ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[Aaron]

counterspace and a flawed conventional premise

There are hundreds of brilliant minds that have gone over these conventional theories. Now that doesn't make it perfect, but you should at least point out a flaw before you try to fix it.

On counterspace. What I have learned so far:
- it is space without ether and there for it does not exist.
- its closest approximation can be found in very cold/empty and remote regions in space.
- it can not hold anything and nothing can pass through it, therefor nothing can go into or come out of counterspace.
- the empty and remote regions in space (with a very low ether density) would make it impossible to see stars that are behind them (light is bent around these regions distorting and blurring the image of the star)
- according to the 'counterspace theory' the Lorentz contraction caused by gravitation applies to all directions not just the direction of acceleration/force

I do not yet see how this could explain anything about magnetism, but I await Ufopolitics explanation.


Ernst.

PS: To our lil'bro': I believe you are still trying to put words in my mouth, but now you are more than 3 doors down I can not hear your tiny voice anymore.

You're talking about people looking at conventional theories that have their own foundation based on flawed fundamentals. Basic equations for work, etc. work just fine for most of what people need to calculate and because they do work for most practical things, it gives a very false illusion that they are somehow correct - that is a common human trait, but it is psychologically defective at face value.

mgh (mass x gravity x height) is used to determine the potential energy in an object of a certain weight at a certain height. In the popular conventional model, the context that is used it to show how much potential energy is claimed to be stored in the object as it was lifted to that height. Because this equation does indeed properly show how much energy will be demonstrated by the object once it is released back to the ground in heat, etc. it is believed that potential was indeed stored in the object as it was lifted to that height. The equation gives the right answer as to how much energy will be dissipated on impact so the equation does work for practical use, but the premise for the belief of where that potential resides is completely false and this is an example that applies to those "brilliant minds" that have been over the conventional theories you're talking about.

100% of all the energy used to lift the object is 100% gone at the peak of the lift and is dissipated right back to the environment. Nothing is stored in the object and the what the input work did was create a new potential difference between the object and the ground. When the object is released, energy will be dissipated when the object hits the ground. None of that potential came from the energy input, it came from gravity. How can you store potential energy when you just used it all up when lifting the object? You can't - and the premise that is broken, which needs to be FIXED is exactly what is explained above. 1 unit of energy in the lift and we get 1 unit of energy as a freebie from gravitational potential and it is indisputably measurable as a total of 2 units of work and we input 1.

The Einsteinian garbage paradigm wants to make the energy and potential energy intrinsic to the object and magically storing potential energy in an object when potential energy cannot be stored to begin with shows that the "brilliant" minds reviewing the conventional theories are the real crackpots who believe in magically storing potential and disbelieving that gravity is a source of energy. Conventional theory falls flat on its face and does not explain where the energy comes from when the object is dropped. Again, it did not come from lifting the object because that energy was used up to lift the object - common sense.

Sorry, but the conventional theories do not cut it and are wrong in their very foundation and what is being proposed to you does not make sense to you as you said because you are appear to be committed to the same flawed premise as these "brilliant minds".

Furthermore, you are simply unwilling or incapable of allowing yourself to listen to anything I have said and are only talking in circles. Counterspace is not an area void of the aether - we have already determined that Eric's use of counterspace does not mean that and I have already stated that I should refer to that as a void or as a true vacuum, but not counterspace even though it is the inverse of space, literally.

Your multiple bulletpoints show that you have taken what I have said and simply made it mean what you want it to mean disregarding everything said about it thus far making it look like what I have defined is counterspace when it is not. Again, I have already conceded that my original use of counterspace terminology is not what Eric is using, you even pointed that out and your bulletpoints also throw out what Eric said counterspace is. This is looking more like planned confusion than a conversation.

[dR-Green]

The Einsteinian garbage paradigm wants to make the energy and potential energy intrinsic to the object and magically storing potential energy in an object when potential energy cannot be stored to begin with shows that the "brilliant" minds reviewing the conventional theories are the real crackpots who believe in magically storing potential and disbelieving that gravity is a source of energy. Conventional theory falls flat on its face and does not explain where the energy comes from when the object is dropped. Again, it did not come from lifting the object because that energy was used up to lift the object - common sense.

