THE AETHER TRANSCRIPT

This work is the transcript of an original audio recording
produced by M I Finesilver and published
simultaneously by Pathway (Initiatives) Ltd.

Main Website:
http://aetheraware.org/main.php

Download the full PDF book HERE
Download the full audio book by chapter HERE
Download the Aether Transcript and Threshold Perspective Collection HERE

The following excerpts are from pages 58-76 of the Aether Transcript concerning principles of the Aether, wholism, and polarity.

(Italicized text is narration)

In the 19th century, science in the United Kingdom, the leading industrial country, represented the classic age of machine-minded thinking. Scientists then, tried to identify a subtle but material aether as the medium through which electromagnetic light waves travel.

But the quest to establish this kind of aether failed and the whole notion of an aether was abandoned within orthodox science.

NT (Nick Thomas): At the end of the nineteenth century one of the huge problems they had was, they imagined this imponderable Aether that was perfectly elastic, perfectly this, perfectly that – an absurdity in the end.

EB: It had to be infinitely elastic and yet infinitely stiff.

NT: Exactly.

EB: And they just couldn’t have both. They were again looking at it as a mechanical Aether, and what knocked out the mechanical Aether, of course, was the famous Michelson-Morley experiments.

NT: According to some interpretations.

EB: According to some. There were other Michelson-Morley experiments that were performed that gave very doubtful results, dubious results.

And some actually confirm the existence of an Aether. All these anomalous Michelson-Morley experiments have been reported in Nature, New Scientist, and learned journals.

NT: The point about the Michelson-Morley experiment being, of course, is that sometimes it’s seen as a conclusive proof that there is no Aether, or that Relativity is correct.

But it’s based upon quite a number of assumptions, and one has to careful not to see it as the rock-solid piece of experimental evidence that it is supposed to be. An experiment is always interpreted according to presumptions, assumptions, or to use the more modern term, a paradigm. And it depends what assumption you make as to how you interpret that experiment.

So it was thought for instance that Light has a velocity, and it’s travelling through a medium – namely the ‘Ether’ – and the attempt was then made to measure the speed of the Earth relative to this Ether. That’s what Michelson and Morley wanted to do. And it was a very sensitive experiment. As far as we know it was sensitive enough to indicate what they wanted it to, but they got a null result.

So that left several possibilities. No Ether, was one possibility. Another one was that somehow the Earth was dragging the Ether with it and therefore no difference was seen. There were a number of different interpretations possible. So it’s not a conclusive experiment as is sometimes thought.

And above all, it’s based on assumptions which are not necessarily correct – the major one, I think, being the assumption that Light has a definite velocity and is travelling at a definite velocity through space. And as we’ll see later, that’s an assumption that can well be challenged on the basis of a new concept of the Aether.

Max Planck, a leading professor of physics at that time, and founding father of Quantum Physics, said:

“If we wish to arrive at a concept of what we call Aether
nowadays, the first requirement is to follow the only path open to us in view of the knowledge of modern physics, and consider the Aether non-material.”

Einstein, in 1920, explicitly affirmed the existence of the Aether.

EB: Einstein never threw out the Aether. I have an actual facsimile
of a lecture he gave to senior students at the University of Leyden in the Netherlands. And he said, There is nothing in Relativity that discards an Aether.

What it does discard are these absurd notions of the Victorian Ether. But not the idea of an Aether per se.

Now there are numerous signs of the Aether being acknowledged again under various other names such as dark energy.

I Th: The idea of such a background substance in the world still
comes up in physics.

Ian Thompson, Professor of Physics at the University of Surrey, England, speaking of the mysterious dark energy and dark matter.

“I don’t know if you’ve heard a lot about ‘dark matter’ in
astronomy these days. Apparently about 60% or 80% of the universe is composed of ‘dark matter’.”

Back with Edi Bilimoria and Nick Thomas,

EB: First astronomers postulated ‘dark matter’, but now they’ve moved considerably further and they are reinstating Einstein’s cosmological constant.

