2017 Father-Mother-God model of the atom

Abstract-summary

What if a model of the atom exists which clearly bridges Father-Mother-God into familiar physical material matter? Since about 2012 it appears the literature in two fields has evolved enuf to put together such a model.

Short version: Each atom is the pleasant intercourse of Father God with Mother God. Mother God (Vishnu, ether) contributes the etheric form, shape and substance–not weight–to each atom. The etheric part of an atom is visible to clairvoyant investigation. That’s the Mother God (Divine Feminine) contribution. The Mother God etheric substance of each atom is the swirling vortex of the Theosophical atom:

Dg-Babbit-Theosophical atom (ANU)

Father God contributes the positive qualities of “realness,” “mass” and “weight” to each atom. The Father part is in the “empty” spinning vortex “funnel” center of each atom. The Father-substance is NOT visible to clairvoyant perception. The Father part is only perceptible by each person’s spiritual heart, by each person’s integrity.

How a new model springs from the 1880s ether vortex atom model and esoteric Light and Sound literature is detailed.

Start

Ready for a S-T-R-E-T-C-H? This is a big idea.

What if our model of God is limited by the old-school model of atom-as-particles?

What if our model of how you-as-soul and God are Partners, is limited by an out-dated, old-school, atomic model?

I wonder if people adhering unconsciously to old-school 1950s model of the atom, are stuck in the conventional Enlightenment model of physical matter, the solar system and the Universe. Since about 2012 it’s been possible to pull together a model of the atom incorporating the 1880s experiments of the vortex atom with the Light & Sound ideas of Positive Qualities in Soul and Above. The result? A model of the atom converging Father-Mother-God with 3D physical material matter.

Since 2012, a few scholarly works exist looking back on the history of the vortex atom and Occult Chemistry. This week I bumped into these more recent scholarly efforts online. I read a wonderful account of the history of ideas in the vortex atom. This model was the most popular and promising model of the atom prior to the ‘atomic weight, atomic particle’ model. The 1950s model of the atom began with the uncovery of the electron in 1887 then proceed to the model of the atom as electron, proton and neutron.

Detailed and readable historical account document online: “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh, 83 pages. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0498.2002.440102.x/abstract

The vortex model of the atom was popular in England and the US in the late 1800s. Why these two countries? Two reasons. One was interest in exercising new-found Sherlock-Holmes-ian thinking was highest in these two countries. Second, interest in the scientific clairvoyant investigations of Theosophical Society investigators was strongest in these two countries.

Dg- For comparison: Dr. Randolf Stones’ Polarity Atom: http://www.digitaldrstone.org/v2b6c12.shtml

Following is a brief summary of what scientists were doing in this area, in the late 1800s.

Between 1850-1880 many invisible patterns in air and water, began to be seriously studied and publicly demonstrated by Natural Science enthusiasts. These natural patterns included:

– smoke rings, a generator box was invented,

Dg- smoke box

– early experiments in vortex spirals in water (Schauberger was unknown until the 1930s)

dg-vortex

– a small sphere of colored water could be made to spin, then sent to move intact thru a larger volume of clear water; tho, only for relatively short distances.

Another large body of simple, replicable experiments with magnets were demonstrated publicly and in colleges.

Dg- magnets patterns

In short, a large body of replicable experiments could be performed by anyone to demonstrate the reality of invisible patterns in the media of air, water and magnetized items. These could be reliably re-created by human experiment. All these topics came together 1850-1880s.

Q: Was the Periodic Table unknown?

A: Yes. The Periodic Table developed over 100 years 1828-1913. Please imagine Victorian times as ignorant of the Periodic Table as we know it now. The Table as we know it since Einstein’s day, closed minds, mostly ended amateur science. Before the Periodic Table, scientists were much more open-minded than we are today. Timeline of Periodic Table development: http://www.datesandevents.org/events-timelines/19-periodic-table-timeline.htm

Educated natural scientists in Victorian England were all exposed to Theosophy’s idea of an invisible “ether.” Uncovery of invisible patterns in air and water stimulated the question, ‘Could these patterns exist in the invisible Ether and help us understand the nature of physical matter?’

Air-water experiments encouraged people to imagine invisible ether patterns might exist and be uncovered. What if the invisible patterns uncovered in the media of air, water and magnetism could, taken together, illuminate the nature of the ether and the nature of physical matter?

Chladni plate patterns formed by sound

Victorian natural scientists had also been impressed with the effects of sound to shape form as was seen on Chaladni plates.

“Chladni (1756 – 1827) repeated the pioneering experiments of Robert Hooke who, in 1680, had observed the nodal patterns associated with the vibrations of glass plates. Hooke ran a violin bow along the edge of a plate covered with flour and saw the nodal patterns emerge.[8][9] Chladni’s technique with metal plates was first published in 1787…” ~ Wikipedia

Dg-chaladni-plate

Dg-chaladni-patterns

Hundreds more images-patterns: https://www.google.com/search?q=multiple+water+vortices&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF9abFgOnUAhWD0YMKHZPpCq8Q_AUICygC&biw=1431&bih=733#newwindow=1&tbm=isch&q=chladni+plates

Knot patterns

Dg-knot patterns

The study of rope knot patterns also suggested archetypal patterns of connection could exist and be invisible, perhaps “alive” in an Ether.

Could multiple thin vortex spirals be generated in the same media; and then, interact, weave together as we see in knot patterns? Could it be in ether, vortex spirals automatically knotted patterns resembling the patterns reliably generated by magnetized needles placed in water? Could all these be at work?

End of the ether vortex atomic model

1887 was a turning point in the interest of the natural Science community away from its interest in the vortex theory of the atom. In 1887 J.J. Thomson, a prime proponent substantiating the ether, coined the word “electron,” suggesting an invisible electrical particle. This was soon to be followed by the coining of the words “proton” and “neutron.” The interest of scientific community turned towards particle-atomic weight models.

