Few https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7JG63IuaWs

Uhm, I think you'll find it's pregnant PEOPLE you insensitive bigots.

😂

It's even worse in the cold 🤓

RTH: That said, I think that plasma is the best candidate there is for "the ether", as the magnetic signature of a plasma body would then be described as an "Etheric" phenomenon. 1. Wait, you think plasma IS the aether? That's a misunderstanding of Bentovs own work, and I'm not even a strong proponent of his. His protospace is pre-spatial, pre-physical, pure rest and it cannot be measured. Same as my understanding. Plasma is ionized gas. It exists in space. It can be measured. It is highly energised. Through my framework, it's just another aether modality. Magnetism, light, matter, and plasma are all aetheric phenomenons. However, you still did't explain why a medium isn't required for wave propagation, and how it occurs without it (which would be interesting given we both acknowledge its existence). I think it's an easy concession to make, it follows logically with everything else, but I can't make it for you. RTH: Disagreed. Thoughtforms precede physical reality. Math does not require physical reality to exist in order to be valid. Also, ratios are literally math. The set of rational numbers is that. The universe's coding language is math. I'm a mathematician and I've taught math and critical thinking to students who won awards in increasing quantities and qualities each year. I'm sorry, but I'm NEVER yielding this and you're going to always struggle to find anyone to agree with that. Ratios are a mathematical concept. End of story. Math wins on that one. Pressure differentials are all just math too. Force divided by area is a mathematical thing. Differentials are deltas, subtraction problems, at their simpler form and, in their more advanced form, something one is likely to study after completing calculus. All math. Not having it. Physics is downstream of math. Math is one of the highest purity fields there is. 2. Ratios are relationships between quantities. Math is how we describe those relationships. Saying that ratios are math is like saying the ocean is oceanography. Math can describe an incorrect model with perfect consistency, balanced equations and peer review, but if the model is flawed, the math is irrelevant. It's fine that you'll never yeild on this point, I can understand that. The mathematician can't see the issues in their field of expertise just like the vaccinologist can't see issues with vaccines in theirs. Consensus means nothing when it comes to truth, I'm entirely opposed to the concept. RTH: I take it you're not familiar with Dewey Larson. He's mentioned in the Law of One and I've seen Shilo from DemystifySci talk about Larson before as being worth reading too which are two huge confirmations that Larson is signal. Probably worth your time. The Law of One is a honey pot. It has yielded me some very important information. 3. I've heard the name but know nothing about him. RTH: I agree in large part but ultimately can't fully endorse this because of two main reasons. 1. I haven't done that due diligence myself yet which means I'm doing the "trust" thing not the "verify" thing. 2. It is definitionally prejudicial to dismiss something I haven't checked out yet, and not being prejudicially dismissive is a really good baseline level for adherence to the Golden Rule. That said, if I did do my due diligence and got caught up on the latest science, my expectation is that it would be a huge waste of, in particular, my time, as my time is probably best spent pursuing the research that I am. It doesn't make sense to have a Wall Street guy doing brain surgery or rocket science. Specialists should stick to their wheelhouse and expand as needed. I just don't think it's wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Lessons from both Christ and the Zen tradition point at this. One prime example is Mas Castellar de Pontos. That was a relatively recent discovery. Muraresku wrote the book during the teens last decade and the smoking gun archaeobotanical discovery happened in 2000. That's pretty recent. Obviously science is making advancements with better technologies, etc. so we can't just throw modern science completely out the window. They're getting some practical results that are improving our lives. 4. I don't disagree that there are merits to modern science and technological advancement. I mostly mean in terms of the physics. The foundation is wrong and therefore they are left trying to solve stupid problems like dark matter and dark energy when simply recognizing that the aether addresses these issues would steer them in the right direct. But alas, there is no funding in that sort of work, that's why it stays on the fringes. RTH: I think you're staring at the hand rather than what the fingers on the hand are pointing to. And yeah, I don't care why the RHR works and it doesn't matter for what I'm doing in my research. Perhaps it matters to you in yours. 