Aether Displacement

[Linda Brown]

Isn't it interesting that twenty to thirty years ago if you even mentioned the word " aether" you were laughed out of the Physics classroom. Now look at all of these different people discussing what it is, precisely.

Thats amazing to me.

Of course that long ago people were calling Kozyrev a crackpot. Now they are realizing that they are studying from textbooks that are quoting him directly and he is being called the father of his field. The Russians jailed him but apparently something reached out, he said, and touch him on the shoulder.

Handsome man wasn't he? Looked a little bit like Sean Connery I thought...

The FBI tried to call Dad a " crackpot" too.... and one of the funniest interviews which was supposed to be in their " expert analysis of his work" was the contribution of a secretary who said that she felt his ideas of space travel were silly and the " man must not be credible"  This was one of their " expert" witnesses regarding the validity of Dads work.  The FBI reports are interesting to read because they interviewed EVERYONE... even neighbors who had never even seen Dad. Makes you still wonder what this government spends its money on. Apparently two men were on Dad for five years and at the end of it they closed the case..... citing that they finally had decided that he had quit Science for good. One of them was smart enough to add...." paraphrasing here.... we should continue to watch him. Someone this dedicated to what his lifes passion is .... will not just quit."

( I understand from Mr. Twigsnapper that  the FBI agents that had followed Dad for so many years left that service and were hired on by a group working for William Stephenson. And that same team ended up working along side Dad while we were in Philadelphia at the Decker Lab  in 1966.

So really..... its a testament to Dad I think... that these gentleman would develop such an interest in what he was doing to spend the first five years watching him for the FBI and even more years working alongside him!That just boggles my mind.

Before I met them Mr. Stephenson referred to them as " our men at Deckers".....

Linda

[mpc755]

Isn't it interesting that twenty to thirty years ago if you even mentioned the word " aether" you were laughed out of the Physics classroom. Now look at all of these different people discussing what it is, precisely.

Thats amazing to me.

Funny you should say that. I don't see it that way at all. I posted the following quote from Ralph Laughlin on a different physics forum and I was immediately banned as an 'ether crackpot'. That's right, all it took was for me to quote from a Nobel laureate having to do with aether and I was banned.

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Take a look at how lazy mainstream physicists are by reading the following.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/06/08/dark-matter-vs-aether/

"So the aether was a theoretical idea that never found experimental support. In 1905 Einstein pointed out how to preserve the symmetries of Maxwell's equations without referring to aether at all, in the special theory of relativity, and the idea was relegated to the trash bin of scientific history."

Einstein also stated, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable". How mainstream physics is able to interpret this to mean there isn't an aether in relativity is beyond me.

There do appear to be some mainstream physicists who are starting to get it. Like the following.

'Horava-Lifpoopz theory as a Fermionic Aether in Ashtekar gravity'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6296

"We show how Ho\v{r}ava-Lifpoopz (HL) theory appears naturally in the Ashtekar formulation of relativity if one postulates the existence of a fermionic field playing the role of aether. The spatial currents associated with this field must be switched off for the equivalence to work. Therefore the field supplies the preferred frame associated with breaking refoliation (time diffeomorphism) invariance, but obviously the symmetry is only spontaneously broken if the field is dynamic."

A dynamic aether field with the spatial currents switched off seems to me to be discussing the state of displacement of the aether.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Ice floats, it is less dense than water, so it actually displaces less as a solid than it would as a liquid.

And if you post a theory, you can expect people to misunderstand, or not understand, and argue some points of the topic. If you say 'i don't want anyone posting here who disagrees with me' it will get very boring very quickly.

There are 3 ways you can try to prove this theory, 1. By experiment & direct observation, 2. Mathematical expressions, 3. Logic.
Ideally you would need to prove all 3 before the theory can even be accepted as such, but we're not that fussy here on PRC and i will settle for logic if it is sound.
Yes, i like your theory of aether displacement, but are we not allowed to discuss the pro's & cons of it???

Wikipedia: It is a very good source, better than G**rgoyle or YooToob. Everything is carefully researched, if an item is not reliably sourced, it says so in red at the top of the page......

I can't help it if you are too self absorbed to understand this.

That is nothing short of arrogance. Make us understand, it's your theory, you have to explain it to us....
Zorgon is right, intuition doesn't cut it, although Hobbit uses it to great advantage, not all of us have it.....

Logic, then.
Movement relative to the aether frame may well cause displacement, sure, but what about rotation?
This causes all kinds of anomalous effects, and could well be due to a 'whirlpool' effect in the aether caused by the rotating mass. Torsion fields, anyone?