Tesla's view on Einstein's theory is that it's like saying you can derive extra (free) energy from something simply through allowing an object to fall at a greater velocity than you lifted it.

[BroMikey]

You're talking about people looking at conventional theories that have their own foundation based on flawed fundamentals.

it is believed that potential was indeed stored in the object as it was lifted to that height. The equation gives the right answer ..................


100% of all the energy used to lift the object is 100% gone at the peak of the lift and is dissipated right back to the environment.


Nothing is stored in the object .................................

You can't - and the premise that is broken, which needs to be FIXED


The Einsteinian garbage paradigm................................
conventional theories are the real crackpots who believe in magically storing potential and disbelieving that gravity is a source of energy.


Conventional theory falls flat on its face and does not explain where the energy comes from when the object is dropped. common sense.

Sorry, but the conventional theories do not cut it and are ................... committed to the same flawed premise as these "brilliant minds".

Furthermore, you are simply unwilling or incapable of allowing yourself to listen to anything I have said and are only talking in circles.

Counterspace is not an area void of the aether .......................


Your multiple bulletpoints show that you have taken what I have said and simply made it mean what you want it to mean .................................................. ..and your bulletpoints also throw out what Eric said counterspace is. This is looking more like planned confusion than a conversation.

Yes Aaron what you have said simple

A child in 6th grade can grasp this. I am always thrilled
when i see the good stuff(Sane thinking) being reviewed with
a vengeance. I'm on this side of common sense also.

The entries you make clear up so many episodes where in class
everyone is looking around and asking each other
"DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE"??

But it makes sense now. And if the smallest foundational cause
and effect doctrines are nothing more than "TEACHER TOLD ME"
then what does that say about our ability to reason???

You are the star of this website Sir.

[Aaron]

counterspace

Yes Aaron what you have said simple

I'm completely fine with Ernst disagreeing with what I said, but his response to me with the bulletpoints is literally changing the history of what has been said here and I find that dishonest.

Anyway, on the subject of counterspace, I'm taking a break right now while Eric Dollard sets up the next step for the video, which is a comparison between the transverse network and longitudinal (counterspace) network. Right now, we're not going much into his definition of counterspace, just that the longitudinal "high-pass" network is the counterspace network.

I'll try to get a conversation on counterspace definition according to Eric, but dR_Green pretty much already said it in his post.

[ldrancer]

(Quote:
"You talk about counterspace like as if though its a field. if something does something then counterspace will come in and take over."

Counterspace doesn't just "come in"...it don't take over nothing...it is "Inwards" instead of "Outwards".)


Inwards is a field. A concept. in to what? there has to be something holding this field you speak of that it is in that it goes from not being in to going into. Your speaking of a field and a field isnt a physical object. It's a concept. Come in and Inwards are the same thing.

[BroMikey]

I'm completely fine with Ernst disagreeing with what I said, but his response to me with the bulletpoints is literally changing the history of what has been said here and I find that dishonest.

I'll try to get a conversation on counterspace definition according to Eric, but dR_Green pretty much already said it in his post.

Hey Aaron
Yes I know that Green is cool, had to check him out. He is a smart man
as for the rest of your post about the other guy, I'll have to say you pretty
much hit the nail, planned disruptions.

I really am looking forward to the kindness you spoke about where
you and Eric are going out of your way to help these drowning souls
get their heads above water. That's what it is like you know? I am
pressed to assimilate much of these well thought out conclusion
while at the same time raking up all of the trash drilled into me
from dogma central.

It is much appreciated. Tell Eric I said thank you for his continued
instructions. Many of us are learning more than we ever thought
possible. You have given yourself to this work many years and
had great instructors. This is why I can understand everything you
say as you have had enough experience delivering the message.

It's all up hill, but you will reap many rewards. Your time to excel
is here.