Q: Why did the electron-proton-neutron model emerge and take over?

A: Because neither ether theory nor ether vortex atom model could not explain physical mass and weight.

The best the ether vortex model could do was propose an interweaving of vacant, empty vortex “threads,” exactly analogous to the central empty air shaft we see in any well-made water vortex, must hold some aspect of God. Helge Kragh’s reporting recounts proposals at this point suggesting God was the missing “component” within the empty vortices. Perhaps if God was present inside the empty space central to a vortex, God contributed the quality of physical-material weight and mass.

Bringing God in to any model of atomic structure was forcefully rejected each and every time in the 1880s.

What if we returned to this moment?

It’s 2017. What if we brought the ether vortex atom model discussion forward into today? Do we have rhetoric to bridge the gap between observable experimental phenomena (air, water, magnets) and God?

I think we do. We make use of the Goethean Holistic Science view; meaning, any conclusion about subjective experience or phenomena can only be validated and replicated individually.

Bringing Goethe into 2017, he might say, ‘The model you have inside you of how one atom “operates” relates and connects with your model of how the solar system and the physical-material Universe “operates.”‘

Q: I’m uncomfortable with the word “God.”

A: Fine. You can use “Mystery.” “Mystery” also points to phenomena ‘above and beyond the mind.’ Mystery is what our mere mentalizing mind cannot yet grasp.

If God or Mystery is not part of your model of the atom, your model of the solar system and the Universe is likely to also be empty of Mystery and God.

If you believe you live in a Mystery-less, God-less universe, how can you, an individual, be a part of Mystery? With the Divine Feminine? With the Father God?

So we arrive at some big, delicious questions.

Next, we reverse the above question: What if every fact of the atom, the solar system, and the Universe was 100% explained by the agency of our merely mentalizing Mind?

If atoms, matter, solar system, Universe could be created with no higher intelligence than Mind, no higher agency is required. Is this the universe you live in?

If you do, perhaps you may have no need for a God, no need for Mystery, no need for any Divine Feminine, perhaps even no need for Feeling, no need for a living Nature, nature spirits and elementals, no need for any god higher than Mind. In this conception, intelligence-agency up to and including Mind is sufficient to explain everything.

The above question brings us face to face with underlying assumptions Natural Scientists in the 1880s refused to struggle with, which they had no rhetoric to struggle with.

Q: How come we can consider this question now in 2017?

A: Because Sherlock-Holmes-ian thinking has lost its glamor. Heartfelt thinking, whole-brained thinking is what Cultural Creatives aspire to since 1985 at least. We’re pretty sure now things exist beyond the merely mental Mind; things like:

– Mystery,

– some expressions of the Divine Feminine,

– some need for Feeling which balances Thinking,

– some future, honored place for Nature in mainstream culture,

– some place for nature spirits and elementals,

– some future need for a higher God, however uniquely conceived individually.

The above questions present each of us a delicious (existential) dilemma, in our Inner Game of Life.

A) Either we align with an atom-matter-solar system-Universe created with and by no higher agency than the masculine-patriarchal Mind.

B) Or, we incorporate into our models of atom-matter-solar system-Universe-God higher agencies than mere Mind.

Q: What agencies exist above Mind?

A: According to Spiritual Geography 101, PACME, in Creation, above Mind in frequency, is some or all of these higher agencies: Mystery, some version of a Divine Feminine, Feeling to balance Thinking, nature spirits and elementals; and finally, a God higher than Mind, as uniquely conceived individually.

Full discussion: You have FIVE bodies PACME; Spiritual Geography 101 (99 cents)

https://www.amazon.com/bodies-Spiritual-Geography-Practices-Medicine-ebook/dp/B007SIEC3S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476587865&sr=8-1&keywords=You+have+FIVE+bodies+PACME%3B+Spiritual+Geography+101

Changing beliefs, accustoming ourself to new paradigms

My first Waldorf teacher training, challenged the cultural paradigms I was schooled in from several directions. Even with a pretty good metaphysical background, I was challenged to open up to more living and alive Goethe-Steinerian paradigms of educating, of living, creating and community.

Readers now, may feel similarly challenged confronted with the above questions. Relax. Take two to four weeks to “live with” how your Inner and Outer world would change if you lived in a universe where Mother-Father-God was as close to you as the atoms in your body. See if the idea suits you in your own Inner Game of Life.

Q: How do I incorporate agency higher than Mind into my model of the atom?

A: Ether is Mother God in Creation. Father God is positive qualities penetrating each Ether vortex.

Mother-God, Divine Feminine as “ether”

No better experimental evidence for the Mother-God, Divine Feminine as Ether exists than the experiments documented in “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh. “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh, 83 pages. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0498.2002.440102.x/abstract

It recounts the experimental evidence of the 1850s-1880s relevant to the following conclusions. With rhetorics converged in 2017, old ideas about Ether can be summarized this way:

1) Ether is everywhere and all encompassing in Creation, PACME, in this Universe.

2) Ether is another media analogous to air and water. Unlike air-water, physical phenomena of friction is not present and does not apply, given current thinking.

3) In mysterious ways poorly-understood in 2017, Ether varies its density around planets and people in such a way such no such thing as “wind,” “drift” or “drag” exists. Only without the phenomena of friction could the planets continue to rotate virtually forever in the same orbit at the same speed despite, being immersed in Ether. Current thinking is the absence of “wind,” “drift” or “drag” is explained by the sustaining intention of the Divine Feminine.

4) In the 3D human experience we experience the sustaining intention of the Divine Feminine primarily as “inertia.” To reframe Newton, it is not gravity keeping the planets in their course but primarily inertia.

On Earth, a rolling ball slows and stops due to ground and air-wind resistance. The object’s movement subsists over time, diverted into otehr forms of energy.

