A Case For Luminiferous Aether

The late nineteen'th centuary physicists were in the path of seeking understanding rather than mere mystification. The modern physicist search for a single EQUATION that DESCRIBES everything. Perharps it is time for the mindset to change. Look for an ENTITY that EXPLAINS anything. A good candidate will be the luminiferous aether. Amongst other things, this all pervading entity must be capable of some at least rundimentary awarenes that I term it as 'protoconsciousness'. But here, I will zero in on its role in mediating the forces of nature.It is important that you realise that 'materialistic' or 'mechanical' world view is NOT necesarily that of corelating all dynamics with physical objects that must touch each other to mediate force. It is this eror that often leads to identifying Newtonian physics with a mechanical world view. However, to inject sanity, I suggest you begine by considering the fact that Newton himself was a master magician. It is not much about the absence of a visible medium in between the earth and the moon that appalled Newton and many other people, including me. Rather, it is the supposed BRUTNESS of the moon that is shocking. This ultimately mean that searching for an invisible medium connecting the earth and the moon is more about understanding how the earth COMMUNICATE with the moon and not about understanding the cause of this strange entity termed 'force'. Surprising is NOT the fact that an object moves. it is the fact that it moves DOWNWARDS and not at any other direction.LUMINIFEROUS AETHER WAS NOT REALY DEFEATEDIt is important that you understand that the famous Michelson-Morley experiment alone was not used to defeat aether. However, at times the modern, pretentious physicist misrepresent things so, rendering the argument against aether look falacious. Some other equaly important experiments you are probably not aware of are:1.)Fizeau experiment2.)Starlight aberation experiment3.)The de-Sitter starlight experiment4.)The Sagnac experimentIt is understandably challenging to account for all these without abandoning Galilean Relativity in favour of Lorentz-Einstein's Relativity, while also ensuring that occam's razor is on your side. I often use philosophical argument rather than a physics one. I disagree that the Occum's Razor criteria is well defined and that Lorentz's aether theory, which correctly account for all experiments, has more explanatory power than Einstein's paradox covered theory. This is because there is more to 'explanation' than just 'mathematical description'. It is by equating 'explanation' with 'description' that leads physicists to constantly abuse Occam's Razor. Yes, Einstein can describe relativity without mensioning aether. But so what? Even poets can absurdly describe sexual penetration without mensioning penis. Does this now mean that we need no penis to ACTUALY do sex? However, I recently got inspired by armatture physicists online. It seems we donnot even need Lorentz's theory either! This mean that we can account for all the 5 experiments using very simple Galilean physics. There are also some bonuses that Einstein's physics cannot explain, such as galaxy rotation.PHYSICISTS DONNOT CHECK FORGOTTEN IDEASIt is important for you to understand that scientific debater are rarely won by experiment! This is in stark contrast to how scientists tend to misrepresent science, as one success following another, always abandoning older ideas on sound experimental ground. As I have hinted to you above, too often, unscientific criterias such as 'occam's razor', 'beauty', 'sexiness', 'elegance' etc are the fuel that propels the engine. This mean that it is a huge fooly not to keep checking older ideas with the light on new discoveries. This is exactly the state of things in modern physics.It is ridiculus that physicists use the outdated ideas of matter, when debunking aether. In the late 19th centuary, it was not well undestood how matter can pass through another matter. Therefore positing an idea in which aether can tell one object from another was understandably far fetched and thus would be ruled out by appropriate application of Occum's Razor. However we now understand, via Ratherford's Experiment that matter is practically empty. By the time physicists understood Ratherford's work, the aether idea had already been abandoned. Nobody bothered to check that what was a conudrum in the late 19'th centuary is actually nolonger the case.FIZEAU EXPERIMENTThis is exactly where I begine positing the physical properties of aether. Esentially, it is a sea of molecules that strongly interact with themselves and weakly interact with electromagnetism. In modern physics, a closely simirlar, hypothetical particles are termed 'Weakly Interacting Massive Particles' (WIMPs). Neutrinoes also belong to the category. This immediately mean that such a tiny thing as pee cannot significantly drag the aether. However, such a massive thing as the earth can begine to drag it significantly.Fizeau experiment is said to have shown that if it exists, water donnot fully drag aether. This could suggest that aether particles are highly penetrative. Physicists at the time of Fizeau experiment were not aware of radioactivity, such things as x-rays, gama rays, beta particles etc. It is understandable that they would be puzzled by such a behaviour. However, the modern physicist has to exuse to foolishly assert that Fizeau Experiment, together with Michelson-Morley experiment demands the abandonment of Galilean relativity.Highly penetrative particles are often blocked by the bigger objects. While we don't espect paper to block beta particles, a thick lead will surely block it.SAGNAG EFFECTThis one even seems to run at odds with Einsteinia reasoning for it shows that if aether exists, it isn't dragged by rotating object and this effect can be proven by variation of light speed, exactly the effect that Michelson-Morley experiment was seeking to find. Einsteinians often opt to general relativity as a resque. You must however learn that it is never special relativity that agrees with experimen. It is QUANTUM FIELD THEORY, build from some marriage between Special relativity and quantum mechanics. This theory is incompartible with general relativity. This mean that when you see relativist move back and fort from 'special relativity' to general relativity, he is actually using two contradictory theories to explain natural phenomena! Not very helpfull! What will I be helping you to understand if I posit two contradictory properties of aether, one to explain Fizeau experiment and the other to explain Michelson-morley experiment, calling one 'special aether' and another one 'general aether'?Sagnac effect can be easily explain in a similar way we explained Fizeau experiment. The earth is effectively smooth and thus rotation, unlike TRANSLATION wount take aether. If you take a wheel by the axle and move the axle, you will surely take the rim together with it. However, this does not mean that rotating the axle (which has bearings) will rotate the wheel. Very simple things seems to boggle modern physicist. I don't know why!STARLIGHT ABERATIONThe reason why they cannot explain this using simple refraction is that the think that the aether moving along with earth must be spherically shaped! This is ridiculus because aether is supposed to be more pervading than the earth's atmosphere. It makes perfect sense to suppose that the aether moving with the earth, is shaped like a huge cone so that it is narrower in the region ahead of the earth and very wide in the region behind the earth. This is exactly how the sun's BOW SHOCK is shaped.