[Ernst]

Aaron, you are trying to explain, I am trying to understand. When this does not work as expected, don't just blame the other guy.
This is a difficult subject already, so let us try to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. Do not mix in theories of others (or yourself) and just stick with one theory that should help us understand the phenomena here discussed.
Does everyone agree that this one definition should be Eric Dollard's definition?
I already mentioned some things that I think I understand from his definition.
- it is closely related to density, but not the same
- it is measured in 'per meter'
I also drew the parallel with time, and that with a specific reason namely:
Time is measured in seconds, then countertime would be measured in 'per second' which is Hz. So countertime = frequency. This gives us a means to understand what counterspace would look like.
If I can do 1 page of homework per hour, then how many pages can I do in 50 Hz?
It is easy to see that this question can not be answered because we do not have a time frame.
The space parallel would be how many litre of water can I pour into a counterspace of 50 /m? This question can not be answered because there is nothing to hold the water, it is like how many litre can I pour into 50 Volt? So counterspace does not have a spatial quality, therefor nothing can go into, come out of or exist in counterspace.
This is my understanding of Eric's counterspace.

Back to Aaron, I remember we have already discussed that potential energy misunderstanding that you have. You can not, or do not wish to grasp the concept of potential energy. That is perfectly fine but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with the conventional understanding of potential energy, there is something wrong with your understanding of it. It reminds me of your mention of gravity being the result of ether pressure. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read that you compare it to a bowling ball submerged in water. The displaced water creates a pressure on the ball and this you compare to gravitation. In Lord Kelvin's estimate water is about 18 orders of magnitude (one billion squared) denser than ether. So the water should create a gravitational force that is the same factor larger than ether does. Yet if I submerge a second bowling ball near the first, they do not attract each other perceptibly.

@dR-Green, I have read some of Walter Russel's work and it contains a number of beautiful statements. Like this: "if north would attract south, why are they at opposing far ends of a magnet". These statements make you think, they are not necessarily true, but they force you to re-think your thoughts/understanding about magnets. That makes his work interesting. I will definitely spend some time on his work after my Tesla-free-energy project is completed.
When talking about a capacitor, I think it is helpful to temporarily forget the term capacitance and just look at voltage and charge. If I put charge on a capacitor, these charges (+ and -) 'want' to combine, but there is an insulator preventing this. We have learned to look at the charges when you talk about electricity, but that is only half the picture. If the charges could combine there would be no voltage, so the voltage appears as soon as the charges are NOT allowed to combine by inserting an insulator.
So the voltage is created by the insulator and not by the charges. And indeed more insulator between the charges gives you a higher voltage which translates to a smaller capacitance. Look at Jim Murray's video that I mentioned earlier in this thread, he says something very similar! (though not talking about capacitors, but EMF)
Not to contradict, but to complete your Einstein-free-enegry:
lifting an object to a height h takes m.g.h Joules of energy
dropping it this potential energy is converted into mvē/2
But that is not all, due to the velocity v also the mass m increases and that increase times vē/2 is extra energy that was not present in the system at the start of the experiment.
I have long sought holes in Einstein's theory and I too believe I have found a few, but this one is a real gem!


Ernst.

[Dog-One]

RS2 Theory

Ernst,

Take a quick peek at this video, just this first one, but you can go further if you would like. I think it will help everyone understand the concept of counterspace a little better.

RS2 Lecture 01, Part 01 | Reciprocal System v2

And also Ernst, can you explain to me why when I reduce the distance between the plates of a capacitor, I acquire a larger capacitance. Based on what you say, I should get more capacitance when I stuff in more dielectric insulation, but I don't, I get less capacitance. I've read a lot of books hoping to figure out why capacitors work this way and all they will tell me is they just do. Zero logical explanation as to why. Clearly THEY don't know or won't tell me. Again, I ask why? What is the big freaking secret? Keys to the universe maybe...?

[BroMikey]

Ernst,

Take a quick peek at this video, mostly just the beginning, but you can go further if you would like. I think it will help everyone understand some of this a little better.

