New Chat Sunday (Jan 4) at Noon E.T.

Everything else, really.
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 10:22 pm

New Chat Sunday (Jan 4) at Noon E.T.

Post by Lloyd » Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:44 pm

Sebastian and I are discussing having a chat soon on the topic of E.M. We find that 9 a.m. Pacific Time is good for both of us. That's 18:00 his time in Germany, i.e. 6 p.m. And it would be Noon Eastern Time.

We decided to have our next live discussion on Sunday at that time.

What times are good for anyone else here? Also what days are good for you?

I started a chat room at

But we may use the QDL site later, since it saves chats. The one above only saves the last 40 or 50 lines or so.

Good Day. Lloyd
Last edited by Lloyd on Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar Germany
Site Admin
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Germany

Re: Planning a New Chat

Post by SebastianG » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:56 am

Sunday 18:00 (Germany) is the best time for me 8-)

Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 10:22 pm

Re: New Chat Sunday at Noon E.T.

Post by Lloyd » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:01 pm

Okay, I revised the OP, so it now says the next chat will be Sunday at noon E.T., which is 18:00 your time, i.e. 6 pm.

Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 10:22 pm

Re: New Chat Sunday at Noon E.T.

Post by Lloyd » Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:11 am

What topics does anyone suggest for the chat? I like the first 5 minutes at least of video EM21.

User avatar United States of America
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:51 pm

Re: New Chat Sunday at Noon E.T.

Post by Menaus » Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:50 pm

I would have loved to join, but I didn't check my messages until today. D:

Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 10:22 pm

Re: New Chat Sunday at Noon E.T.

Post by Lloyd » Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

Menaus, you haven't missed it yet. The chat won't happen till this coming Sunday. So, if you want to chat, it would be good to have a few questions, comments, or something ready in advance, if you like.

User avatar United States of America
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:51 pm

Re: New Chat Sunday (Jan 4) at Noon E.T.

Post by Menaus » Sat Jan 03, 2015 2:24 am

Oh derp, I thought you guys were talking about last sunday. Looks like I need to begin the exercise of reading thread titles. Hah!

Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 10:22 pm

Sunday (Jan 4) at Noon E.T. Chat Copy

Post by Lloyd » Sun Jan 04, 2015 2:36 pm

S=Sebastian, L=Lloyd, P=PaulPiero, E=EHammer, M=Menaus, MA=Michael

L: Hello, I hope we may have discussion of Ethereal Mechanics here soon.
S: Test [smile]
L: We decided to chat here on Sunday at Noon ET, which is 18:00 in Germany, or 6 pm.
L: Anyone is free to leave a note here before that to say what topic or question you may like to discuss or to have discussed during the chat.
P: do you mean in monday ?
L: Oh Hi Paul. What are you asking?
- Sunday is the day Sebastian suggested.
- Not today.
P: no matter
- ok
L: I have some time now, if you'd like to mention anything.
P: yes, I have a question
- Okay.
- why my last post was suppressed from the forum?
L: Sebastian is in charge of that. Do you want to ask him, or would you like me to ask him?
P: yes please
L: Do you want to say what the post was about?
P: it was about vector algebra
L: You can post it here, if you have it, and I can see if I can post it on the forum. Would you want to do that?
P: no, doesnt matter
- thx
L: Is this where you tried to post it? In the Q vector section here:
P: yes
- it was a new topic
L: I'll ask Sebastian shortly if he removed it, or if he hasn't seen it, in case there was a glitch on the forum.
- Paul, are you in the U.S., or Europe? I'm in California.
P: I live in France
L: So it's 17:00 or so? after 4 pm? or is it after 18:00?
P: yes
L: I meant after 5 pm. Would you like me to leave our discussion above, or do you prefer that I delete it, in case other members check in here?
P: I dont mind
L: Will Sunday at 18:00 in Germany be a good time for you to use the chat room with us? Or is another day or time better for you?
P: 18 pm is ok
P: it is 18:25 now
L: Okay.
- Is there anything else you'd like to discuss now?
P: no thx
L: Okay, Paul. I hope to see you here Sunday at 18:00 your time then. Good Day.
- I'm messaging Sebastian about your request now.
P: thx good day
S: Hi Paul,
- I didn't removed any posts. Did you successfully create a post and it disappeared later?
- I just sent you a private message in the forum.
L: Does anyone have topic suggestions for the chat on Sunday? I'm thinking about the first 5 minutes of video EM21.
E: I am in California as well
L: Hi EHammer. I'm in Burbank. What about you?
E: Palo Alto
L: That's funny. I was in Palo Alto for 4 months, July to November.
E: Internship?
L: No, I wasn't doing an internship. Just looking for a cheap room, which I didn't find there, but did in Burbank.
L: Hi folks. Looks like we may get 4 to 6 people here discussing E.M. on Sunday at Noon ET.
L: The Chat begins here at Noon Eastern Time.
- On the Thunderbolts forum I mentioned the following Ideas from Robert's Ethereal Mechanics.
1- Gravity is the same as Inertia and it's a push from outside of matter by ether as the matter consumes the ether.
2- E=IC^2 instead of mC^2, because mass is an amount of matter and the amount doesn't change as the object approaches the speed of light. It's the Inertia of the object that greatly increases at near light speed.
3- Magnetic fields are spherical, not toroidal. I'll have to review the video to understand that better.
4- Ether has high density and matter has low density.
5- Ether rounds orbits.
6- Electrons are 1836 times greater in diameter than protons.

