Fabric of Space

[Jeremy Weiland]

--- daniel moeck <dmoeck@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ezgbkh-xojnowkx_bqul9dz_l2owxw6i1b2gkzckwh7pu8xm8vrjjjwak uboocizjssc7wkamnby)> wrote:
> but i also see a problem here in that we are still
> following a structure created by david which he has
> now, apparently lost interest in or just doesn't
> have time for. it feels kind of like we're
> still throwing a party for someone who has long
> since left the building. so, i guess, what will be
> will be.

the list wasn't designed for david to communicate with
interested parties. he has the website for that.
this list is for us to talk about ideas related to his
work. he does participate once in a while, but he's
just a participant here like everybody else.
honestly, i think he stops following list discussions
for the same reason a lot of us do: they go wildly out
of bounds on a regular basis. the best thing you can
do is to keep talking about the things you want to
discuss. we need more conversation from a scientific
point of view, but i think many here lack the
scientific expertise or interest to pursue it in
depth. i look forward to hearing your ideas.

> is anyone interested in talking about how we as
> spirits create in the fabric of physical space?

absolutely! i'm intrigued by your description of an
electron-positron lattice structure as an explanation
for spatial fabric. does this scientist have an
explanation for the substance of the electrons and
positrons that provide the energetic tension for this
fabric?

thanks for stirring the pot with such a great post!
you have any info on the web pertaining to this
gentleman?

jeremy



__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[Daniel Moeck]

hi jeremy,


>the list wasn't designed for david to communicate with
>interested parties. he has the website for that.
>this list is for us to talk about ideas related to his
>work. he does participate once in a while, but he's
>just a participant here like everybody else.


i guess i was a little slow to catch on but i understand now.

>honestly, i think he stops following list discussions
>for the same reason a lot of us do: they go wildly out
>of bounds on a regular basis. the best thing you can
>do is to keep talking about the things you want to
>discuss. we need more conversation from a scientific
>point of view, but i think many here lack the
>scientific expertise or interest to pursue it in
>depth.


i have no scientific training. just a keen interest. so i have little
choice other than to speak in laymen's terms. maybe that will help broaden
some discussions.

> i look forward to hearing your ideas.
>
> > is anyone interested in talking about how we as
> > spirits create in the fabric of physical space?
>
>absolutely! i'm intrigued by your description of an
>electron-positron lattice structure as an explanation
>for spatial fabric. does this scientist have an
>explanation for the substance of the electrons and
>positrons that provide the energetic tension for this
>fabric?

unfortunately no. he is working with standard particle theories and doesn't
speculate on the substance of those particles. i favor krafft's aether
vortex theory myself.

>thanks for stirring the pot with such a great post!
>you have any info on the web pertaining to this
>gentleman?

sure. you can google search "menahem simhony", although some of the best
links don't seem to be working. or, try this: http://www.epola.co.uk/

i would be very happy to hear what you think of it. i have done quite a bit
of research into free energy devices and hudson's superconducting monatomic
elements and so few people have anything to say about positrons in space. i
have some electrolytic capacitors sitting on my shelf here that i put a
reverse charge on a year and a half ago using a joe cell set up. i have
shorted them many times, originally by lighting an led, but the charge
always comes back over night. i think they are holding either a proton or a
positron charge, which by the way, seems to be what makes the joe cell
demonstrate over unity effects.

for anyone who is not sure what a "positron" is: it is the same size and
weight as an electron but has a positive charge rather than a negative
charge. half of the so called "valance electrons" in the outside shells of
atoms, which are responsible for forming chemical bonds with other atoms,
are actually positrons. i think they may have been the "cold electricity"
that tesla used to wrap himself in when he did stage demonstrations over
100 years ago. they've been largely ignored ever since.

