There is no Ether

[ZPDM]

Extremely belatedly, I did enjoy the video you linked Marc, thank you! Not to flog a dead horse, I was going back and reading what I wrote and the thought "what was this guy smoking, has sprung to mind". However, with things having simmered or refined for a time I think I can perhaps a little less philosophically get at what led me to the post.

However, some did seem to enjoy the philosophy and I did have as I was reading another thought (there you go thinking again) so before going on I want to return to where I mentioned that I was a bit offended at how the Greeks were ridiculed that they didn't come up with zero as a number. Yes, zero is not a number it is the absence of number. Rereading, I think I finally realized what annoys me so much. The Western number system uses the same symbol for zero or nothing as it does for a placeholder between finishing nine digits and adding the tenth. Come on, 9 plus 1 does not equal 1 plus the symbol for zero (nothing). It is either zero or one. nine + one = 10? The Roman numeral system did not have this bizarreness to it. To be, what shall I say, intellectually normal, there should be a different symbol used as the placeholder symbol in Western math, say the left parenthesis ( symbol. I don't think it would affect any computations and would be less confusing and, it seems to me, more honest.

Alright, that out of the way, I am willing to concede that there is within the phenomena described by Tesla and others as sequlae of electromagnetic experiments an "ether" that has observable properties. I don't know how central this ether is to other phenomena and I don't believe it is the source of all "free energy" or possibly of any free energy. One problem I see is that there seems to be a desire to lump all free energy as a single phenomena, it is not, no more than all "energy" is the same. My guess, and that is what it is, is that energy can be created, which is likely what I should have titled the thread. To just give a little philosophical framework before proceeding to the argument, I would say, aside from practical implications, the arguments against energy being created stem from two sources. First the Laws of thermodynamics say no ("It's the Laaaw"). As I pointed out earlier, these laws, using a conventional definition of energy as capacity for doing work, are self-contradictory. Second, without getting on an ill fitting soap box, though noting the culture in which these scientists stated this, I think there is a conflating of the concepts of creation and Creator. The Creator is One and nothing may be added to or detracted from the One ("energy can be neither created nor destroyed"). This is how the scientist's who made the Laws of thermodynamics viewed things and it is quite attractive, however, they have again conflated the creation with the Creator. Per their own beliefs creation was created, i.e. energy was added, and creation can be ended. Of course, I don't know whether energy is being created all the time as it might lead to chaos, and while certain conditions lead to a net increase in energy, there is always the fail safe of, for a lack of a better term, materials engineering, i.e the thing flies apart, as otherwise any free energy system would quickly "devour" all creation. Finally, it is not the individual creating energy, rather it is the Creator creating energy though the individual can play a role in establishing conditions which generally lead to this.

Alright, that out of the way and glad I cooled down in this post the logical argument. If "free energy" is solely from the ether, or the "zero point" or "negative" energy, such terms must account for all phenomena. And there may just be a big pool of etheric or negative energy, which in the end balances out with, energy can neither be created nor destroyed I'll just mention three examples that I find difficult. 1) As I mentioned earlier the mechanical amplifier of Vilko Milkovik. It is all right in front of you, don't need a microscope, whence the excess energy? 2) A different phenomena, the reported COP > 1 of heat pumps. whence the excess energy? As a very last aside, for people who at the moment have time, a steam engine certainly looks to me like a photo negative of a heat pump, if one can be over unity the other should be able to be as well. And for a closed loop steam engine instead of going the organic rankine cycle engine route with liquids more volatile than water, what about just lowering the atmospheric pressure by about 1/3rd where water is boiling at 100F not 100C. Much closer to a heat pump. I may be way off on this, but then again I think I read somewhere where Tesla said his Tesla turbine was his favorite invention. Given all he did, do you think he would have said this if a steam engine couldn't be overunity? 3) Alright, either I'm in great error here or the blinders are slightly less tight. Given the laws of thermodynamics which cannot be violated, explain a tornado. Again a different phenomena. One minute there is nothing, the next there is something which, if large, over the course of its say, half hour/hour life above ground and on the ground likely releases energy on the order of a small atomic weapon. Where did this energy come from? With a hurricane I might say the Coriolis effect, but for a tornado? or less dramatically a few feet large water spout, I've got nothing. There is no ether showing up, no zero point, no negative energy. It appears the energy was created as a result of the conditions established and persists while those conditions exist. It also appears to rip the laws of thermodynamics to shreds.

