🤔 The AETHER αἰθήρ, WHAT IS IT? 🤔

I almost missed the landing zone there. I did that once. I should have posted that video. One of these days I'm gonna do that and I'm just gonna post a video. Rational versus irrational. Spiritual versus material. Fields. Talk about the ether. The one question that everybody keeps asking about, actually the the biggest question everybody keeps asking is that what happens when we die. And that really is kind of relational, that ether, but that's not what this video is about. So what makes you think you are that which dies? You know, it's kind of a ludicrous concept. I mean, do you identify if the signal were animated? Kind of like the animated entity of the Terminator series where the program is sentient. Would you think that, you know, you're the, you're the radio in the case of the Terminators, you know, a bunch of circuitry and whatnot? Are you the actual program? The signal which is antecedent, there's a great word everybody should learn, antecedent, meaning prior to, existing prior to. You are not obviously that which dies. Of course the fundamental primordial diagnosis of human beings is that they identify with that which they see in the mirror. But they, the second biggest question after that one is about the ether. I'll say what's the ether made of? If the ether were made of anything whatsoever it would not in any way shape or form logically or intelligently be the ether since something that is made of something is compounded and therefore temporal and made of constituent components. And anything that's made of constituent components partakes of time and also too has a beginning in time and an end in time. But the ether, of course, doesn't partake of temporality. It is obviously too antecedent to Cartesian reality, which is the only thing human beings know. Cartesian reality of space, time, and the antinomies. The antinomies such as ugly and pretty, birth and death, so on and so forth. These are the antinomies which, of course, must be suffered in a binary system which partakes of time. Of course, there's a fundamental binary which is not a binary at all, which would be the attributional nature to the absolute, which the Greeks called Ptolema. They also too called it Anarchia. They also too called it the Eurystheus or the indefinite dyad. But indefinite dyad doesn't really translate as anything. It literally means without a horizon or a line of demarcation. Exactly like a North Pole and a South Pole of a magnet. And a magnet doesn't actually have a North Pole or a South Pole because you can't slice it in half and have a North Pole here and a South Pole here. It is the forced geometrical pressure of the field relational to that physical object because a magnet is not a quantitative object, rather a qualitative object. Because before a magnet becomes a magnet, it is 100% quantitatively identical. The only thing that has changed is the qualitative nature of the field of which the object partakes. Kind of like the Roman fascists. You take all the sticks and you bind them in one. What happens is you have the field as a conjugate system of incommensurability of a magnet. But that's not what this video is about. The ether, obviously definitionally and denotatively, would be impossible to be made of anything. The original definition of inertia. Pure, unmanifest energy. Human beings always have everything backwards and upside down. Human beings think like the Hiroshima explosion, for example. It would be energy. It's like, no, that's the impotency of energy. That's the release of energy. It's the exact opposite of energy. Energy would be like that softball-sized lump of plutonium or fissionable uranium, which is not impressive at all. People are always impressed by the giant mushroom cloud that peels the paint off of your house and does weird things in sci-fi movies. But they're not impressed by a piece of metal about this size that is the source for all of that power. Human beings always have everything upside down and backwards. So where is it? Where is the ether? They first ask, what's the ether made of? Which is an impossible, illogical question. Where is it, once again, as a reference to Cartesian reality? Anything that partakes of Cartesian reality has dimensionality. Anything that has dimensionality is compounded and has a beginning in time and an end in time, once again. So give it the rope and stick. I don't know if you know, Nikola Tesla called it his death ray, but we call it scalar waves, which is extremely incorrect because scalar waves imply that it has a wave component. But literally it's a rarefaction and compression in the ether. Nikola Tesla, this is a quote from Nikola Tesla, said that light can be nothing other than a sound wave in the ether. People don't really look deeply into that statement. So Tesla did know what light was, but he didn't expound on light much more than that. However, when Nikola Tesla said that light is a sound wave in the ether, it's incredibly important that people understand that sound is not an emission at all. It's a perturbation of the medium, which of course is a nitrogen and oxygen. Light is not an emission either. It's a compound, specifically a coaxial compound perturbation of the ether. It's an ether perturbation modality, which is all a field is anyway. Scientists for decades now have talked about a grand unified theory. You know, one day we're going to unify electricity, gravity, magnetism. They're already unified. I mean, do you really think that mother nature, if mother nature were a real person, would, you know, be trying to unify, you know, that which she truly is by nature? No, it's already completely unified. The idea of unification of fields is a conceptual idea born of human ignorance, specifically all these PhD physicists, you know, who don't understand that all of these things are but one thing and one thing only. Rope and a stick, dielectric. How do you explain like light as opposed to Nikola Tesla's death ray, what we call scalar waves? Well, light is measured in frequency or cycles per second. Of course, it is a DNA. It's a helical ether perturbation, which of course has a rate of propagation. And it's also to the hysteresis of the ether for the rate of propagation to occur, because the perturbation of light, its hysteresis changes