so, this "electron-positron lattice" theory says that space is packed so
tightly with an equal number of electrons and positrons that it is kind of
like a solid substance that can almost instantly transfer electro-magnetic
vibrations from one far end to the other. yet this fabric itself is like a
standing wave with it's interspersed opposite charges which, while
transmitting motion in both directions simultaneously, appears quite still.
it fits in well with other quantum physics models because, while it is
exceedingly fine almost beyond imagination, it is still composed of a
finite number of tangible known particles. it truly is what i imagine the
enterprise holodeck would have to be wired to to mock up it's
super-detailed 3d images.

daniel moeck

----------


---
outgoing mail is certified virus free.
checked by avg anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
version: 6.0.716 / virus database: 472 - release date: 7/5/2004


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[srachele2004]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=nkg2vcq9gwd1s_zs6z6datbd6-twept6rr47vqamau8ex3nqovxub-owdygxrk8i1rhvbvrin-ba5y81ktf1), daniel moeck <dmoeck@e...> wrote:

> for anyone who is not sure what a "positron" is: it is the same size
and weight as an electron but has a positive charge rather than a
negative charge...
> so, this "electron-positron lattice" theory says that space is
packed so tightly with an equal number of electrons and positrons...

sal here:
is there hard evidence that our universe has an equal number of
positrons and electrons? i was under the impression that positrons
were rare.

another intriguing theory suggests there is a parallel universe that
is our "anti-universe" or opposite twin. our universe appears to have
more electrons than positrons, and this opposite twin would have just
the opposite (more positrons than electrons) in equal proportions. we
have mostly matter and a little bit of anti-matter. our twin would
have mostly anti-matter and a little matter. a black hole (on our
side) would tunnel into a white hole (on their side), joining the two
universes into a complete system. there is a strong argument for this
theory in that it preserves the law of conservation of energy and
takes thermodynamics into account. (the parallel twin would have
mostly 'centropy' or reverse entropy.) a diagram of this theory would
look like the infinity symbol.

[Daniel Moeck]

hi sal there,

at 05:41 pm 7/20/2004, you wrote:

>--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=wcyngiprlnb3o2mnrohna4b1oehzz0hex1tksf lhl2pev-hk75opln-c1uizwk_ri8i6hj3gyftszgck), daniel moeck <dmoeck@e...> wrote:
>
> > for anyone who is not sure what a "positron" is: it is the same size
>and weight as an electron but has a positive charge rather than a
>negative charge...
> > so, this "electron-positron lattice" theory says that space is
>packed so tightly with an equal number of electrons and positrons...
>
>sal here:
>is there hard evidence that our universe has an equal number of
>positrons and electrons? i was under the impression that positrons
>were rare.

i'm just talking off the top of my head about this, hoping that i am in the
right place to have my errors pointed out kindly by someone who knows
better. till then, here's my best notion about the apparent attitude that
positrons are rare or could only be plentiful in a parallel universe:

i think the joe cell, for instance, may be presenting evidence that every
time electrons flow (if they actually flow at all) through a wire in one
direction an equal number of positron flow in the opposite direction as if
they were being displaced by the electrons. i think electricity has always
been a 2-way flow. the masculine discoverers who defined the basic laws of
electricity as we know them today saw only the results of the electrons
because they are the particle that radiates energy outwardly creating
measurable fields. they completely overlooked the positrons which were in
equal abundance because they are the passive particle of the 2. if they had
declared electrons to be positive and positrons to be negative it would
make more sense.

it is said that when lightning strikes the earth there is one charge
(electrons?) coming down and at the same time another charge (positrons?)
going back up. if i have this correct then why would electric current in a
wire be any different? i think the "hard evidence" for an equal number of
positrons is just being overlooked by a male dominated scientific mind set
that sees very little value in the subtle energies of life. the academic
mind can only assume that the laws of entropy require everything to
eventually run down and die. but nature doesn't do that. nature runs on
free energy because it recycles it, as symbolized by the infinity sign that
you mentioned. i think positrons have to flow opposite to electrons every
time to maintain balance.

