I am not following, what is "it"?grassahhoppah wrote: mikado-
Along with the revisiting, it simultaneously revisited a different approach to the core root of matter.
Two things here: First, I asked you to define "particulate" and you are talking "particles" of matter. As you say, in the mainstream, there is a difference in the use of those words. Second, if I may be so bold, what was your recent schooling?grassahhoppah wrote:Which is very different than what is taught in the mainstream. A general summation of what I have been digging up, matter..... really isn't matter as most are taught. A particle really isn't a particle as my recent schooling endeavors teach.
You need to define what you mean by a standing EM wave.grassahhoppah wrote:The "rabbit hole" (as you all say) I am finding myself going deeper and deeper into, is a fitting analogy. What I have learned as the reality,.... turns out to only be the reality of the illusion. Or the reality of the path to the dead end.
It seems from the very most finite, to the most complex..... it's all in the vibes. So a direct answer to your request for me to define particulate, at this time I surmise that it is a node from standing EM waves.
My young grassahhoppah, have you read any of the posts or what else Paul has written?grassahhoppah wrote:Paul S-
I have heard thought of such a reactor, but personally haven't found anything further on any being a reality at this time. Not to say that something like that, or a variation, wouldn't be possible. I've just never heard any hint of how one might pull it off. Yes of course, there are lots of technologies I know aren't disclosed. And the electrogravitic effect is a good example by how long it took before it leaked.
Mikado