Einstein put in a cosmological constant to render his equations static because he then thought the Universe was static – his biggest blunder. But now they’re finding that cosmological constant is the basis of what a lot of physicists and top astronomers are calling, ‘the basis of an Aethereal energy diffused through all space’…….

NT: Yes, it’s ‘dark energy’

EB: Well, more than that. They’re saying that it stands on its own feet almost, so to speak, that without that aethereal energy we just wouldn’t be here, and the planets wouldn’t be here, and so on.

I Th: There’s another kind of process in physics which has often also been identified with Aether. And this is the idea of ‘zero point motion’ – the fact that in a vacuum there are many things which appear to be happening or potentially happening, but not actually happening. And so there’s this idea of ‘zero point motion’ or ‘zero point energy’, which is the energy in the vacuum. And this has often been thought of as the Aether. Is it just vacuum?

NT: No, I think there’s much more to it than that. I’m coming to the view that ‘zero point action’, if you like, if one can call it that, the actions that are going on – particles popping into existence and vanishing again – that is actually an interface. It isn’t the Aether, but it’s an interface between the physical and the Aether.

Roger Penrose, a current leading physicist and mathematician, has spoken of a ‘missing physics’ needed to handle the elusive subject of consciousness.

This is what he said in a recent broadcast:

(His words are spoken by an actor)

RP: “I think the major revolution, which I do think we need, would involve a complete re-thinking of, not just Quantum Mechanics, but how we look at Space and Time and all sorts of things. So, there’ll be a revolution waiting in the wings. And when that revolution has come, OK, maybe then we can think about issues like, What thought is. I mean, what is it? I mean, in my view, conscious thinking does depend on this unknown part of physics.”

The Aether, in its interaction with the physical realm, creates the conditions within which consciousness becomes possible. But it is not itself physical, and is thus beyond the scope of Physics. It is the missing stage or level between the higher, subtle, cosmic, spiritual realm and the lower, coarse, earthly, material realm.

On BBC Radio 4’s In Our Time, Melvyn Bragg challenged leading American physicist, Professor Brian Greene, and UK Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, with the unavoidable question about ‘the missing Physics’:

(His words are spoken by an actor)

MB: “What you’re saying is, there’s this huge theory, which gently warps the fabric of the Universe. But it is built on the particles, the ‘quarks’, at the bottom, a theory which has got nothing to do with the huge theory. So ordinary Joes would say, Why don’t the building blocks lead to the building?

When we talk about ‘the missing physics’, we mean – we’ve got the little, we’ve got the big. So we need something in between to link them together.”

Brian Greene said ‘We need a bridge between them.’ Martin Rees agreed.

Nick Thomas has for many years been referring to his work as ‘building the necessary bridge’ – and in two senses at once. First, to provide the missing connection between the micro and macro worlds, which so far Western science has been unable to unite. And second, to enable minds to span the apparent gap between consciousness and matter, or the cosmic and the earthly.

NT: One must try and build a bridge. One wants to meet one’s fellow human beings. Every single human being, even if that person is a rigid, materialistic, orthodox scientist, is still a human being, and actually has an Aether-body, even if they don’t agree with you.

And they actually have, deep in their soul, a knowledge of the truth, even if it’s been covered over by education and by upbringing and so on. And so one always retains that faith that one can reach the core of every human being somehow.

And so one’s going to try to build a bridge to people without, however, abdication. Without seeking approval in the wrong sense.

The way I’m trying to approach it is to build this bridge between what seem like two worlds of our ordinary consciousness. And I’m beginning with Projective Geometry as a very useful method for building that bridge. Because I think that is a bridge whereby our scientific friends of today who cannot or will not grasp the more subtle aspects…. it is a bridge they could cross if they have the goodwill.

Mathematics is a way of thinking not limited by the constraints of physical nature. It’s a language, a code, rooted at its deepest level in rhythm. Now rhythm is ultimately about time, time prior to physical space and the formation of matter. And the pre-physical state of the cosmos is as Aether. Numbers, being essentially abstract ideas, are thus aethereal and of the realm of unlimited possibilities or potential. As such, they can be manipulated to produce just about any result that is desired. An obvious example is in the use of statistics.