daniel moeck

----------


---
outgoing mail is certified virus free.
checked by avg anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
version: 6.0.716 / virus database: 472 - release date: 7/5/2004


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[NEIL HADDON]

daniel,
thank you for taking the trouble to 'translate' your explanation into layman's
terms for us non-scientists. i'm sure many find this cutting edge knowledge
fascinating, as i do and it can't always be easy to find simple language to get
revolutionary theories across.

regarding
"so, this "electron-positron lattice" theory says that space is packed so
tightly with an equal number of electrons and positrons that it is kind of
like a solid substance that can almost instantly transfer electro-magnetic
vibrations from one far end to the other. yet this fabric itself is like a
standing wave with it's interspersed opposite charges which, while
transmitting motion in both directions simultaneously, appears quite still. "

is it naive of a non-scientist to suggest that since the aether behaves as
intelligent energy,as detailed in david's works and referred to by gregg braden
as "the mind of god" or "nature's mind", then it does not have to comprise a
'finite number of tangible known particles' of balanced polarity, it just simply
"is"?
in other words it can adapt to suit the local situation as required.
this would also explain how it can appear to 'instantly transfer
electro-magnetic vibrations' across distances - it is omni-present.
love.
neil



[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Daniel Moeck]

hi neil,


>is it naive of a non-scientist to suggest that since the aether behaves as
>intelligent energy,as detailed in david's works and referred to by gregg
>braden as "the mind of god" or "nature's mind", then it does not have to
>comprise a 'finite number of tangible known particles' of balanced
>polarity, it just simply "is"?
>in other words it can adapt to suit the local situation as required.
>this would also explain how it can appear to 'instantly transfer
>electro-magnetic vibrations' across distances - it is omni-present.
>love.
>neil


well, to be honest, yes, i think your suggestion sounds naive. perhaps we
are all naive about a whole lot of things, or else we wouldn't still be
here. i think to say something in this physical world "just is" is to
surrender your dominion over it. maybe that's a perfectly viable way to
complete your training in 3d. i don't know yet. my mind is snared by the
desire to understand it all. quite possibly i will finally come to my own
endpoint where i also have to say it "just is". i wonder how david would
answer this for himself.

as david pointed out yesterday the electron-positron theory has some
truth to it but a lot of holes as well. i'll have to do my reading to
better understand where he thinks the holes are, but i have a basic belief
about the physical universe that applies here. i believe that anything that
manifests in the physical universe has a knowable, definable physical
counterpart. you can say that the human mind is completely non-physical,
but it has to have a physical body to operate through in order to manifest
itself in this dimension. so i apply the same axiom to the aether by
saying, something has to be there for light to travel to our eyes, so what
is that "something"? we accept light as a physical manifestation, yet
without an aether we could not see physical light.

can you point out to me where david's writings say "the aether behaves as
intelligent energy"? my understanding is that it is easily impressed or
directed by intelligent energy, or, in the broadest sense, could be called
the mind of god. i know my mind to be the mind of god also. so i see the
aether as a very real physical fabric with no mind of it's own, but is
easily directed by any mind that is of god. we are gods working in 3d here,
so we have to have a 3d canvas for our minds to create our 3d reality on.
that canvas is the aether and part of the challenge of being in 3d is to
understand what it is and how it works. make sense?

daniel moeck



----------


---
outgoing mail is certified virus free.
checked by avg anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
version: 6.0.716 / virus database: 472 - release date: 7/5/2004


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Hamilton]

from: "daniel moeck" <dmoeck@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ojqmedtnui9voc1rwjq_6yijrfgzymy0c_lpjv 5g8zqq0imgsv74mvhjxt0qplv_pmrbynizd60)>
> can you point out to me where david's writings say "the aether behaves as
> intelligent energy"? daniel moeck

hi daniel,

i did a quick google search and came up with this paragraph from convergence
iii chapter 2, section 2.2:

"and thus, like fishes in the sea, the pressure of this energetic "fluid"
constantly surrounds us, though we do not normally notice its presence. in
this wealth of new data, the aether fluid is a source of tremendous energy
that is in constant vibrational motion, flowing through all objects in the
universe, creating and recreating them every second -- just as a candle
flame is constantly absorbing new wax and oxygen and radiating new heat and
light, but still continues to exist as a measurable "unit." should this
aether ever stop flowing and swirling about with such an intelligent,
purposeful behavior, all mass would shed heat, gradually "dissolve" and
return to its primordial energy state; the "flame" would go out. "

all i did was search using "aether and intelligent energy". hope this
helped. chris

[Daniel Moeck]

yes, that helps. thanks chris. it gives a very different picture of the
aether from the one of a static cubic lattice (which simhony says is not
the aether anyway). it seems to say that a dynamic aether allows matter to
appear more static, even as it is driving it's sub-atomic particles to
continue their motions. simhony's lattice only springs to life when
stimulated by an outside energy source.

would you agree that this quote confirms the abundance of free energy all
around us? and that a worthy endeavor for all humans in this period of
history is to understand how this dynamic aether works so that we can use
it for our energy needs rather than consuming our limited natural
resources? i think david hudson in his lectures about monatomic gold
clearly identified zero-point energy as being this same underlying
vibration that permeates all matter. his ormes seem to be one viable way to
harness this free zero-point energy, but they haven't been developed into
any mass marketed products for that purpose yet. i think much simpler tools
for harnessing zero-point energy will be found as we use our god-given
intelligence to expand our understanding of the aether.

daniel moeck


at 10:40 am 7/21/2004, you wrote:

>from: "daniel moeck" <dmoeck@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=elkj-hulpr6rqvmpliw-wxgduxxt4lyxzre1tozlv5u2dvaskv62cs31xpfpaysebtr0ii vvmxxxtq)>
> > can you point out to me where david's writings say "the aether behaves as
> > intelligent energy"? daniel moeck
>
>hi daniel,
>
>i did a quick google search and came up with this paragraph from convergence
>iii chapter 2, section 2.2:
>
>"should this aether ever stop flowing and swirling about with such an
intelligent,purposeful behavior, all mass would shed heat, gradually
"dissolve" and return to its primordial energy state; the "flame" would go out.
"
>
>all i did was search using "aether and intelligent energy". hope this
>helped. chris

[Chris Hamilton]

> would you agree that this quote confirms the abundance of free energy all
> around us? and that a worthy endeavor for all humans in this period of
history is to understand how this dynamic aether works so that we can use
it for our energy needs rather than consuming our limited natural
resources? daniel moeck

daniel,

yes, the energy is there, i really believe that. what i wanted to emphasize
is that if you go into david's site, there is a google search engine right
under his neptune graphic on the main page. the quote i gave you wasn't the
only passage displayed when i searched using "aether and intelligent
energy". divine cosmos produced about 5 hits-i think there were about 12
hits listed in all. chris

[NEIL HADDON]

hi! daniel,

>well, to be honest, yes, i think your suggestion sounds naive<
i suppose i asked for that!!!(rueful smile!) ask a rhetorical question.....

>i think to say something in this physical world "just is" is to
surrender your dominion over it.<
i can see where you're driving, but aren't magnetism, and gravity other examples
of things we don't fully understand? we know a bit about how to apply or use
them, we know some of their characteristic behaviours, we even know a little
about how to shield ouselves/ our machines from them, but we quickly reach a
point where we have to say, "they just 'are'." yes?

>...without an aether we could not see physical light.<
oh yes! the explanations from non-aether believers as to how light and energy
travel through their 'vacuum' of space are always amusing.