RS2 Lecture 01, Part 01 | Reciprocal System v2

Thanks Dog-one but I have a problem hearing those guys over the air
noise and the other guy in the back ground sounds like he is mumbling.
It is a nice gesture pointing out instructors on any subject. For that
Thanks again.

Sorry I guess I am hard of hearing, so I can't follow the content, plus
these guys are very poor instructors.

If you could get the gist of that program, please give us a brief over
view of the content, maybe then I can go back and make sense.

Maybe I didn't catch the intro where these guys tell you what their
focus is on?

I see the formula's and the guy standing in front of the caulk board
can be heard fairly well except when he asks the other guy sitting
down a question concerning their very involved mathematic theory.

It's a shame I can't understand the other guy at all so I am only getting
half of the reasoning.

I found their site thanks to you.

https://www.rocscience.com/help/phas...y_Overview.htm


Introduction | Reciprocal System v2



Reciprocal System v2 | The Reevaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory



It is not meant to replace Larson's work


Dewey B. Larson, Universe of Motion, 1984

[Aaron]

energy and potential energy

Aaron, you are trying to explain, I am trying to understand. When this does not work as expected, don't just blame the other guy.
This is a difficult subject already, so let us try to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. Do not mix in theories of others (or yourself) and just stick with one theory that should help us understand the phenomena here discussed.
Does everyone agree that this one definition should be Eric Dollard's definition?
I already mentioned some things that I think I understand from his definition.
- it is closely related to density, but not the same
- it is measured in 'per meter'
I also drew the parallel with time, and that with a specific reason namely:
Time is measured in seconds, then countertime would be measured in 'per second' which is Hz. So countertime = frequency. This gives us a means to understand what counterspace would look like.
If I can do 1 page of homework per hour, then how many pages can I do in 50 Hz?
It is easy to see that this question can not be answered because we do not have a time frame.
The space parallel would be how many litre of water can I pour into a counterspace of 50 /m? This question can not be answered because there is nothing to hold the water, it is like how many litre can I pour into 50 Volt? So counterspace does not have a spatial quality, therefor nothing can go into, come out of or exist in counterspace.
This is my understanding of Eric's counterspace.

Back to Aaron, I remember we have already discussed that potential energy misunderstanding that you have. You can not, or do not wish to grasp the concept of potential energy. That is perfectly fine but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with the conventional understanding of potential energy, there is something wrong with your understanding of it. It reminds me of your mention of gravity being the result of ether pressure. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read that you compare it to a bowling ball submerged in water. The displaced water creates a pressure on the ball and this you compare to gravitation. In Lord Kelvin's estimate water is about 18 orders of magnitude (one billion squared) denser than ether. So the water should create a gravitational force that is the same factor larger than ether does. Yet if I submerge a second bowling ball near the first, they do not attract each other perceptibly.

@dR-Green, I have read some of Walter Russel's work and it contains a number of beautiful statements. Like this: "if north would attract south, why are they at opposing far ends of a magnet". These statements make you think, they are not necessarily true, but they force you to re-think your thoughts/understanding about magnets. That makes his work interesting. I will definitely spend some time on his work after my Tesla-free-energy project is completed.
When talking about a capacitor, I think it is helpful to temporarily forget the term capacitance and just look at voltage and charge. If I put charge on a capacitor, these charges (+ and -) 'want' to combine, but there is an insulator preventing this. We have learned to look at the charges when you talk about electricity, but that is only half the picture. If the charges could combine there would be no voltage, so the voltage appears as soon as the charges are NOT allowed to combine by inserting an insulator.
So the voltage is created by the insulator and not by the charges. And indeed more insulator between the charges gives you a higher voltage which translates to a smaller capacitance. Look at Jim Murray's video that I mentioned earlier in this thread, he says something very similar! (though not talking about capacitors, but EMF)
Not to contradict, but to complete your Einstein-free-enegry:
lifting an object to a height h takes m.g.h Joules of energy
dropping it this potential energy is converted into mvē/2
But that is not all, due to the velocity v also the mass m increases and that increase times vē/2 is extra energy that was not present in the system at the start of the experiment.
I have long sought holes in Einstein's theory and I too believe I have found a few, but this one is a real gem!