5. Fair. It's only relevant to "my" framework to see if it can be explained through it, and if that explanation doesn't pose any serious contradictions. RTH: Frankly, I don't understand how your final sentence contradicts anything that came before it. Not all leaves grow that way on all plants though so it's not just the way it has to because clearly there are counterexamples. What we're seeing in the plants that do is the result of natures entrepreneurial, evolutionary process. The stuff that doesn't grow like that evolved differently, which is kind of the point. The goal is to produce novelty. Omniscience is boring for the Creator. This whole limited, finite perspective and being thing we have going on is way more interesting. We're basically God's version of America's Funniest Home Videos crossed with the Darwin Awards lmao. 6. The crux of the observation is that not all leaves spiral, but when they do, they necessarily have to follow Phi. The problems with your position are fundamental for a number of reasons: A. It implies that phi was one option among many. In reality, Phi is the ONLY option for physical manifestation, expression AND compression. In and out, construcive charge expansion and collapse only works via Phi. B. Phi is present in contexts where evolution doesn't exist, such as hurricanes, crystal lattices, galaxies. C. Evolution is describing adoption, not the principle itself. It doesn't explain why Phi works. D. Evolution is an unfalsifiable claim in this context. Interchangeable with God works in mysterious ways. If anything, Phi could serve as an explanation for evolution, not the other way around. RTH: You're operating with information from within the box. I like what Godel said, i.e. you cannot fully verify, describe, or prove the validity of any complex logical system from within that same system. You need an outside the system perspective. I recommend the Law of One as that outside the system perspective. Perhaps outside the system should be clarified. It is an outside "our portion of the system" perspective in the same way that your perspective is outside of the fish tank's perspective. You have a wider, more diverse perspective than the fish do. Likewise, ascended masters aka angels, elohim, interdimensional aliens, lowercase g gods and goddesses, etc. are all the same thing and they have an even wider, more diverse perspective on reality than we are capable of having while we are in this lower "density" (again, mathematical density, not physical). Trust me, there's signal there, especially for scientists. Bear in mind a physics professor with interests in paranormal, mystical, etc. was the questioner. Study it and treat the study as if it were a direct proof in math where your hypothesis is "Suppose for the sake of consideration/thought experiment that the Law of One material is good faith information and true. What logical dominos topple over?" Even if it doesn't wind up changing your mind, I would be very interested in your takeaways from studying it. I think there's low hanging fruit to be had. It's only 40 years old roughly, and as Muraresku said at the end of chapter 6 "Sometimes the evidence has to just sit there, waiting twenty years for somebody to notice." For the Dead Sea Scrolls, they sat for over 1900 years before somebody noticed. 7. This is where we start to drift from a fundamental framework into interesting ideas. I read up a bit on the Law of One, there is some stuff in there that overlaps with legitimate traditions and teachings which already form the basis of my understanding. "All is one" is Plotinus. Consciousness as fundamental is the Upanishads. The density model loosely maps onto Emanationism. The Creator experiencing itself through creation is Neoplatonic contemplation through and through. Every one of those ideas has existed for millennia. It seems like a dense bit of material so I'll have to add it to my list to consume at some point because I do genuinely find this sort of stuff interesting. RTH: On Earth. I refer you to Godel and the Law of One again. 8. I can't speak to Godel or the Law of One because I don't know enough about the full extent of the content at this stage. Still, it seems like a claim from sources that may or may not be directly verifiable. Based on what IS verifiable directly, I would still stand by my claim. This doesn't necessarily have to invalidate your basis, but if that is specifically what they say, I will have a difficult time reconciling it for sure. RTH: It took me a bit to orient myself to the discussion and I probably spoke too soon. This is adjacent to my research but not my primary focus so my thoughts aren't as well organized as they could be on this subject simply because I consider it to be of minor import in relation to my stated goals and the path I see to accomplishing them. I think plasma is the ether and is Bentov's protomatter. I have had the thought before but I failed to find it in my mind when we first started talking. I agree Bentov pulled from lots of ancient thinkers. He was based. Satoshi did that too. He assembled lots of parts and pieces so I would put Bentov on Satoshi's level in that regard. Frankly, their respective impacts on the world might be on the same level too just because of Bentov'e physio-kundalini model and his contributions to remote viewing research. The pantheism is valid, everything is conscious idea comes from math. It's just set theory. God is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all