-Does anyone want to say if you agree or disagree with any of those statements?
I'm not sure if I stated all of them correctly.
7- Robert showed in Video EM21 that matter must consume something in order for a magic post to hold up a brass canonball, just as our bodies consume energy to hold the canonball at the same height.
- Does anyone agree or disagree or can explain this in more detail?
- What other topics do you want to discuss?
L: Hello everyone. Feel free to start discussing right away. Where are you? And What comments etc do you want to share? I'm going to take a short break and will be back in a couple minutes or so.
- I'm in Burbank, California.
M: Hey, I'm from Washington
- It's 9 AM over here, atm
- That's the state, not D.C.
L: Hi. Are you near the coast? or near Seattle especially?
M: Nope, I'm actually more towards the east side. Near Spokane
L: Another scenic part of the state.
M: Quite
L: What do you like about Ethereal Mechanics?
- Or what questions or comments do you have about it?
S: Hello everyone! Thank you Lloyd, for organizing this chat! Here in Germany it is 6pm.
L: Hi Sebastian. Thanks for coming and providing us the forum.
M: Well, it does away with the illogical hypothesis which contemporary scientists hold, that space is empty and light is action-at-a-distance
- This is the best part about it thus far, and I believe this is a step in the correct direction
- A wave is not what something IS, but what somethign DOES, so speaking of light without a medium is like speaking about an earthquake without the Earth.
L: Hi Michael. Join in when ready. Menaus, do you mean gravity is said to be action at a distance, instead of light?
M: Well, both are essentially that, although scientists tend to avoid claiming light as such
S: I like that in the ethereal mechanics explains so many effects by only adding the ether.

L: Does anyone suggest a topic for this discussion? Such as from my list above? Or anything else?
M: Well, I wanted to talk about Distinti's argument against conservation of energy in EM26
L: If you're ready to start that discussion, go ahead, and if others want to discuss something else, feel free to mention it any time during or after this topic.
M: In short, he argues that because the electric field at infinity is unrecoverable, energy is essentially destroyed, meaning conservation of energy cannot be true
L: It doesn't seem that infinity should be considered real though, does it?

M: Certainly not. Let me actually pull the video up to see if he specifically refers to "infinity"
- He states "At a very significant distance"
L: Michael, are you having trouble staying connected to the chat? I think this is the Michael who has his own ether theory. And I think some of the members of the E.M. forum also favor alternative ether theories.
M: This is rather ambiguous
- But assume he is correct and this isn't a problem
MA: Trying to find how to post
M: He argues that energy is destroyed not because of it's actual removal of existance, so to speak, but instead because we cannot measure it
L: Okay, Menaus. I didn't remember that video. Do you consider it unrealistic to doubt conservation of energy?
MA: OK now.
L: Michael, it looks like you figured it out. Do you want to say where you're located?
MA: I live near Boston, MA
M: This is simply illogical. Although we cannot observe the energy, the energy is still there. Whether or not one can view it is a matter of perspective. Just because it is lost to us has nothing do to with whether or not the energy is truely destroyed
- Sure it can appear to be destroyed, but that doesn't mean it is destroyed