[Mark Dorsten]

Gentlemen,

You may find this interesting. David LaPoint demonstrates magnetic effects and draws correlations with astrophysics that are pleasantly surprising. I watched them more than once.

The Primer Fields Part 1 - YouTube

Perhaps it will create new fodder for discussion.

Mark

[longhorn]

ZPDM

I do not question your sincerity, but I do question your intent.

Longhorn,

I don't know if I should feel better that you think I am sincerely bad intentioned. Okay two can play this game I don't question your sincerity but I question your manners. It is a bit interesting that you bring up Churchill. I actually attended Winston Churchill High, great school, it led me to read Churchill's 3 tome memoir of WW II. I looked up to Churchill when I was younger. At this point though I wonder whether he wasn't just an alcoholic psychopath who ordered the firebombing of Dresden, incinerating some 100,000 or more people in 48 hours at the near end of the war for no clear military reason. A little further afield, both author Kurt Vonnegut, and experimenter David Hammel (re a simple magnetic gate motor (validated by JB) and who has been trying to build a spaceship in his backyard for some time) were allied prisoners of war at Dresden at the time of the firebombing. Both came back a bit "nuts" though who can blame them.

Getting back on topic, I'm not that concerned whether you say there is an ether or not. Reality isn't a popularity contest and observable reality either is or isn't. I'm just noting that when using words like "virtual", "zero point", etc. the ether is non-observable, I've heard good objections to this, though I don't think solar wind is one. I also have no idea if I am correct, I actually suspect there are a plethora and spectrums of different phenomena. Sometimes like a blind man considering a solar cell we just don't see the source of energy, other times maybe an interaction with an other dimension (for which the the 5th dimensional leprechauns may charge us for stealing their ether). What gets me is a spinning wheel. You just have to hold it for a short time to realize it most definitely, in no means, no how, is following Newtonian mechanics. There is a great photo of Dr. Laithwaite holding up a twenty pound spinning wheel on a one foot shaft with one finger. Without going into issues of mass and gravity I'll just say it occurs that one could make energy from that, and an MIT grad apparently did just that. Where does the energy come from then?

I have again been surprised by the interest and emotion in the question. Longhorn, your interest did get me to reflect on something Tom Bearden said which hadn't sunk in, "we have no definition of energy". Now Mr. Bearden may have been considering this on very mathematical and technical levels but I finally got what he was saying, we don't know what energy is. So, and possibly this is how I should have titled the thread, maybe the FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics is invalid. Now bear with me, the first law is beautiful, not coincidentally, almost religious sounding in its "energy can be neither created nor destroyed." Energy, in physics is conventionally described as capacity to do work. The second law comes in and says "entropy is always increasing" and we are headed towards a nihilistic grey goop where no work may be performed. The two laws are contradictory. There is a work around of making a distinction between "kinetic" and "potential" energy but ... wait for it ... potential energy can not be observed. I suspect energy can be created, I think it happens all the time, there might even be a little free energy created every time you flush your toilet. Again, I agree on the mountaintop level energy does not come from nothing, perhaps it comes from the power of that Spirit mentioned in the second line of scripture hovering over the formless waters. On a mundane level though it "looks" like it comes from nothing.

So I don't think we need to be so concerned or worry about "giving up" on the technical level. I'm fairly well convinced there's lots of people on this board who have "free energy" devices. Even if we just used the current paradigm, why not as Tesla also suggested, use the temperature gradient from a hole in the ground. Studies have shown you can get 2-3 megawatts from an abandoned oil well. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these holes we already dug. They were economically dug for a vanishing resource, what about using them for a resource that will last millions of years, i.e. the temperature gradient. We don't face a technical problem, we face a people problem.

So in summary, there may or may not be an ether, if energy may be created it is not necessary and in any event perhaps we might not be so focused on it when nothing may said about it.