merciful, and omnipresent, amongst other divine traits. The only thing that fits all of those characteristics is the Universe itself, but the whole Universe, not just the physical plane we occupy. The One Infinite Consciousness creates perturbations in the plasma, disturbances from neutrality, in an infinite variety of ways creating an interference pattern of thoughtform waves that we call electromagnetic radiation or light, both visible and invisible to us. That interference pattern may be sliced into strata, or 'bandwidths of interactivity". These are like the densities. As for things like rocks being conscious, I mean, dismiss it as woo woo if you like but I've literally worked with rocks before, projecting visual thoughtforms to them to instruct them on what I want them to do for me. For example, I've had ant problems every spring I've lived in my home. I've lived here for over a decade. Over the winter, I started working with stones for their esoteric properties. Per my studies, ants are attracted to a vibrational quality that one novel field of study has labeled "vertical negative green". This is a detrimental vibrational quality found in all sorts of cancers, poisons, etc. No bueno. I set up a number of different pieces of indigo gabbro aka mystical merlinite, including a sphere, roughly a dozen palm stones, and a dozen obelisks at strategic locations throughout my house, giving each piece or team of pieces specific instructions to absorb and transmute all detrimental, negatively polarized energies, entities, and thoughtforms into a neutral, centering vibration. No ants this year. The ancient Egyptians knew about this as evident in the cones they used to store their sugar. That cone shape muted the vertical negative green and kept the ants away from their sugar stores. Also, I've tested this using pendula but that's usually controversial. Thing is I've had probably half a dozen people other than myself use the pendula and they get the same results. Dominant hand matters in using this method so ambidextrous people can be difficult to work with but strong lefties or righties have had no trouble using them and getting consistent results. Note, I have done a blind trial with these in testing pyramids. I didn't expect to test positive for the vertical negative green but it did...6 times. That's a 1/729 chance of being a fluke. I got the opposite of my expectations 6 times...twice each on each of 3 separate pyramids, 2 of the same exact shape and size, another smaller, but similar (mathematically similar) shape. Then I learned why they were emitting that, took steps with my dremel to modify the shapes slightly, and now they don't put that vertical negative green out anymore. So, how do I know rocks are conscious? Because the ones I instructed over the winter to work on my behalf are doing phenomenal work as evidenced by the anomalous lack of an ant invasion this year and reports from Egyptian anti-ant sugar storage tactics. Basically my framework proposes that the Law of One is one of the least distorted sources of revelation available to humanity today. It aligns with basically every tradition including science and language, offers insights from outside the box, so to speak, and has proven to contain low hanging fruit that can resolve mysteries of life, the universe, and everything. My framework is essentially an organic perennialist philosophy. I have multiple big Kruse fans who like what I'm cooking. Kruse's stuff on light plays really nicely with the Law of One material. Light is kind of a big deal and I think your shared thoughts thus far have betrayed that you agree on the import of light. Your definitions look pretty reasonable to me. Again, it seems that your area of focus is not exactly the same as mine although we do have a lot of overlap and agreement. Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm genuinely curious as to what takeaways you would get from studying the Law of One and Dewey Larson. While it is certainly not all I have been studying for the last 3 years, that's how long I've been studying it and it has yielded me my baptism breakthrough. I had to have other puzzle pieces to fill in gaps but they were there when I looked for them. Basically, I'm at the point where I either have the greatest case of confirmation bias imaginable (and as a mathematician who taught math and critical thinking at national award winning levels, I would like to think that I'm rigorous in my clarity of thought to avoid such a disaster) or I've been untying the Gordian Knot...solving the massive system of equations...I'm onto something. I'm either batshit or I'm onto something. 