In outer space, wehre Ether is the only remaining media, once set in motion, an object is sustained indefinitely in its motion. Absent all friction, heavenly bodies can continue their motion un-impeded. The Electric Universe model suggests it is electrical phenomena which most commonly disturbs and rearranges the orbits of heavenly bodies.

Q: No gravity at all, only inertia?

A: No, in mysterious ways poorly-understood in 2017, some of Newton’s gravity, a force “acting at a distance,” is possibly more simply understood as “life ether” effects, a topic in Guenther’s Wachsmuth’s book, beyond our scope here.

5) Ether is invisible to animal eyesight. It’s visible to advanced clairvoyant vision; however, each clairvoyant perceives the aura (ether) of even the same sample subject, uniquely. No two clairvoyants are expected to view the ether (aura) of the same subject 100% coincidentally. Between any two experienced clairvoyants reporting observations of the same subject we expect at least 10% variation between the two sets of observations. More variation may or may not be acceptable, depending on your purposes.

6) Ether is energy. All energy has intelligence. Each frequency of energy has somewhat unique function; and therefore, somewhat unique intelligence.

7) Ether exists at multiple frequencies; different frequencies definitely have different properties, functions and intelligence.

8) The multiple functions-frequencies-intelligences within Ether permit Ether to multi-task. The function of multi-tasking is characteristic of the immune system in every animal. The function of multi-tasking is especially characteristic of adult human beings who can walk, talk, chew gum, talk on the phone, all at the same time.

9) Ether (whose “home” in in the upper etheric realm) is the source of Mystery; Ether as Mystery itself. “Mystery” is defined here as any phenomena or feeling which Conscious Waking Self is unable to directly cognize with left-brain Thinking alone, any phenomena or feeling beyond Thinking alone, which cannot be contained by linear-sequential left-brain thinking.

10) In mysterious ways poorly-understood in 2017, Ether varies its properties enabling it to behave analogously to particles and behave analogously to waves in the same medium. Hence the idea of light as particles (photons); and, light as wavelenths; and, light as “wavicles.” Current thinking is this mystery may be unravelled with the Goethe-Steiner idea of all light, all color is invisible, without a perceiver, without a medium in which to express itself. In this we may have the “mutable” quality discussed in astrology.

This also relates to the astronomical question of whether the stars can be seen in the sky outside the envelope of the Earth’s etheric body. Many proponents claim starlight requires at least the etheric envelope of the Earth if not also the field of air, for stars to be seen by an observer standing on the Earth.

Q: Didn’t the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment disprove Ether?

A: No. Not even the experimenters claimed this conclusion. The experiment did disprove Ether has neither any perceptible “wind” nor “drag” as mediums of both water and air exhibit. In air and water, any object goes faster “with the flow,” “with the current,” than it can against the current. No one disputes the integrity of the experiment nor the experimenters. They simply disproved Ether has neither of frictional and resistance properties familiar to use in air and water.

The male-competitive nature of Natural Science in the 1800s was such that the possibility of both atomic weight model, ether and relativity being ALL partly true was rejected. Michelson-Morley’s experiment was indeed used to “bash” Ether by the “trolls” and “ether haters” of its day.

Ether as Vishnu the Hindu god

Dg- vortex cornucopia

Hindu literature is full of good characterizations of Ether. Given the status of women in ancient India, ancient Hindus could conceive of Ether as neither Feminine nor Queenly. They could only imagine Ether as Kingly, as masculine. When we reframe Ether as feminine in character, Lakshmi simply becomes another happy, generous expression of the Divine Feminine.

Babylonians characterized it as the “Womb of Creation.” Hindus characterized Ether as Vishnu:

Vishnu is the preserver-maintainer of the worlds of Creation. His primary task is protect dharma and maintain the universal order. He encourages people to be on the side of dharma and pursue their religious duties as householders hopefully with a spiritual bent of mind.

His consort Lakshmi provides all the material resources necessary for the management of material concerns. Vishnu and Lakshmi are therefore an ideal choice for people who want to live ordinary lives and pursue materialism with an eye towards religion and spirituality. …

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.asp

Vishnu is described as having the divine color of clouds (dark-blue). The dark color represents the passive and formless ether, a great quality for a god. ~ http://rmfzee.com/thailand2010/vishnu.htm

Vishnu is the preserver In the Trimurti concept, Lord Vishnu is the aspect of God associated with the cosmic function of preservation. … His most popular and worshipped forms and incarnations are Lord Rama, Lord Krishna… Vishnu represents space Consciousness, the all-pervading ether. Ether, a timeless substance, is not space; yet, occupies all apparently empty space, the substratum of the manifest cosmos, potentially containing all other elements. He is depicted as blue in color to represent the vast, endless and limitless aspect in which the passion of Lord Brahma corries out Creation.

…ether as a stem substance [mother of four more particularized ethers, which are in turn the mother all more specialized elements we see on the Periodic Table. ]

Thru Ether’s presence in and control over [behind] all the other elements, this homogenous “element” envelops and penetrates, connects and unifies material factors. Thru all this Ether exerts its regulatory influence.

Described by Western scientists as an incomprehensible element, Ether not only transmits light but is also a carrier of sense quality [including feeling and Feeling], sound and vitality. Not only prana the power which breathes life and provides vitality, but also energies like sunrays, sound vibrations of Aum and mantra chanting resonate Ether as well.

…Lord Vishnu is the inner cause, a cohesive force which not only forms the most subtle core of our body with its centripetal tendency holding things together in relationship to one another. Present everywhere; and yet, nowhere to be found, he not only controls and regulates life but also connects us with others in the universe. …the timeless order of Nature which continuously shifts and transforms thereby ensuring continuity of manifest existence. (p. 42-43 “Milk, Honey and Grapes: Simple Hinduism Concepts for Everyone” By Kiran K. Mehta Books.Google.com)

In Vishnu and early Western ideas of ether, we begin to approach historical ideas of holism, of “both AND;” including, the Buddhist idea of the etheric realms as “neither this nor that,” the feminine attribute of voicing what she does not want, the endless perceived difficulty to articulate what specifically she does want.

