Space / Counter-space & Electricity / Di(a)electricity

[trahedron]

Can someone provide a clear definition and example(s) of Space vs Counter-space and Electricity vs Dielectricity?

Any explanations in your own way of understanding it is certainly welcome!

Some friends and I have had quite the debate about this and it seems that every time we think we have it, something throws a wrench into the concepts. I thought it might be beneficial if we can get a solid definition down for these especially after their usage in the last conference by Eric.

That was a nice presentation by the way Eric, but it definitely left some of us hanging at the end as far as wanting more tie-in and clarity, especially regarding the (a)ether!

[spacecase0]

I have looked in to this lots as well,
as far as I can tell there are a few things they use for each term,
seems to be confused and muddled in there minds as well

the other thing I see is that they define the terms referencing other undefined terms in a circular way,
at least they need to go back to actual physical experiments or concepts if anyone else is to understand this mess

[trahedron]

So after digging a bit more, I think we need to really study Rudolf Steiner, George Adams and Louis Locher-Ernst to come to a full understanding of counter space.

Just stumbled across this page on counter space.

Regarding dielectricity, I have, I believe, at least come to the conclusion that dielectric material would be material that can retain charge, but is traditionally considered an insulator. Eg. ceramic and water (pure water). I need to dig a bit more into this to really work out a proper "definition".

I will be looking more closely at this in the near term and if anyone has any additional insight or input, please feel free to chime in.

[mikrovolt]

The proposition of an ideal insulator supports a jaded view of how the properties of dielectric materials separate charge.

The variety of dielectric materials have a continuum of K values.
Some have a strong affinity for positive charges some for negative and others
in between.

For a specific dielectric under specific conditions a variety of paths and barriers exhibit geometries giving rise to various transformations. When these transformations happen
within a negative resistance region a quantum mechanical event outside our physical dimension is thought to be that path.

[spacecase0]

The proposition of an ideal insulator supports a jaded view of how the properties of dielectric materials separate charge.

The variety of dielectric materials have a continuum of K values.
Some have a strong affinity for positive charges some for negative and others
in between.

For a specific dielectric under specific conditions a variety of paths and barriers exhibit geometries giving rise to various transformations. When these transformations happen
within a negative resistance region a quantum mechanical event outside our physical dimension is thought to be that path.

reading that makes me want to make capacitors with 2 dielectrics, one on each plate, then test the K value, and then reverse the polarity on the capacitor and then test the K value again
if they are not the same, it might verify that idea

[trahedron]

Space and Counterspace: A New Science of Gravity, Time and Light

Nick C. Thomas has a very interesting book titled "Space and Counterspace: A New Science of Gravity, Time and Light"

In it he gives the most rigorous explanation of counterspace that I have encountered hitherto now. He has another book that apparently goes much more in-depth and I will be looking forward to reading that in the near future, but I wanted to include an excerpt here for everyone's review as I think it will bear some fruit for our ability to understand counterspace:

Negative space is also customarily referred to as counterspace. Let us see if we can grasp an idea of it. First imagine yourself standing outdoors on a clear starry night. You can look in all directions, and ideally you occupy one point in the universe with everything else all round you, reaching far away to the infinite distances even beyond the stars. Space seems to extend infinitely far away outwards and in all directions at once. Imagine yourself at the centre of a luminous sphere (say sodium yellow) which is growing outwards from you at an ever increasing rate. As the sphere grows the curvature of its surface decreases, as can be appreciated by comparing the curvature of an iridescent soap bubble with that of the surface of a still lake. The latter has the same radius as the Earth itself, very much larger than the soap bubble. Indeed it appears to be flat, and it is only when we observe the sea horizon carefully that we come to realize it is curved. So as our luminous sphere grows ever larger its surface is getting ever flatter. When only the size of the Earth it already seems locally flat to us. What when it is the size of the orbit of Pluto, or of our galaxy? Very much flatter still! If we allow our sphere to grow indefinitely large, we must conclude that its surface becomes ever more flat until in the limit it becomes quite flat like a plane. But to become quite flat it must become a plane, in which case it ends up ceasing to be a sphere at all. This can only happen if opposite points of all its diameters 'meet at infinity' so that it becomes two superimposed planes. This idea is described quite rigorously in projective geometry. We then discard the redundancy of two planes and speak of the ideal plane at infinity. This is not pan of Euclid's geometry, for in that geometry infinity cannot he reached even in imagination. In the last two centuries the human mind has started to grasp the notion of Infinity with some precision, and so in projective geometry we speak of parallel lines meeting in a so-called ideal point at infinity, that is, in a point of our ideal luminous plane at infinity. These points are not like ordinary ones as they cannot be reached physically, and they are added to Euclidean geometry to yield projective geometry. It is as though we closed off our open Euclidean box with a 'lid' which is our luminous plane at infinity. It takes some practice to realize that the lid is really a plane and not a huge sphere. Were it a sphere then it would have an 'outside' and then space would not be closed at all. But a plane has no 'outside' and strangely we find that it is a remarkable plane that only has one side! It must, or space would not he closed off by it in an unbounded way.