>where david's writings say "the aether behaves as
intelligent energy"?<
the quotation chris posted earlier was from convergence lll,where chapter two is
titled, "the aether is pure, conscious oneness" and very early on states:
'current theories working with these aether concepts,...all agree that our
physical reality arises from this hidden energy substance, which creates all
that we know and see by vibrating. ' (my capitalisation implies intelligence of
its own)

and further in chapter eight, david says:
'as our discussion gradually progresses away from discussing free-energy and
anti-gravity machines, we will increasingly need to support the idea that the
aether is intelligent energy in the text. if we do not see the energy of the
"consciousness units" as having all the ingredients for life, consciousness and
spirit within themselves, then we will be ill-prepared for our future chapters
in this book. '

having said that, i accept as you say, the aether is
>... a 3d canvas for our minds to create our 3d reality on.<
- although you may go to work with a galvanometer and a battery, whereas i would
use heart-based feeling.(ha!ha!)
thanks for the stimulation, keep us informed how you're getting on.
love.
neil

[Daniel Moeck]

hi neil,


> >i think to say something in this physical world "just is" is to
>surrender your dominion over it.<
>i can see where you're driving, but aren't magnetism, and gravity other
>examples of things we don't fully understand? we know a bit about how to
>apply or use them, we know some of their characteristic behaviours, we
>even know a little about how to shield ouselves/ our machines from them,
>but we quickly reach a point where we have to say, "they just 'are'." yes?


no. i personally cannot accept that "they just are" without thinking about
how our ignorance of the true nature of gravity and magnetism is being used
to keep us enslaved to a ruling elite who does know a lot about them. do
you think ra fully understands gravity and magnetism? or the confederation?
why should the common masses on this planet remain ignorant?

did you know that a 3' by 6' carpet impregnated with a thin layer of david
hudson's orme-iridium can be made to support the weight of a large man
while levitating on the earth's magnetic field? or, that if the earth's
magnetic field fails us some day it is possible to harness large amounts of
magnetic energy from many common non-magnetic substances? my own personal
understanding of gravity and magnetism is that they are both aspects of the
same thing, which is aether in motion. the sooner academia accepts the
existence of the aether the sooner we can begin to take part in the greater
cosmic community of enlightened beings that surrounds our planet.


> >where david's writings say "the aether behaves as
>intelligent energy"?<
>the quotation chris posted earlier was from convergence lll,where chapter
>two is titled, "the aether is pure, conscious oneness" and very early on
>states:
>'current theories working with these aether concepts,...all agree that our
>physical reality arises from this hidden energy substance, which creates
>all that we know and see by vibrating. ' (my capitalisation implies
>intelligence of its own)
>
>
>...having said that, i accept as you say, the aether is
> >... a 3d canvas for our minds to create our 3d reality on.<
>- although you may go to work with a galvanometer and a battery, whereas i
>would use heart-based feeling.(ha!ha!)


yes, i think we are all called to different approaches. my interest in
science makes me feel a bit like lewis and clark on a mission to discover
the far reaches of a vast unknown wilderness. eventually the people back
home would learn all about what's west of the mississippi, after the greedy
developers had finished exploiting it. but the facts and figures i can
bring back to them now will give many more people the freedom to have, be
and do what their hearts desire. i guess that is part of my sto.

as we graduate into higher densities won't we be required to learn to
create our every need and desire directly from this aether using only our
hearts and minds? i really don't think the aether itself has the
intelligence or directive to create anything in our personal realities that
we can't identify as our own creations, else how would we learn?

take care,
daniel moeck

----------


---
outgoing mail is certified virus free.
checked by avg anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
version: 6.0.726 / virus database: 481 - release date: 7/22/2004


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[detlef]

aether:
and referred to by gregg
>braden as "the mind of god" or "nature's mind",

detlef:
this statement came up a few days ago and perhaps it has been dealt with,
but i like to say what i got to know about it.
with 8 years of school training i rely entirely on my divine self when it
comes to accuracy of statements, and this one was given to me as inaccurate.
the first explanation i received was a bit difficult to understand for me,
then i was told the following: aether is the nourishing force of all there
is. without it everything would collapse into itself. or perhaps wither away
like a plant that has its supply cut of.
regards detlef