9. Honestly, I think it might be a bit of both. But bat-shit isn't necessarily bad. All the real work and discoveries happen on the fringes specifically because consensus is safe, often wrong, and doesn't stray by definition. I'm open to a lot so I don't discount your experience and experiments on that basis. How I would explain what you describe is that the rocks don't need to be conscious. You've used the word to describe something that doesn't fit any definition of the word itself. I would say what you may have here is a conscious 'operator' influencing the local field around materials with specific dielectric or piezoelectric properties. The rocks aren't aware, the field is being modified by someone who IS conscious, and the rocks respond the way any material responds to changing/changed field conditions. I mainly think you need to find a more suitable word to use - I wouldn't say 'conscious' is apt here. I suspect we both recognise that this strays heavily into woo-woo territory, but funny enough I think that if the world was more aligned with some of these core principles, it would be a lot easier to digest and build off of. Much like was done in the distant past. No modern, mainstream explanation of the pyramids is credible, for example. We're obviously missing a lot of the pieces of the puzzle. RTH: I think we actually agree on a lot after having gone through all of this and I don't think that me being onto something with my research is exclusive of you being onto something with yours. In fact, I would say it's likely we both are and that we could mutually benefit. Like I said, I would be genuinely interested to remain in contact as you study through the Law of One to offer you some initial primer information as it would be useful for you in penetrating the somewhat odd vocabulary that it contains. I think you would probably find validation of the ideas you've found valuable in your research. --- I think we agree on more than we disagree; the aether exists, consciousness is fundamental, mainstream science has foundational problems, and ancient traditions carry real wisdom that's been corrupted by institutions. Where I think we diverge is in the foundations. From what I gather, you're building from the Law of One down into the physical and using that to explore higher concepts. I'm building from observable geometry and nature up into the metaphysical. You touched on that before, but the distinction is important because geometry can be verified independently. There is no requirement for a trusted source, just observation. The Law of One seems to contain ideas that overlap with Neoplatonism and ancient Buddhism. But those traditions arrived at their conclusions through philosophical dialectics and direct contemplative experiences over centuries. The overlaps validate THOSE traditions, not the channelled material in the Law of One. When the Law of One says something Plotinus and Buddhists already stated, it's Plotinus and the Buddhists who have the priority, which is why I always come back to them. Where I do have an interest is in higher dimensional frameworks and what consciousness looks like beyond this reality, but I haven't spent anywhere near as much time on that. I just think these need to be built on defined terms and grounded principles rather than on channelled ideas, and I think you may find some benefit in better grounding of the core concepts for a stronger foundation. I'm kind of surprised you're not more familiar with Neoplatonism by way of Plotinus. The Ancient Greeks and Romans, discussed through the translations of todays classicists, were heavily into drugs of all kinds for various ritualistic practices. But when the school of Neuoplatonic thinking was developed by Plotinus, he distanced it from all rituals, calling them profane. He achieved henosis through pure contemplation, suggesting that substances are not the source of insight, and contemplation alone was sufficient. It was Iamblichus who developed Theurgy to help the layperson find their way to God within. I'm developing an understanding of the work of others, not my own framework. I then use that basis to explore what lies beyond that. Its made it much easier to identify ideas that aren't properly rooted in anything, or ones that contradict themselves. "Salvation is personal." I will definitely dive into the Law of One and some more of your work at some point, and see how it meshes with the rest of my understanding.

Even those inside the gates are at risk

Madness

Technically. But premines are usually done on the basis of distributing to insiders.

Physiognomy matched the early life predictions

Yeah, I only found this out yesterday. It's definitely interesting.

All properties. It's just the beginning, the next mouthpiece will be worse than the last https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-15928825/Council-tax-ditched-Andy-Burnham-new-property-levy-look-like-hit.html

Saying that, Europeans undoubtedly need Bitcoin the most right now.

You'll need a longer wrench, naybe

Yes. I'm obviously being sarcastic here.

I'm not seeing the irony. Pattern recognition is reserve dfor those without room temperature iqs.

A country filled with roundabouts, but no one understands how to use them.

It was only for the wealthy not 2 weeks ago. I'm not sure even half of people know what 0.5% means. Retards everywhere

Yeah, exactly. That's what was down in Japan and it worked as intended.

I wish nukes were real for this reason alone

AI won't stop the noticing. Nope, no way. Not unless they use it in conjunction with Palantir to kill the noticers.

Braindead leftist twat. Fent levels above 2ng/ml are considered lethal. They keep doing the meme of pretending not to understand anything.

The faggots in the UK are 'floating' the idea of a 0.5% annual property tax.