FOTW April 1, 2017
On the line: Ben, Billy, Xaviar, Trevor, Tony
– Action at a Distance: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170328114107.htm
– No Dark Energy Needed: http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2968-explaining-the-accelerating-expansion-of-the-universe-without-dark-energy
– Earth’s Interior Map: https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2017/03/28/a-seismic-mapping-milestone/
– ExoMars Pulling an R2D2: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Final_two_ExoMars_landing_sites_chosen (2nd link: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/timeline/prelaunch/landingsiteselection/mawrthvallis/ )
– Plasma Jets at Earth: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Supersonic_plasma_jets_discovered
– Lunar Magnetic Swirls: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4468
– Cosmic Jet Stars: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1710/
– Electric Sands of Titan: http://www.news.gatech.edu/2017/03/27/electric-sands-titan
Leave a Comment
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Electrical event coming. A comet is hitting the tail Stars of Ursa Major. The way the enochain lore goes, the old empire darkness resides in Ursa Major tail stars.
No coincidence.
This sort of thing is becoming more and more common.
Ether? A plasma-like electomagnetic subtle yet pervasive medium.
What the hell did you just say?
Trevor needs a better mic and Internet connection. Hard to hear!
A field must be purely a dynamic concept with either its terminus upon an object of gravity or magnetism or upon itself as in the
case of radiated T.E.M., as implied the Ether to which field and Ether are synonymous, either way a field of any type never terminates
in space, nor could it, there is space in the Ether field, but no Ether in space, likewise Ether logically therefore cannot terminate in
space, as Maxwell, Tesla and others understood well. While the modalities of interaction and nature between magnetism, gravity and
electromagnetism are apparently (superficially so) different, all are quantitatively fields by definition and Ether in subject, or principle
without exception. Field is a conjugate definition of the Ether regarding 1. Dielectricity 2. Magnetism 3. Gravity 4. Electromagnetic
and a fifth one to be named in another work, all five of which are modalities of dynamic Ether motions and pressures; reductively
however all are merely nuanced distinctions of the Ether as incorrectly rationalized as different due to waves, geometry, and motions
either centripetally, circularly or centrifugally of space. Since the many modalities of fields exist radially, circulator, spatially,
counterspatially, centrifugally, and centripetally; herein lies the conceptual nuance in differentiating modalities of the same subject in
a field, as relates to and of the Ether itself.
Since a field is always as pertains the Ether, its confused usage and contextual contradictory reference is commonplace, as would
be likewise in the case of any non-physical concept without a locus that is or has been reified objectively. A field (all Ether) is not a
concept, not a physical medium (of course all physical medium are Ether in principle, as the terminus of diectricity), not an
abstraction, but the subject itself, the medium itself and often only qualified in instances to which it is induced or brought into
dynamic macro-effective perturbations that cannot be ignored. That all fields are sourced in counterspace yet have spatial variants and
without a definite locus other than pressure gradients when amplified or induced is not in question. There are no particles used in
mediating a field, that is strictly the realm of GR and quantum absurdities that fail on rational, logical and mathematical levels,
additionally always on the experimental level. While used casually everywhere in pseudo-science, any attempt by academia to
rationally define a field is non-existent, and the highly typical habit of conjugating a field with space or as space is both illogical and
wholly unjustified; is purely an ignorant remnant from GR as parroted thru unscientific quantum, of which both are mutually
incompatible.
The conundrum of their misunderstandings, in part, is that fields are mass-free (though gravity is sourced in mass, its field is mass-
free), particle-free (of any variety), are not physical objects or subjects, however it is evidently and abundantly clear they have
physical effects without end; this of course is the very definition of Tesla’s ‘medium’, or Ether. While all fields witnessed in
phenomenal influences are archetypes of space, the Ether is not conjugate to, part of, dependent upon or relational to space, nor is
there Ether in space, rather space as a polarized dimensional measure of fields and the masses created by same. Space is only
relational to masses and magnitudes and the distances between them. To conceptualize a field as a region can only pertain to a
perturbation of the field as witnessed from phenomenal effects by same upon other bodies or as a region consubstantial to TEM.
Einstein and his disciples argue that fields and space are equivalent. What meaning would space have in a universe devoid of matter?
Whether gravitational, magnetic, or electric, we need ‘masses’ or ‘charges’ to talk about a field. This argument summarily debunks
Einstein’s irrational proposal that field and space are synonyms. Einstein was extremely weak on logic in all of his proposals. He was
not a very intelligent or rational individual; he was a mediocre mathematician, not a scientist. Magnets do not generate attraction and
repulsion by throwing particle showers collectively called ‘field’ at each other as proposed by QM. All fields are radial or polarized,
or circular, and either spatial or counterspatial depending upon their movements, instantaneous action at a distance is mediated
between any two objects connected by a pressure gradient of the Either in the field(s) of influence, including compounded fields.
Circular illogical statements made by and thru mathematical ‘science’ cannot be enjoined: “field: a region of space… region: a
portion of space…space: the infinite extension of field”. To employ space to define a field or field to prop up or define space or be
synonymous with space are all wrong, logically, and demonstrably. A field can never terminate in space nor is a field even part of
space itself, rather is a dimensional measure of a field or fields, of counterspace, and used contextually as an explicit reference of
influences of or by empirical objects as mediated thru or from a field. Some have, out of desperation to their materialistic mentalities
conceded defeat: “A field is an enigma, a question mark. A question cannot serve as an answer in Physics”. Einstein himself said that
so far as his general relativity is concerned, “space (actually spacetime) and the gravitational field are the same things”, this type of
‘thinking’ is pure idiocy of the highest order.
