Talk:Etheric plane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconMysticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mysticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mysticism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MysticismWikipedia:WikiProject MysticismTemplate:WikiProject MysticismMysticism articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOccult Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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)[reply
]

The article is about the description of one item related to
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unattributed hypothesis

The sentence "In this connection, aether is perhaps radiative heat like that of the sun, which is able to propagate in empty space." reads like a supposition. It is not clear whether this is claiming that this view was held by the ancient Greeks, or if it is some editor's personal interpretation (which would be original research), or if it's simply a metaphor (which should probably be rephrased). — Gwalla | Talk 02:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a metaphor and has been rephrased. Arion 05:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics!

Etheric plane's relation to physics

HERE's WHY this piece was taken out:

Some theosophists held that the vital force could be identified with "

N-rays
".

Weasel.

Like modern astrology and astronomy, these concepts of the ether and an etheric plane probably share a common origin.

Personal research.


Contemporary fringe physicists in their theory of a dynamic massfree energy aether,[1][2] sub-divided into different levels of density, present very similar notions to the theosophic understanting about the ether.[3]

Self-published not notable, not authoritative.

This conception by these physicists describes how the invisible, not measurable, ether creates, permeates and interacts with all matter. According to these theories, it has a density proportional to the density of any physical substance occupying the area of space concerned, which increases around large bodies such as stars and planets; acts as a refracting medium; and affects the speed of propagation of light and electromagnetic forces, etc.

standard model
, among other unexplained critical issues concerning fundamental particles, has been also unable to explain the gravitational force.

Belongs in "luminiferous ether".

This new conception of the aether in physics

Einstein's theory,[7] which had been already pointed out by various physicists[8][9] and theosophists[10] during the 20th century
.

More fringe theories, self-published and off-topic. This all appears to be a personal free-association on the word "etheric". I am suprised there's no account of ether-sniffing and the ether-either debate!! Redheylin (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His writings, called

New Galilee.[11]

The etheric plane is in part equivalent to

subtle physical.[12] In Anthroposophy the equivalent is the etheric formative forces.[13]

Esoteric Christian tradition

According to the

Paul of Tarsus
' "soma psuchicon") or the "Wedding Garment" as taught in the Holy Scriptures, eg.:

However, it also conceives that before entering New Galilee - as mankind walk forward to the understandings of universal

supraphysical planes
.

The above has been removed because it is entirely unsourced. Please note that the article above relies far too strongly on personal synthesis of primary sources. To improve it, in the first place, greater reliance should be placed on later Theosophists who have a historical overview, and upon academic sources that have reviewed the literature, I think. Redheylin (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aspden, Harold, The Physics of Creation [i.e. Chapter 7: "Aether Structure"], 2003, (pdf available)
  2. ^ Wilcock, David, Light on Quantum Physics
  3. ^ Pratt, David, The Theosophical Ether
  4. ISBN 0-85056-015-2, 1996 (html and pdf available
    )
  5. ^ Correa, Paulo & Alexandra, Why Speak of an Aether, 2001
  6. ^ Mishin, Alexander M., The Ether Model as Result of the New Empirical Conception, International Academy of MegaSciences, St. Petersburg, Russia (html available)
  7. ^ Correa, Paulo & Alexandra, A running commentary on Einstein's "Aether and the Theory of Relativity"
  8. ^ Aspden, Harold, Physics without Einstein - A Centenary Review, 2005 (first edition Physics withour Einstein in 1969), (pdf available)
  9. ^ Wilcock, David, The breakthroughs of Russian astrophysicist Dr. Nikolai A. Kozyrev (1908-1983)
  10. ^ Pratt, David, Einstein's relativity theory vs. the ether, from a Theosophic viewpoint (rev’d 09/05)
  11. ISBN 0-911274-64-2
  12. The Life Divine
    , Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, Pondicherry, 1977
  13. ^ Lehrs, Ernst, Man or Matter', and Steiner, Rudolph, Occult science - An Outline. Trans. George and Mary Adams. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1909, 1969


A heartfelt apology...

I should hugely apologize for my extreme idiocy and absent-minded rudeness; I had signed up an account here, and reading through (well, more like skimming through) barely half of all that I should have read before I took any action,... I took action. I had previously been under the impression that each of these article pages were the work of a vast many, and had no idea they were works of individual people. Assuming this, like a moron, I had posted up an external link on your very nicely done page (and some others for which I should apologize to their respective creators for) without asking. Someone named Consumed Crustacean had taken the links down, and explained things to me in polite detail, that I should come to you first and discuss the addition of such links, here, on a talk page, as is apparently explained in the parts of the orientative reading, that I neglected to fully read through when I first opened my account here. Had I done so in the first place, my rude mistake could have been avoided. (There's still much for me to read, I'm ashamed to say... still reading it now.)