ZPDM

It is clear that you are operating with intent, what that intent is is becoming increasing clear. Whom is quoted is not nunc pro tunc (specifically meaning now for then.) It is alleged that Churchill was a drunk - do you have proof otherwise or second, and third party information? What is the source of this information, is the information biased? All this is really besides the point with that point being that you are really about confrontation. The facts remain obscure about many of the actions of WW II, why? Because it was a war. Wars are not renown for being organized events, things happen some or most are regrettable, There is no excuse for the taking of a human life under any circumstances especially by an organized civilized society otherwise known a a State.

Victory belongs to the victor, just as history belong, or rather the writings and telling's of history belong to the victor, the armed victor that is. Contrary to what or what not Churchill was in your estimation is of very little relevance. I was not quoting Churchill for the man, I was quoting Churchill the statesman for the subject content of what was actually relayed to the recipient.

It is a fact that many men are devils, but it also remains that some men are devils because everyone else is a devil.

One should reflect on whether their an angle or a devil and choose wisely between the two persona's (mask), because intent is interpreted into the role that is performed by the audience.

The world is a stage and life is but a play...

Now getting back to your original posit.

longhorn

[ZPDM]

Thurstjo63,

I think a few years back I stumbled upon LaVoillette for maybe two minutes and probably thought gee he's nutty I apologize that I have less time to look into some of these things than I might like but I wouldn't be surprised if I looked into it now and said, "well, you know" or maybe, "he's a genius!" There is just so much to look into. I did stumble upon from a very cursory Google search the Lavoillette etheric website where ether physics is in part described as "the transmuting ether is the wellspring of Creation. ... If this continual activity were to diminish from its present rate ...all the subatomic particles and energy waves composing our physical universe would gradually dissipate, dissolving into a state of uniformity ...This same cosmological paradigm is expressed in the Hindu story of Vishnu" Sounds similar to what I mentioned from the near death experience gentleman, and what JRR Tolkien described as a backstory.

When I find time will try to look more into what Laviolette is saying. Thanks,

Paul

[ZPDM]

ZPDM

I do not question your sincerity, but I do question your intent.

Longhorn,

I don't know if I should feel better that you think I am sincerely bad intentioned. Okay two can play this game I don't question your sincerity but I question your manners. It is a bit interesting that you bring up Churchill. I actually attended Winston Churchill High, great school, it led me to read Churchill's 3 tome memoir of WW II. I looked up to Churchill when I was younger. At this point though I wonder whether he wasn't just an alcoholic psychopath who ordered the firebombing of Dresden, incinerating some 100,000 or more people in 48 hours at the near end of the war for no clear military reason. A little further afield, both author Kurt Vonnegut, and experimenter David Hammel (re a simple magnetic gate motor (validated by JB) and who has been trying to build a spaceship in his backyard for some time) were allied prisoners of war at Dresden at the time of the firebombing. Both came back a bit "nuts" though who can blame them.

Getting back on topic, I'm not that concerned whether you say there is an ether or not. Reality isn't a popularity contest and observable reality either is or isn't. I'm just noting that when using words like "virtual", "zero point", etc. the ether is non-observable, I've heard good objections to this, though I don't think solar wind is one. I also have no idea if I am correct, I actually suspect there are a plethora and spectrums of different phenomena. Sometimes like a blind man considering a solar cell we just don't see the source of energy, other times maybe an interaction with an other dimension (for which the the 5th dimensional leprechauns may charge us for stealing their ether). What gets me is a spinning wheel. You just have to hold it for a short time to realize it most definitely, in no means, no how, is following Newtonian mechanics. There is a great photo of Dr. Laithwaite holding up a twenty pound spinning wheel on a one foot shaft with one finger. Without going into issues of mass and gravity I'll just say it occurs that one could make energy from that, and an MIT grad apparently did just that. Where does the energy come from then?

I have again been surprised by the interest and emotion in the question. Longhorn, your interest did get me to reflect on something Tom Bearden said which hadn't sunk in, "we have no definition of energy". Now Mr. Bearden may have been considering this on very mathematical and technical levels but I finally got what he was saying, we don't know what energy is. So, and possibly this is how I should have titled the thread, maybe the FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics is invalid. Now bear with me, the first law is beautiful, not coincidentally, almost religious sounding in its "energy can be neither created nor destroyed." Energy, in physics is conventionally described as capacity to do work. The second law comes in and says "entropy is always increasing" and we are headed towards a nihilistic grey goop where no work may be performed. The two laws are contradictory. There is a work around of making a distinction between "kinetic" and "potential" energy but ... wait for it ... potential energy can not be observed. I suspect energy can be created, I think it happens all the time, there might even be a little free energy created every time you flush your toilet. Again, I agree on the mountaintop level energy does not come from nothing, perhaps it comes from the power of that Spirit mentioned in the second line of scripture hovering over the formless waters. On a mundane level though it "looks" like it comes from nothing.

