Talk:Etheric plane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Theological versus scientific concept 2 Split 3 Relation to physics 4 Criticisms and etheric plane's relation to physics

[edit] Theological versus scientific concept

This article is supposed to be about the theological concept of the aether. However I notice that material more appropriate to the scientific concept has intruded. This material is more appropriate for the luminiferous aether article and should be moved there or removed altogether. It is confusing to the article to mix the two concepts. In addition the Aetherometry material has already been removed from the luminiferous aether article on the grounds that it is unnotable original research. On the other hand, given its longstanding nature, the Harold Aspden aether material probably does belong in Wikipedia in the luminiferous aether article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the description of one item related to Plane (cosmology): the Etheric plane, which is said, in all esoteric conceptions worldwide, to be the 'matrix' of the physical world and interconnected with it. As such, all NPOV/informative views on this issue should be welcome (theological, philosophical, scientific, etc. and not only the 'esoteric' one). On the other hand, scientific conceptions are an important view since science, i.e. Physics, tries to understand how the world and universe work (forces, particles, laws,...) and explain it to our society. Physics prior to 20th century contemplated the existence of the invisible and not measurable 'ether' as a possibility and later discarded it; now, if you have someone from Physics in later 20th century and early 21st century, explaining how the physical world, its study object, may be produced and governed by an 'ETHERIC WORLD' (a world beyond ours composed of Aether with different structures and that can be understood by its effects at the subatomic level); then I would say it clearly fits this article. That's why a general description has been inserted here!

This research is polemic, not having scientific consensus (see 'Talk:Aetherometry' discussion page), however it is not this article objective to establish if it is true or not, but, to show the several descriptions from human knowledge fields which present conceptions about this (a)etheric world/plane (being Harold Aspden physics theoretical conceptions and Aetherometry research two of them).

I agree that Aether theories article, and luminiferous aether in an historic perspective, should contain data about Aspden's research, however, in a different view point than the present article: i.e. explaining directly what, according to this author, the 'luminisferous aether' is, its structure, how it creates and permeates matter, the laws related to it and and to physical particles, about the old and current-day experiments done, etc. That is, explaining indepth the theories, conceptions and experiments (while this article "Etheric plane" gives the needed general overview and presents how, according to this author, there is an Aether plane/world beyond and interacting with the Physical world).

Last, from my point of view, it is obvious from 'Aetherometry' discussion at Wikipedia and worldwide that intellectual arrogance dominates today's Physics: just to discuss this theoretical and experimental research of an Aether (or an Ether world) is to admit that there is a possibility that throughout the 20th century the 'almighty' explaining Physics (and related branches of science) might have been on a wrong path; and that seems to be too much for the scientific 'powers' in control of our society. See, our current-day society was formed on a scientific view of the world and the universe dominated by Physics explanations of matter being the only real thing: and how in the hell it goes to explain now that there is, or might be, an invisible and not measurable world determining our world? (and if knowledge has been based on wrong assumptions, well, what more in the current world might be wrong?) -- GalaazV 212.113.164.104 10:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC) --212.113.164.104 14:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split

It appears to me that at least two distinct concepts, both bearing the name "ether/aether" are brought up in this article. Either the introduction needs to be changed to reflect this, or material needs to be split out. Hackwrench 18:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I can understand - due to the anti-Aetherometry editions you made, i.e. giving constant categorization as "Superstition" [1] to a Physics set of theories and experiments!? - your pov worry about the danger of combining different perspectives on the same issue (i.e. if it may involve Science with Religion). Well, I present above clear reasons to keep all conceptions about this subject - etheric/aether world/plane (etimology and idea conceptions come from same past foundations) - together in this article. Let users decide. --GalaazV 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Superstition" is not the same as "Pseudoscience". While Pseudoscience was ill-fitting, at one point I figured it best to let it stay as there had been numerous adding and removing of it. I proposed the category "Pseudoscience" be renamed to "Science of Questionable Validity" and received a resounding Opposition. After looking at all the topics in "Pseudoscience" I figured the rename wasn't really necessary and that both categories could stand on their own, so I created the Science of Questionable Validity category and have been placing Aetherometry in that category and removing it from the pseudoscience category and now am under fire for that as others wrongly assumed that I created it in order to replace pseudoscience completely. I also took the Aether Theories category out of pseudoscience and into Science of Questionable Validity.