MA: I disagree with the idea of "ethereal mechanics." My model of the aether is a contiguous impulse-transmissional aether, non mechanical
L: Okay, Michael Bostonian. Do you agree with Menaus about energy not being destroyed?
- And, Michael, I asked on the TB forum if you can diagram your ether model somehow, because it's hard for me to understand with just words.
MA: That is a complex question. I also believe there are non random management entities balancing forces in the cosmos.
S: @M: I also understand that the energy is still there but too small to measure.
L: Robert said he's not attached to any of his own ideas, if they're disproved.
M: Right, Sebastian. It all depends on how we define the word "destroyed" I take it to mean that the energy, in its entirety, goes from a state in which it exists, to a state in which it does not.
- Distinti didn't properly define it in his argument
- So things are ambiguous
L: I guess we need to ask Robert what he meant and why we disagree that energy is destroyed.
- I mean explain why we disagree.
MA: I think the universe started out randomly then became "managed". It's an oversimplification to say "energy simply does this" or "that" in the general sense
M: But if we are talking about conservation of energy, when we argue against it (using the counterexample method he used), we ought to use the same definitions used by conservation of energy
- Otherwise the argument really has nothing to do with the subject matter
- But I don't know how scientists have defined it
- So until then we can't really discuss this further. But still, I think we should make a forum post to discuss it with Distinti
MA: My aether model views energy as mainly aetheric and beyond our ability to detect
S: @Micheal A: Could you please give us a link to your model?
L: Menaus, I plan to save a copy of this chat, so we can refer to it on the E.M. forum later as needed.
MA: A model like Distinti's starts with gravitational inertial observations goes to quantum energy concept then derives a new aether model -?-
M: Michael, "contiguous impulse-transmissional" is extremely ambiguous, when you say that it is non-mechanical. The words themselves certainly imply mechanics. "impulse" "contiguous" both have a kinetic connotation, and "transmissional" certainly connects with these words to imply mechanical
- What do you mean by those words?
MA: Sebastian: I give a detailed discussion on my E.U. Thread last week "Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces"
L: Michael, I'll post the link to your thread shortly. Let me look for it now.
S: Thanks
MA: M: The idea is that uniform aether units originated from oscillating contiguous spatial points that produced a contiguously acting aether.
L: ... 10&t=15513
- That's it.
- Michael, you talked about "managing" the ether. Does that mean by resonance?
M: That gives me a load of other questions, but I'll start with this: what is nonmechanical about this?
MA: Quantum mechanics uses variable vectors, couldn't have produced a uniform world of atoms and so on. An aether like mine is non mechanical by contrast
M: Yes, but how. I'm asking how it is nonmechanical
MA: Lloyd, by "managing," i mean entities accessing a world of aetheric energy we are not privy to, who manipulate aetheric forces psychically which then self propagate
L: Sounds like a novel idea, Michael. Psychic manipulation. It seems like a reasonable theory as far as I can tell offhand.
- Menaus, do you have an alternative ether theory too?
MA: Menaus, my view of "mechanical" is that it implies motion of mediative units through space, vectors, etc., rather than by contiguity of mediative units
M: And what do you mean by contiguity?
L: Contiguity means the units are adjacent to each other. Doesn't it?
M: Do you mean these mediative units border each other?
- That they touch?
- That they are parallel and untouching?
MA: Adjacent units, all unform and identical. -Larger units like quantum photons are superimposed on the aether
M: I don't have any alternative ether theory. I'm just here to discuss the ones presented
- And by what means then, do, for instance, things move? How do these forces operate? How can a non-mechanical model of the ether describe a mechanical world such as this?
MA: Menaus; "parallel" implies "linear." -Quantum mechanics has a different concept of linear forces than aether theory does. It gets complex there.
- M, Our world is quantized. The cosmic world started with aetheric forces. When a planet like earth forms, it is a focus of magnetic energy which increases quantum forces compared to space.
M: Can we agree that our world is mechanical? That there is motion? That objects move?
MA: Earth contains aether which when quantized by the density of energies, develops a quantum setting compared with space.
M: Please answer my question
S: My world is also mechanical, I believe that every field consist of moving ether particles. What I like about Robert's Ethereal mechanics theory, is that it also provides mathematical models.
MA: M, Inertial motion reflects our perception only. The world of energy is basically different and on a different level and mode of action.
L: Hey, Folks, may I interrupt for a bit? I'd like to get everyone's brief comments on my list of Distinti's ideas above.
- Do you agree or disagree that 1- Gravity is the same as Inertia?
- Agree or not that gravity is a push from outside of matter by ether?
MA: I view Gravity as aetheric. Simple contiguity of aether forces which are uniform, in space and inside solid bodies being attracted.
M: I agree with the first part. The second part, that it is caused by matter consuming the ether, cannot be agreed or disagreed upon imo. It is simply a possible description of the phenomenon.
L: Can you just say for now "agree" or "disagree" with each point?
- Agree or not that matter consumes the ether?
- Michael, were you saying you disagree that gravity is inertia?
MA: "Matter" consuming aether disagrees with my model of contiguity of elemental aether units that are contiguous everywhere outside and inside bodies.
S: I agree that gravity and inertia is the same. It is just the relative acceleration between matter and ether.
L: If we first say agree or disagree, we could then go into detail later.
- I mean later today or on the forum too.
M: Actually, I have to go now. sorry guys
- Before I leave could I get the link for Michael's forum post, please?
- oh wait
- I see it
- alright, goobye
L: I hope to see you later.​phpBB3/ ... ​0&t=15513
- That's the link.
S: See you later!
L: Michael, would you like to have the link to the E.M. forum? It's
MA: Lloyd, I'm a non-mechanical aether person. -I'm leaving now too
L: Okay, Michael. See you later.
S: Good bye
L: Sebastian, do you have time to go over the list I posted above, with agree or disagree answers?
S: Sure
L: I guess we covered the first point. So here's the second. 2- E=IC^2 instead of mC^2, because mass is an amount of matter and the amount doesn't change as the object approaches the speed of light. It's the Inertia of the object that greatly increases at near light speed.
- Agree or not?
S: Agree
L: 3- Magnetic fields are spherical, not toroidal.
S: Agree
L: 4- Ether has high density and matter has low density.
S: Agree
L: 5- Ether rounds orbits.
S: Agree
L: 6- Electrons are 1836 times greater in diameter than protons.
S: Agree
L: 7- Robert showed in Video EM21 that matter must consume something in order for a magic post to hold up a brass canonball, just as our bodies consume energy to hold the canonball at the same height.
- Agree or not?
S: Agree
L: Do you want to comment on any of those points now?
S: The consumption process itself is not clear for me at the moment
L: Me too.
S: I mean HOW is the ether consumed? Is ether colliding with matter?
L: Mathis calls photons the ether and says protons and electrons suck them in and spit them out. So that's similar, but not the same.
- What does Robert say photons are?
- Do you know?
S: I can't recall that Robert mentioned photons. I could imagine that photons are just waves of the ether.
L: Does Robert's health seem to be okay, or not?
S: I hope so, he hasn't mentioned it for a while.
- I also haven't seen his cats in the newer videos [frown]
L: I think he says ether consists of positive and negative pairs of is it pretons, which spin around each other. Is that right?
S: I also understood that ether consist of a positive and negative ethons.
- I don't think they are spinning around each other
- the electrons consists of two equally charged pretons spinning around each other
L: One of his videos show pairs of something that revolve around each other.
S: The proton also, only with a smaller orbit
L: How do you picture these ethons or pretons making waves that produce the effects of photons?
S: Like a soliton-wave in a rope.

