*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Aether
« on: March 05, 2019, 12:54:31 PM »
Found this interesting little tidbit.

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[17]


So, may it be that the existence of ether is simply a misunderstanding of frame of reference?
BobLawBlah.

Re: Aether
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2019, 10:38:57 AM »
Ether = subquark waves (telluric currents)

Aether = medium through which these waves propagate

Subquark waves are transverse.

The subquark consists of some 14 billion bosons arranged in strings.

These bosons travel through the subquark waves as longitudinal waves.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2019, 11:33:46 AM »
Interesting. Thank you.

Do you have a source for that information that I can do further reading from?
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4075
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2019, 02:13:19 PM »
Ether = subquark waves (telluric currents)

Aether = medium through which these waves propagate

Subquark waves are transverse.

The subquark consists of some 14 billion bosons arranged in strings.

These bosons travel through the subquark waves as longitudinal waves.
Interesting.  Is there any direct experimental evidence of these subquarks or are they just hypothetical?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Aether
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2019, 02:55:37 PM »
You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)

pages 4 + 16 of my AFET
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 03:00:41 PM by sandokhan »

Mysfit

Re: Aether
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2019, 09:12:15 PM »
To save someone looking, theoretical.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Aether
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2019, 09:19:27 PM »
I think even Einstein called spacetime 'aether' at some point. It's a word, like 'atom,' atoms have little similarity to the Ancient Greek concept but there's no problem using it.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Mysfit

Re: Aether
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2019, 09:20:53 PM »
Wasn’t aether the 5th element or something? Earth, fire, water, air and Aether?

Re: Aether
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2019, 09:59:51 PM »
Wasn’t aether the 5th element or something? Earth, fire, water, air and Aether?

Yeah, something like that. I believe it was the Ptolemaic model where all the planets where surrounded by celestial crystal spheres made out of aether.
We are smarter than those scientists.
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4075
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2019, 12:29:23 AM »
I think even Einstein called spacetime 'aether' at some point. It's a word, like 'atom,' atoms have little similarity to the Ancient Greek concept but there's no problem using it.
As I recall, Einstein's concept of aether was as the medium of space-time.  However, as he worked on GR, he realized that aether wasn't necessary as a medium after all, so he dropped his support for it. 

I could be wrong, but even when he did support it, I don't recall that Einstein ever suggested that aether could flow or drift like some FE models would require.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Aether
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2019, 12:48:01 AM »
I think even Einstein called spacetime 'aether' at some point. It's a word, like 'atom,' atoms have little similarity to the Ancient Greek concept but there's no problem using it.
As I recall, Einstein's concept of aether was as the medium of space-time.  However, as he worked on GR, he realized that aether wasn't necessary as a medium after all, so he dropped his support for it. 

I could be wrong, but even when he did support it, I don't recall that Einstein ever suggested that aether could flow or drift like some FE models would require.
My understanding is that he just dropped the word. What he called aether was basically identical to spacetime.
It likely wouldn't be identical to any FE model, but what does that matter? What matters is the world, not one person's view.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2019, 02:01:46 PM »
Ether = subquark waves (telluric currents)

Aether = medium through which these waves propagate

Subquark waves are transverse.

The subquark consists of some 14 billion bosons arranged in strings.

These bosons travel through the subquark waves as longitudinal waves.

Hi sandokhan!

I am trying to understand telluric currents. Do you have any links to the formalism? In particular, I am seeking info for the following questions:

1. Regarding subquarks. Bosons have integer spin, hence so must subquarks. Do subquarks combine to form quarks? If so, how does a combination of bosons produce a fermion? 
2. As bosons arranged in a string. Does this mean a bound state with a vanishing angular momentum? What force describes the bound state?
3. Longitudinal waves comprised of boson strings implies to me a percussion. This further seems to indicate that a force is needed - one with restorative properties. Is this the case?

Any info you might provide (or link to) is much appreciated! I have some background in quantum theories, so these topics are of particular interest to me.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Aether
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2019, 03:32:23 PM »
Telluric currents = potential = scalar waves

One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century proved mathematically the existence of ether/longitudinal waves which give rise to the vector fields:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

Longitudinal boson strings within subquark waves, part I:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110

Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge) on the subquark waves within the atom, one of the best lectures:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Longitudinal boson strings within subquark waves, part II:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998179#msg1998179

Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.

The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.

Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.


A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.

A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.

Subquark atom:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2019, 06:12:35 PM »
Thanks man, I'll check these out!