Podketnov's 'gravity pulse generator' produced a shock wave which dented steel plate 50 feet away, went through walls etc. This wave appeared to be superluminal at first, as measured by Oblensky et al.
So could this be aether displacement without the associated mass? The energy was supplied by a very rapid movement of charge, which if you have read my posts, has some very interesting properties.

This brings us very neatly to T.T.Browns experiments, which were also of the same nature, and also proven by the charge displacement setup, let's call it a 'sharp field gradient' for scientific correctness

The effect of this displacement on certain ceramics, metals, liquids & plasma's is without question, and has therefore been verified from at least 3 sources.
Is this an 'electro-gravitic wave' or is it 'aether displacement'?
Could they both be one & the same thing?
The only way to find out is through dilligent research, honest reporting of facts, sound math & sound theory.
And discussing it, of course........

Quote from: Amaterasu on 01-07-2012, 10:53:49
Thank You for Your explanation.  Another question...

What do You see as explaining the Biefeld-Brown Effect?  Or do You deny it exists?

Never heard of it before but it appears to be an ion thruster, correct?

Like i said, lots of research......

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium"
The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.
The particle can be subatomic or the 'particle' can be the Earth.

The state of displacement of the aether is the energy.

Good! Now we are getting somewhere.

If you don't like their style, okay, I can understand that but what he says is valid as a basis to begin experimentation. The need for a theory is essential in the beginning and then the work in devising experiments to prove the theory.

You'all need to learn some tolerance.

Thank you Mikado.

Mass does not displace the aether.
The aether causes mass to displace .
It does this in a near solid perfectly packed omni present and geometrically shaped universe.

And you, Hobbit. A supersolid universe would have to be geometrically arranged in order to work.
Of course, if mass can displace aether, then the reverse is also true

I'm not going to argue the 'chicken/egg' part of that, see that both statements are equally true.

But now here comes the really hard part. You can't just say the words and make it so. Even if they are true. You can say true words until you are blue in the face and no one is going to listen to you until you have some solid lab proof that this has been proven and harking back to Einsteins ideas will not help you here. This has to be something of your own and it has to hold up....

Eggxactly, Linda!

The problem with Einstein is that he did not have all the data to start with (Maxwell's original work) and he very astutely proposed that mass somehow bends time & space around it.
This i do not agree with, but the theory of aether being displaced is more correct, IMO what you are refferring to as 'condensation' of the aether into mass, is the same as the Higgs field theory.
This is IMO somewhat closer to the truth, but again it is all conjecture, as is a large chunk of our 'conventional' physics.....
Score so far;
PRC 1              Einstein 1

Quote from: mpc755 on 02-07-2012, 14:21:25
What you are describing is the state of displacement of the aether.

yeah but I did it in four lines

Isn't it interesting that twenty to thirty years ago if you even mentioned the word " aether" you were laughed out of the Physics classroom. Now look at all of these different people discussing what it is, precisely.

Thats amazing to me.

Yes, amazing to me, too

The FBI? They managed to lose 5 crates of Tesla's papers LOL!
Hoover set us back 100 years......

Take a look at how lazy mainstream physicists are by reading the following.

Yes!

Now we are getting somewhere
All we need to do now is prove it, with a proof of concept model (mathematical or real)...........

[mpc755]

Ice floats, it is less dense than water, so it actually displaces less as a solid than it would as a liquid.

I am using ice and water as analogous of matter and aether. I used ice and water to refer to ice as 'condensations' of water and for ice to 'evaporate' into water and to show that ice displaces water.

To mention ice as being less dense than water shows you are completely missing the point of the analogy.

And if you post a theory, you can expect people to misunderstand, or not understand, and argue some points of the topic. If you say 'i don't want anyone posting here who disagrees with me' it will get very boring very quickly.

I am open to discussing aether displacement. My first posted started with "Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter".

If a poster continually responds with "Aether does not have mass and is not displaced by matter" then there really is no reason to try and have a 'conversation' with that poster now is there?

There are 3 ways you can try to prove this theory, 1. By experiment & direct observation, 2. Mathematical expressions, 3. Logic.
Ideally you would need to prove all 3 before the theory can even be accepted as such, but we're not that fussy here on PRC and i will settle for logic if it is sound.

Every time a double slit experiment is performed is evidence of aether displacement. Gravity is evidence of aether displacement. The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is evidence of aether displacement. The wave out ahead of our heliosphere is evidence of aether displacement. The offset between galaxy clusters and the light lensing through the space neighboring the galaxy clusters is evidence of aether displacement. The Milky Way's halo is evidence of aether displacement. The zero point energy associated with a particle is evidence of aether displacement.