as the occurrence meets glass. And this, of course, is why we have a refractive index of glass and water. People say, well, light slows down. So how do you explain it speeding back up without breaking the law of conservation of energy? You certainly can't, because if you think that it's a particle or wave or it's traveling through something, then you think it's an entity that's actually moving with the speed, so on and so forth. But you can never do that, because you would break the law of conservation of energy. So here's one compounded circuit. Of course, it's not correct as a helical representation of light. I'd actually have to be doing this along multiple axes, where light is a coaxial circuit, specifically a transverse electrical magnetic rarefaction and compression along the vector of transmission. But it's not transmission, but I use the word transmission in a colloquial sense. Well, if this is regular EM, which of course is gamma radiation and light and infrared and radio, then how do you explain scalar waves? Explaining scalar waves is really easy, and I could do it with exact... and this is not a piece of fabric. I should have got a piece of fabric rather than a leather. But if this is light, and actually you have to represent light along two axes, the electrical and the magnetic. This would be the electrical, and this would be the magnetic. And right along between the two, there are these rarefaction compressions, kind of like beads on a necklace of light. And people say, I don't understand coaxial circuit. I thought everybody, and apparently it's not the case, knows the cross-section of a coax cable. You know, a coax cable is feeding your TV and your satellite dish. You ever seen the cross-section of a coax? When I say coaxial circuit, that's what I mean. Coaxial circuit has a dielectric medium and a center conductor and a shielding upon which the EM actually reciprocates, doesn't technically reciprocate. And depending on where the shielding is, actually keeps down loss. You have better gain coaxial circuit. So this is what I mean by coaxial circuit. Here's the electrical, and here's the magnetic, 90 degrees inverse. So how do you explain scalar waves, which has no wave component at all? Well, I'm going to take this medium of light. I'm going to do this with it. I'm going to roll it up. I wished it were longer. Kind of like a stick. Just imagine a long stick that you hold. Say it's 10 feet long. The other end's at the wall there. There's no transverse component. It's not measured in cycles per second because it has no waves or cycles or frequency. It's measured in volts per second. So now we have another ether perturbation modality and we have it like this. I can actually put it up against the table. Let's just pretend that's the wall. And you know, when I cause a release of energy, it's instantaneous. Yeah, there's no transverse component. Let's just say I have this up against the computer. I'm not going to hit it really hard. You know, I just whack it like this, right? Transferring energy. This is Nikola Tesla's death ray, or what we conventionally call scalar waves, which is not scalar waves at all. Let's just call it scalar waves because that's what we call it. Which is, oh, and by the way, Eric Dollard, of course, agrees with this completely. It's ridiculous to call it scalar waves. But anyway, this is scalar and this is gamma radiation and this is light. Nothing other than an ether perturbation modality. Same thing with dielectricity and magnetism. So a wrinkle versus a rolled up. And this could be a stick. I wanted to use one on the same medium to demonstrate it. If you could call this a demonstration using a rolled up piece of leather. So dielectricity is the ether under stress or strain. Magnetism is the three dimensional force vector that defines the loss of energy, which is the dielectric. I don't know if you've ever seen Lichtenberg patterns, like where people are struck by lightning. They actually have wood burning where they wet the wood. It's dangerous, too, by the way. And they send an electrical current through the wet wood. And you see these fern-like patterns. You ever seen a person struck? It's on their back, shoulder, on their arm. They've been struck. You can actually buy Lichtenberg artwork. They call it captured lightning. It looks like a fern-like pattern. What it is, is fractal energy dissipation. You ever seen them? Lichtenberg patterns. They're also two fulgurites, where lightning grounds itself in the ground. Lightning, too, is a discharge in the counter space. What actually hits the ground is only part of it. A lot of it is lost in counter space, up there in the air, where lightning literally is a dissipation in a counter space. But it also, too, finds the ground on earth. It's amazing what percentage of that enormous amount of electricity, dielectricity specifically, electrostatics, high-energy electrostatics, is dissipated in the counter space, as opposed to actually striking the earth. If people actually felt the full brunt of lightning, you know, they wouldn't even be alive. But there's all these people who are struck by lightning that are still alive. And they have, some of them do anyway, giant Lichtenberg patterns permanently burned onto their back. And they look like fern-like patterns. And if you actually look at captured lightning, which is, it's x-ray bombarded leucite. And they actually stick a nail, which is fed from a copper wire to the nail. And then they hit it with a hammer. And it grounds out that enormous dielectric capacitance within the leucite. Because leucite, they'll actually say, is an insulator. But an insulator is a capacitor. When someone says insulator, what they're really saying is capacitor. Anyway, it actually causes these burn trails through the leucite. And it looks like a fern. But if you look really closely, it's three dimensional. You look like, you ever seen, like on Google Earth, where you're zooming through the mountains of some place? It looks like a mountain range. It is, it's fascinatingly three-dimensional. And what this is, is this dissipation into counter space. Because the charge and the torsion of the dielectricity is ether under stress or strain. It wants to ground itself into counter space. But what this pattern is, this gorgeous