1880s understood the Divine Feminine

In 2017 Goethean terms, the 1880s scientists and Theosophists understood the etheric nature of the Divine Feminine as well as anyone before or since was able to understand Her, in natural scientific terms.

What was NOT understood in the 1880s was the voidful character of the Father God.

This is where they got stuck. They could not imagine how empty voids, in the center of each etheric vortex, could convey or manifest the quality of physical-material solidity and weight, the most familiar quality of physical-material matter in the 1800s.

Masculine God as Void-ful

To address this we go outside conventional Enlightenment science and into Light and Sound literature, mystical literature. This apparently begins with Guru Nanak in the 1400s in India. Pre-literary oral literature may exist. If earlier oral literature exists, it appears to be poorly documented. If you know otherwise, please inform me.

In my readings in Light and Sound literature, I’ve come across the idea of the masculine principle as voidful. Where the Feminine principle is manifestation, the Masculine counterpart is elusive in physical terms, to say the least. David Deida in his contrasting the Masculine and Feminine principles suggests where the Feminine is connected with “fullness” and giving birth, the Masculine is connected with “creative emptiness.”

Let’s apply these to a single atom. When do we see a natural image of the Divine Feminine spinning its medium (ether) so new forms can be birthed–where is the Father? In the spinning center, in the void, emptiness of the center of the vortex, where ether has vacated, this is where the Father can be, can penetrate, can express, can contribute.

Q: How can so an empty, invisible force create visible, ponderable matter?

A: Let’s recall Rudolf Seiner’ saying, “All physical matter is movement come to rest.”

How can we characterize the Father in the center void of spinning vortices of Ether? I propose the most useful characterization is ‘intelligence of higher frequency and higher agency than the merely mental.’

Q: What’s above the Mind?

A: If we consult basic Spiritual Geography 101, PACME, we find the maps-charts of Light and Sound groups agree above the mind is the unconscious-mythological-etheric plane. This is where archetypes and fairy tales people live out, exist and have influence over slower frequencies PACM.

Q: What’s above the Etheric plane?

A: Soul and Above. What’s there? As best I can understand mentally, this is the source of all positive qualities, each Positive Quality each ensouled by a tribe of living beings agreed to support this quality and make it available in Creation below, PACME.

Guess what? “Realness,” “matter,” and what we know as “physical mass-weight” all exist Above Soul as positive qualities.

Having trouble with this? Instead of “mater” think “realness,” “reality.” What does your belief system tell you? Do such qualities come from primarily physical matter? Or could ponderable physical matter be a metaphor for Reality, as a Positive Quality, in Soul and Above?

What if physical-material matter was as much metaphor as a property-province of “reality”? What if physical matter posseses qualities of “realness,” “mass” and “weight,” these made made possible, sponsored by, living Beings in Soul and Above who keep “Reality, “mass,” and “weight” alive?

Q: You mean what I experience as the weight and heft of a simple rock in my hand, might track back to the deeds of spiritual beings ensouling qualities of “realness,” “mass” and “weight”?

A: Yes. Not only one rock, all 3D physical matter. Why? Because from higher perspective, 3D physical matter is primarily a metaphor children require–that’s us. To give us something we can work with, play with, stand on, and throw at each other, we need “matter.”

Later on, when we mature-up, we learn what is “real” what possesses “mass” and “weight” is not primarily physical. Rather what is “real” having “mass” and “weight” is healthy values, truly human values.

Guess what? Truly human values are invisible again. Could invisible positive qualities of “mass,” “weight” and “realness” exist in the empty place in the center of the Ether vortex central in each atom? You tell me. Seems logically consistent to me. How does it strike you? Take your time.

Conclusion

One view of where 1880s natural scientists went off track is they wanted an atom, an atomic model, divorced from and seaparate from, everything personal.

They wanted an atom, an atomic model, divorced from and seaparate from, everything subjective. This is how Sherlock-Holmes thinkers thought at the puberty of the independent-critical thinking.

They wanted an atom, an atomic model, divorced from and seaparate from all human qualites.

This means they wanted an atom without even the human quality of integrity, of “gravitas.”

Wehre do we see “weight” and “gravitas” in human beings? One good example is John Morton, usually towards teh end of hsi hour-long talks. When teh Traveler energy comes thru him more fully, John exhibits the quality of solidity, weight, gravity and integrity.

Recommended Bibliography for lay readers

Man or Matter, 3rd Ed, Ernst Lehrs, 1985, first 12 chapters only.

Secret Life of Nature, Peter Thompkins, 2008 http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_secret_life_of_nature.pdf

2017 Review of David Deida’s The Way of the Superior Man – http://minimolist.com/superiorman/

Supplementary bibliography – for researchers

Detailed and readable historical account document online: “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh, 83 pages. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0498.2002.440102.x/abstract

Direct Observation of Atoms through Clairvoyance http://www.gaia.dk/bigfiles/OC/OccultAtoms.htm

E. Lester Smith, “Occult Chemistry Re-Evaluated” http://omln.ce-ma-s.net/_media/science/lester_smith_-_occult_chemistry_re-evaluated_-_1982.pdf

Discussion of Michelson-Morley and Einstein in light of later thinking on Ether: http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/ether.htm

Bibliography of books and original articles on Occult Chemistry — 1895-1996 – http://hpb.narod.ru/tph/TPH_OCBB.HTM

Modern Alchemy: Occultism and the Emergence of Atomic Theory By Mark Morrisson

The Lightness of Being, The Frank Wilczek Web Site. Welcome to my world — and your world too!http://www.lightnessofbeingbook.com/

Notes for those interested

It may be “gravity” itself is a misnomer. There is no gravity–except in the mental realm and except in language (mental) where the whole is fragmented into parts.

