Chapter 11 a push not a pull

[Trickfox]

Well after going over this chapter again I suddenly realized something very important.

The very idea that an eather (ether) DID exist is a concept that Dr. Brown was now trying to declare again only a few years after the Nobel prize was awarded to Albert Michelson in 1907 for having introduced proof that no such eather existed.

Michelson Joined forces with Edward Moreley and they performed this experiments several times with more and more precise equipment. It became known as the most famous failed experiment in physics. In fact the experiment has been repeated over and over again throughout the years and is still being repeated as of 2005.

This is because there continues to be some doubt that the results are true. The fact of the mater is that even Moreley himself really never believed in his own conclusion*even though he was forced to reluctantly admit that his experiment had failed to detect the luminiferous eather. This Luminiferous eather (if detected) would have been the medium through which "light" travelled.

Strangely enough Einstein himself had the following conclusions:
"The special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether(Aether)".(wiki/Michelson_Moreley-experiment)

What most scientist now believe is that the MM experiment (Michelson Moreley) only serves to prove the isotropy nature of the two-way speed of light. In fact the Aether may indeed exist however it now seems that the MM experiment will never be the correct experiment to verify it's existence.

The conclusions are so contested that NASA plans to build a 5 million kilometer Michelson interferometer in outer space to confirm the indirect evidence for prevously detected gravity waves which are thought to exist.

So in 1924; -here we have this young fella Thomas Townsend Brown declaring a contradiction in Michalson's Nobel prize winning discovery a full 17 years after the fact. Who in the scientific community would dare believe this? The Nobel prize is the most prestigious award in science.

No wonder people were quick to dismiss Browns claims.

Forget the fact that the MM experiment IS STILL considered to be controversial and continues to be tested and retested with more and more instrumentation acuracy.

Forget the fact that Einstein himself did not consider the issue of a Luminiferous Aether being contradictory to his General theory of relativety.

Just think of of the insurmountable obstacle presented by the "god like" Nobel prize which nailed the coffin shut on the issue of the existence of the Luminiferous Aether.

No wonder so many stories were created that help to divert attention away from Dr. Brown's work.

If Gravity pushes rather than pulls then the Aether MUST be responsible for this force. But here again comes along one tiny contradictory point of view to squash the undisputable yet undenyable fact.

Trickfox

*as reported in "The Mechanical Universe" a cal-tech video series on physics.

[Victoria Steele]

Kozyrev believed there was an aether, Townsend Brown obviously did. At least Dr. Brown wasn't thrown into prison as his counterpart was. (I've been doing my homework, can you tell?)

Like the mountaintops of Gilbrans verse those two brilliant men did somehow manage to communicate with each other. And both of them seemed to be carefully saying that besides being detectable this "Sea" that we were in (Dr. Browns word ) had an intelligence to it. OK, time to stop there, before I get too far ahead of myself.

Soooooo........ If you are a diver drifting at the same speed as the current, can you measure the speed of that current?............. just thought I'd ask.

Looks like we are on our own here boys and girls. No word from Paul so he must be off on his trip. Boy, he acts as if he trusts that we won't get into alot of trouble while his back is turned! With the cast that I have noticed assmembled here, I sure wouldn't count on that!

And I know that there are others out there reading these posts! Come on! Join the discussion! We need help! Can't you tell?

I believe Elizabeth once told Paul that this forum was like a living breathing thing and I think that she was oh! so right! Forward Voyagers! Victoria

[wdavidb]

This is an amazing topic..............

The whole thing is based on the motion of light or the apparent motion of light............but what if light itself is not moving and what is being measured is simply a linear duration of time?

After all the whole thing is based on the interval of time, in relation to the light reflecting from here to there, which has nothing to do with the actual speed of the lights apparent motion.

If this is the case then the experiment would fail to detect the aether.

Light is a form of radiation........therefore it fades isometrically from its source, but yet it is assumed that the speed of light is not affected.