So we stand looking at the stars and realize that our ordinary consciousness is poised between a point which is our location in the universe, and a mighty plane beyond the stars and galaxies themselves. That this is so may be regarded as one reason why the non-Euclidean geometries were not welcome. Whether the universe is actually 'flat' and Euclidean, or whether it is open or closed in the non-Euclidean ways we described before, has not been decided by cosmologists. So we may take the liberty of imagining the Euclidean polarity between centre and periphery as we did. This characterizes our consciousness of ordinary space. We now seek to turn this whole picture inside-out to approach a concept of counterspace.

To do this we use the concept of polarity frequently used in projective geometry. There is a remarkable symmetry between points and planes, for example three points determine just one plane provided they do not all lie on the same line, for two of them determine a line and then we can imagine a plane turning about that line as axis until it contains the third point. There is only one such plane. On the other hand three planes determine just one point, again provided they do not all contain a line in the way three pages of a book do. An example is the point at the corner where two walls and the floor of a room meet. If we swap the words 'point' and 'plane' in the statement 'three points determine just one plane,' we get the polar statement which is also true. Notice that lines play the same role in both cases: the three points must not lie on a line, and the three planes must not share a common line. Conventional science is essentially point-based in its outlook, considering particles which are supposed to be (fuzzy) points, and even reducing fields of force to particle-like discrete entities. Force is supposed to arise by contact, so that if one thing hits another force arises, and fields are reduced to very mysterious particles which hit other particles to cause force. Although the mathematics makes the whole thing appear much more sophisticated, that’s what it boils down to. But, as projective geometry shows by means of polarity, every geometrical statement involving points implies another involving planes. Since the point-based approach has been so fruitful in physics we might suspect that bringing in a plane-based one might also be valuable.

This is the basis of our approach to counterspace. Rudolf Steiner experienced it directly through out-of-the-body experiences, but we can approach it by analogy in our ordinary consciousness using polarity. It must be borne in mind throughout that this is only a ‘crutch,’ but a very useful one.

Polar to the situation of standing at (ideally) a point and looking outwards, we imagine our consciousness rooted instead in a plane and looking inwards. When we looked at the stars we arrived at the ideal plane at infinity, so the polar of that will he an ideal point towards which we look inwards. It seems more natural and certainly accords with experience to say 'inwards.' This ideal point represents an infinite inwardness in polar contrast to the infinite outwardness of the plane at infinity. We can sense that the quality of this is quite unlike that of empty space, and inwardness is just what is lacking in our current scientific paradigm. We can now imagine ourselves in the cosmic periphery looking inwards from all directions at once at a yellow spherical surface that is shrinking away from us inwardly ever towards that ideal point without ever reaching it, just as our original expanding yellow sphere could never reach infinity physically. But, we now come to an interesting question about expansion and contraction. In space we can imagine the expanding sphere to increase its radius by one kilometre every second, say, so that we have a series of distances from its centre which mark off equal steps in equal times, and clearly this can proceed as long as we like without the гаdius ever becoming infinite. In counterspace the shrinking sphere must like wise follow 'equal steps' if we imagine the polar situation, but that is not possible based on radius as we understand it, as equal steps in that sense would soon reduce the radius to zero. That would be a spatial interpretation based on our ordinary consciousness rather than a counterspatial one. Instead we imagine some other counterspatial measure which can change by 'equal steps' without ever reaching the centre. Now, if we take the reciprocal of the radius we have a quantity that will become infinite when the radius is zero. That is, if we take the radius — say 10 — then the reciprocal is 1 divided by 10. If the radius is one millionth then its reciprocal is 1,000,000 and so on as the radius decreases. ‘Equal steps’ requires a little bit of maths to explain, but if the radius is repeatedly halved the corresponding counterspace quantity is repeatedly doubled, and the center cannot be reached in a finite number of steps. This is a spacial model we can think with our ordinary consciousness, but it does accurately model a different kind of quantity in counterspace which we will refer to as turn, which measures the separation between planes. …