Ernst.

It is clear that my original mention of counterspace is not the same use as Eric's and I already stated I should use another term to avoid confusion and you bring up what is learned about counterspace by posting definitions that I used to describe something that is clearly not counterspace, then you are the one that took what I said completely out of context - you're the only one responsible - not that I'm blaming anyone, but you used that word so in that respect, you're the only one to blame for taking what anyone says out of context.

You have already stated you believe x, y and z coordinates are dimensions. You actually offer no substance in your opposition to the ideas that spatial coordinates are not dimensions, nor do you offer substance in respect to other subjects here, you simply maintain they're wrong and conventional theory is correct and you believe the conventional theory. That isn't a conversation, you're just parroting what you already believe.

The understanding of potential energy and energy evades conventional theory and therefore, it evades you. You are the one with the misunderstanding and the one who cannot or will not grasp why it evades you. Your statement about my analogy with the ball in water takes the cake and is beyond ridiculous. My analogy is to simply show mass displaces the aether and the aether pushes back on the mass and to argue the density of water compared to gravity suggesting that the analogy is wrong because 2 balls in water don't attract each other shows that you are simply incapable of or unwilling to understand what a simply analogy is intended to accomplish. To "play stupid" about the point of my analogy by proposing a concept of gravitational attraction between two balls in water, which doesn't happen that suggest my analogy is wrong is nothing but a farce - you are here intentionally and willfully confusing people because I don't believe you are that naive to not understand my basic point - you're too detail oriented to pull that one.

I compared a ball in water to the basic cause of gravity and not gravitational attraction and you know that because you were part of the conversation in the thread where DePalma's spinning ball experiments were discussed and I made it clear in no uncertain terms and elsewhere countless times throughout this forum, etc. You've been there to argue against it so don't pretend you don't know my meaning.

You don't even know what potential energy is so how can you possibly argue against what I'm saying? mgh gives the same product as force x distance and it is that, which explains the energy used to lift the object, not mgh.

The point to the lifting dropping and showing MEASURABLY the energy in and energy out being more combined than what we put in demonstrates that gravity is indisputably a source of potential energy that can and will do work.

And in the delusional isolationist paradigm, one of the most important points behind the entire facade is to brainwash people into believing everything is ISOLATED from everything else and that is why the farce of energy being intrinsic to the object is pushed so hard. If people understood that there is a connectivity between objects and we are not in a Universe where everything is isolated, then there has to be something that connects one thing to another - the aether. As long as energy is intrinsic to the object, which is falsely and willfully propagandized by conventional theories, then potential energy cannot come from the aether.

For energy, Eric would say it is the rate at which electricity is destroyed. Bearden would say it is the disorganization of the organized "virtual photons" being disordered through resistances back into the vacuum. Eric doesn't like Bearden, but in many instances, they are saying the exact same thing with different vocabulary. Energy is work and that is exactly what Eric and Bearden and others are describing accurately and the potential energy that becomes work or energy since energy is exactly that, work, is polarized aether or vacuum potential that has its symmetry broken by a dipole - same thing as polarizing the aether with potential differences.

That potential energy is the source potential, which is the aether plain and simple. You unknowingly admit it by explaining the insulator in the capacitor - which simply allows the source potential to be polarized because obviously if the insulator wasn't there, it would come into equilibrium and there would be no voltage or potential difference at the caps. You aren't charging the capacitor when you apply electricity to it, you are simply creating a potential difference and that potential difference polarizes the aether to be available at the terminals to be able to move over a circuit when there is something conductive that allows the polarized aether to move from one terminal to another over a circuit. I do see a capacitor as a canister filled with opposite polarized aetheric gas (dielectricity), but the point is made about a capacitor as a dipole breaking the symmetry of the aether.

The POTENTIAL ENERGY in this case is the polarized aetheric charges sitting and waiting at the terminals of the capacitor and ENERGY is when there is a circuit to conduct this polarized aether over the circuit and if there are any resistances (the destruction of energy), then that part of the polarized aether is disordered or dissipated back into a state of equilibrium (energy destroyed) right back to the environment. In the case of a capacitor in simple terms, this is what the potential energy is and what the energy is. Hopefully, this potentially clears up your gross misunderstanding of the subject.