These are direct observations of the effects caused by aether displaced by matter.

Yes, i like your theory of aether displacement, but are we not allowed to discuss the pro's & cons of it???

Of course we are supposed to discuss the pro's and con's of aether displacement. However, there is zero reason to 'discuss' aether displacement with someone who insists aether is not displaced by matter.

Wikipedia: It is a very good source, better than G**rgoyle or YooToob. Everything is carefully researched, if an item is not reliably sourced, it says so in red at the top of the page......

I can't help it if you are too self absorbed to understand this.

That is nothing short of arrogance. Make us understand, it's your theory, you have to explain it to us....

The poster I was responding to said the following.

I personally believe that this is a self absorbed idea of what the aether truly is

I must have missed your post where you told that poster their post is nothing short of arrogance.

Zorgon is right, intuition doesn't cut it, although Hobbit uses it to great advantage, not all of us have it.....

Logic, then.
Movement relative to the aether frame may well cause displacement, sure, but what about rotation?

Movement through and displacement of the aether means there isn't an aether frame

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.



The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a superfluid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to determine if the superfluid consists of particles or not you would
still be able to detect the state of displacement of the superfluid.

The superfluid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the superfluid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

This causes all kinds of anomalous effects, and could well be due to a 'whirlpool' effect in the aether caused by the rotating mass. Torsion fields, anyone?

Podketnov's 'gravity pulse generator' produced a shock wave which dented steel plate 50 feet away, went through walls etc. This wave appeared to be superluminal at first, as measured by Oblensky et al.
So could this be aether displacement without the associated mass? The energy was supplied by a very rapid movement of charge, which if you have read my posts, has some very interesting properties.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

Aether and matter have mass.

Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

Aether has mass.

This brings us very neatly to T.T.Browns experiments, which were also of the same nature, and also proven by the charge displacement setup, let's call it a 'sharp field gradient' for scientific correctness

The effect of this displacement on certain ceramics, metals, liquids & plasma's is without question, and has therefore been verified from at least 3 sources.
Is this an 'electro-gravitic wave' or is it 'aether displacement'?
Could they both be one & the same thing?
The only way to find out is through dilligent research, honest reporting of facts, sound math & sound theory.
And discussing it, of course........

Like i said, lots of research......

Good! Now we are getting somewhere.

Thank you Mikado.
And you, Hobbit. A supersolid universe would have to be geometrically arranged in order to work.
Of course, if mass can displace aether, then the reverse is also true

I'm not going to argue the 'chicken/egg' part of that, see that both statements are equally true.

Eggxactly, Linda!

The problem with Einstein is that he did not have all the data to start with (Maxwell's original work) and he very astutely proposed that mass somehow bends time & space around it.
This i do not agree with, but the theory of aether being displaced is more correct, IMO what you are refferring to as 'condensation' of the aether into mass, is the same as the Higgs field theory.
This is IMO somewhat closer to the truth, but again it is all conjecture, as is a large chunk of our 'conventional' physics.....
Score so far;
PRC 1              Einstein 1


Yes, amazing to me, too

The FBI? They managed to lose 5 crates of Tesla's papers LOL!
Hoover set us back 100 years......

Yes!

Now we are getting somewhere
All we need to do now is prove it, with a proof of concept model (mathematical or real)...........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg

If beam splitter BSb is replaced with D4 the photons traveling the blue path which are detected at D1 and D2 may correspond with the interference patterns being created at D0. If this is the case then the which-way information of the photons will be known and this is evidence nothing is delayed, nothing is erased and de Broglie was correct.

It is evidence de Broglie was correct because it is evidence the particle traveling toward D0 has associated waves traveling both the red and blue paths and that wave interference is occurring prior to the particle being detected at D0 regardless of what else happens in the experiment.

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

These are direct observations of the effects caused by aether displaced by matter.

It's is not my fault you are unable to understand this.

You presume to know what i do & do not understand, and you don't even notice when i show approval of your theory.
However, a theory needs to be proved, and not by refferring to other theories as proof....

It would be interesting to see if the gravity probe B actually measured subtle changes in gravity, as noted by Brown all those years ago, but i don't really trust NASA as a source, you may want to visit John Lear's forum for more on that.
Sorry, i'm having problems with .svg files right now, could you place a diagram?

It sounds like the quantum eraser experiment, entangled photons etc.
Now that is something we could  base a working (or non-working) physical model on, right?

Shall we have a go?

[Mikado]

Your posts are refreshing Playing with Machines.

