# Einstein's equation neglects Aether

Einstein decided that Aether is non-existent. The Energy = Mass(speed of Light)2 equation works for non-moving bodies. But bodies in motion are a thing. There is no such thing as a body which is not in motion. Vibration is constant within a body of any kind. Vibration is constant within the EM field around a body of any kind. Vibration alone proves that bodies cannot be without motion. To calculate the vibratory resonance of the EM field and add it to the vibratory resonance of the body in question would give you a better understanding of the amount of Energy involved.
If there is an equal amount of mass in one proton as in the entire universe, mass is not what concerns us, but energy. Mass is an illusion. Nothing has mass. Only levels of vibratory resonance. The mass calculation then, would be the energy resonance as it is measured outside of its source. The force of gravity having a large part to play in the measurement. Would a bodyâ€™s resonance be the same in a vacuum as it is on the Earthâ€™s surface? If the affecting gravity is simply the magnetic force of the Earthâ€™s surface being drawn inward toward its center, then gravity exists in the EM field surrounding the moving body, but not the body itself. If this is true, then to overcome gravity, the mind must radiate intention and WILL greater than the force of gravity in the EM field.
If we are not the body, and we are not the EM field, we can transcend both. But we must validate the existence of the Aether as the connective tissue between the world of matter and the world of mind. Aether is the Primordial Mist. It is what every body moves through. Just like a fish is not aware of water, we are not aware of our Aether. But it is there. We move through it. But we need to start building with it. We need to harness it. It is the EM field and it is the bodies moving through it. It is the finer degree of matter which all matter is made of. For energy to exist in a world of matter, it must have an electromagnetic bonding agent to hold it to matter. Else it would evaporate and leave matter below.
Does anyone have any input on my random train of thought here? I am really just thinking out loud.

2 Likes

Hola Nic:
Maybe try looking at it the other way around. Itâ€™s from energy to matter. Einstein was saying that with intention (1,2,3) you can get E (1,2,3).
You get what you put into it. Who you are.
So, affection is the most important intention to whatever project you are focused on. If itâ€™s a thing or animal it will go in direct proportion to the intention you put in itâ€¦ but if its a person it getsâ€¦ randomâ€‹:thinking:â€¦ like it requires of consensus to create a higher ground purpose a common supraether to feed with the right intentions all the involvedâ€¦ the mega mind, universal intelligence, â€śthe cloudâ€ť just as in internet the place where you can storage and download fromâ€¦ just by brainstorming we are interacting with the cloud between us and it feeds different points of view in a harmonious E (n) way.

â€¦ If that makes any sense to you as it does to me.
Have a great week

I found this quote that explains so clearly what Einstein expresses with his formula:

â€śA hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand, but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand men.â€ť

â€“ Plato

1 Like

It wasnâ€™t Einstein who made that mistake. That was Bohr and Oppenheimer et al who came up with the Copenhagen Interpretation of the results of Michelson and Morleyâ€™s failed experimental attempt to detect the ether at the outset of the 19th century. Einstein was just working to make sense of the data at hand.

You may recall the Michelson-Morley experiment: They figured that if the Ether exists, then it should be detectable, and that it should move faster westward because the Earth is spinning (and orbiting the sun) eastward. Their experiment detected nothing of the sort, and they concluded the ether doesnâ€™t exist, leading to the Copenhagen Interpretation and the ultra-precise monstrosity that is Quantum Physics.

The experiment compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether (â€śaether windâ€ť). The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles. This result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, as well as initiating a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether.[A 1] Of this experiment, Einstein wrote, â€śIf the Michelsonâ€“Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption.â€ť[A 2]:219

In view of Nassimâ€™s work, it seems that what happened is something like: Michelson-Morley assumed we are in a bus hurtling eastward, so if you stick your hand out the window, the etheric wind should be blowing westwardâ€¦but it isnâ€™t.

But thatâ€™s because Earth is actually like an hot air balloon traveling with the etheric wind, so there is no velocity difference to detect between balloon and air.

Nassim puts it that when you pour cream into coffee (that you canâ€™t see - the ether) spinning counter-clockwise, the cream (that you can see) spins counter-clockwise too.

So, it seems that rumors of the nonexistence of the ether have been vastly exaggerated. Nassim discovered it under the nose of quantum physics (because he took â€śnasty infinitiesâ€ť at face value.)