But, if we are measuring intervals of time and not the speed of light, we have fallen for a great illusion, a fantastic slight of hand trick.

In other words the light is not in linear motion and is quite incapable of linear motion, which disqualifies the experimental evidence. And remember a train or a bus in motion are in linear motion, the same linear motion attributed to light.

Light is a dynamic response, just as gravity is a dynamic response.

A field distortion, either a uniform distortion or a non-uniform distortion, can affect the apparent motion of the light, but the distortion affects the aether and the light responds to the distortion in the aether.

So the calculated speed of light has nothing to do with the light itself, but has something to do with the acceleration of the aether, in relation to a non-simultaneous condition of field.

A dynamic field condition cannot produce static effects anymore than a static state could produce dynamic effects.

Therefore you are measuring the maximum differential associated with the existing condition of field.............which means this is the shortest possible gap in terms of space expansion associated with a non-simultaneous condition of field.

So in effect you have proven the existence of the aether.

[wdavidb]

If the experiment had turned out differently, there would be no point in having this discussion because it would have then proven that the light was in linear motion and no aether was required.

The aether is the carrier, the medium of communicatiion, and light communicates via the aether.

So the communication of light via the aether must be simultaneous in all directions..........wow, that is amazing.

I think we just blew the whole house of cards down with one puff....

[Mikado14]

The whole thing is based on the motion of light or the apparent motion of light............but what if light itself is not moving and what is being measured is simply a linear duration of time?


So in effect you have proven the existence of the aether.

I see what you are saying but I will ask you a question similar to one I posted in another thread.

Can you explain how you have come to validate this conslusion?

Is it via experimentation? empirically? observation? or something else?

Just curious,

Mikado

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

To all concerned on this thread.

Yes, I believe that we are following a very important thread here!

I can see David reaching for the stars mentally ( sort of speaking, writing magical thoughts on the class blackboard )and I can see Mikado .... (engineer that he is with that wild twist of intuitiveness) .... I can hear him saying .... "all very well David .... but how can you bring these thoughts into the solid realm so that we can DO SOMETHING with it.".... so he is taking notes too ....... Notice that Mikado is not taking the easy dismissive way out here . He is just trying to distill what is being said .... and then there is Victoria who is looking over her shoulder anxiously .... saying " Hey guys ....... write quick on that blackboard .... then we will all sit back and act innocent when Paul comes back into the classroom. .... Remember that scene from " Good Will Hunting?" If you haven't seen the movie in awhile its worth watching..........

The professors would put a problem out there they considered .... unsolvable .... but in the morning ..... someone had scribbled the proof ....turned it was a kid who was working at night as a janitor .... gifts you see, are not always registered as students in the organized classes. Sometimes they belong to their own classroom!

And David, a comment. Have you ever figured why why someone would make the comment that your work reminded them of Kozyrevs? You might ponder on that seriously. Elizabeth

[wdavidb]

Mikado

It it via experimentation, emperically, observation or something else?

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the litature that would agree with my perception of the situation, but.............

Every experiment involving the transmission of light is based on a linear perception of time, in relation to a linear based duration of time, an interval if you like, where it is assumed that this qualifies as proof that the light is in motion at a given speed relative to an object at rest.

Of course this avoids any reference to the condition of field in terms of an accelerating field condition...........so, the whole thing is based on one thing and one thing alone.........the interval noted by a clock. The clock is the measuring instrument and considering that the clock and its constituent portions of time is an abstract idea which was invented for the purpose of social order and convenience, it is hardly applicable to the problem at hand other than to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation.

If we look up at the moon we are told that the image of the moon takes a certain duration of time to reach us. And if we point a laser at a mirror on the moon we can measure the precise duration of the lights travel whereby deterrmining the exact distance from the earth to the moon.

Indeed the duration noted is correct according to the clock, due to the non-simultaneous nature of universe remaining relative to the earth, but what does this have to do with the motion of the light? We are not measuring the motion of the light, we are measuring a duration in time.