The ether is the one thing in Creation which cannot be fragmented. Newton isolated Gravity and gravity effects and explained much by isolating one part of the elephant.

A full understanding of gravity requires viewing it as one phenomena of a multi-functioning entity. In this entity, gravity expresses, levity expresses, attraction expresses, repulsion expresses.

Ether cannot be described as any one of these expression. Ether is all of these expressions ~ 2016

Grain of sand vs. grain of wheat

The Etheric: Broadening Science through Anthroposophy, Volume 1: The World … By Ernst Marti, new translation, 2017

Marti poses good questions:

Why does a grain of sand simply lie there, wet or not. while a seed grain once wet will sprout?

Why does water surrender completely to gravity, while sap in a plant rises upwards? p. 46

“Gravity (but this is only one aspect of this force).” p. 47

Marti appears not astute enuf to conceptualize a force which has gravity as one of its expressions, as one of several functions it multi-tasks. Marti tends to conceive of “ether” as a kind of Goethean Ur (whole) phenomena. This romanticism was common in Anthroposophists in to the 1980s.

ZetaTalk idea of gravity particles

I’m struck with the idea of gravity and repulsion, keeping all matter in constant motion from the Zetas. This is exactly what young men and women experience, attraction, marriage, then repulsion. Gravity first in relationships (attraction), then levity (repulsion due to over-familiarity)? Unwieldy.

Pro-attraction~repulsion we have Gerald Pollack’s water studies, the boundary phenomena. Close to the living walls of arteries and veins, the blood is pushed away from the walls by a molecule or two. This reduces friction to flow of blood and sap. How low? Not sure.

It may be that gravity and anti-gravity (levity) are the same thing or some rolling mixture-rhythmic manifestations of the mixing of the four ethers.

Synonyms for ether

Orgone energy (Wilhelm Reich)

Vril energy (Gerry Vasillatos)

Non-physical energies,

Life-force,

Bio-energy,

Prana (Breatharian Jasmuheen)

Chi,

Od,

Odic, along with many other names.

What ether is not

Ether is not electromagnetic waves. Terminological confusion has persisted right down to this day, between ether technology and radiowaves. Such confusion having contributed the throttling and ridicule of American research.

It should also be clarified how electromagnetic waves are “carried” by the ether. Without ether there would be nothing for the wave to transport through when traversing the vacuum of space.

Uncovery of the etheric body

The etheric body is uncovered through imagination. Imagination is a sub-function of Feeling.

Why do we put it this way? Because it is our wonderful left-brain rational mentalizing-calculating capacities–divorced from Feeling–who stand int eh way of more whole-brained human experience.

Imagination is the first, earliest cooperation-collaboration between left brain capacities of thinking-feeling and right brain capacities of thinking-feeling. Thru imagination we have enhanced consciousness, striving toward imaginative knowledge

it is possible to indicate quite exactly what one does in order to discover the etheric within a sense organ through imagination. It is not true the idea of an etheric body is arrived at in any kind of fantastic way. One arrives at this idea by first developing imagination and then — at first for oneself — demonstrating with a suitable object how the content of imaginative cognition can unite with its object in the same way mathematical thought unites with its object.

… findings to which imaginative cognition brings us

… finding to which feeling cognition brings us

Anthroposophy and Science

Schmidt Number: S-4420

On-line since: 31st July, 2009 Lecture III Stuttgart — March 18, 1921 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA324/English/MP1991/19210318p01.html

Predictability and Reproducibility in the Three Sciences

Two immutable tenets of Second Order ‘ego survival’ science or “hard science;” also, present untenable paradoxes for both First and Third Order sciences.

As far as I know, only Three Orders of Science we use everyday has resolves this “paradox.”

Part of the resolution here is more attention paid to when ‘two things are true at the same time.’

In early 2017 current mainstream science paradigm is based on Predictability and Reproducibility. Why? It goes back to mercantilism in the Renaissance, codified into science in the 1800s.

This thinking is, ‘if we can predict what will happen, we can control what will happen. If we can control what will happen; hopefully, we can then make money off what we know will happen.’

Old Boys Clubs, Boys Clubs and Patriarchy are comfortable thinking this way.
Take for example investments made in stock market and commodities trading. Predictability and Reproducibility are the Holy Grail.

Before that, consider investments made in the Age of Discovery, funding the great age of ocean exploration, hoping to find gold–or at least slaves, tobacco, tea, rum.

In Western culture, the Age of Discovery or the Age of Exploration, was an informal and loosely defined European historical period. It extended from the end of the 1400s thru much of the 1800s. It was characterized by extensive and intensive overseas exploration.

During this Age, a large fraction of European free capital was invested in supplying, staffing, launching and collecting profits from slave, commercial and colonization efforts made possible by large sailing ships. Looking back, this age was the beginning of globalization (paraphrased from Wikipedia).

Predictability and Reproducibility were major factors in deciding whether to invest your money in this or that seafaring expedition. Since the Renaissance especially, Predictability and Reproducibility in the marketplace have been desperately sought.

To earthly human egos focussed on only physical survival and profit, Predictability remains elusive–therefore valuable–if you can assure it.

Isaac Newton in his time wanted desperately a predictable system of physics.

He looked for and hoped for a ‘mechanical precision,’ a physics “machine” which could explain many or all observable phenomena. The hope was, if you understood how the machine works, you can understand the whole of Nature.

My view is Newton uncovered some of the laws of inertia, which he believed to be laws of a sub-phenomena of inertia we call “gravity.” Newton believed with contemporary and later scientists, if humans can understand the workings of Nature, humans can understand the workings of God.

Later thinkers combined Predictability and Reproducibility with “cause and effect” so successfully, they began to believe every natural phenomena could be predicted, controlled and profited from. Why do you think Monsanto is copyrighting and patenting genes? To predict, control and profit from them for investors.