I still don't quite understand how a boson can be a fermion. In the standard model, neutrino=fermion, not boson. A photon is a gauge boson, for certain, and acquires a non-zero mass whenever traveling through a medium. The statement that a neutrino is a photon is quite remarkable! Neutrinos have no gauge, so how can they transmit the electromagnetic force? I am familiar with right and left-handed neutrinos, but do not understand their relevance in the present discussion. Indeed, neutrino coupling constants are most distinct from photon interactions, hence their interaction in the higgs field would likewise be distinct and handled differently.

Anyway, these are just my initial reactions. I'm certain that the resources you provided will shed some light on these queries.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Aether
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2019, 07:12:12 PM »
You are using the terminology and concepts invented by the physicists who copied the original source of their information (bosons, neutrinos, antimatter, fractional charge of an electron, string theory and much more).

It is not the fermions you have to worry about, but the fact that Schroedinger had no idea what he was doing, having just invented in an ad-hoc manner a wave equation which explains nothing.

For his wave equation, a multi-dimensional space is required: uranium needs 276 multi-dimensions.

Both Fermi and Dirac copied their information from the Occult Chemistry, Pauli discovered the existence of the neutrino from the same pages.

Why in the world would you follow a classification of quantum particles issued forth by Einstein, who had no idea or knowledge of the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations?

Higgs copied the concepts of the boson and the Higgs field right from the first chapter of the Occult Chemistry. But he did not understand the notion of the boson as it was being described in that work.

Modern science has no idea what electrons are or how they function.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2019, 07:33:53 PM »
Its spelled Schrodinger without an E. If you add the E, you have a cat or maybe you don't have a cat.

The Occult Chemistry??? You mean the fraudulent book that supposedly detailed the structure of the atomic universe by using clairvoyance?

The same people who claimed to have found the element they name Occultium - that turned out to be fake? Ok, sure.

Where is your evidence that those 4 scientists ever read that piece of trash of pseudoscience?

Please stop the word vomiting.
BobLawBlah.

Re: Aether
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2019, 07:48:09 PM »
You mean the fraudulent book that supposedly detailed the structure of the atomic universe by using clairvoyance?

Let's put your word to the test.

Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.





"The processional motion (wobble) of hydrogen triangles was described in 1924 (The Theosophist, vol. 45) during a study of the hydroxyl group (atoms of hydrogen and oxygen bonded together) in the water molecule: It was said: "Each triangle rotates flat, and whilst rotating. sways a little up and down, as the lid of a pot rotates before it finally settles down" (Occult Chemistry, 3rd ed., p. 206). This is a description of Larmor precession, for the hydrogen triangles are protons endowed with a spin and a magnetic dipole moment (i.e., they are like a bar magnet, which aligns itself to a magnetic field). The remarkable significance of this is that Besant & Leadbeater described the spin precession of a proton in a magnetic field a year before George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit introduced the concept of 'electron spin,' which posits an intrinsic rotational angular momentum for this particle. The observation was made therefore before the proton was realised to possess a spin as well! Neither Besant & Leadbeater nor physicists could have known in 1924 that some electrically charged subatomic particles have an intrinsic spin that endows them with an intrinsic magnetic moment, causing them to wobble in a magnetic field. Here is clear and undeniable evidence of the objective nature of their micro-psi visions.

It was described earlier how the MPA of a second species of the inert gas neon with a number weight of 22.33 was described in 1908 by Besant & Leadbeater, about four years before the experimental physicist Francis Aston separated the neon-20 and neon-22 isotopes with his new mass spectrograph, although at the time he thought wrongly that he had discovered a new element. Aston, of course, got the scientific credit, winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1922. But, despite their error in assuming that they had paranormally observed atoms, Besant & Leadbeater were the first people to discover that neon had two forms, even publishing a number weight of 22.33 that was appropriate for the Ne-22 isotope."

Where is your evidence that those 4 scientists ever read that piece of trash of pseudoscience?




https://phys.org/news/2011-07-unseen.html

"The image on the left, above, provided by the RIKEN scientific research institute in Japan depicts the six quarks making up the H dibaryon. The three coloured spheres denote the three colour states of a quark, labelled red, green & blue.

The image on the right can be interpreted as the deuteron (the nucleus of the stable isotope of hydrogen), created prior to observation by the micro-psi selection of a hydrogen molecule, which resulted in its two protons fusing together to form a deuteron after one of them changed into a neutron."