This topic Etheric plane, treats Ether as a "plane" and not something that space contains in the same way it can contain matter. My concern is not that the topic contains both Science and Religion, but that it contains the concept of ether as a plane and additionaly ether as a plenum. I'm a little annoyed at having to deal with people jumping to assumptions on both sides of the field, but I am fully capable of rising to the challange! Hackwrench 01:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Thanks for your explanation. It was my mistake: I should have written "Pseudoscience" as you mentioned (and not "Superstition"); anyway, I was not aware of your efforts for a category "Science of Questionable Validity" which is much more clear and less offensive than the terminology "Pseudoscience".

2. The notion of the an ether "plane" is well explained in the conceptions presented at the article, and are based upon the author's writings (references section) not based upon assumptions:

- a finer grade of matter called ether, which permeates the atomic structure of the earth and its atmosphere. (esoteric)

- explains how the invisible aether creates, permeates and interacts with all matter (physics)

"Plane" related to "(A)ether" is not understood as a layer parallel to the another layer (an etheric "layer" outside a physical "layer", and less even outside the physical universe) but as an interpenetration of layers, where the subtle one (etheric) permeates the densest one (physical), which is what the esoteric philosophies and these physics "science of questionable validity" theories conceive. The definition of "plane" is well explained in the related article Plane (cosmology) (plane of existence):

plane: proprounds a whole series of subtle planes or worlds or dimensions which, from a center, interpenetrate themselves and the physical planet in which we live, the solar systems, and all the physical structures of the universe. This interpenetration of planes culminates in the universe itself as a physical structured...

3. I think a simple line at the beginning of the article giving definition of "plane" can be added, but, I still consider both explanations should be kept at the article and other ones available should be included in the article and not split into different mini-articles talking about the same subject: a PLANE (interpenetrating and interacting with physicall-matter plane) formed by (A)ETHER. Regards --GalaazV 19:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to physics

" Some theosophists held that the vital force could be identified with "N-rays". This notion, named after the city of Nantes where the radiations were "observed" by physicist René-Prosper Blondlot in 1903, have long since been debunked in mainstream physics.

Modern theosophists sometimes claim that the ideas discussed in this article are related to a contemporary area of fringe science, modern Aether theories. Even fringe scientists are likely to disavow such a relation, and few if any physicists would recognize theosophy as closely related to physics.

However, there are plausible alternative explanations - which includes the model of a dynamic ether with density proportional to the density of any physical substance occupying the area of space concerned, increasing around large bodies such as stars and planets, acting as a refracting medium and affecting the speed of propagation of light and electromagnetic forces, etc. - for all the experimental data and astronomical observations currently cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists. ^[2] "

1. ↑  Einstein's relativity theory vs. the ether from a Theosophic viewpoint (rev’d 09/05)

Inserted these 3 paragraphs initiated by user Hillman (1st and 2nd paragraphs), and completed by myself (3rd paragraph) at the related article Etheric body, as it contains relevant data to understand the several viewpoints of different sectors in our society about the subject of the present article. --GalaazV 02:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms and etheric plane's relation to physics

Please donnot change section [3] without discussing it first and providing sources (afterall this is an encyclopedia, not a a private homepage)! I've requested sources (^{[citation needed]}) to those comments lines that I see as private and distorced comments: failing to do it, those lines should be removed. This should be understood as a measure to avoid the repetition of the previous edit and biased war by "scientific gurus" elsewhere...
Some users seem to still have not learn to make the distinction between an encyclopedia, which collects data from ancient times till now in every known and relevant issue in all fields of human activity, and the science: if you look at the Wikipedia's "Main Page" you'll see that "science", whatever the relevancy you give to it, is just one of the fields of human activity). --88.214.128.30 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reworded section to "Etheric plane's relation to physics" as it presents sourced descriptions, and also both pros and cons views. --88.214.131.117 22:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)