So I don't think we need to be so concerned or worry about "giving up" on the technical level. I'm fairly well convinced there's lots of people on this board who have "free energy" devices. Even if we just used the current paradigm, why not as Tesla also suggested, use the temperature gradient from a hole in the ground. Studies have shown you can get 2-3 megawatts from an abandoned oil well. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these holes we already dug. They were economically dug for a vanishing resource, what about using them for a resource that will last millions of years, i.e. the temperature gradient. We don't face a technical problem, we face a people problem.

So in summary, there may or may not be an ether, if energy may be created it is not necessary and in any event perhaps we might not be so focused on it when nothing may said about it.

[James Milner]

Faraday,
I have noticed that charging can be a little better at night on some occasions. I seem to recall the moon was up when it occurred as well, which made me think about possible reflected aether. But my observation is purely anecdotal and without hard measurements to back it up. I certainly wouldn't put a wager on it at this point in time.
Nonetheless it would be worth a study, maybe someone who has long periods of sun and long periods of darkness, provided the test was done at the same ambient temperature. The only problem with this is the closer you head toward the poles the closer we are to both Aurora's which may have an effect on the results. Otherwise anywhere else with short charge times whilst completely in darkness.

[Faraday88]

Has any body experianced the effect of Solar presence/absence on the local Vacuum ?..there by reflecting in the SSG behaviour.(more preciesly the E-AMP effect)
FEG book says night local Vacuum is more active than day..due to Solar activities...
rgds,
Faraday88.

[James Milner]

Longhorn,
I believe the solar wind is only a fraction of it. There is also net cosmic wind as well which is what I believe Miller was studying as it moves contrary to the solar wind. There is some suggestion that this cosmic radiation/wind is responsible for the level of cloud formation in our atmosphere, more when our solar radiation is low and less when the solar wind dominates. Very little study done on it regarding potential climate change etc.
Cheers
James

[longhorn]

Solar Wind Prediction Forecast, the Aether is also known as - the solar wind ZPDM, this forecast is provided by the National Weather Service, daily.



Solar Wind Prediction

[thurstjo63]

• Nucleon Core Field
• Energy Conservation and Photon Redshifting
• Energy Conservation and Energy Generation
• Brown Dwarf Stars
• Interplanetary maser signals
• Galactic Evolution
• Galactic Core Energy Source
• Supernova Precursor Stars
• Gravitational Repulsion
• Gravity wave and Coulomb wave speed and gravity wave force
• Dissipative Solitons in Reaction-Diffusion Systems
• Galactic Core Explosions
• Cosmic Ray Propagation
• Cosmic Ray Bombardment
• Cosmic Debris Around Solar System
• Cosmic Dust Influx
• Tin in Cosmic Dust
• Tin Isotopic Anomaly

It is definitely worth checking it out in more d

[longhorn]

Longhorn,

Lord knows I've been a "Doubting Thomas" and worse, and thank you that you believe I search for the truth. I don't know where to go with a lot of the rest that you said.

"What I believe ZPDM actually wants is the fruits of this debate without the cost associated in other words he wants something for nothing, but then most are the same in this regards, so why be shocked?"

I don't know what the fruits of this debate might be (what do you see longhorn?). Yes what I am saying is to heck with the ether, the dirac sea, the zero point, the vacuum, the asymmetrical quantum flux, maybe you can get, as you put it "something for nothing". If someone presents the something and can't say anything about the "nothing" well as a simple man that is how I would view it. I don't know who the "most" are or why they are somehow "shocked".

I also never insulted any experimenters, if anything I was disparaging towards people better at math and modeling than I am. I am an experimenter, have worked hard, unknown, unpaid, just what are you getting at? Enjoyed the Mosaic reference to God as being and something about Buddism but really, what's the difference between "ether" and nothing?