Using Jülich's accelerator COSY, German researchers confirmed in 2011 the possibility of dibaryons by discovering strong evidence for the existence of a short-lived resonance composed of six quarks.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606102043.htm

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/deuterium.html

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."



Results for so-called "lattice QCD" calculations of the energy density of the flux tubes connecting three quarks were discussed in 2003 at the International Conference on Color Confinement and Hadrons in Quantum Chromodynamics. They are shown below. The Y-shaped profile of the colour-coded density contours of the flux lines with quarks at their ends is strikingly similar to a diagram of a hydrogen triplet that appears in the 1908 edition of Occult Chemistry, in which Y-shaped lines of force "of a magnetic nature" terminate on UPAs.

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/occult-chemistry-07.html



"One of the central and crucial observations made by Besant and Leadbeater was that a hydrogen atom was composed of 18 subatomic particles which they christened as ‘Ultimate physical atoms’ or UPAs. Likewise they reported that the atoms of other elements also comprised of identical types of UPAs whose numbers increased in multiples of 18. Note that much of all this was done well before Rutherfords discovery of the atomic  nucleus in 1911, in other words before the dawn of the ‘nuclear era’!. In the early 20s came the highly successful Bohr-Schrodinger model of the atom, according to which a hydrogen atom comprised of a single proton around which orbited a single electron.

During the mid 70's, a theoretical physicist from Cambridge University in England, by the name of Stephen Phillips who was carrying out PH.D. studies in 'particle physics' at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), came across a copy of a book titled the 'Physics of the secret doctrine' by Kingsland wherein there was a diagram of the hydrogen atom as seen and recorded by Besant and Leadbeater. Physicists will recall that in 1963 a breakthrough in understanding elementary particles and nuclear structure came about through the postulation of a class of subnuclear particles called 'Quarks' independently by Gell‑Mann and Zweig. When Phillips saw Besant's diagram of the hydrogen atom he was astounded beyond belief as he realized that these clairvoyants had given out the 'quark' and indeed the 'subquark' structure of the nucleus as early as in 1895!

Phillips was so fascinated and overwhelmed by the exhaustive studies of Besant and Leadbeater, that he immediately embarked on a detailed analysis and interpretation of their findings, culminating in the publication of his 250 page book titled 'Extra sensory perception of quarks' in 1980.

Early on during their 'micro‑psi' investiga­tions, Besant and Leadbeater observed that different specimens of the same element were composed of identical microscopic objects which they christened as 'Micro Psi Atoms' or MPAs. They presumed that MPAs were atoms of the particular element under study, in their normal state, undisturbed by the act of random selection and psychokinetic (PK) perturbation.

The MPAs of elements as they appeared to them during 'micro psi visualization' comprised of symmetrically arranged groups of particles or 'points of light’ bound together in such rapid complex orbital motion that they presented initially only a blurred unfocussed image. But with practice and using a'special form of will‑power' they could slow down their motion sufficiently enough to observe the details. Throughout the investigations Leadbeater specialized in the study of the geometrical arrangement of the constituents of the MPAs and in identifying and counting their number whilst Annie Besant examined the configuration of the 'lines of force' linking and holding together groups of particles. These investigators could tune the magnifying power of their micro‑psi vision over a wide range and thereby resolve the images of particles into clusters of 'points of light', each of which were discerned to be discrete three dimensional objects. As the structure and configuration of each of these ultimate objects were identical, independent of the element under study, they surmised that these were the fundamental building blocks of all matter, and called them as 'Ultimate Physical Atoms’ or UPAs.

At this point it is worth clearly distinguish­ing between MPAs and UPAs. Besant and Leadbeater presumably identified MPAs with 'What physicists now refer to as the 'nucleus' of the atom, although in 1895 when they first commenced their investigations Rutherford had not yet discovered the atomic nucleus. There were as many MPAs as there are elements. UPAs on the other hand are the sub nuclear particles of which all nuclear matter is made of. As observed by Besant and Leadbeater there is essentially only one type of UPA, but this occurs either as a 'male' (or positive) version or a 'female' (or negative) version, which are mirror images of each other.