[Dog-One]

If you could get the gist of that program, please give us a brief over
view of the content, maybe then I can go back and make sense.

Maybe I didn't catch the intro where these guys tell you what their
focus is on?

Bruce is talking about the basic fundamentals of Reciprocal Theory 2.

The take-away I would like you guys to see is the explanation of counterspace. It is a one dimensional infinite universe expressed in polar coordinates.

Does dielectric inertial plane ring a bell?

In polar coordinates, counterspace is spin, particularly a spiraling inward rotating phenomena. And you wonder why a permanent magnet has spin? When you translate a straight line in polar coordinates into three-space Euclidean geometry, you are going to have spin and nothing but spin. So no surprise at all why a permanent magnet has a powerful dynamo at its core creating the helical vortexes Ken shows with his Ferro fluid.

I haven't heard Ken comment on this particular part of RS2 Theory, but it fits with his theory like a glove.

It is core to a permanent magnet as well as a capacitor.

If you can wrap your head around what Bruce is describing in the video, counterspace is not very complicated and it explains what is happening at a very low level under the hood.

Adjust your speakers however you need to and watch this video multiple times. Trust me, it will help your understanding a great deal.

[erfinder]

Bruce is talking about the basic fundamentals of Reciprocal Theory 2.

The take-away I would like you guys to see is the explanation of counterspace. It is a one dimensional infinite universe expressed in polar coordinates.

Does dielectric inertial plane ring a bell?

In polar coordinates, counterspace is spin, particularly a spiraling inward rotating phenomena. And you wonder why a permanent magnet has spin? When you translate a straight line in polar coordinates into three-space Euclidean geometry, you are going to have spin and nothing but spin. So no surprise at all why a permanent magnet has a powerful dynamo at its core creating the helical vortexes Ken shows with his Ferro fluid.

I haven't heard Ken comment on this particular part of RS2 Theory, but it fits with his theory like a glove.

It is core to a permanent magnet as well as a capacitor.

If you can wrap your head around what Bruce is describing in the video, counterspace is not very complicated and it explains what is happening at a very low level under the hood.

Adjust your speakers however you need to and watch this video multiple times. Trust me, it will help your understanding a great deal.

I see lots of numbers, math, formulas...lots of theory.

I don't find in any of the theories, the mechanism responsible for generating spin, and its maintenance.


Regards

[Ernst]

Ernst,

Take a quick peek at this video, just this first one, but you can go further if you would like. I think it will help everyone understand the concept of counterspace a little better.

RS2 Lecture 01, Part 01 | Reciprocal System v2

And also Ernst, can you explain to me why when I reduce the distance between the plates of a capacitor, I acquire a larger capacitance. Based on what you say, I should get more capacitance when I stuff in more dielectric insulation, but I don't, I get less capacitance. I've read a lot of books hoping to figure out why capacitors work this way and all they will tell me is they just do. Zero logical explanation as to why. Clearly THEY don't know or won't tell me. Again, I ask why? What is the big freaking secret? Keys to the universe maybe...?

OK, Dog-One, I have seen the first 16 minutes. Is that enough? I downloaded the video so I can see it again or more if needed. But I am afraid of spending time on theories, and that a few posts further I get to read that those theories are wrong. This man makes numerous mistakes. For example velocity has a unit of m/s (space over time), but time over space is not energy which unit is Joule or Nm or Kg.mē/sē (these are all equivalent). This is his first mistake in only 20 seconds of speech and one line written on the white board.
Well, to go into details about what he says would take me much more than 16 minutes, and again, I am afraid of wasting my time on wrong theories.

Then, on your question, please re-read my explanation: Reducing the distance (insulation), decreases the voltage and because C = Q / V, it increases the capacitance. Exactly as you said in your first line. And if you stuff in more dielectric insulation, the voltage increases and so the capacitance decreases.
Why are they not telling you this, because they want you to focus on what happens in the conductor and not what happens outside of it, because that would lead to the necessity of understanding the functions that ether performs. And for some reason people do not want an ether.

Aaron, do you really believe that everything you say is so crystal clear that it can not possibly be misinterpreted? If someone can not make sense of your endless rant of your mistakes in high school physics, then he is intentionally and wilfully confusing people. Just like your high school teachers?
You also seem convinced that only you really understand the concept of potential energy and all those scientists, including Tesla BTW, they are all totally wrong.
You compared a ball in water to the basic cause of gravity and not gravitational attraction?
Then how come that when this basic cause of gravity is abundantly present there is still no gravitational attraction?
Yeah, I know, I am the one trying to confuse people, not you. You are crystal clear and in no uncertain terms.
Energy is work done, right? Where is the 'work done' in 'polarized ether'? And how is it different from a spring pulled out of its equilibrium, or a swing?
I am so sorry I do not immediately recall the conversation about DePalma. If it is relevant to this thread please provide a link s we can all look it up and see how right you are and how clear.

Earlier in this thread I said that we all have mental issues, only some more severe than others. Nobody is perfect and nobody gets through life without suffering some damage.
You are the exception to this rule, Aaron. You are perfect in everything you do, say and think.
Now your only problem is that you have to cope with people like me who are imperfect.
You know what?
Let me quote Tesla here:
"Let the future tell the truth...."

I'm getting more and more convinced that I am not 'open minded' enough for this.


Ernst.

[Dog-One]

I see lots of numbers, math, formulas...lots of theory.

I don't find in any of the theories, the mechanism responsible for generating spin, and its maintenance.

Where's Verpies when I need him. He's the one that turned me on to RS2 Theory.

Verpies! Where are you ??? Help me out here!



I do understand UFO and Ken's difficulty in trying to explain this stuff. You have to see it in your mind or it's completely foreign and appears to be just noise. I guess that's why Ken keeps repeating it is simple but not simplex.


Let's just go with this for now: Counterspace is NOT three dimensional space. Don't even try to imagine it that way. Infinity within counterspace is the center someplace, a point. The edge of counterspace is unity, the transition between space and counterspace. Counterspace is a flat disk having no volume. What would seem to be a straight line in space is a spiral in counterspace and vice versa.

All I can say for the moment is to try and seriously watch the video, sleep on it and pray or do whatever works for you to make it soak in.

I really hate to tangle up UFO's thread any more than I have, because I'm pretty certain he has some practical stuff for us to explore coming right up.

[erfinder]

Where's Verpies when I need him. He's the one that turned me on to RS2 Theory.

Verpies! Where are you ??? Help me out here!



I do understand UFO and Ken's difficulty in trying to explain this stuff. You have to see it in your mind or it's completely foreign and appears to be just noise. I guess that's why Ken keeps repeating it is simple but not simplex.


Let's just go with this for now: Counterspace is NOT three dimensional space. Don't even try to imagine it that way. Infinity within counterspace is the center someplace, a point. The edge of counterspace is unity, the transition between space and counterspace. Counterspace is a flat disk having no volume. What would seem to be a straight line in space is a spiral in counterspace and vice versa.

All I can say for the moment is to try and seriously watch the video, sleep on it and pray or do whatever works for you to make it soak in.

I really hate to tangle up UFO's thread any more than I have, because I'm pretty certain he has some practical stuff for us to explore coming right up.

All of the available theories regarding counter-space, are too complicated. Out of all of them, I appreciate Eric Dollard's the most because he at least leads one to assume that at the end of your studies, space and counter-space can be engineered. I like how he makes reference to such things as hyperbolic sines and hyperbolic co sines...I like this because its in resonance with the work of a group of German scientists/mathematicians/philosophers/engineers I came across who worked intensively on this particular subject. In this, their concept, the mechanism for spin and its maintenance is well established. Space, counter-space and the Aether are all tied together in a neat little package.

I'll make this my last post as I don't want to upset the flow anymore than you do.


Regards