You know, I took the effort of going point by point in an organized manner, also providing exact quotes and responding to them.
This format is incredibly burdensome. I tried to make it easier on you ...
So to restate what I said previously. I'll try be more brief while being specific.
1. Right, the aether is what connects the immaterial to the material. There is no 'nothing', it just isn't expressed into physical form which in the default state of rest. Different explanation of the same concept. But you're still not explaining how waves propagate without a medium. Waves are immaterial, they are actions, not things.
2. Ratios and pressure mediation have exactly nothing to do with math. They precede it.
4. You don't need to be up to date on the latest science because the framework is fundamentally flawed. It's a waste of time.
5. The concession here means you're agreeing with my premise while still being in opposition to it at the same time.
6/7. If we don't understand the mechanism of why the RHR works, then you can't use it to assert your understanding of reality just because you don't care why it works.
8. Waters specific geometry is what makes it unique, its atomic structure is secondary to this fact. You're reversing the hierarchy of nature here, for the chemical composition is secondary to the structure.
9. Counterspace is what Bentov called protospace. It's the ground state, the state of pure inertia, the state of rest, the default medium.
10. If you're teaching Fibonacci and you think leaves spiral because its optimal for photosynthesis I respectfully think you have it backwards. This would suggest that nature tried every other ratio before finally settling on the one that works. Not only leaves, but everything that is natural, would have to work through an evolutionary process in order to find the right one. It's illogical. It all follows the same ratio because it has to.
11. Nothing is alive without water, fact. Provide a better thesis if you disagree.
12. 'Mystical crap' was in reference to the video, not anything you said.
Now, on Bentov.
His work is largely nothing new, it is all recycled from ancient sources:
A. The holographic universe, Plotinus described holography via Emanationism millennia ago.
B. Consciousness is fundamental - nothing new. This is in the Upanishads.
C. The brain is an amplifier - again, from Plotinus.
D. Vibration and oscillation is rooted in the Pythagoreans.
E. Protospace - the Monad, counterspace. Ancient.
His explanation for entanglement is rooted in a medium. It's the same thing I am saying with different terminology that precedes his work. What I can't wrap my head around is you're referring to Bentov, who I have never seen deny the need for a medium for wave propagation, who largely talks about the same things I am saying (beyond the other things such as his Kundalini-related measurements), and you're still denying the fact that waves need a medium to propagate.
Asserting that "Everything is conscious. Pantheism is valid" is just that. It doesn't serve to explain how you arrived at that conclusion, it is just an assertion. How are you defining consciousness then, because I can tell you now, this table and these rocks are definitely not conscious.
Collating 250 pages of derivative bullshit is still bullshit, if it is not rooted in logic with substantive explanatory power. Now I'm not saying it IS bullshit because I still don't understand the basis of your proposition. I asked for a thesis of your model, you got defensive. I'm not going to sit and read pages and pages of stuff if I can't get a basic, coherent summary of what those pages entail so I can decide if it is worth even paying any attention to.
So what does your framework propose?
These aren't my ideas I'm espousing nor are they anything new, so I'm not taking credit for anything. The metaphysical basis is Neoplatonism and Emanationism. That is the root of this philosophy. The physics is extrapolated to the work of Thomson, Steinmetz, Tesla, Faraday, Schauberger, Dollard off the top of my head. The biophysics maps to the work of O. Becker and Kruse, they just explain it through the more mainstream lens but it tracks throughout.
My definitions:
Aether - pure energy at rest, ground, counterspace, "protospace"
The dielectric field is inertia and acceleration, the primary field modality of the aether.
Magnetism is the terminating point of the dielectric field, expressed as a torus. It is force and motion.
The magnetic field is composed of two opposing vortices, one which expands centrifugally to create space (magnetic) and the other that compresses to destroy space (dielectric). But these are not separate, they are two components of the same field as different expressions/modalities.
When you break a magnet, the geometry stays the same. You cannot have one "pole" (the inverse of counterspace) without the other. They can only exist together because the one in the same in a different state.
Light is another modality of the aether. A ripple in the water analogously. Its speed is more accurately described as the induction rate of the aether medium, and that rate of induction (the speed limit) depends on the density of the medium (hey, look, pressure mediation doing its thing).