Now someone will say, hold on here, that's how we measure the speed of anything including the motion of the earth around the sun. In fact this is exactly how we define our system of time keeping, so what's with you?

Again we measure the approximate speed of cars, trucks, buses and planes, all of which are in linear motion.

But, in order for the light to be in linear motion would require the light itself to be in motion independent of the field in which it exists.

This suggests that light is not of a natural origin and is somehow propelled through space at a seemingly constant velocity for extended periods of time.

If light travels in a linear fashion over distances measured in millions and billions of light years, it can be shown that the light would not reach us, as the light itself remains relative to the system from which it is radiating.

The light from distant galaxies would eventually be stopped in its travel and would fall back towards its point of origin where it would once again be radiated out into space to do the same thing again and again.

For any of this to make the slightest bit of sense, it must be accepted that there is an underlying force of energy remaining relative to the system of reference and that each system exists as a unified field of frequency.

Its all in how you interpret the experimental evidence, which there is plenty of............do you see the motion of light in the context of an aether or do you see it in the context of a mechical system.

If you see it in terms of an aether..........you see the aether being in motion in terms of non-linear motion driven by an accelerating force of energy inherent to the system of reference.

Therefore you also see the light as a condition of field and not as something separate from the field condition. You do not look up at the stars and see something which is not there, you see exactly what you see.

The eye is not a movie camera or a telescope, it is a field frequency receptor.........it discerns the narrow band of frequency for which it was intended to view, which is simultaneously communicated via the field condition from the objective of vision to the eye and on to the brain.

This idea that light takes so long to reach us, is based on a false perception of the situation, as it is not a rational idea to consider that one can see into the past simply by looking far and away.

Of course there is time seperation invovled in space, otherwise there would be no space..........but this idea that we can measure the speed of light on the basis of a linear duration of time is not the brightest of ideas, as the concept is flawed from the start.

You only have to consider the nature of linear time keeping to realize that such a thing is quite impossible.........as no two of the measured durations are of the same absolute duration....so you do not know how long a second is or how long each portion of a second is, yet you are going to base the foundation of your scientific theory on this system.

No wonder we are in such a mess.............

I think the answer to your question Mikado is; something else

[wdavidb]

You have to keep in mind that we are talking about two different things here...........

Two completely opposing systems of thought........only one of which is of any real value to us.

If we stick to the accepted version of this story......we are forever stuck in the mud.........but if we look at it with new vision we can rise above the mud and muck and free ourselves from any further self abuse.

As space expands isometrically so does time......non-linear time field frequency acceleration,..... slow with distance to a point where the energy of field fades to zero. At which point the apparent expansion of universe is calculated to be close to or even in excess of the speed of light.

Oh my, does this tell us something or what? Our perception of universe is backwards because we are looking out into space and not looking in into space.

If we could see it from the opposite side of the fence we would see right away that our existing perception was self limiting.

For example, if a person were to be simultaneously transported from one place to another, almost everyone would say impossible. But why is it considered impossible.........a physical mass cannot exceed the speed of light..........in a linear sense of course not, but we are not talking in terms of linear motion............we are talking in terms of non-linear transport.

The field must be instantaneously linked in order for the field conditon to remain a unified field system, otherwise it would be broken into bits and pieces of space with no avenue of access from one to the other.

We have to get past looking at the universe through a key hole and simply open the door and walk in..........my gosh its nice in here and a lot more roomier than I had imagined and look there's even a window with a view.

So how do we prove this to the rest of the world? Oh my gosh Brown, this is a challenge.

Here we have craft coming from distant star systems and we deny the possibility of their existence..........because we can't do it....yet.

So what exactly do we want to prove? The existence of the aether or what? If that's the case it should not be that hard.