I find that when I think about ether that I get more questions than answers....I am very curious how the universe creates itself. It is also easy to program ether, for example we can tell it what to do and even tell it to repeat this at certain times in the day. Ether holds information easily like in the morphogenic field ...much of our memory is outside of us. Then there is the way that ether took on qualities to become the elements of air, fire, water and earth. These are the fundamental qualities of the universe that creates everything else. They do many functions, for example the fire element is light, digestion, sight, intelligence, electricity and more.. Most things are combinations of the elements. I can spend hours thinking about how these elements interact and how one thing changes into another..

Healings For Enlightenment & Ascension By Steven Hutchinson Welcome back beautiful souls. I'm happy to start sharing with you the first of a new series of healing videos that I have channel to help each of you live in the Fullness of your Divine…

"Wow, it’s a historic morning. To see the 'head of the snake’ removed and the people of Iran finally given the chance for a fresh start they’ve been counting on for so long. It’s enlightening to see the physical world finally catch up to the timeline…"

"Iran is a very ancient nation and has a long history of civilisation, way before Islam took control, against the will of so many Persians and others, of that land...I believe that once the islamists have been removed from power, fully, many Persians…"

You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!

Join Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community

Comments

Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 6:11pm

Also a back and fort motion creats litchenberg-like figures.:) it is accompanied by othorgonal spinning. Infact, it is birkeland currents. Btw luminiferous aether is more like plasma than water etc. As such, it can be the matter-antimatter potential or the so called dirac sea. The vibrations of charges in it constitutes the so called displacement currents as explained by James Clerk Maxwell in his electromagnetic wave theory of light. It is interesting that this way of explaining light makes the light signal presicely like neural signal! I will elaborate latter.
Feather Winger November 28, 2016 at 2:33pm

She loves to spin, that´s for sure...she loves to create. I see pure creative intelligence...it is truly amazing how the universe works..
Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 11:36am

You mension some realy good things. I was just thinking like that this morning. Infact, I am planning to write next blog. I will touch on creation in aether. I will back up what you say a bit from phyc. Particles are information recorded in aether. where we think there is particle is just a portion of aether that is spinning, hence z-pinching the aether to form a denser, toroidal particle. This technique is closely similar to that of recording information in quantum cubits via what they term 'penning trapping'. The plasma is penning traped in a magnetic field.
Feather Winger November 28, 2016 at 8:29am