Before Climate Change became a pressing crisis, Predictability plus Reproducibility plus Cause and Effect was good, safe, and secure. So they thought, so they said.

Seeking for Predictability and Reproducibility inadvertently colored Western culture.

Survivalist egos began to hope as life becomes predictable, humans will feel more safe and secure. Earthly egos think this way; and, let’s honor they do; because, this is true up to a point. Without Predictability and Reproducibility in physical sciences, we would have no indoor plumbing nor hot and cold running water.

Let’s remember tho what a life with TOO MUCH Predictability and Reproducibility looks like. It looks like imprisonment, incarceration, where every day is the day, your life is no more than a cog in prison machine routines.

Q: Didn’t Quantum science expand the old science usefully?

A: The Quantum Discussion at the dinner table, beginning in the 1990s, engendered hope in many; that was good. However the Quantum Discussion became more science fictional than practical in nature. It did not reform, evolve or expand the science paradigm of the 1800s where it was fundamentally disturbed and out of synch with the human experience of the 1990s and beyond.

The science paradigm of the 1800s gave us indoor electrification and indoor plumbing. 1800s science is not disturbed there. It’s very effective in electro-mechanical affairs. Where the paradigm is most disturbed is in its incomplete moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

Quantum Discussion among science popularizers and at the dinner table, did indeed “soften” the edges of “hard science.” Gregg Braden and others intuit correctly science philosophy from the 1800s-1900s is immature and needs to evolve. However the specific remedies proposed by the Quantum Discussion were largely a return to “religion is the opium of the masses” in the clothing of science.

The solutions Quantum Discussers will ultimately find workable, in about 100 years, are etheric in nature. Why can’t Quantum scientists discuss etheric phenomena openly now? Because it’s discussion is inextricably linked with moral, ethical and philosophical maturity. Dr. Frankenstein is more alive, stronger and healthier than he ever was in the 1800s. Dr. F. is now employed by corporate investors and academic corporations who wish to explore, experiment, and innovate OUTSIDE of moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

We call this, “work made for hire.” Just do your work, take your paycheck, don’t think about how your creation changes you, don’t think about its implications, don’t think about the consequences of your creation.

The Three Sciences does not wish to alter Predictability and Reproducibility in Second Order Science. That’s not where we’re having a problem. Whee our science paradigm is dysfunctional is Predictability and Reproducibility over-generalized to apply to First Order (subjective) activity; and, Third Order (the shared commons) activity.
Embracing Principles of Uncertainty

In 1935 Heisenberg introduced natural unpredictability, the Principles of Uncertainty. Did earthly survivalist egos joyfully leap to embrace Uncertainty as a needed balance for strict hard science paradigm thought? No. Predictably, earthly survivalist egos clung desperately to Predictability-Reproducibility-Cause-Effect.

Why does this paradigm still rule many minds and all media in early 2017? Because it is in concert with and supports the paradigm of corporate-consumerism which needs Dr. Frankenstein not Goethe working for them.

How little the genius of natural unpredictability has influenced the 1800s science paradigm, is the Electric Universe theory. Mainstream prejudice against many facts contradicting the gravity-only universe is rampant.

Electric Universe ideas go back to early 1900s research into the aurora borealis in Scandinavia. Velikovsky in the 1950s was a fore-runner of Electric Universe ideas. The main website got going in 2009.

Remember, prior to Electric Universe ideas, earthly survivalist egos embraced a universe 100% run on gravitation. No batteries (electricity) required.

As more and more NASA space scientists trickle towards Electric Universe ideas, what we realize is adding electricity to a gravity-run solar system and universe–makes things less predictable.

How slowly Electric Universe ideas have spread among astronomers suggests how attached even they are to getting paid to verify and validate the predictability of celestial phenomena based on gravity alone–even when the facts contradict this.

The Electric Universe controversy is ongoing. People still want to cling to simple mechanical cogs and wheels, Newtonian explanations of cosmic events. This is one of the negative aspects of “the clockwork universe.”

Role of double-blind experiments

One advance which reduced superstition and subjective errors in observations in the 1700s-1900s was double-blind experiments. Well-designed experiments ruled out and eliminated individual-subjective beliefs, attitudes, biases and preferences altogether. That was good.

On the bad side, double-blind experiments were used to eliminate and invalidate individual-subjective thoughts and feelings of highly skilled experimenters and scientists–where their subjective impressions, thoughts and feelings were relevant to various commons and to humankind as a whole. Nuclear bombs, biological weapons and fracking come to mind.

Hard scientist trolls like to invoke the ethos of double-blind experiments to exclude, invalidate, discredit and if possible, to prohibit whistle-blowers who wish to warn the public Dr. Frankenstein is at it again.

Double-blind experimental protocols attempt to keep experimenters out of every experiment–even tho, each experimenter is both an observer and a direct participant.

Leaving the experiencer out of an experience is why PTSD was not studied until only recent decades.

Leaving the experience out of an experience is why some Army doctors remain mystified by the extreme PTSD of drone pilots, stationed here in the US, flying armed drones with guns and rockets, overseas. Unlike bomber pilots in WW II, drone pilots must circle back to see and report on the physical and human destruction they cause.

If scientists knew how expectation and anticipation, belief and attitude, thought and feeling, choice and decision are the raw materials of change, the common denominators of change, maybe some would be more honoring of individual-subjective thoughts and feelings.

First Order Science is where individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are accepted, honored, instigated, so we can learn from them.

For purposes of personal-spiritual growing, individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are raw materials of self-transformation. How else could it be? The only motivation to eliminate them from experiments is because they interfere with results potentially profitable to investors.

Keeping out individual-subjective thoughts and feelings so everything can remain predictable to investors and controllable by corporations, is the cultural fight, the battle, ongoing now in science.