The underground cultivation of plants in Canada has been successful at two locations.........Sudbury, Ont and Flin Flon, Manitoba. The one at Sudbury is 1400 meters underground and believe it or not this level in the mine must be passed by all those scientists going deeper to inspect the neutrino trap at the 3000 meter level, but not one of them has shown the slightest interest in a condition which effects a +400% increase in the growth of all the plant species tested..........wonder why? Inco is the compnay that controls this mine........the Creighton Mine.

The acceleration of the aether or the force of field increases with depth.

Of course this needs more work, but why is no one interested in this, including the dept. of agriculture?

I have seen 2 year old pine seedlings that 5 months earlier were simply pine seeds...........its mind boggling. So the 5 month growing period includes germination.

There is nothing linear involved with any of this........its non-linear dynamics at work. Harness that and you are talking some serious changes in this world. And its all a matter of focus, in relation to the undelrying force of energy sustaining and perpetuating the condition of field.

[Trickfox]

It it via experimentation, emperically, observation or something else?

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the litature that would agree with my perception of the situation, but.............

Every experiment involving the transmission of light is based on a linear perception of time, in relation to a linear based duration of time, an interval if you like

, [/quote]

You are assuming that everyone is using the Minkowski definition of the invariance of the interval right?

What about using the Hugh Everett interpretation of the intersection of multiple level intervals as a polydimensional domain that looks like "stochastic order" otherwise known as "Fractals" and/or "wavelets".
A NEW DIALOG WITH NATURE
Perhaps we know how to construct a model of such? I think that I have found a strong math foundation on it. I'm looking for critics to tear it apart for me.
I want to find out more about bioinfomatics, and mitogenic radiation in the mean time.
I would like to see a paper by S.F. Timashev here Page 11 of the proceedings here:
http://www.maik.rsi.ru/content/physchem ... 74cont.htm
Then there is all the Kozyrev data to go over carefully. I would say there is plenty of quantitative and mathematical terms used by Mikado and others here.
I'm sure we can coordinate all quantitative issues behind your qualitative ones if you agree with commonly accepted terms.

Trickfox

[Mikado14]

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the litature that would agree with my perception of the situation, but.............

I believe I asked what you have done. How have you come to your conclusions, not in the published literature. If your conclusions are based upon or are derived from different sources, published or unpublished, than just simply say so. I did not ask for a long discertation on the propagation of light waves whether that be particle theory, wave theory or through the aether or whatever or how I view it. I asked about you, I am not in the equation.

No wonder we are in such a mess.............

I think the answer to your question Mikado is; something else

Something else,,ok, I see that.

I will say this, I have an easier time if someone shows me something and says, "look at this, I have no idea what makes it work, any ideas?" than to have someone say to me, "here is a thought....make it work, with no math no POP (your words), just an idea."

Remember, Einstein's theory of special relativity was called "special" for it went beyond Newton's theory of relativity but he did have the math for others to prove. And in the end, that too will be added upon.

Sorry to be direct, it's not personal but a simple question led to a half page dissertation to come to the last sentence of "something else".

Mikado

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Mikado,

I can see what you are asking and I hope that eventually David will see what you are doing here.

And David,
We all owe it to ourselves and the others in this forum to reach down as far as we can and come up with the simplest, most honest, most cleanly cut to the bone answers that we can possibly come to. And here is the hard part .... I try to learn this myself ..... I want to be as bold as I possibly can in saying what I feel needs to be said. Sometimes its hard to be that bold when you don't really know the people you are speaking to.

This is an important group which has formed here. We might not know exactly WHY we are here sharing ideas but it is no coincidence. And each of us owes to the others an UNVARNISHED account of our true thoughts.