There is more and I will attempt to transcribe this further and edit this post once I have time so to do. I believe that this information is actionable and of value and welcome any input on the perceptions that this may assist with. I think it would be of further value if we could illustrate this or create additional (friendly) analogies that would be more approachable.

[trahedron]

Projective Geometry: Creative Polarities in Space and Time

Just an interesting term that has been thrown about as well for Counterspace by the fascinating author of Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism:

"Unmanifest and unmodulated inertia."

(That playlist is incomplete, but the most convenient collection of videos to consume by him that I've found pre-rolled.)

This is a really good book to use in conjunction with the work of Nick Thomas when trying to really rein in an understanding of counterspace:
Projective Geometry: Creative Polarities in Space and Time

While it seems that some believe that there is no way to conceptualize or represent counterspace with geometry, these authors, who are advanced students of Rudolf Steiner's school of thought, seem to have the keys. I find this interesting of course in conjunction with Eric's observations and remarks, especially in his presentation from this past July. In Nick Thomas' book, he draws some remarkable conclusions about the interconnectedness of space and counterspace and just how that occurs. It has serious implications on how we can therefore take advantage of this and its unfolding geometry while bringing it into quantifiable scientific research.

[trahedron]

Nick Thomas, in "Science Between Space and Counterspace: Exploring the Significance of Negative Space" says,

"Steiner reported that in a higher state of consciousness a different kind of space is experienced that is polar opposite to our ordinary Euclidean one. Such a consciousness looks in from the periphery towards an unreachable inwardness in contrast to our normal consciousness which looks out from a centre towards an unreachable outwardness, i.e. towards an outer infinity."

[mikrovolt]

What is counterspace ?

Nick Thomas, in "Science Between Space and Counterspace: Exploring the Significance of Negative Space" says,

To set straight what Eric Dollard said. To try to get counterspace to show on search engines.

What is counter space (counterspace) def reference to lecture Eric Dollard - Origin of Energy Synthesis
https://youtu.be/cCJcU7INwnU?t=4537

An example: Such as the space between molecules in a transistor.

[ricards]

negative space?.. counterspace? why complicate things?..
the word 'negative' and 'counter' has meaning IMO that will just complicate "The concept"...
It you would look at it really it is just and still 'space' its just that you have a determined boundary.. and you had an 'Inside Space' based on that boundary and an 'Outer Space' based on that boundary .. in reality its still space.. you can define your boundary as small as those molecules or anything smaller than it, and still have 'space'.. no one can really define the smallest..

I agree with most eric dollard concepts but not all.. one is the adaptation of this 'Counterspace'..

[Kokomoj0]

negative space?.. counterspace? why complicate things?..
the word 'negative' and 'counter' has meaning IMO that will just complicate "The concept"...
It you would look at it really it is just and still 'space' its just that you have a determined boundary.. and you had an 'Inside Space' based on that boundary and an 'Outer Space' based on that boundary .. in reality its still space.. you can define your boundary as small as those molecules or anything smaller than it, and still have 'space'.. no one can really define the smallest..

I agree with most eric dollard concepts but not all.. one is the adaptation of this 'Counterspace'..

I have never been able to make any sense out of it or find a useful purpose for it. If anyone can I'd enjoy looking it over. Meantime here is what borderlands has to say about it.