2 Likes

The problem with the Michelson-Morely experiment was their expectations. They assumed Aether to be measurable with 3D sensory perception and recordable on 3D equipment. This is like expecting a cockroach to speak English. Lower vibrational frequency tech and nervous systems are not going to be able to measure or record higher vibrational frequencies. This is where consciousness is necessary. An observer must match the frequency of its object of observation.

This, in my opinion, is the reason other planets in our solar system seem empty and lifeless to us. If there is life on those planets, which seems highly likely, we would not be able to see or interact with it in our bodies because we do not match their vibrational frequency. But if we could raise our vibration, we could match the tuning required for interaction with that planet and its inhabitants. We could take samples and run tests. We could have understanding of the â€śmoreâ€ť if we could but give ourselves more. The problem with that is the body. The body holds us to the collective consciousnessâ€™ vibrational frequency. The nervous system is limited to lower dimensions. When that is all we use to make measurements, that frequency is all we can measure.

Even in the dreamscape, we do not always acknowledge that the reality we are in is different from what we are used to. If we could measure the substance of matter in the dream, we would understand what it is made of. But who can put dream-matter into a beaker and run tests? And yet, to the consciousness, the dream-matter is as real as the physical matter it reflects. This in and of itself tells us that immeasurable matter exists. If immeasurable matter exists, what else exists that we cannot perceive, let alone test?

1 Like

E=m.cÂ˛ -> La lumiĂ¨reâ€¦
Si E=m, 1/c=c, lâ€™un se trouve ĂŞtre lâ€™inverse de lâ€™autre, comme Noir et Blanc.
Si lâ€™on diffracte le blanc en couleurs, on pourrait peut-ĂŞtre obtenir:
cÂ˛=1 <=>c multiples couleurs (1 Rouge,2 Orange,3 Jauneâ€¦)=c*INFINI=1, câ€™est MathĂ©matiques.

1 Like

E = m.cÂ˛ -> The lightâ€¦
If E = m, 1 / c = c, one happens to be the reverse of the other, like Black and White.
If we diffract white in color, we could perhaps obtain:
cÂ˛ = 1 <=> c multiple colors (1 Red, 2 Orange, 3 Yellow â€¦) = c * INFINITE = 1, it is Mathematics.

Thatâ€™s my problem with Einstein. Mass does not equate to the energy it represents. Energy is transcendent. Mass is crystallized energy. Even speeding it up to the speed of light times itself is not enough to quantify the energy inhabiting and surrounding the mass. Mass itself is an illusion. It is the simplest formation of the energy that we can behold. Our lower level consciousness cannot perceive the auric (EM) field contributing to it. We cannot perceive the movement of atoms which make it seem solid. We can only measure the force of gravity acting upon the collection of atoms as a whole. We canâ€™t even measure the force of gravity acting upon the individual atoms. Itâ€™s like we have a building made of bricks and have no idea about the bricks themselves, and can only measure the building as a whole. This does not give us enough information about the building to quantify its energy. Itâ€™s a nice start, but requires further definition.
Much like the color spectrum. If we can only see 1% of all there is to see, we cannot correctly advise about anything we see, because we donâ€™t see much of anything. There are infinite colors and diffusions of light. Three basic colors are a start, blending them to create more is a great step. But there are more than three colors. We just canâ€™t see them.

Pour un observateur qui se trouve ĂŞtre au point central dâ€™un cube, il y a 12 vues extĂ©rieures qui manifeste un objet en â€śVISIBLEâ€ť. Pour un solide de Platon quel quâ€™il soit, et jusquâ€™Ă  la sphĂ¨re, nous augmentons le nombre dâ€™observateurs (points de vues).
Car lâ€™observateur, qui nâ€™est que lâ€™axe du pignon, peut avoir accĂ¨s Ă  des coordonnĂ©es spatio-temporelles (celle avec lesquelles â€śje cartographie cet univers fractalâ€ť. Chaque combinaison Ă©voque une vue de lâ€™objet â€śrecherchĂ©â€ť.

â€śLa lame et la garde de lâ€™Ă©pĂ©e Excalibur sont comme les aiguilles dâ€™une horloge nous indiquant une tranche horaire, sur le bouclierâ€¦â€ť. Autrement dit nous avons lĂ  Ă  notre disposition comme un projecteur de diaporamas.