I am hoping that we can come to trust in the fact that we will not ridicule anyone here on this forum, (but that does not mean that everything posted up behind the magnet on our refer door is going to automatically the best work of art ever .Mothers in this group will understand)

We are going to be tough on each other! We HAVE to be tough! So when the nudging and exhorting gets to you, if it should ..... tell us to back off ... and we will understand ....and understand when we go HUH? at something you have written ........

but I hope that all of you understand that what EACH OF YOU have to contribute is important .... In a way, I see thats what Mikado is asking of you, David. The down to the bone personal reaction to what you are trying to express. Elizabeth

[wdavidb]

Mikado

I apologize if I seemed disrespectful, but I assure you no disrespect was intended, but I must admit I can appear a bit thick some times.

About me...............well, first off I have never worked for the US Government or a contractor to the any US Agency.

Always been the lone guy, most of the time. I always found a pleasant disposition went a long way, that and a good sense of humor.

I have been keeping a very low profile for many years, but finally decided it was time to become a little more interactive, as of Jan. 05.

I spent 19 years, as a student of sorts, with the late Dr. Pazder, studying and learning much about the dynamics of memory. That might not sound like it fits the picture, but actually it does have a very important link to simultaneous communication.

So you could describe me as a very human down to earth kind of person, who cares a great deal about the world we all share.

I'm sorry, but I don't bring any official accreditation to the table.

But I've been studying and learning for a very long time, since I was 7, so that's 55 years to date, and have spent considerable time out in the field, both on and below the ground. So I have a bit of a geology background.

If I have a special talent its in the area of conceptual imagery, in relation to visual images of the things I describe. So I think in pictures, but I think everyone does that more or less.

I can appreciate your position, and I wish I did have some cool little gizmo or a big gizmo to show you, but I don't have one of those handy. All I have are the natural occurences of things that appear to fit the picture.

I would certainly not suggest, here's an idea make it work, never, that would be extremely rude and disrespectful. And I certainly hope you did not think that was where I was headed.

My area, is field dynamics, and whether or not my perceptions fit the accepted theory is not really that important to me, because if we already had it all nailed down we would have already advanced to the next level.

It's a honor to be a part of this group and do hope I can contribute something of value to the discussion.

And in reference to discussion, it might seem that some of the things I put forward are out there........but I'm not the kind of person who simply speaks for the sake of hearing myself or to read my own posts. I don't have the time or energy for that. We all come to the table with our own unique backgrounds and our own unique experiences, so it is from that background that I function. It's my foundation, the base of my perceptions and ideas. One thing I can never say is that I have had a boring life.........far from it. So despite my cake not always having icing on it, it's still cake.

Does that give you a few answers?

[Mikado14]

Mikado


And in reference to discussion, it might seem that some of the things I put forward are out there........but I'm not the kind of person who simply speaks for the sake of hearing myself or to read my own posts. I don't have the time or energy for that. We all come to the table with our own unique backgrounds and our own unique experiences, so it is from that background that I function. It's my foundation, the base of my perceptions and ideas. One thing I can never say is that I have had a boring life.........far from it. So despite my cake not always having icing on it, it's still cake.

Does that give you a few answers?

Thank You for your answer, I now have a baseline.

You might be interested to know that some of your theoretical concepts are not new but have.............metaphysical roots?...... including the effects on lifeforms of the dense physical plane.

Best,

Mikado

[ladygrady]

Oh, and another little squawk from the Boston end of the world.

Take a look at this

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/onene ... ness_2.htm

2.5 "A VIBRATIONAL VIEW OF GOD, LOVE AND PHYSICS
As our understanding of this universal energy source continues to expand, we are soon confronted with the idea that it is intelligent, that it can directly interact with our consciousness. After all, if this truly is the “Unified Fieldâ€

[Mikado14]

[quote="ladygrady"]Oh, and another little squawk from the Boston end of the world.

Take a look at this

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/onene ... ness_2.htm

2.5 "A VIBRATIONAL VIEW OF GOD, LOVE AND PHYSICS
As our understanding of this universal energy source continues to expand, we are soon confronted with the idea that it is intelligent, that it can directly interact with our consciousness. After all, if this truly is the “Unified Fieldâ€