The clairvoyant investigators found that the MPAs of different elements had different shapes. Interestingly, barring a few exceptions, the shape of an MPA was correlated with the position of the element in the 'periodic table' of elements. (The reader may refer to any elementary text book on atomic physics or physical chemistry to know more about the Periodic Table of Elements if they wish). Thus the MPAs of all elements belonging to a particular group of the periodic table and consequently possessing similar chemical properties have similar shapes. The seven shapes into which the MPAs were categorised are titled by them as: 'spike', 'dumb‑bell', 'tetrahedron', 'cube', 'octahedron', 'bar' and 'star'. The geometrical symmetry of the MPAs simplified Leadbeater's task of counting the number of UPAs in an MPA, considering that the heavier elements had several thousands of UPAs in their MPAs. By 1907 when the first edition of 'Occult chemistry' was published Besant and Leadbeater had examined nearly 60 elements and altogether by the end of their monumental research work spanning 38 years they had recorded for posterity the details of 111 MPAs.

As already mentioned Besant and Leadbeater counted 18 UPA particles in the Micro Physical Atoms (MPA) of Hydrogen gas. A striking feature of their observations was that the number of UPAs increased approximately in multiples of 18 as the atomic weight of the element increased. By the turn of the last century science had progressed sufficiently enough that the atomic weights of most of the elements of the periodic table had been determined on a scale normalized to unity for hydrogen. When Besant and Leadbeater found that for several elements the number of UPAs in an MPA was an integral multiple of 18, they divided the number of UPAs counted by them by 18 to obtain an estimate of the 'atomic weight' of the elements. The 1919 edition of 'Occult chemistry' compares the micro‑psi atomic weight so obtained (specified to the second decimal place!) with the scientific atomic weight, and points out the remarkable agreement between the two.

Besant and Leadbeater began studying the atoms of elements systematically in increasing order of atomic weight starting from Hydrogen. When they reached neon (element no. 10) they were rather puzzled to observe that there were two varieties of neon MPAs having slightly different number of UPAs each, namely 360 and 402. They called these as Neon and 'Meta‑Neon' and recorded their micro‑psi atomic weights as 20.00 and 22.33 by dividing the number of UPAs in the MPA by 18. Similar behaviour was noted in the MPAs of Argon, Krypton, Xenon and even Platinum.

The scientifically minded readers may have guessed by now that Besant and Leadbeater had essentially stumbled upon the phenomenon referred to by atomic science as 'isotopes', five years before Aston's discovery of the same in 1912 using his newly invented instrument known as mass spec­trograph!

From the observed shapes of the MPAs and deduced micro‑psi atomic weights, these investigators were able to place the element under study properly in the periodic table of elements. In most cases, when the identity of the element was known to them already, the above method confirmed that their observations were accurate. In a few cases however the elements they investigated were not listed in the periodic table and in fact there were unfilled gaps in the table in the relevant locations. Thus these clairvoyant researchers accidentally discovered five elements which were unknown to science at the time of their work. These elements which have since been identified by science are: Promethium ('Illenium'), Astatine ('element no 85'), Fran­cium ('element no 87), Protoactinium ('element no 91') and Technetium ('Masuroium'). The names in brackets are the names assigned by Besant and Leadbeater in their original publication. It is thus obvious that these clairvoyants were surprisingly accurate in their estimates of atomic weights and the proper Placement of the elements studied, in the periodic chart."

Occultium = Tritium

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2019, 08:52:12 PM »
Yeah, except Leadbeater, et al stole their diagrams from Babbitt.  Its a load of hogwash.

http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/occult_chemistry/
BobLawBlah.

Re: Aether
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2019, 08:40:45 AM »
E. Babbitt, Principles of Light and Colour:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/3277374/The-Principles-of-Light-and-Color-by-Edwin-D-Babbitt-1878

This is the work that physicists should be studying, and not the false information spread by Rutherford, Bohr and Heisenberg.

OCCULT CHEMISTRY, the best treatise on quantum mechanics ever written:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm

The first chapter, The Nature of Matter, was copied by each and every famous quantum physicist: you will find the Higgs boson/field, antimatter, string theory, quark theory, and much more.

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm

All of us have this ability, manifested in dreams, to view quantum particles; it is only that the researchers in field listed here have managed to display this aptitude during the day also.

The subquark, E. Babbitt:



Both the authors of the Occult Chemistry and Babbitt saw the same particle.

The subquark, Leadbeater and Besant:



There are researchers who were able to view the boson itself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774536#msg1774536

ESP OF QUARKS AND STRINGS, Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge):

https://archive.org/details/ExtraSensoryPerceptionOfQuarks


https://esotericscience.org/article5a.htm

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science.

Mysfit

Re: Aether
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2019, 09:48:40 AM »
Honestly was not expecting this discussion of Aether to lead to the occult. Straight-up magic.
More fool me, I guess.