Propaganda to make all natural and subjective phenomena predictable and controllable is a losing battle. A clumsy, inaccurate, imprecise awakening thru quantum mechanics –which embraces Uncertainty–has already begun in mainstream media.

We can no longer retreat back into our old friend Predictability. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.

More informed “New physics” is not replacing “old physics.” It is not an either-or world. Rather, two additional paradigms of science, categories of rational human thinking, are taking their place on either side of “old science.”

Out of this, perhaps in 100 years, an expanded science paradigm will emerge. It will be capable of taking up where Goethe, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs left off in uncovering natural etheric forces and their phenomena. This new whole will definitely be greater than the sum of its parts.

References

Inspired by, massively revised and adapted from a much longer talk by
Lazaris online 2016: http://www.lazaris.com/blog/shifting-paradigms-another-look
Author, Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson can be found at https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com

Amazon Author Central page   There you will find three book series:
– Best Practices in Energy Medicine.
– Holistic Brain Balance,
– Group Process as an Art-form Series; Putting group process at the center of thriving, Progressive orgs

From Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment

inertia-k-12-science-physicsFrom Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment
Transition from perceiving behaviors as gravity-dominated to inertia-dominated
The bridging rhetoric for perceiving ether

One thing I learned as an elementary and middle school teacher is science is the art of asking good questions.

Tho I have a Goethean Science blog http://blog.goetheanscience.net I’m not a scientist by profession. My profession is closer to “mystic.”

I’ve made some effort to stay abreast of topics in New Physics, Etheric Physics and the Electric Universe. I notice a language (rhetorical) pattern that always makes me curious. On the primary questions of mass and movement, which interested Galileo, Newton and I’n sure many readers, I notice writers coming to conclusions before all observations are accounted for; and, a tendency to give up before questions about unaccounted-for observations are resolved. Giving up is not the same as answering a question; clinging to Newtonian principles is not the same as asking and answering questions.

I notice a tendency to close off discussion prematurely and stand on the authority of Newton and Einstein instead of proposing more useful questions. I notice these rhetorical gaps especially in middle and high school science teaching texts and online articles and videos for science teachers.

No such thing as “rest” in our solar system

Mr. Google tells me in Physics, inertia is defined as “the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”

However on Earth, anywhere in our solar system, there is no such thing as rest. The solar system is moving. So rest is only relative, one object to another.

What we mean by “rest” is two or more objects traveling at the same speed at the same time. Our perception of “rest” is highly conditioned by “proximity.” The common example is highway driving where a car in front of you or to the left or right of you appears not to move because you and it are traveling at the same speed and direction.

When we expand our perception of mass, we remember there is no “rest.” Every mass on Earth is already in motion. Since everything is already moving, each object has inertia just as much as it has mass.

Mr. Newton, I think, tells us gravity is a universal force; he tells us objects have inertia in proportion to their mass. HOWEVER I can find no observation helping me connect inertia with gravity.

My Goethean observation suggests the phenomena of inertia is very poorly described as a gravity phenomena.

My Goethean observation suggests inertia describes a mass phenomena.

Here, abstract mathematical thinking often intrudes on observation. It intrudes this way: “force X is a factor of force Y.” This is math lingo intruding on naked observation, sometimes distorting our thinking.

If correct, my observations suggest mass is independent of inertia. Whatever inertia is, Mr. Newton tell us it conditions mass to certain behavior: we must do work to move a mass from one location to another, or to change its speed or direction of movement. I observe this too.

What I am not able to observe is this common line of science teaching:

“Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

The above quote clearly connects inertia to objects; it connects mass and inertia, makes mass a pre-condition for inertia. So far I’m unable to observe this.

The newer idea which fits observations more clearly is inertia, whatever it is, is indepdent of mass.

The idea is not unique to me. I forget the obscure references. Anybody know the references?

What I find more in line with my observations is “inertia” exists prior to mass, prior to objects.

What Newton called “inertia” can exist within mass AND exists everywhere in 3D time and space, independent and outside of mass.

When we start talking about observable something existing independent of and outside of physical mass, we are very, very close to talking about a medium within which all mass is situated and within which all mass is conditioned by.

If you like this, we are now miles away from “Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”

Once we consider inertia existing independent of mass, we are most of the way towards acknowledging a medium, invisible to merely animal eyes, surrounding and conditioning physical objects in one or more ways.

This is the of my proposal. To take it forward into discussing “ether” isn’t necessary because Rudolf Steiner, Gunther Wachsmuth, JJ Thomson and Gustave LeBon have done the work of documenting ether’s properties. Ernst Lehrs in his Man or Matter 3rd edition 1985 has done the work of connecting all of this with Goethean observation. No need to repeat their work.

I propose this thinking is 100% consistent with the thinking of JJ Thomson, Gustave LeBon, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs.

The propositions:
– ‘inertia exists independent of objects’ and

– ‘resistance to a change of location or a change in speed or a change in direction, tells us of a medium thru which all 3D physical objects are already traveling,’

…are consistent with observation. Comments and corrections invited.

If these propositions find agreement elsewhere, they can do away with confused science teaching in the vein of, “Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has.” http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

To Do possibilities

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/contact-us/

Abstract-summary of the Three Sciences we use everyday

Abstract of Three Sciences chapters 19-20 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul ~

“Hard scientists,” especially those skeptical of holistic ideas and subjective phenomena, forget we use two other kinds of science every day.

three-sciences-triptych-hi-resThe average adult—especially women–use Three Orders of Science each day.

Second Order Science: Physical survival intelligence ~

Each day we make many survival choices, safe, rational evaluations about how to cross a busy street, drive a car, handle power tools, problem solving; in fact, navigating any new situation unfamiliar to us.

Activity and choices around survival are “real,” are one kind of rational thinking; and, this is one category of “science” we use daily.