THE IDEA OF COUNTERSPACE – Borderlands

[Kokomoj0]

reading that makes me want to make capacitors with 2 dielectrics, one on each plate, then test the K value, and then reverse the polarity on the capacitor and then test the K value again
if they are not the same, it might verify that idea

here is an interesting capacitor demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ckpQW9sdUg

The charge does not build up on the plates

here is one for the 'Dia-"
http://server17.how-why.com/blog/Dia...plyComplex.pdf

[ricards]

I have never been able to make any sense out of it or find a useful purpose for it. If anyone can I'd enjoy looking it over. Meantime here is what borderlands has to say about it.

THE IDEA OF COUNTERSPACE – Borderlands

thanks for the link but It's just as I said, the Idea of Negative or Counter space just complicate things..
quoting from that link

Let us now try to picture the properties of the negative or counter-Euclidean type of space. The first thing to observe is that such a space is determined by a point-at-in-finity (the counterpart of the plane-at-infinity on which Euclidean space depends). A point-at-infinity is, then, the Absolute of this space, by which is meant a point functioning mathematically as infinitely distant—but not necessarily (and this is important) in the infinitely distant plane of ordinary Euclidean space. Conceivably, no doubt, the point-at-infinity of a negative space might also be infinitely distant in the space of Euclid, but it need not be so; above all, it will not be so in our present context, where this geometry is related to the living, germinating processes which develop on the Earth

maybe I just don't get it.. or that they can't explain it very well..

how can someone define a point at Infinity?... or a plane at infinity..
I don't Understand the author's "Point" .

eric dollard explained the simplicity of the counterspace very well IMO.
"Lines Between a Ruler"

in "Centi"meters the counter space is measured in Per Centimeters while space is measured in "Milli" Meters...
in "Milli"meters the counter space is measured in Per Millimeters while space is measured in "Micro" Meters.. and so on up to where someone brain can think of....

so why call it "Counter" Space or "Negative" Space if its not really a negative or an opposite(counter), if its not the opposite..

another example is A 240 cm^3 glass filled with water..
the glass is "Full" and no more 'space' for additional water, there is a 240 cm^3 of water in a 240 cm^3 of space
the density of water is 1g/cm^3, there is 1 gram of water PER cubic centimeter of 'space'.

they are not really opposite...
in a sense we are actually already using the concept of "Counterspace" but it is much much better if we don't call it that..

[Kokomoj0]

thanks for the link but It's just as I said, the Idea of Negative or Counter space just complicate things..
quoting from that link


maybe I just don't get it.. or that they can't explain it very well..

how can someone define a point at Infinity?... or a plane at infinity..
I don't Understand the author's "Point" .

eric dollard explained the simplicity of the counterspace very well IMO.
"Lines Between a Ruler"

in "Centi"meters the counter space is measured in Per Centimeters while space is measured in "Milli" Meters...
in "Milli"meters the counter space is measured in Per Millimeters while space is measured in "Micro" Meters.. and so on up to where someone brain can think of....

you wont get any argument from me on that

Remember the LC transmission lines Eric taped, two types, series C and series L, well he referred to the series C as the counter space of the series L if that helps.

Like you I see no purpose for it.

[Sputins]

eric dollard explained the simplicity of the counterspace very well IMO.
"Lines Between a Ruler"

So why call it "Counter" Space or "Negative" Space if its not really a negative or an opposite(counter), if its not the opposite..

another example is A 240 cm^3 glass filled with water..
the glass is "Full" and no more 'space' for additional water, there is a 240 cm^3 of water in a 240 cm^3 of space
the density of water is 1g/cm^3, there is 1 gram of water PER cubic centimeter of 'space'.

they are not really opposite...
in a sense we are actually already using the concept of "Counterspace" but it is much much better if we don't call it that..

The way I see it is, the water that fills the (conventional) space of the glass 240 cm^3 and the glass is full.

The Counterspace component isn’t the 1g per cubic centimetre (which is a measurement of weight) the Counterspace component is the internal structure of the water, ie between the lattice of atoms that make up the volume of water, within the H & O atomic structure, which is the Conuterspace or Interspace within the given volume of water.