fern-like pattern, is a fractal energy dissipation. So people think, people think things were conceptual or spiritual versus materialist. And fields are neither. People have a hard time understanding fields. Because fields is an ether perturbation modality. But a field is not material at all. And a field is definitely not spiritual. Or when I say conceptual, we could say instead of spiritual versus material, we could say conceptual versus rational. Nobody can deny fields. But at the same time, nobody can tell you what a field is. You can take the 100 top PhD professors of theoretical physics and say, what's a field? And they won't have an answer for you. And this is not my opinion. This is a fact. And it's okay not to have the answers. But when these people pretend to, you know, they're very hubristic. They don't really care about unknowing. They don't really care about wisdom. They care about, you know, putting forth their grandeur. Like, look at me, I'm gonna teach you. I'm a PhD professor. You know, I know it all. No, you don't really know anything. What is foundational is a substrate. You know, obviously ether is the substrate. But it's not conceptual, i.e. spiritual. And it's not rational. Or the explanation of same is rational. But it's not conventionally rational and material. And it's certainly not materialistic. This is the reason why humanity suffers so much. It's not like religion or concepts or beliefs and conceptual, meaning fields. And it's not physical. It's not objective. It is not material. And this is why humanity suffers so much. You would think humanity would have made much, much better gains into understanding the nature of fields. Because everything is fields. Until human beings understand fields, they'll really understand nothing. So why do you spend so much of your life, you know, trying to understand fields? Because fields are the foundational principle behind absolutely everything in the universe. People ask the questions, what is the ether? Well, the ether is not anything at all. That's not to say it doesn't exist. It's to say that it is nothing substantial, substance, material. Ether is the substrate from which by which everything is made possible and everything is the genuine definition of inertia. Ether cannot be made of anything that's completely illogical and impossible and utterly irrational. But explaining everything and reducing everything is also too very simple. Then of course you have to say, you know, why is there any energy at all? Why doesn't just ether remain as it is in perfection? And that's a matter for another video. Then you have to explain the extrinsic principle of the ether. The extrinsic principle of the ether, of course, is its attribute. Which in the expression of 1 over 5 to the power of negative 3, the extrinsic attribute of the ether is 5 to the power of negative 3. Relational to the 1, which is as meant the ether itself. But not 1 as manifest. Because the Greeks didn't think of 1 as a number. They thought of it as a principle, which is very very accurate from the premise of metaphysics. 1 is not number. Because you're talking about one thing demonstrable. And that would be conventional math 1. But the 1 from the premise of Greek mystic metaphysics vis-a-vis the Pythagoreans and the Platonists, it was not demonstrable. Of course it was the principle before which antecedent to absolutely everything that all things are made manifest. But which is not a thing itself. Human beings suffer from this fundamental conundrum of not understanding fields. But also too from having completely materialistic minds. I think everything is made of multiple things. That which is most simple cannot have an origin in time and then space. Nor could it be compounded. Because if it's compounded, it would never ever be the ether by definition. That's completely illogical and impossible. I hope you understand that really simple principle of light. You know it's transverse coaxial circuit as opposed to you know what is easier more easily demonstrated with a stick. You're putting a long stick against the wall and actually making compression. There is no transverse component. You have instantaneous action to the distance IAAD. Which Einstein called spooky. Because if you believe in the cult of particles, which these people do, there's no such thing as instantaneous action at a distance. Because that violates nothing traveling faster than the speed of light. But light's not a speed at all. The rate of induction or the hysteresis of the ether relational to light only has to do with what it is as against the ether. In other words, what's the maximum wrinkle that is allowable in and of the ether? We call that C or the speed of light. But C or the speed of light is just nothing other than the hysteresis of the ether. Which is no different than saying how fast can you wrinkle or torque the ether? How fast can you? It's really as simple as that. I mean if you want to put things simply in words that people could understand it. You will say what is C? Speed of light. Well it's the hysteresis of the ether. It's the rate of induction by which or the limit. And it's not really a limit. By which things can occur. Anything with a transverse component must suffer under C or the speed of light. In the case of scalar, there's no transverse component. So there is no therefore hysteresis. You can travel at any speed. Instantaneous action at a distance. That's this as opposed to this. Yeah. So what therefore then is the so-called speed of light? Which is not a speed at all. Well let's stick in layman's terms. What's the maximum speed at which you could wrinkle or perturb the fabric of the ether? The maximum rate of perturbation of the ether or wrinkling the ether is what we call C. Which is just the hysteresis of the ether. IE the rate of induction whereby which the maximum rate of induction whereby which the disturbance can occur. I think I simplified that. At least I hope I did. Anyway sorry I've been so busy this week. I've just been burning the candle at both ends. But I wanted to talk about the ether. And by the way there's countless thousands of theories of ether all throughout time. 99% of which of course are illogical nonsense. No shocker there. Anyway thank you so much for watching. I hope you have a great weekend.