I find that when I think about ether that I get more questions than answers....I am very curious how the universe creates itself. It is also easy to program ether, for example we can tell it what to do and even tell it to repeat this at certain times in the day. Ether holds information easily like in the morphogenic field ...much of our memory is outside of us. Then there is the way that ether took on qualities to become the elements of air, fire, water and earth. These are the fundamental qualities of the universe that creates everything else. They do many functions, for example the fire element is light, digestion, sight, intelligence, electricity and more.. Most things are combinations of the elements. I can spend hours thinking about how these elements interact and how one thing changes into another..
Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 7:29am

The 'answer' is neither in the mind, aether, god, heart, bible, science, books, within, without etc. Rather it is in some healthy combination of all these, plus some other sources we are yet to imagine.
Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 7:10am

The verdict? If we are to make science more spiritual, spirituality too must be wrestled from deluded gurus who think that they have answers to all questions, God thought to being one of them.

We should stop making spirituality a means for provided answers to all question, whether through 'the answer is in the bible', 'the mind', 'the heart', 'within', 'the aether' etc. Rather, we should leave epistemology open.
Roaring Lovely November 28, 2016 at 6:55am

"scientists need a more romantic approach"

Well, Wallace thornhill, the founder of 'electric universe' do have a very good attitude towards spirituality, though he is very physically minded. He insist that science will provide answers to some spiritual issues. But he says that physics must first be wrestled out of the hands of deluded mathematicians who thinks that God is one of them!

You must also understand that to a scientist, wresling with puzzles is as satisfying as finding the answer. Nothing is more boring to a scientist than answer-it-all concepts such as 'god', aether etc. We need not make aether such. So some romanting relationship with aether, so we may woo her for cheap answers to all questions is not very fancyfull in science.
Roaring Lovely November 27, 2016 at 6:46pm

Then seeking understanding of forces of nature, such as gravity, magnetism etc by considering inteveining medium is not necesarily indirect approach of any sort. You still need this understanding of aether even if you can talk to aether or things like that, if you truely want to understand the universe completely. Rather phyc need to also consider the mechanical-like properties of aether. These two considerations, are not aproaches to the same issue. It is also important to ensure that you rule out the possibilities of deceiving yourself thinking that your talking to aether. Physics is very important!
Roaring Lovely November 27, 2016 at 6:33pm

Yes, it is not necesary to presuppose a fundamentaly dead universe so we may do science. This approach leaves a heap of phenomena unanswerable. We move, and so motion is in universe. We block light and so objects in the universe block light. We have temperature and so objects are worm. It is not clear at all as to why when it comes to things related to personality, such as consciousness and even love etc, we must not understand the universe from the light of the things we experience in ourselves. Rather, once we notice that we are a thermodynamic ensemble, it should become legitimate to seek a deep understanding of thermodynamics through the light of what we experience within.
Roaring Lovely November 27, 2016 at 6:33pm

Yes, it is not necesary to presuppose a fundamentaly dead universe so we may do science. This approach leaves a heap of phenomena unanswerable. We move, and so motion is in universe. We block light and so objects in the universe block light. We have temperature and so objects are worm. It is not clear at all as to why when it comes to things related to personality, such as consciousness and even love etc, we must not understand the universe from the light of the things we experience in ourselves. Rather, once we notice that we are a thermodynamic ensemble, it should become legitimate to seek a deep understanding of thermodynamics through the light of what we experience within.

of 2

This reply was deleted.

Spiritual Blogs

A Case For Luminiferous Aether

Comments

Latest Blog Posts

Jack Dorsey’s AI Purge: 4,000 Jobs Axed as Investors Applaud

The High Council of Sirius: You Are Rising Above It All; Channel: Chellea Wilder | Source.

A Dose of Reality Never Killed Anyone [videos] Starship Earth: The Big Picture.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Most Popular Blog Posts

FINALLY THE NEW PAPA SAID IT ! Killing Easter lamb has no basis in the Christian tradition

How Many of These 51 Spiritual Awakening Symptoms Do You Have?

find out if you are a star seed and where you really come from tests.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Blog Topics by Tags

Monthly Archives

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

Latest Activity

New Forum Posts

Healings For Enlightenment & Ascension By Steven Hutchinson

The Acceleration of Consciousness: Aligning With the Life We Truly Desire By Tori Cota-Robles

The Healings For Enlightenment & Ascension By Steven Hutchinson

I Am Here – The Song of Now

Note: this page contains paid content.