I have noticed that sometimes individuals who create a theory react has a parent would. Sooner or later, the child must stand or fall on it's own merit.

This theoretical treatise that mpc755 has been putting forth is at that point  of development, it needs to try to take its first steps and that be a more detailed experiment other than the slit.

Just because there is success with one experiment doesn't mean it is perfect. It just means that in that instance, it worked.

Just my opinion,

Mikado

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

This theoretical treatise that mpc755 has been putting forth is at that point  of development, it needs to try to take its first steps and that be a more detailed experiment other than the slit.

Agreed, if there's any way of taking this further, we need some kind of working model.
I'm sure you all know the 'buckyball' C60 slit experiment?
Could this be evidence that the C60 molecules actually had a corresponding aether wave, that would give the effects shown?

Interesting, to say the least.

[mpc755]

You presume to know what i do & do not understand, and you don't even notice when i show approval of your theory.
However, a theory needs to be proved, and not by refferring to other theories as proof....

It would be interesting to see if the gravity probe B actually measured subtle changes in gravity, as noted by Brown all those years ago, but i don't really trust NASA as a source, you may want to visit John Lear's forum for more on that.
Sorry, i'm having problems with .svg files right now, could you place a diagram?

It sounds like the quantum eraser experiment, entangled photons etc.
Now that is something we could  base a working (or non-working) physical model on, right?

Shall we have a go?

If you can get the following experiment performed or need help performing it then let me know.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Kim_EtAl_Quantum_Eraser.svg

If beam splitter BSb is replaced with D4 the photons traveling the blue path which are detected at D1 and D2 may correspond with the interference patterns being created at D0. If this is the case then the which-way information of the photons will be known and this is evidence nothing is delayed, nothing is erased and de Broglie was correct.

It is evidence de Broglie was correct because it is evidence the particle traveling toward D0 has associated waves traveling both the red and blue paths and that wave interference is occurring prior to the particle being detected at D0 regardless of what else happens in the experiment.

[mpc755]

Agreed, if there's any way of taking this further, we need some kind of working model.
I'm sure you all know the 'buckyball' C60 slit experiment?
Could this be evidence that the C60 molecules actually had a corresponding aether wave, that would give the effects shown?

Interesting, to say the least.

Yes, the C60 slit experiment is evidence of a moving particle having an associated aether wave. To think the C-60 molecule is able to interfere with itself at the same time if you place detectors at the exits to the slits at the last instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s) the C-60 molecule molecule is detected as 60 interconnected atoms exiting a single slit is nonsense.

Q. Why is the particle always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always enters, travels through and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether wave which passes through both slits.

[mpc755]

Your posts are refreshing Playing with Machines.

I have noticed that sometimes individuals who create a theory react has a parent would. Sooner or later, the child must stand or fall on it's own merit.

This theoretical treatise that mpc755 has been putting forth is at that point  of development, it needs to try to take its first steps and that be a more detailed experiment other than the slit.

Just because there is success with one experiment doesn't mean it is perfect. It just means that in that instance, it worked.

Just my opinion,

Mikado

I agree an experiment is beneficial. However, do you really think it is particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth which are able to push back and exert inward pressure toward the solar system? Of course not.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

Yes, an experiment which refutes a so-called delayed choice quantum eraser experiment is preferred. However, ALL of the existing evidence IS evidence aether is displaced by matter.

[Mikado]

I agree an experiment is beneficial. However, do you really think it is particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artificially created on Earth which are able to push back and exert inward pressure toward the solar system? Of course not.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

Yes, an experiment which refutes a so-called delayed choice quantum eraser experiment is preferred. However, ALL of the existing evidence IS evidence aether is displaced by matter.

What you are failing to grasp is that ANY theory cannot just be verified by one experiment, regardless of what other theoreticians say in support of each, otherwise, you end up with all in the box and condemning something or supporting something as did occur over 100 years ago.

Now follow me closely here.... what I am putting forth is that MORE experiments need to be developed to substantiate the claims and these experiments will lead to the ability for applications...possibly. These experiments would be developed to build mathematical models so that the aether/matter can be predicted/calculated so as to predict it's characteristics for any given circumstance. Otherwise, your theory is relegated to what ever anyone says it is but you make a good argument, now it needs work.

Since you prefer metaphors and/or analogies I will put it this way. You plant a single kernal of corn and it grows, it produces two ears of corn and you conclude that ALL corn stalks grow two ears of corn. That is not always the case mind you. Perhaps a poor analogy but I will think of a better one as my time is rushed at the moment.