ZPDM

I do not question your sincerity, but I do question your intent.

It is as Winston Churchill stated:

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
-Winston Churchill

I'll end with another Churchill quote:

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
-Winston Churchill

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. Never, never, never give up."
-Winston Churchill

Never, never, give up ZPDM, my brother.

Longhorn

[ZPDM]

Longhorn,

Lord knows I've been a "Doubting Thomas" and worse, and thank you that you believe I search for the truth. I don't know where to go with a lot of the rest that you said.

"What I believe ZPDM actually wants is the fruits of this debate without the cost associated in other words he wants something for nothing, but then most are the same in this regards, so why be shocked?"

I don't know what the fruits of this debate might be (what do you see longhorn?). Yes what I am saying is to heck with the ether, the dirac sea, the zero point, the vacuum, the asymmetrical quantum flux, maybe you can get, as you put it "something for nothing". If someone presents the something and can't say anything about the "nothing" well as a simple man that is how I would view it. I don't know who the "most" are or why they are somehow "shocked".

I also never insulted any experimenters, if anything I was disparaging towards people better at math and modeling than I am. I am an experimenter, have worked hard, unknown, unpaid, just what are you getting at? Enjoyed the Mosaic reference to God as being and something about Buddism but really, what's the difference between "ether" and nothing?

[ZPDM]

James,

Sorry for the late reply. You covered a lot of ground there, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a thread about "nothing" generates a philosophical discussion, should have seen that one coming. I think you are entirely right, the question leads back to the beginning. I don't know if your model is correct, as far as I can recall I wasn't present at the start If I am to give my view of the beginning I will go back to Genesis. I may be the wrong person for it, it may be ugly, however I will now proselytize.

If we take Genesis as source material if you look at the first three lines of scripture they describe a "triune" God. The first line a Creator, the second a Spirit or Wind over the waters, the third line the Word. The first line spoken was "let there be light". So yes, the word/spirit/creator existed before light but through the light one is able to perceive something of the transcendent One. So the Christ is described so often as the Word of God, and in addition as He tells us "I am the light of the world". It all goes back right to the beginning. Or again, no one knows whom the Father is except the Son and those "to whom the Son chooses to reveal him". So yes at the mountaintop level I would agree something non-observable may exist.

I was just thinking on the more mundane level is there anything that can be observed of the "ether"? I would also clarify that I am not suggesting that things arise of their own accord from nothing that strikes me as silly, just that the One may create from nothing and perhaps it happens often.

As regards reality as simulation, it is an interesting thought unless someone kicks me in the shins. I'll offer another "model" not saying it has to be correct, I just suspect it might be something like this. A man by the name of Howard Storm had a near death experience. Along with many other things, one of the things he mentioned upon his return is that yes there really is a "heavenly choir". It consists of those beings who moving beyond doubt and fear are so attuned to the One that they are, at the direction of the One, quite literally "singing" our existence. And, per Howard Storm, if they were to stop everything around us would no longer exist. Oddly enough this is similar to how JRR Tolkein viewed things. It also, I suspect is a bit like what Walter Russel was talking about. Yes, the distance is real, the hot and cold are real, but they are "made of" the harmonies and interferences of fundamental (whichever they are) forces. So while it is real, if the cello player in the third row is told to play a different note one might find oneself on the other side of the galaxy. To add even one more wrinkle we have the admonition from scripture, "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away then for one iota of the law to pass away," or something to that effect. This points to a level of organization that is greater than the physical reality. While at first glance harsh, when one considers the question of intentionality in experiments and otherwise I find it comforting. Yes, as is frequently alluded to in scripture and I think just plain said will have to look it up, what ever you believe without doubting may come true, for a mind like mine that is not necessarily a good thing. However, the fail safe as it were is that one cannot, at the end of the day ever believe that which is not the truth. This truth or law is the program which underlies the "simulation" we are in.

Well if Dr. Bedini didn't ban me from the board when I first showed up on valid grounds of being an ahole I suppose valid grounds of BSing tremendously may be allowed as well. Besides if you can't BS on a free energy forum ... well what has this country come to!

[longhorn]

[longhorn]

Didn't realize there was so much activity here.

