<P>Hexslinger wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>I never said that space is 'in' the aether - I said
that the aether is
<BR>pure charge. That's it. What we know as 'electric charge' is the aether
<BR>itself. Charge isn't a 'spacial quality', it is the fundamental quality
of
<BR>the universe. It doesn't reside in space - it *IS* space. That's what
I've
<BR>been trying to tell you.</BLOCKQUOTE>
No you said that the aether IS space and not just IN space.
<BR>But if you have space as a fabric then that fabric can not have any
spatial qualities.
<P>Understand yet?
<P><I>>As I understand it, the aether (being the very fabric of spacetime
-</I>
<BR><I>>spacetime itself) consists of various flows of scalar 'charge'.</I>
<P>You stated that the aether is space but by saying <I>"consists of various
flows of scalar 'charge' " </I>you seem to give the idea that the same
aether that IS space also exists (and flows) in space and changes over
time which you state it is so in other words I am saying that space-time
can't flow in space and time.
<BR>
<P>John Berry</HTML>
</x-html>.
Received: from ???@??? Tue Feb 17 04:45:18 1998
X-Persona: <IADFW Account>
Return-Path: <KeelyNet-L-return-970-danyork=iadfw.net@lists.kz>
Received: from lists.kz from [207.180.91.8] by mail.airmail.net
(/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.237) with smtp for <danyork@iadfw.net>
id <m0y4kRN-0001tVB@mail.airmail.net> Tue, 17 Feb 98 04:39:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 21417 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 1998 10:50:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact KeelyNet-L-help@lists.kz; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Delivered-To: mailing list KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Received: (qmail 21408 invoked from network); 17 Feb 1998 10:50:46 -0000
Received: from cheech.ihug.co.nz (203.29.160.9)
by mail.starfire.douglas.ma.us with SMTP; 17 Feb 1998 10:50:46 -0000
Received: from ihug.co.nz (p50-max26.auck.ihug.co.nz [207.212.238.177]) by cheech.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA29858 for <KeelyNet-L@lists.kz> Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:39:32 +1300
Message-ID: <34E96907.29945CAB@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:40:08 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav@ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Subject: Re: Graduated Forcefalls
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980216210738.6249A-100000@users2.internet-frontier.net> <34E93989.FB9E4B98@ihug.co.nz> <34E956E9.2A5D@keelynet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jerry W. Decker wrote:
> Hi John et al!
>
> Gotcha!!!
>
> You wrote;
> > That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is that if the aether
> > is space (the only space that exists) as you say, Then it can't exist
> > in space as it IS space and so it can't have spacial properties.
>
> YOU said it was space, neither Hex or I said that, YOU SAID IT...a troll
> by any other name...<g>.....
>
> As I understand it, space is absence of matter BUT NOT AETHER....You are
> saying they are one and the same, no one else says it.
>
> Aether exists IN SPACE, period....let it rest, this is going nowhere...
>
I agree that the aether is in space and not space it's self but I DO believe
that you will find that Hex DID say that the aether IS space and not IN
space, the email below is a copy of the email in which I believe that Hex
said such.
Subject: Re: Graduated Forcefalls
From: Hexslinger <hexslngr@internet-frontier.net>
Reply-To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Jerry W. Decker wrote:
> I don't know about charge being 'spatial pressure' though it is an
> interesting statement. Shock waves as far as I know can occur at any
> frequency and in any medium, consisting of high density, short duration
> bursts.
As I understand it, the aether (being the very fabric of spacetime -
spacetime itself) consists of various flows of scalar 'charge'. I believe
Bearden said in his infamous list of gripes with conventional EM theory
that the aether can be described as the 'spatial pressure' in a given
region (hence where I came up with that). I suppose that's not the
greatest term for it, but it'll have to do.
> I'm not saying Keely said this, but the graduation is really a division
> of sound where it manifests as pressure, then matter. The term
> 'graduation' is a harmonizing of the mass aggregate constituents so that
> they are all in phase, if not actually resonant....such as in a Bose
> Einstein Condensate.
I'm not sure I understand this at all. It was my understanding that
"graduation" was the conversion of one form of energy to the next, as I
described.