First Order Science: Immune System Self intelligence ~

Each day we make choices about what benefits me and only me. Do I like this dress better or that dress? Do I want fish or turkey for lunch today? Is it more beneficial for me to go to bed at 10pm or 1 am? Do I prefer this or that color, style, music, or turn of phrase in my speech?

Down below our neck, in our Small Intestine, our Cell Level Intelligence is “asking” and “testing,” “Is this nutrient floating by safe and beneficial for me to take into my bloodstream now?” Either this nutrient is safe and beneficial now or it is not safe and/or beneficial now.

Even tho they concern me and me alone, these activities and choices are also “real” and rational.

The two above add up to TWO kinds of rational thinking; now two categories of “science” we use everyday.

Let’s pause here to not “selfishness” occurs when the above two sciences get fused, cross-wired. Then “all about me” becomes the criteria for every moment of waking life. In extreme cases, my needs become more significant than yours or anyone else’s. A certain Republican candidate for President in 2016 demonstrated the error of this mis-use of thinking magnificently. We can all learn what not to do from his example.

Third Order Science: Intelligence of the greatest good for the greatest number ~

If you are a mother or a father, you make daily choices and decisions assessing the amount of food, clothing, shelter and resources we have in hand against the needs of everyone involved. In this “science” we think rationally about how easy it is to get more of each resource; and, how each need will expand or shrink in the next time period to come.

In this third category of rational choosing-deciding, I alone am no longer the sole stakeholder. I choose to consider the needs of my children, retired grandparents; and often, extended family members. Even tho thinking here concerns me as perhaps one small part of a greater whole, choices made in this area are also real and rational. Ask any parent.

By my count, this makes three categories of rational choosing, rational decision making, rational evaluations, we make every day, Three Sciences.

Q: What practical application does this have?

A: The Three Sciences may have have the most immediate and timely relevance to methods of holistic healing and Energy Medicine, all of them.

This is because Second Order (ego-survival, “hard” science) has been at war with holism and holistic thought since the 1970s [including everything in Waldorf].

The Three Sciences make the conflict unnecessary. ONE science alone cannot span the range of rational thinking we use every day; on one end, what is beneficial at the cellular level; and, what is beneficial for highest good of everyone and all critters on Planet Earth.

We can, we do, and we must use different Orders of thinking to address issues, depending which scale of concern is before us presently.

First Order Science is the naturally supportive science for holistic studies
How our cells and immune system “think” is 100% First Order Science. Not Second, not Third. First Order Science is the Science of the subjective; where, we honor and uncover more of both its intelligence; and, its limitations.

First Order Science is the key to forward progress in health and healing because ‘each person heals uniquely’ (Rudolf Steiner paraphrase). What is workable to heal me is highly individualized. It may or may not be workable for you. What works is often subjective. Outside of accidents and physical injury, the vast majority of healing for humans must be calibrated to the single individual. Humans are the least herd-like of creatures.

What thinking, which Science, characterizes hospital-drug-surgery-medicine? Can you guess?

Conventional 20th century medicine is 100% Second Order Science, the science of physical-material survival and male-ego-survival.

This is why it was pointless for John Thie, DC of Touch for Health and his practitioner colleagues to struggle for 25 years to get T4H services accepted by established medical authorities, why insurance companies never paid for Touch for Health by anyone except MDs. Holistic healing is literally outside what they call and consider “science,” beyond what they consider “real.”

With Three Sciences, we can say, just because holistic idea X is not Second Order Science does NOT mean no science, no rational, no critical thinking is occurring. Critical thinking occurs at three or more levels of intelligence inside us each and every day.

Q: Where does the science of Galileo-Descartes-Newton-Hawking fall?

A: Second Order. The middle Science was the first to evolve. First Order did not get going outwardly until the 1970s. Third Order began with Lincoln, Ghandi and ML King.

First Order Science healthcare has no conflict with Second Order medical healthcare. Why should they? they are separate Sciences. We want Second Order Science healthcare for accidents, injuries, and needed surgeries. We want First Order Science healthcare for most other wellness, health and prevention needs. A future, more Goethean Psychology will address concerns in all Three Sciences.

Colored shadows demo how all color has a subjective aspect. Let’s apply this to ether studies

colored-shadows4 colored-shadows3 colored-shadows2 colored-shadows1According to Goethe, all hues are colored shadows. Later, color scientists, most famously Edwin Land (founder of the Polaroid Corporation), appear to produce shadows of virtually every hue… (ref)

The above photo-demonstrations serve to bring healthy doubt into Newton’s one-sided, 100% materialistic explanations of color.

If studied, the images suggest a definite subjective element must be part of how we perceive color, how we estimate and imagine polarities where they may or may not exist, how in fact, each person may do this somewhat uniquely.

These photo-demonstrations of colored shadows are part of an old argument which may have new meaning in our post-2012 world.

You may know in the field of “free” energy, older ideas about ether are being revised and upgraded as we speak.

A main piece of the old argument between Goethe~Newton on color can be summarized freshly as:  Is color 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we view color?

This is a microcosm to the identical dilemma and conflict encountered by etheric researchers.  Those who know Goethe’s view of color can propose a useful question to etheric researchers:  Is ethericity 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we perceive and work with etheric formative forces?

If you have seen Chapter 19 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul it should be clear how one-sided scientists, paid by corporations, often prefer totally one-sided science, where human ethics, morals and choice are irrelevant.  Conversely, how Goethean, two-sided scientists-experimenters celebrate the etherical, moral and transformatinal aspects of working with ethericity.

The current generations of etheric researchers are intelligent and collaborative. See the free two-hour YouTube video of intro statements by 30 of the leaders at the 2015 gathering of researchers, approximately HERE

However current etheric researchers tend to be less interested in artistic and metaphysical Oneness than Steiner and his immediate successors on this topic in Anthroposophy, most notably, Ernst Lehrs.