So, making the necessary jump in thinking from ‘physics-is-the-whole–story’ to a broader science of the Aether would effectively be the ‘revolution’ which Penrose predicts and awaits.

Within its wholeness and inherent polarity, the Aether can be seen to consist of four distinct grades or qualities. These are known as the Warmth Aether, the Light Aether, the Tone or Chemical Aether and the Life Aether. They correspond to the four traditional elements, known as Fire, Air, Water and Earth.

THE ENGINEER’S 3 TESTS
Regarding Western science and the Aether

TEST 1: SOUND PRINCIPLES?

To an engineer, Western science’s attitude of, ‘a material aether or no aether at all’ is not a sound startout principle. For the old materialistic, machine-minded worldview has long been superceded, on the one hand by Quantum Physics (even with all its anomalies and paradoxes) and on the other by the subtle but profound implications of Chaos Theory.

NT: There are two things which I think have been of enormous importance in the last fifty to one hundred years. One of them being the discoveries in Quantum Physics which you’ve just been talking about. As from the early 1930s, when they had the Copenhagen meeting and came to the conclusion that Physics cannot explain anything. Physics can only calculate the probability of how experiments will turn out. It cannot explain and will not try.

The other thing is the discovery of Chaos Theory – the discovery that there are systems which are so sensitive that they are, in principle, non-predictable.

TEST 2: ELEGANT DESIGN?

Presently Western science offers only an inelegant patchwork of stop-gap theories and models in its attempt to fill the great gaps resulting from the denial of the Aether. Among these are the Zero Point Field, the quantum vacuum, a so called quantum ether, morphogenetic fields, ‘dark energy’.

And each of these only hints at a part of the true Aether.

NT: There’s supposed to be this seething mass of Zero Point energy. And then people imagine that there’s some sort of field that explains all that’s funny.

I take this seriously. I suspect that there is – and this is what I’d like to come on to – a true boundary between the physical and what we’re calling the Aetheric. And they actually are not dualistic. They are part and parcel of each other. They work with one another hand in glove. And if you restrict your perceptions to purely physical things then you hit a boundary which is called the Zero Point energy. That’s the boundary where what’s really going on is what we’re calling the Aether – rightly calling the Aether.

And so you find this absurd idea of things coming into existence and vanishing within Heisenberg’s principles. If you think that through, it doesn’t seem to work, to my mind anyway, that Heisenberg idea there. It seems to me they’ve turned the thing on its head. But be that as it may – that’s rather technical – and what we come to is that kind of boundary, the probability boundary, the chaos boundary…..

EB: And what you’re saying, Nick, is, all these boundaries represent the limitations of our own understanding.

TEST 3: EFFICIENT OPERATION?

So long as Western science remains locked into the mindset that the ultimate reality is a random, material-physical universe, it will remain dysfunctional and thus operate inefficiently. However, appreciating the coherence that awareness of the Aether brings could begin to rectify that very quickly.

Next, we’ll look briefly at two of the essential – qualities we need to have in mind at all times when thinking about the Aether. Then we’ll consider that most elusive something known as consciousness.

Wholeness

NT: Is there one governing principle to my conception of the Aether?

What that has proved to be essentially is wholeness. The wholistic aspects of what’s around us lie, really, at the centre of all that we talk about as Aether.

Engineers deal with whole, functioning systems and know that it’s the relationships between all the parts and the whole – as much as the parts themselves – that determine how well a system functions. It’s also understood that behind every system there’s a design, a purpose, which is the reason for its very existence as a system, complete in its wholeness.

NT: Our ordinary science deals very effectively and very well with all that has to do with breaking it down into little bits and you understand all the little bits and then you try to put the little bits together again.

And that is a very valuable approach but it’s only half the story. And the other half of the story is, when you try to put it together again, what is the togetherness?

The great German poet Goethe once said that, you take a butterfly and you pin it to your board, and there you have all these beautiful butterflies – dead. And you’ve lost the butterflies. And in a sense that’s what reductionism does. You lose that whole essence.

And so the Aether part of it…my conception of the Aether, or what’s an essential part of my conception of the Aether, is just that wholeness.

The very word particle means ‘a little part’ which must be, by definition, part of a greater wholeness.

We’re aware of wholeness when we see something as an entity in itself, rather than as a collection of parts – when we see a cat rather than an assembly of limbs, fur, ears, eyes etc, or when we see a car rather than a heap of components.

NT: Well, what it comes down to, I think, is that what we sense, those of us who are more open to the wholistic side, is just that there is a wholism and wholism isn’t just a word. It’s actually very precise.

I mean take, say, the wholeness of your face or my face. Few people stop to wonder how it is you see a face as a whole. And it was in that book, The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat – I don’t know if you’ve read that one?….

DL: I know who you mean. It was Oliver Sacks.

NT: Oliver Sacks’ book. There’s an incredible case he cites of a patient who could not see faces. He could see a nose, or a scar, or anything unusual about the face, and he’d say, ‘Oh, Hello Jim’, or whoever. But if your face didn’t have anything unusual like a scar or something like that, he couldn’t see who you were.

Now this ability to see , or experience wholeness, is something we take absolutely for granted every day of our lives. That’s something which I think is actually Aetheric. I think that’s something where we have a consciousness that is related to the wholeness in a way that no reductionist approach can ever hope to come near to.

Western science has so far tended to limit itself to the opposite perspective. It continues to be obsessed with analysing and measuring the component parts, and reducing everything down to ultimate ‘building blocks’ and ‘fundamental’ (or elementary) particles – as if these are somehow more ‘real’ than the whole thing to which they belong.

Yet we all know that simply reassembling the parts of what was once a whole living being doesn’t bring back the missing aliveness. And the question always remains: What are the building blocks themselves made of – smaller building blocks?

Professor of Biology, Brian Goodwin, sees it like this.

BG: …It’s like elementary particle physics. there’s no end to particles, if you want to look at things from that point of view.

It’s endless….the cataloguing can go on and on for ever.

So there are no ultimate building blocks to be found in this continuously shifting and transforming universe. Paradoxically, the all-inclusive, unifying theory has long been the great aspiration of Western science, even as it has become increasingly specialized and fragmented into many mutually exclusive disciplines and theories. But that quest is always self-sabotaged by the tendency to reduce and break wholeness down into parts.

Western science’s best attempt so far has been its so called Standard Model. However, this does not as yet include gravity. And the eminent physicist Richard Feynman’s comment was: “So we are stuck with a theory, and we do not know whether it is right or wrong, but we do know that it is a little wrong, or at least incomplete.” …. [last part of this section is not including her on AF as it pertains to economics]

Polarity

Polarity is essentially a simple idea. It’s about the balance achieved between opposed forces within any system – which means that the poles, defining those forces, are always in a dynamic, complementary relationship. The North and South Poles of the Earth and the positive and negative poles of a battery are the most immediately obvious examples.

Primary polarities are the universal governing principles of our universe, such as Gravity and its long-denied polar opposite, Levity.

Oriental cultures have a similar polarity in Yang and Yin. And these give rise to contraction and expansion, inward and outward between centre and periphery.

Light and dark are also primary. Exploring their polarity leads to powerful insights regarding the whole phenomenon of colour. Too much light or dark in our lives is harmful. And the balance between them is certainly not a grey compromise – as we’ll see later in this Report.

One polarity we can all identify with is that between the universal masculine and feminine principles.

A main feature of the masculine principle is thrusting and penetrating inwards from the periphery towards the centre, while the feminine principle is more about receiving, containing and extending from the centre outwards towards the periphery.

Here we need to distinguish clearly between these universal principles and the specific differences of male and female gender. The masculine and feminine are always to be found combined in each physical creature – both male and female.

A deeper exploration of polarity and the Aether can also bring powerful insights into such apparent mysteries as the origins of gender as well as sex and death. And it can lead to a practical, non-religious understanding of good and evil.

Edi Bilimoria again,

EB: The minute you emerge from a state of wholeness there is always polarity.

NT: Well, it depends how you want to approach it. I’m trying to build a bridge between our experience of this world and the way we would experience if we lived in the world of the Aether. And those two kinds of experiences are polar opposite. Our experience of everyday life, ordinarily, is point centred, I suppose you’d say, geometrically. It says, I’m at a point of the universe and I’m looking out towards an infinity which is infinitely far away. But then, if you go into another realm, into another kind of space where the Aether exists, this space is like a sort of opposite of our ordinary space. It’s not an aspect of our ordinary space. It is it’s own space – it’s quite separate. But there you have to have a consciousness as it were turned inside out and it’s looking in from the periphery always, infinitely inwards.

So there you get a polarity straight away.

When you get two real polarities interacting with one another, then something happens

EB: You have a third factor that emerges always.

NT: Precisely

Three-ness, or threefoldness, is thus an essential aspect of all polarity. The vital third factor can be thought of as either that which mediates between the two poles at their interface or, the greater wholeness of which they are both parts.

It’s the lack of polarity that exposes the Black Hole theory in physics as a simplistic ‘boy mentality’ idea embellished with some clever mathematics. It’s basically a materialistic misconception, derived, however, from an intuitive sensing of a deep truth.

Black Holes have been presented as overwhelmingly inward processes, dominated by extreme gravity, with a singularity point of ultimate gravity.

This is masculine, ‘particle’ thinking.

Newton affirmed the principle of universal polarity in his description, mentioned earlier, of the universal contracting and expanding forces of the Aether.

In contrast to polarity is the binary way of thinking – that is, dividing everything into separate, mutually exclusive, either-or, one-thing-or-the-other opposites, such as yes-or-no, on-or-off, black-or-white, friend-or-foe and so on.

This is the basis of digital technology. And it’s the product of minds reduced down to a point-centred view of the world, without any real notion of wholeness.

However, once we realize this, we then have the power of choice as to whether to view any situation from a specific point within it or from the wholeness of it.

From an engineering perspective however, the binary way of thinking crucially fails to acknowledge that both poles are always parts of a larger system, ie are always included within a greater wholeness. And this inclusiveness, which is lacking in the digital way, is fundamental to how Nature functions. It could be the basis of a whole new generation of analogue technology – analogous, that is, to Nature. Also ignored in binary thinking is the influence our own presence has on any situation. And this is something with which Quantum physicists have long been grappling, as we’ll see later.

Here the observer is the essential third factor.

All of which leads the practical engineer to the alarming conclusion of an impending global disaster. For the digital way is to keep adding on more bits.

And already today no human mind can comprehend the degree of complication in any major digital system. It’s this inherent weakness that leaves us powerless and bound for major breakdowns and the collapse of whole superstructures now completely dependent on digital technology – in the same way that a bridge, building or machine with a built-in, fundamental design flaw, is doomed from the start.

This ultimate fragmentation of information – the great digital delusion, as some would call it – also serves as a major distraction. It prevents us from directly engaging with and experiencing Nature and the cosmos. We end up with elaborately detailed assemblies of bits – brilliant sandcastle simulations which are, however, unreliable and prone to disintegration… crashing.

Are there any alternative ways? The answer is: Yes, if given the same level of investment that’s gone into digital technology. But again, that’s a subject way beyond the scope of this Report.

Wisdom, some would say, is the balancing of the polaric forces in any situation, thereby achieving a feeling of wholeness. By contrast, we can see Western science becoming ever more unbalanced and set against religion – which itself then appears more welcoming and attractive, however distorted some of the hidden motives of those involved may be.

The polarity with which this whole project is particularly concerned is that between the aethereal and the physical realms – corresponding to which are the two primary polar forces of the cosmos, Levity and Gravity.

And the crucial area of that polarity is the threshold, the boundary, the border, the interface between these two realms.

And, as we’ll discover in this project, many of the apparent mysteries and anomalies of Nature begin to reveal an underlying coherence, once we apply the universal principle of polarity within wholeness.