A region is not equivalent to the thing occupyingA field must be purely a dynamic concept with either its terminus upon an object of gravity or magnetism or upon itself as in the
case of radiated T.E.M., as implied the Ether to which field and Ether are synonymous, either way a field of any type never terminates
in space, nor could it, there is space in the Ether field, but no Ether in space, likewise Ether logically therefore cannot terminate in
space, as Maxwell, Tesla and others understood well. While the modalities of interaction and nature between magnetism, gravity and
electromagnetism are apparently (superficially so) different, all are quantitatively fields by definition and Ether in subject, or principle
without exception. Field is a conjugate definition of the Ether regarding 1. Dielectricity 2. Magnetism 3. Gravity 4. Electromagnetic
and a fifth one to be named in another work, all five of which are modalities of dynamic Ether motions and pressures; reductively
however all are merely nuanced distinctions of the Ether as incorrectly rationalized as different due to waves, geometry, and motions
either centripetally, circularly or centrifugally of space. Since the many modalities of fields exist radially, circulator, spatially,
counterspatially, centrifugally, and centripetally; herein lies the conceptual nuance in differentiating modalities of the same subject in
a field, as relates to and of the Ether itself.
Since a field is always as pertains the Ether, its confused usage and contextual contradictory reference is commonplace, as would
be likewise in the case of any non-physical concept without a locus that is or has been reified objectively. A field (all Ether) is not a
concept, not a physical medium (of course all physical medium are Ether in principle, as the terminus of diectricity), not an
abstraction, but the subject itself, the medium itself and often only qualified in instances to which it is induced or brought into
dynamic macro-effective perturbations that cannot be ignored. That all fields are sourced in counterspace yet have spatial variants and
without a definite locus other than pressure gradients when amplified or induced is not in question. There are no particles used in
mediating a field, that is strictly the realm of GR and quantum absurdities that fail on rational, logical and mathematical levels,
additionally always on the experimental level. While used casually everywhere in pseudo-science, any attempt by academia to
rationally define a field is non-existent, and the highly typical habit of conjugating a field with space or as space is both illogical and
wholly unjustified; is purely an ignorant remnant from GR as parroted thru unscientific quantum, of which both are mutually
incompatible.
The conundrum of their misunderstandings, in part, is that fields are mass-free (though gravity is sourced in mass, its field is mass-
free), particle-free (of any variety), are not physical objects or subjects, however it is evidently and abundantly clear they have
physical effects without end; this of course is the very definition of Tesla’s ‘medium’, or Ether. While all fields witnessed in
phenomenal influences are archetypes of space, the Ether is not conjugate to, part of, dependent upon or relational to space, nor is
there Ether in space, rather space as a polarized dimensional measure of fields and the masses created by same. Space is only
relational to masses and magnitudes and the distances between them. To conceptualize a field as a region can only pertain to a
perturbation of the field as witnessed from phenomenal effects by same upon other bodies or as a region consubstantial to TEM.
Einstein and his disciples argue that fields and space are equivalent. What meaning would space have in a universe devoid of matter?
Whether gravitational, magnetic, or electric, we need ‘masses’ or ‘charges’ to talk about a field. This argument summarily debunks
Einstein’s irrational proposal that field and space are synonyms. Einstein was extremely weak on logic in all of his proposals. He was
not a very intelligent or rational individual; he was a mediocre mathematician, not a scientist. Magnets do not generate attraction and
repulsion by throwing particle showers collectively called ‘field’ at each other as proposed by QM. All fields are radial or polarized,
or circular, and either spatial or counterspatial depending upon their movements, instantaneous action at a distance is mediated
between any two objects connected by a pressure gradient of the Either in the field(s) of influence, including compounded fields.
Circular illogical statements made by and thru mathematical ‘science’ cannot be enjoined: “field: a region of space… region: a
portion of space…space: the infinite extension of field”. To employ space to define a field or field to prop up or define space or be
synonymous with space are all wrong, logically, and demonstrably. A field can never terminate in space nor is a field even part of
space itself, rather is a dimensional measure of a field or fields, of counterspace, and used contextually as an explicit reference of
influences of or by empirical objects as mediated thru or from a field. Some have, out of desperation to their materialistic mentalities
conceded defeat: “A field is an enigma, a question mark. A question cannot serve as an answer in Physics”. Einstein himself said that
so far as his general relativity is concerned, “space (actually spacetime) and the gravitational field are the same things”, this type of
‘thinking’ is pure idiocy of the highest order.
A region is not equivalent to the thing occupying
Xavier’s comment that he wishes the Earth’s Interior Map was spherical is good because it shows most of the movement is coming out of the south pole area. Flow tectonics is that the plates flow generally from the south to the north following the flux flow of the Earth’s magnetic field. (“Youtube” Flow tectonics)the map makes sense when viewed like this. Trenches generally are found in the North as well as most of the world’s land that are above ocean, waiting to sub duct.
High frequencies passing over skin and not penetrating. Does that mean that microwaves do not pass through the body but more so go *around* the body?
Thank you for the FOTW, enjoyed the conversation coverage and interesting topics as always. Lots to ponder this time around for sure.