I feel like a complete @$$ and I'm really very sorry.

As it turns out, according to the discussion on the WikiProject Occult discussion page, the article I wrote detailing a technique to be able to see the aura with the unaided eye was not acceptable for use here due to the article's whereabouts (anyone can write about anything there without verifiability), the fact that every thousand viewers on that page makes writers earn a few pennies (unrealized fully by me until recently), and that it's "original research".

Once more, my deeply sincere apologies. It was never my intention to overstep my bounds and scribble over anyone's art/hard work.

I'm very sorry.

Coeur-Senechal (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

The main body of this article has several instances where there are noun/verb agreement issues. The page's chief editor should proofread it for correctness.Brakoholic (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no such chief editor. The issue you refer to is instead an inherent problem of many fragmented edits in a rarely edited page. Instead consider
WP:BOLD. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Intro boastiness

The fourth paragraph in the intro, the one that starts

The majority of modern

and ends with

and other technological applications.[12]

boastingly tries to allege that "the scientist do indeed not know everything" and then blarghs out with allegations about physical phenomenons that might explain why the theosophists are right (without a milligram of scientific research) without actually making a case for such explanations. The paragraph is a pseudo-scientific grand-conspiracy hint, and as such just plain stupid. There is no connection between the referred unsolved problems in physics and the etheric planes theorized by the theosophists. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose rewriting it. It should be a wellcited defence from the theosophists, the various defences should be arguments publicly and citably used. The lack of scientific support for the existence of etheric should be an irritant to the theosophists, so it must be addressed. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a Plane

Hello,

Whoever added the Rosicrucian teachings - big UPs.

There is much confusion between the "astral" and "etheric" (Steiner); "subtile" and "causal" means the same thing for the Luciferian textbooks (Bailey).

The most revered GaYaTRi mantra begins with Booh BooVah SVaHa, these are the purest sounds to relate the the two: Booh is what already exists, the physical BooVah is what exists "in the heart of man", the dream-astral subtile, SVaHa, one's own normal existance in a balance of the two.

I understand that the Theosophical "seers" may have been much excited by direct insights of the atomic realm, but to postulate that there are two or more imaginary realms ("planes") is pure social mother-f*cking. I don't want to get too negative here.^[ AboutSchmidt ]

Astrological ideas also need not apply for "causal" status - it is only our collective, reasonable will in individual freedom of philospohical understanding (of the subtile) imho.

Here in Canada the problems are extremefied by "yoga" trends, people taught they can "stimulate prana" with breathing and the like. Prana is a global thing, the whole causal "etheric plane" is contracting on itself like Doctor Octopus' out-of-control reactor... his poor Wife!

- Dzialal Kool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.229.92 (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines of history

This page is a start on the topic, covering headlines of history. What's missing is the history of TWO etheric planes. First a lower frequency etheric "plane" where the phenomena of UFOs, acupuncture meridians and Steiner's "etheric formative forces" are most active, the "health aura" and "pre-physical body," where the physical phenomena of "pins and needles" is expalined. Second a higher frequency etheric plane where Jung and Joseph Campbell were hanging out, the level where "Scripts People Live," Greek, Roman and other mythologies live and where super heroes live, archetypes of all kinds, including the Goddess, the Mother, the Womb of Creation, Zen Buddhism and the Cornucopia of ever-flowing creation-into-fom.]

Citation for corroborating claim that etheric energy flows in acupuncture meridians: The great advantage with knowing about etheric energy is that this vital life-giving energy holds the key to vibrant wellness. Vital life energy or etheric energy is present in all effective healing systems. In acupuncture, it is the "qi" energy that is enhanced or balanced in its flow along acupuncture meridians. It is the healing energy transmitted in distant healing. It is the same healing energy that is passed to the recipient in Reiki or Polarity Therapy. http://www.spiritualdynamics.net/free/thefifthelement.htm

After moving from the single etheric plan concept expressed clearly on this page, to a two-fold vision of higher and lower frequency etheric activity, eventually the topic evolves to perceiving nuances of etheric activity on ALL levels of Creation, physical, imaginal, emotional, mental, unconscious; finally, to how the etheric body is the 'body of connectivity' the story teller, making up stories of how all adjacent parts wish to fit together; and in the human being come to a point where the ego can say, "I am."

I believe a closer reading of the topic clearly reveals these suggestions. Creating citations will be a nightmare. Would be good to re-organize the topic categories so a more complete picture of the etheric can be documented and citations added ~ Healing Toolbox - MrX 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC) (posted on behalf of Healing toolbox (talk · contribs) [4])[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Etheric_plane&oldid=1203579255"