- But I haven't seen it yet [wink]
L: The ethons are supposed to get sucked into protons and electrons, but not add to their mass. Do you understand why they would not add mass?
S: When a photons "hits" an electron, the orbit of the electron rises to a higher energy state. And if the electron falls one orbit down it sends out a photon. I think lasers work this way.
- The mass of the electron doesn't change
- I think
L: Do you have any other comments on Robert's model?
S: Although the different orbit radius means that the inertia changes.
L: Inertia is measured in the mass. Isn't it?
S: yes
L: The electron's mass doesn't change. Does it?
S: I think Robert talked about the electron and the myon. [muon?] Both have similar properties but the weight/inertia is different. He says both consist of two pretons orbiting each other, just with different distances.
L: Sebastian, do you want to discuss more on the forum later?
S: Sure, I will be online again tomorrow.
L: I'm about ready to quit for now.
- Do you want to discuss anything more yet?
S: Not right now. Have a nice day and thanks for the chat!
L: Okay. Good Day, Sebastian. I'll try to post this on the forum.
Zyxzevn: hi there.. ill read the discussion first..
Zyxzevn: bye
L: Zyx, a copy of the discussion is now here: ... p=195#p195
L: We can discuss there further, if you like, or on the TB forum.
E: sorry I'm joining late here today, completely forgot about the chat. Is there a mobile option for getting this as a text message?
- in discussing how ether is consumed could it be that ethons are being converted purely into kinetic energy, or have we decided that in the case of a hydrogen atom the rotation of the 2 half charge electrons around a proton is density/geometry effect of ether moving into the electron
- Robert also states repeatedly that the consumption of ether is not gravity, but rather a cause. He briefly says that it is the electrons spinning around atoms that create a electromagnetic induction effect generating an acceleration force.
[L: gravity?]
- This is something I don't fully understand but may be made clear in later videos once we get a more clear picture of how Distinti's Ether can bend, twist, and compress.
- I am thinking that fundamental forces arise from the fact that the Ether is always trying to establish equilibrium. Ethereal pressure may be the driving force of everything. like a single voltage applied to a complex circuit.

Locked Previous topicNext topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest