#27: 1947 Hendrik Casimir in angstrom-level what Otto v.Guericke did with two half-spheres ( Blaise Pascal)
          1951 "ether of particles" also known as 'sea' : Dirac sea

And who are you to question OU or ever worse define what electricity is?

_Answer:
Here is who I'm:
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293

Position in human horde  is affecting you as an animal and  your influential status.
https://overunity.com/18878/reactive-current-parallel-rcl/msg558293/#msg558293
]____________________________________________________________________________[/b]

For God's sake, you don't even believe it is possible,

_Answer:
For physics God doesn't exist . {In more elegant form I'll say: - Physics doesn't recognize God.)
And for Darwin - you are just an animal - a the mammal to be exact.
Go to church with your believes...
or to one of my favorite synagogues - great entertainment , you'll not get bored  there.
_{Yes it's 4-6hours event,- happiness, smile, casual conversation, new social connections, some business talk, ..
I had some science talk with  another  scientist. --- all of that is  tolerated  ..well... sort of...  if done..}


]____________________________________________________________________________[/b]

OU  doesn't exist with that attitude.

_Answer:
There is and never was - an attitude  making OU - overunity to be  lesser of a nonsense.
In physics I don't accept any  believes.- OU  doesn't exist.
]____________________________________________________________________________[/b]

Your perspective is waaay too limited to give informed opinion on these subtle subjects.

_{"subtle" : everything that is so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe}.

Answer:
Physics doesn't recognize  words "delicate, subtle , limited, precise or difficult"
Physicist analyzes phenomena and publishes results in form of an opinion on these subjects.
If other physicists can replicate the published results than we:
- create new model
- correct  existing model.
- support and further improve the quality of  a model.

I'm in physics for more than 30 years now.
Wesley

Principle of the levitating device above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe_RDTFVrkc

1. You have problem with  understanding English language:

No, Wesley, you do.  Even tho i'm non native speaker, my English is way better than yours, sentence structure, terminology and overall expression, not to mention how scattered and chaotic everything you write is.

_Example1: a - Please read  the first two words: "_{For physics}"
b - construct mental picture of  a sense of the sentence.
_Conclusion:
 It is the physics that doesn't recognize  existence of  any spiritual models that are based on believes.
 Your personal position to this particular subject in question is never mentioned in my  comment.
___________________________________________
_Example2:a. - Please read  the first three  words: "_{And for Darwin}"
b  - construct mental picture of  a sense of the sentence.
_Conclusion:
It is the  Darwin  evolutionist, that doesn't recognize  you as a human - in any other form but only:
- as an animal  that belongs to group of animals known as mammals.
_{Action:
You may disagree but than you will not graduate, unless you say:
-that according to Darwin you are  an animal}

___________________________________________________

If you were not taking things so literally, so black and white, you would've looked at the context, just 2 paragraphs below i make it very clear that material physics is inferior to Spiritual Physics. Physical instruments can measure only so much, especially those of mainstream physics. If we take into account those of the black projects, then such science is much closer to REAL science.

The very reason mainstream science is so limited and in big part flawed is for this materialistic approach, which we see slowly reverse in quantum physics but still their models are flawed missing the simpler all encompassing model, similar to which i touch upon in one of previous posts.

physics is not based on beliefs but on models. If model doesn't works for us  we throw  it away as we  did with  Ether/eather.
We don't have believes in physics - we have predictions
 A prediction is: a statement that we make about the future.

I never said physics is based on belief (altho ultimately this whole reality IS based on belief and is fundamentally imaginary, unreal), belief is a transitory phase, once one has done enough research and work in particular area, there is no place for belief.

Just because you limited yourself to what big boys say, mainstream narrative, it only shows your lack of discernment, there is a whole another, REAL science happening parallel with mainstream, that did not dismiss ether, overunity, or gravity control, Keely, Hollingshead, Zirbes, Bearden being just a few in a long chain of great ones whom you SHOULD'VE but you didn't study.

In his 1921 monograph Sidelights on Relativity Einstein states:

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such a space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. (measured rods and clocks), nor therefore any space intervals in the physical sense.”

You nix85 used  the wording: ________________________________________
Answer:
I gave you definition of word: subtle
_{"subtle" : everything that is so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe}.
_{.encyclopedia.com/literature-}
-but   how could you  understand it if you don't  know how to process logic of English language.
Tell me the truth nix85 - who does the reading for you?

Here are few synonyms for subtle: fine, minute, precise, elusive.

Subtle is indeed a great term, subtle energies are exactly what we are talking about, finer forms of energy, elusive for those who don't know how to extract/resist them.

Again, one great example being etheric rainmaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwhu2G2p2sM

One of us really has trouble understanding English, i'll give you a hint, it ain't me.

Answer: [/sub]
This is what I wrote:And yes
 I'm in physics for more than 30 years now.
- but one doesn't exclude the other.

So much uncalled for rant. Ok you did not say you are a physicist, but "in physics". Excuse mua, such a great difference.

Isn't it sweet how you did not even address the 4th law of motion and inertial propulsion or etheric rainmaking, you, with such "great" experience in physics.

Summary:
I do respond  to your comments from the position  of social respect.
You didn't provide  firm answers  having a solid, almost unyielding surface or structure.
You are acting  like... like a dog  jumping around  and trying to find any chance to bite .
I'm not your enemy,
But how  do you know that?
 

Wesley 

I doubt you can understand the concept of respect.

Compare this or my last post to your last posts, mine with no personal attacks, no name calling, yours full of angry, aggressive rhetoric, personal attacks, demeaning paraboles...so who is "like a dog  jumping around  and trying to find any chance to bite". Look in the mirror, Wesley, boi.

No Wesley, you are not my enemy, you are your own worst enemy.

No one cares about your titles, i simply referred to your supposed 30 years of physics experience yet, you are ignorant of even the most basic mechanical principles like 4th law of motion, let alone the true mechanics of the time-space.

There is much to quote but you are dodging anything that doesn't suit your little worldview.

For start, address the etheric rainmaking and inertial propulsion.

"The  special  theory  of relativity  forbids  us  to  assume  the  ether  to  consist  of  particles observable through time,"

Yet mainstream physics is perfectly fine with concept of virtual particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Vibration of ether CREATES time and time creates space.

First of all ether is not made of particles. There are no particles, anywhere, anywhen, there are just waves. There is just one infinite forcefield made of vibrations of infinite frequency and amplitude bound by secondary vibrations of finite frequency and amplitude which create interference patterns along 6 axis of time, time is AC, it just oscillates "in place", it never moves. Each matter-antimatter universe picks up oscillations in opposite directions, thus matter-antimatter timelines flow in opposite directions.

3D space is created by imaginary angle between 6 time axis

"The angle of 60 degrees could only be created by an apparent frequency shift maintaining the harmonic vibrations of the rotating field."

In other words, this is the very root of relativity, REAL relativity, from perspective of each of 6 time axis, nearby axis appears to oscillate at 1/2 it's frequency altho they are exactly the same. This allows perception of depth and consequently illusion of 3D space. Time is first, space second, it is time-space, NOT space-time.

https://galactic.no/rune/iarapdx1.html
http://www.resona.nl/Denaerde/denaerde.html

Michelson–Morley experiment is nonsensical, we already experience motion of ether as gravity (and antigravity). Within a gravitational bubble, local reference frame, only direction the ether moves is from all sides toward earth center and back into space in another form, gravitational bubble being polarization of ether.

With appropriate apparatus you could detect motion of ether spiraling around the earth all the way to it's boundary just beyond our Moon and then back to the poles.

Earth "falls" in Sun's vortex, neutral energy piles up along the leading edge (equator) and makes the planet rotate which produces the differential of neutral energy between the equator and the axis which in turn makes neutral energy spiral from the equator toward to poles, in same direction (toward east) on both hemisphere, this develops Earth's own vortex which repels the parent vortex due to C+ speeds in the outer layers of the magnetic field which shear and release energy in form of expanding bubbles of nothing. Whole universe works like this, from smallest subatomic "particle" to entire cosmos.

Natural principles are simple, for those with eyes to see.

Sorry this is not my style of conversation.
You are not responding to the questions and answers in the format
of logical conclusion I'm familiar with.
I may have nothing against e.g Russian Fish Market but I don't want  be a part of it.

Thank you for your time.
Happy Ether, Happy Overunity and any other nonsense to you.

Wesley.

Good Morning,un-/balanced line in topic theme ?
I reed yesterday also about RELATIVTY,cause the 1951 date from Diracs "ether of particles" expression,knowing from the End 80',but End 1880, experiment of "ether" existent confirmation/deny by Michelson  and later also Morlay ! Michelson-Morlay
Why there where an "ether" search ? Sound waves velocity ! Light velocity,later c = constant velocity of light !
               Ether = a carrier medium

1901 : based " Galilei his Relativity" A.Einstein refind a Ge(ne)ral Relativity and definition,in whose light its c not only on earth but astronomically " universal,everywhere" is resistantfree same in its speed and velocity !
So we have to differ the expression ' ether' as wave/light phenomen and in use ,meaning " cloud and/or sphere" !
              Nano- dimension-sphere,Sub-Angstrom( 1 Angstrom ~ 1 Atom thickness ) Sub-Atom = nucleus/nuclear
2021 : electricity is anymore 'electron's,by international convention now to be expressed as ION and/or PLASMA,            and all other kinds of e-particles !

Please,when You all dispute about " science disputation about hypo-/thesis" repeat the both opponent sides by academical Physics "facts" in the 18./19./20.century !
And as last : from 'Galileis Relativity" A.Einstein refind and confirmed James Clerk Maxwells original 20(21?) Formulas/Equations and Isaak Newtons gravity field findings as structure elements for his "Relativity theorems" ART and SRT.

Sincere
OCWL

Parallel RCL                 RLC-Reihenschwingkreis

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwingkreis
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwingkreis

RLC circuit - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › R...


An RLC circuit is an electrical circuit consisting of a resistor (R), an inductor (L), and a capacitor (C), connected in series or in parallel.

 and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindstrom ,reactive current ,active current = Wirkstrom only valid for :  AC technology


                                                                                                                                                            ( pulsed DC ?)


 " Blind(e,er),blind ,original solely translation = unable to see because of injury, disease, or a congenital condition.
a blind man with a stick "


https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindstrom


                                     not/consumed : charge active current and carrier reactive current