Particles - quantised observations of wave phenomena and nothing more.
1. Right, the aether is what connects the immaterial to the material. There is no 'nothing', it just isn't expressed into physical form which in the default state of rest. Different explanation of the same concept. But you're still not explaining how waves propagate without a medium. Waves are immaterial, they are actions, not things.
2. Ratios and pressure mediation have exactly nothing to do with math. They precede it.
4. You don't need to be up to date on the latest science because the framework is fundamentally flawed. It's a waste of time.
5. The concession here means you're agreeing with my premise while still being in opposition to it at the same time.
6/7. If we don't understand the mechanism of why the RHR works, then you can't use it to assert your understanding of reality just because you don't care why it works.
8. Waters specific geometry is what makes it unique, its atomic structure is secondary to this fact. You're reversing the hierarchy of nature here, for the chemical composition is secondary to the structure.
9. Counterspace is what Bentov called protospace. It's the ground state, the state of pure inertia, the state of rest, the default medium.
10. If you're teaching Fibonacci and you think leaves spiral because its optimal for photosynthesis I respectfully think you have it backwards. This would suggest that nature tried every other ratio before finally settling on the one that works. Not only leaves, but everything that is natural, would have to work through an evolutionary process in order to find the right one. It's illogical. It all follows the same ratio because it has to.
11. Nothing is alive without water, fact. Provide a better thesis if you disagree.
12. 'Mystical crap' was in reference to the video, not anything you said.
Now, on Bentov.
His work is largely nothing new, it is all recycled from ancient sources:
A. The holographic universe, Plotinus described holography via Emanationism millennia ago.
B. Consciousness is fundamental - nothing new. This is in the Upanishads.
C. The brain is an amplifier - again, from Plotinus.
D. Vibration and oscillation is rooted in the Pythagoreans.
E. Protospace - the Monad, counterspace. Ancient.
His explanation for entanglement is rooted in a medium. It's the same thing I am saying with different terminology that precedes his work. What I can't wrap my head around is you're referring to Bentov, who I have never seen deny the need for a medium for wave propagation, who largely talks about the same things I am saying (beyond the other things such as his Kundalini-related measurements), and you're still denying the fact that waves need a medium to propagate.
Asserting that "Everything is conscious. Pantheism is valid" is just that. It doesn't serve to explain how you arrived at that conclusion, it is just an assertion. How are you defining consciousness then, because I can tell you now, this table and these rocks are definitely not conscious.
Collating 250 pages of derivative bullshit is still bullshit, if it is not rooted in logic with substantive explanatory power. Now I'm not saying it IS bullshit because I still don't understand the basis of your proposition. I asked for a thesis of your model, you got defensive. I'm not going to sit and read pages and pages of stuff if I can't get a basic, coherent summary of what those pages entail so I can decide if it is worth even paying any attention to.
So what does your framework propose?
These aren't my ideas I'm espousing nor are they anything new, so I'm not taking credit for anything. The metaphysical basis is Neoplatonism and Emanationism. That is the root of this philosophy. The physics is extrapolated to the work of Thomson, Steinmetz, Tesla, Faraday, Schauberger, Dollard off the top of my head. The biophysics maps to the work of O. Becker and Kruse, they just explain it through the more mainstream lens but it tracks throughout.
My definitions:
Aether - pure energy at rest, ground, counterspace, "protospace"
The dielectric field is inertia and acceleration, the primary field modality of the aether.
Magnetism is the terminating point of the dielectric field, expressed as a torus. It is force and motion.
The magnetic field is composed of two opposing vortices, one which expands centrifugally to create space (magnetic) and the other that compresses to destroy space (dielectric). But these are not separate, they are two components of the same field as different expressions/modalities.
When you break a magnet, the geometry stays the same. You cannot have one "pole" (the inverse of counterspace) without the other. They can only exist together because the one in the same in a different state.
Light is another modality of the aether. A ripple in the water analogously. Its speed is more accurately described as the induction rate of the aether medium, and that rate of induction (the speed limit) depends on the density of the medium (hey, look, pressure mediation doing its thing).
Particles - quantised observations of wave phenomena and nothing more.
1