Pour lâ€™heure jâ€™ai â€ścartographierâ€ť la partie qui nous interresse, Ă  savoir â€ścette fameuse Ă©tude de la LumiĂ¨reâ€ť.
Oui, je vous apporte la lumiĂ¨re. Je trouve que lâ€™on y verra bien plus clair, et que lâ€™on pourra ainsi retrouver cette aiguille dans la botte de foin

En PJ: LA LumiĂ¨re observĂ©e de 9 points de vues â€śmultidimensionnelâ€ť. Et lâ€™on peut se projeter, â€śnaviguerâ€ť, zoomer et dĂ©zoomer, Ă  lâ€™infini. Comme un microscope Ă  balayage photoniqueâ€¦

Strike!!!

FS.

Alors Ă§a câ€™est le "micro-macro"scoop!!!

1 Like

@[NicOracle]
â€śUnâ€ť est une variable Qui va de 1 Ă  1 Mais de 1 Ă  1, il y a un. Câ€™est lĂ  tout le charme que contient cette histoire de contenant et de contenu.

For an observer who happens to be at the center point of a cube, there are 12 exterior views that manifest an object as â€śVISIBLEâ€ť. For any Platonic solid, up to the sphere, we increase the number of observers (points of view).
Because the observer, who is only the axis of the pinion, can have access to spatiotemporal coordinates (the one with which â€śI map this fractal universe.â€ť Each combination evokes a view of the object â€śsoughtâ€ť.

â€śThe blade and the hilt of the Excalibur sword are like the hands of a clock indicating a time slot, on the shield â€¦â€ť. In other words we have there at our disposal as a slide show projector.

For the moment I have â€śmapâ€ť the part that interests us, namely â€śthis famous study of the Lightâ€ť.
Yes, I bring you the light. I find that we will see much more clearly, and that we can thus find this needle in the haystack: wink:

In PJ: THE Light observed from 9 â€śmultidimensionalâ€ť points of view. And you can project yourself, â€śnavigateâ€ť, zoom in and out, to infinity. Like a scanning photon microscopeâ€¦: slight_smile:

Strike!!!

FS. : rainbow:

So thatâ€™s the â€śmicro-macroâ€ť scoop !!!

â€śOneâ€ť is a variable: slight_smile: Which goes from 1 to 1: slight_smile: But from 1 to 1, there is one. This is all the charm of this story of container and content. : slight_smile:

It will be lovely to have the perspective of more dimensional space to be able to see the various aspects of things which we encounter. I think that one day we as a species will get there. For now though, the idea of being in the center of an object and observing its exterior and interior viewpoints is not achievable with our current consciousness level. The container is all we can observe. The content, which is the energy not the mass, is what interests me. There is simply no way to observe the content from our current perspective. And for this reason, the Michelson-Morley experiment was DOA.

=> I found a way.

Whar does DOA mean?

1 Like

for shizzle my nizzle Dead On Arrival,

zero force gets force added bang happens stuff moves creates space over time reipples get sent back information gets drawn back in force decepades back to zero, force gets added again moves out through previously formed space over more time and more space. spin happens creates spiral around source of force.

different forces atract each other and grow in force and beging to gravitate then concious forces sprout on those force yapping about laws of atraction and gravitation, get taken for fools eventually science prooves them right. maybe the Aether kept them going

video i made for inspiring you

only by having zero energy can you assume to be close to being stationary even with relativity its a virtual imposibility its force over time and space by space and time both vary so affect of force will also

all that before even considering frequency which by the way my favourite is 39.6

1 Like

as with all ideas and thoughts they are everwhere around us we pass through them as we travel through space, we all see information from the same source they come from inside wormholes and travel along on gravitational waves until they interact with a force they feel gravitated towards.

1 Like

I love and appreciate the video. Thank you for that. I emailed you a reply video. I tried to upload it here, but it was not the right type of file. Your ideas are a more structured form of some of my own. I always value our interactions.

1 Like

1 Like
1 Like

â€śiak1983â€ť ArchimĂ¨des: Water or gaz

2 Likes
2 Likes

i was stuck on a earlier version of this but thanks to @NicOracle for helping me see the next step.

is our universe standing still and as information gets added we get the illusion of spinning spiral?