1. EM waves don't need a medium to propagate.
2. Glad we agree on ether.
3. I'm not a quantum fanboi, just FYI in case you were thinking that. Dewey Larson is my physics guy.
4. "There's no math in...
You're openly agreeing on the existence of an aether yet deny its requirement for wave propagandation. It's contradictory. How else do waves propagate? How is "entanglement" explained in this context? You're not falsifying the statement nor are you providing an alternative explanation, even though we agree on the existence of the basis.
Ratios and pressure mediation have exactly ZERO to do with math. Math is a system invented by humans to explain ratio and pressure modalities. Ratios and mediation of pressure existed before the math used to describe them was invented. Math explains nothing, it simply describes it, definitionally. You're putting the cart before the horse.
You don't need to be up to date on the latest science. Their framework is wrong, and unless they recognise that, it's just mental masturbation for funding and accolades. It's a waste of time examining the merits of their theories when the basis is foundationally incorrect. Just look at them being in awe of the ineptitude of their understanding of the dual slit problem.
By conceding point 5, you're agreeing with my entire premise while still being in opposition to it at the same time.
Regarding the right hand rule, wow. It doesn't matter that you don't understand why it works, just that it does, and you don't see the benefit of understanding it? Really? I mean its fine if you want to build stuff using that as a basis, but ridiculous if you want to form an understanding of reality itself.
One cannot understand anything if the terms they use are not clearly defined.
The dielectric field is inertia and acceleration, pure energy at rest, ground or indeed counterspace.
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 fieldwith different expressions.
That's why 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 they are different modalities of the same field.
Light is a perturbation modality of the aether. A disturbance in 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). A wave requiring a medium.
Particles are just quantised observations of wave phenomena and nothing more.
Waters specific geometry is what makes it unique, its atomic structure is secondary to this fact. You're incorrectly understanding the hierarchy of nature here, for the chemical composition is secondary to the structure.
Of course everything has a magnetic signature, I already explained that magnetism is what gives rise to the physical. So we're in alignment there at least partially.
On water, in fact what I said is observably true. I made a positive claim based on observation that no other molecule encodes phi 3 times. you can reject it because you don't like it, but you're not presenting anything to refute it other than you don't like what I said. The burden isn't on me to survey the universe to satisfy your dismissal of my observation.
Nothing is conscious or alive without water as the substrate. Not ever observed or demonstrated in history. Yet things come to life when you add water, like sprouting a seed. Wouldn't it logically follow then? Of course it does, because there are no exceptions to this claim.
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. 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 a paradoxical mess.
They spiral in Phi because that is the ONLY ratio that exists for perfect symmetrical nesting and expression without destroying itself. Not some evolutionary step, it is geometrically necessary. Literally everything is phi expressing itself from the One and structured through magnetism. It's only conscious if it has a water component to it. It's alive when the fields are in coherence. It gets sick when the field is disrupted and cease to exist when the field is completely decohererent. It can no longer tune the signal.
I have a copy of stalking the wild pendulum. Bentov doesn't cover most of what I'm taking about here, and he doesn't present any foundational coherent framework for reality, even though what he does talk about is interesting.
My understanding is simple enough it can be summed up one sentence. Life is the expression of the One through Phi and pressure mediation.
What exactly is your model? Mean, the IG video really didn't merit much discussion because it was just a mish-mash of nothing substantive.
If you found something others have missed and you understand it, it shouldn't take more than a few paragraphs to explain. Religions are just reinterpretation of older wisdom wrapped up in political dogma, but there are fundamental truths that many or most of them carry, yet they still manage to warp the fundamental wisdom and truths enough so that nothing is really understood at all. Probably by design.
Ratios and pressure mediation have exactly ZERO to do with math. Math is a system invented by humans to explain ratio and pressure modalities. Ratios and mediation of pressure existed before the math used to describe them was invented. Math explains nothing, it simply describes it, definitionally. You're putting the cart before the horse.
You don't need to be up to date on the latest science. Their framework is wrong, and unless they recognise that, it's just mental masturbation for funding and accolades. It's a waste of time examining the merits of their theories when the basis is foundationally incorrect. Just look at them being in awe of the ineptitude of their understanding of the dual slit problem.
By conceding point 5, you're agreeing with my entire premise while still being in opposition to it at the same time.
Regarding the right hand rule, wow. It doesn't matter that you don't understand why it works, just that it does, and you don't see the benefit of understanding it? Really? I mean its fine if you want to build stuff using that as a basis, but ridiculous if you want to form an understanding of reality itself.
One cannot understand anything if the terms they use are not clearly defined.
The dielectric field is inertia and acceleration, pure energy at rest, ground or indeed counterspace.
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 fieldwith different expressions.
That's why 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 they are different modalities of the same field.
Light is a perturbation modality of the aether. A disturbance in 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). A wave requiring a medium.
Particles are just quantised observations of wave phenomena and nothing more.
Waters specific geometry is what makes it unique, its atomic structure is secondary to this fact. You're incorrectly understanding the hierarchy of nature here, for the chemical composition is secondary to the structure.
Of course everything has a magnetic signature, I already explained that magnetism is what gives rise to the physical. So we're in alignment there at least partially.
On water, in fact what I said is observably true. I made a positive claim based on observation that no other molecule encodes phi 3 times. you can reject it because you don't like it, but you're not presenting anything to refute it other than you don't like what I said. The burden isn't on me to survey the universe to satisfy your dismissal of my observation.
Nothing is conscious or alive without water as the substrate. Not ever observed or demonstrated in history. Yet things come to life when you add water, like sprouting a seed. Wouldn't it logically follow then? Of course it does, because there are no exceptions to this claim.
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. 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 a paradoxical mess.
They spiral in Phi because that is the ONLY ratio that exists for perfect symmetrical nesting and expression without destroying itself. Not some evolutionary step, it is geometrically necessary. Literally everything is phi expressing itself from the One and structured through magnetism. It's only conscious if it has a water component to it. It's alive when the fields are in coherence. It gets sick when the field is disrupted and cease to exist when the field is completely decohererent. It can no longer tune the signal.
I have a copy of stalking the wild pendulum. Bentov doesn't cover most of what I'm taking about here, and he doesn't present any foundational coherent framework for reality, even though what he does talk about is interesting.
My understanding is simple enough it can be summed up one sentence. Life is the expression of the One through Phi and pressure mediation.
What exactly is your model? Mean, the IG video really didn't merit much discussion because it was just a mish-mash of nothing substantive.
If you found something others have missed and you understand it, it shouldn't take more than a few paragraphs to explain. Religions are just reinterpretation of older wisdom wrapped up in political dogma, but there are fundamental truths that many or most of them carry, yet they still manage to warp the fundamental wisdom and truths enough so that nothing is really understood at all. Probably by design.
1