Vtech,
And I suppose that 2D person would have some difficulty putting together the patterns which would come in from the third dimension. Though if he could experience another dimension it might appear as a simple as a sphere. I could go on re the second part of your comment but seeing all the comments on the thread, I'll, for the moment, quit while I'm ahead.

Longhorn,
I guess I am just trying to simplify the terminology and ask if we, in discussing free energy, are talking about what we obviously seem to be talking about. If we say energy from the "vacuum" well a vacuum is defined as "nothing". If we say "zero point", again that is nothing. If we say ether, ether is nebulous and ill-defined. So I am just asking can we say anything about the ether, if we can't that would be nothing again. I don't think it's bad if we say the energy is from nothing. It just would mean energy can be and is being created all the time. I hope it came across that I meant the "seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado" as the kind of thing I see in "advanced" papers where I have no clue what they are talking about and begin to think the authors themselves have no clue either. There is I would say a conventional model for the heartbeat that doesn't make any reference to the ether, sure we might not have a complete model and it might be flat out wrong. Alright, you got me, the heart beat just might be a seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado (SD triple T) to us experts, that demonstrates the ether.

James,
You're noting that there are erudite critiques of Michelson Morley obviously struck a power chord. I was expecting the points brought up to be about the lighting of fluorescent lights around the whole electrically insulated circuit path of a Bedini or other radiant type machine. I was ready to concede this point but to mention if one ever accepts the mechanical devices like Melkovic's two stage oscillator or a gravity wheel or Laithwaite easily lifting a heavy spinning wheel above his head, the whole thing is right in front of you as it were, still when you tally it up the energy doesn't balance out, even more than the weird Tesla type stuff that is what, again if valid, I have trouble wrapping my head around. Instead you and Aaron are giving me a whole new direction to study and learn in.

Tom C,
I am going to go entirely afield of your comment, however, I know you're the man on this, unless JB wishes to offer guidance. I'm going to build another SSG or two, don't even have a working one at the moment. I'm not looking to do precision engineering, this will be a balsa wood on a CD build, just want it to spin. Then place a thin sheet of copper touching the magnets on the rotor. Put a brush contact at the center of rotation and one at the periphery of the wheel. I might also note that one could run a pulse motor (I think) with the N/S facing vertical to the axis of rotation and so could easily extend the pulsing magnets right in towards the center of rotation of the copper disk if need be. The only loss I would see is the friction from the brush contacts, while one might not have to further be concerned with Lenz stuff. So I would say if it has been done to death and don't waste your time, please let me know, heaven knows these builds aren't the easiest thing for me. If not, well go feed the naked and clothe the hungry or whatever. In all honesty I don't know if it is a very dumb idea, if not ... BTW I couldn't get anywhere on my superglue balsa wood V-gate motor, rats.

Faraday,
"`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe ...
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!",

Beware the frumious Bandersnatch!

There is no vacuum - the vacuum is but a convenient fiction

ZPDM is a person who is searching for answers, and in playing the role of the proverbial "Doubting Thomas" it is proof that he is asking for the proof is in the pudding, or in the scarred hands of those of the past and present who have worked silently, without reward at great personal cost, towards the end of free energy from the vacuum.

What I believe ZPDM actually wants is the fruits of this debate without the cost associated in other words he wants something for nothing, but then most are the same in this regards, so why be shocked?

ZPDM we could debate ad infinitum the ether, the vacuum, and the speed of light, whose THEORY is right only the Creator knows, but in the end all remains is opinion and speculation, would it make you happy if I said that there is no ether?

But this raises another question where does the vacuum originate from, and how is light as an energy form moved from point A to B, because in a vacuum there is nothingness. But we know that by empirical evidence that it is frequency that moves through a vacuum tube.

My dear ZPDM what does frequency represent? It represents two opposing forces that while diametrically opposed to one another operate co-jointly as a single unit, i.e. a magnetic (frequency) field. So a vacuum is not really a vacuum at all but is just opposing frequency fields, negative and positive.

Its the yin and the yang of the Dirac Sea, fed by varying frequencies that make it all happen, its the quintessential "I Am because, I Am."

So ZPDM from a Zen Buddhist standpoint, just relax and let everything be as it is, progress is not measured by action, reaction, but by coexisting with nothingness which is all you would have without varying fields of frequencies, immersed in the Dirac Sea.

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea