms came about? Just the right atoms/molecules were involved in creating double layers in some way that was self-perpetuating or even self-replicating, with more and more minor variations and sub-structures added over time? Consider that many cellular structures take on "outer walls" (the nucleus, the mitochondria, etc.) Is it entirely unexpected, in hindsight, considering that braided filaments are one of the more common structures in electricity/plasma interactions, that DNA takes on a braided double-helix shape? Or was that somewhat inevitable considering our plasma/electrical environment? The universe generally doesn't do things the "hard way." So, why would structures take on morphologies different from the blueprints provided by electricity in plasma? The structures would likely have to be extremely structurally sound to survive the electrical environment if the structure didn't conform to electrically-derived structures. But so many structures we see in life (from the branching of trees to veins, to cell walls) mimic the exact same forms taken on stably by electricity in plasma.

Coincidence? Maybe. But something to consider nonetheless...<<<<<<<<<<

[link to www.geocities.com]

Very interesting nonmaterial.

I too consider the universe to be intelligent, evolutionary and learning.

You want me to? Give me a week I will make you a video that proves God exists. I will show you God has inspired some media in relation to my life, showing me how I lived my life was wrong before I was baptized.

It will be a lot of work. But I will do it. It will fun and work, and also interesting to see your reaction and other people's reactions.

Wow! I didn't know there were fans of this theory.

Here is a link to the book preview. I think there are quite a few pages in the preview.

[link to books.google.com]