Mikado

[mpc755]

What you are failing to grasp is that ANY theory cannot just be verified by one experiment, regardless of what other theoreticians say in support of each, otherwise, you end up with all in the box and condemning something or supporting something as did occur over 100 years ago.

Now follow me closely here.... what I am putting forth is that MORE experiments need to be developed to substantiate the claims and these experiments will lead to the ability for applications...possibly. These experiments would be developed to build mathematical models so that the aether/matter can be predicted/calculated so as to predict it's characteristics for any given circumstance. Otherwise, your theory is relegated to what ever anyone says it is but you make a good argument, now it needs work.

Since you prefer metaphors and/or analogies I will put it this way. You plant a single kernal of corn and it grows, it produces two ears of corn and you conclude that ALL corn stalks grow two ears of corn. That is not always the case mind you. Perhaps a poor analogy but I will think of a better one as my time is rushed at the moment.

Mikado

A ripple is created when galaxy clusters collide and is incorrectly assumed the ripple is created in dark matter. There is a wave out ahead of our heliosphere which is incorrectly assumed to be created by particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum created artificially on Earth. Voyager detected what is outside of our solar system is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system which is assumed to be  particles of matter which exist in quantities less then in any vacuum artificially created on Earth. There is evidence of an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring a galaxy cluster and the galaxy cluster itself which is most correctly explained by the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the aether. 'Dark matter' has been shown to be smoothly distributed throughout dwarf galaxies which is most correctly explained by understanding there is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter traveling with matter; matter moves through and displaces the aether.

And on and on and on is the evidence which is evidence aether is displaced by matter.

Now follow me closely here... many experiments have already been performed which are evidence aether is displaced by matter.

[Linda Brown]

MPC.... what you are saying here is not really any different than what my Dad was quoted as saying in 1928.  I suspect that both of you were drawing from the same well as far as your inspirations were concerned.

But what Mikado says here is absolutely right. What you have ahead of you now is WORK to get other people to understand you on THEIR base of abilities. Just continuously telling you what you believe to be the truth will not make it manifest as truth  in their mind.

Using little stories again.   Men like Dad and you and others.... are the bright reef fish of our ocean. Sometimes they are able to leap out of the water and observe something never before seen by fish. Splash..... back in the water. Now here is the problem.... How to explain to the other fish?.....what that cow that you saw grazing in a pasture next to the ocean actually WAS. What experiments toward proof can you devise that will enlighten them? ( Assuming that they even have come to a point where they even CARE to start with!)

( You need help....and then you had better start with some pretty darned smart fish or.... you are REALLY not going to get anywhere.)

I suggest that you are in pretty good company here. Many of these brightly colored fish have experienced that odd sight too... many will see it slightly differently but if you work together the knowledge will also get stronger and deeper and more will join.

Who knows what it will take for these fish to enjoy and totally understand what you have seen?.... maybe they will have to design a flying fish ship that can escort them around that world of cows out there.... whatever it will take.... they can do..... as long as they work together.

Or not..... really up to all of you.... each one makes his own choice.   Linda

[mpc755]

MPC.... what you are saying here is not really any different than what my Dad was quoted as saying in 1928.  I suspect that both of you were drawing from the same well as far as your inspirations were concerned.

But what Mikado says here is absolutely right. What you have ahead of you now is WORK to get other people to understand you on THEIR base of abilities. Just continuously telling you what you believe to be the truth will not make it manifest as truth  in their mind.

Using little stories again.   Men like Dad and you and others.... are the bright reef fish of our ocean. Sometimes they are able to leap out of the water and observe something never before seen by fish. Splash..... back in the water. Now here is the problem.... How to explain to the other fish?.....what that cow that you saw grazing in a pasture next to the ocean actually WAS. What experiments toward proof can you devise that will enlighten them? ( Assuming that they even have come to a point where they even CARE to start with!)

( You need help....and then you had better start with some pretty darned smart fish or.... you are REALLY not going to get anywhere.)

I suggest that you are in pretty good company here. Many of these brightly colored fish have experienced that odd sight too... many will see it slightly differently but if you work together the knowledge will also get stronger and deeper and more will join.

Who knows what it will take for these fish to enjoy and totally understand what you have seen?.... maybe they will have to design a flying fish ship that can escort them around that world of cows out there.... whatever it will take.... they can do..... as long as they work together.

Or not..... really up to all of you.... each one makes his own choice.   Linda

I am not seeing anything everyone else is not seeing. I figured out what is occurring physically in nature to cause what is observed.

[Linda Brown]

My point.

I am not seeing anything everyone else is not seeing. I figured out what is occurring physically in nature to cause what is observed.

So did Dad. Now what will you do?   Linda