Hacking the Aether by Aaron Murakami

Aaron Murakami - Hacking the Aether
Aaron Murakami – Hacking the Aether

This presentation, Hacking the Aether is something that I have been wanted to share for many years. It’s roots are in my popular book The Quantum Key but I go much deeper into many of the concepts and tie it all together in a way that has never been accomplished.

At the 2017 Energy Science & Technology Conference, many people commented over the weekend that Hacking the Aether should be the presentation that starts the conference every year because it sets such a foundation and in fact should be the presentation that everyone watches if they’re interested in Free Energy or related technologies.

This is basically Energy Physics 101 and amazingly, there were many attendees including some academics that shared their enthusiasm about the presentation and agreed with ideas that were shared! Times are changing and that kind of agreement tells me that we’re definitely on the right track and that the Time is at hand to start taking these ideas to the mainstream!!

Essentially, this is a simple Unified Field Model that ties together the Aether, Gravity, Inertia, Time, Electricity, Open Systems, and many other natural concepts in a way that they all fit together like a seamless picture. And, this is all done with very simple analogies, common sense and elementary school math with junior high school equations. Just about anyone can understand and appreciate what is being shared in Hacking the Aether even if they do not have technical background.

Hacking the Aether by Aaron Murakami
Hacking the Aether by Aaron Murakami

Learn more about Hacking the Aether by Aaron Murakami here: http://emediapress.com/aaronmurakami/hackingtheaether/

  • Milton Lachman

    Dear Aaron,

    Modern physics textbooks contain the myth of how the original M-M experiment supposedly proved the non-existence of a light-carrying medium, the aether, because they rely on replications of it that were performed in a vacuum rather than a gas medium.

    A 2003 paper by Reginald Cahill and Kirsty Kitto of the School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences at Flinders University, published in a “heretic” journal, Apeiron, demonstrates in theory how the later replications should give clear null results, all the while that the earlier experiments should give small but detectable non-null results, when the earlier interferometers had been filled with gas, whereas the later ones were evacuated. It presents a (virtually) unified theory of M-M-type experiments that derives consistent estimates of the absolute speed of the Earth from gas-mode M-M experiments, while predicting observed null result in vacuums.

    To keep you from falling down a worm hole, here’s an article that critiques Dr Cahill’s over-generalisation of his work into the realm of general relativity:
    http://gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-040715.pdf
    So, he’d have done better to limit himself to the non-accelerated reference frames of the gas-medium M-M experiments, and just the special relativistic implications.

    Yet GR is rooted in hypocrisy for: declaring relative motion to be an absolute reality while denying such a reality to velocity fields w.r.t. the CMB; or in asserting the reality of a space-time, yet declaring absolute space to have no reality–that is aptly contradicted, for situations having no fixed reference frame w.r.t. terra firma, in the flouting of the Executive Order requiring the use of SI units, by NASA in using statute miles whose authorising statute fails to authorise their use for said situations, yet for which nautical miles are authorised, if not the logical choice for an “aeronautical” agency.

    And as superstring & multiverse theories have never been confirmed as being physical solutions for reality, it qualifies them as canonical gospels, requiring a religious faith beyond the Transfiguration of 4-dimensional space-time into the Mediatrix of gravity, & a banishment of wave functions beyond the Pale of physical entities like Bohmian mechanics’ pilot waves.

    Heisenberg wrote in 1955:
    “Bohm’s interpretation cannot be refuted by experiment, and this is true of all the counter-proposals in the first group. From the fundamentally positivistic (it would perhaps be better to say ‘purely physical’) standpoint, we are thus concerned not with counter-proposals to the Copenhagen interpretation, but with its exact repetition in a different language.”

    Not long before he died in 1990, Bell commented on the paradoxes of QM, including that of Schroedinger’s cat:
    “Those paradoxes are simply disposed of by the 1952 theory of Bohm, leaving as the question, the question of Lorentz invariance. So one of my missions in life is to get people to see that if they want to talk about the problems of quantum mechanics–the real problems of quantum mechanics–they must be talking about Lorentz invariance.”

    Bell wrote in 1964:
    “In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.”

    So if a middle ground for unified theories utilising Bohmian mechanics is a foliation of space-time for which they’ll be Lorentz invariant, wouldn’t cosmology’s college of cardinals (NASA etc.) underfund the gathering of relevant data in order to reduce the likelihood of having to revamp Einstein’s tensors? (in the belief that proper funding will lead to a conclusion that creation without a Creator is impossible, unless they discriminate in favor of over-simplification, and act as Major Superiors to deny “imprimi potest” to heresies not in line with their Schroedinger’s catechism–a set of contradictory explanations for every otherwise anomalous result).

    As other disciplines have also turned against the Latter-Day Freethinkers, who rely on science to refute the Copernican dogmatists in an ironic case of role reversal, I hope that you use your next appearance on CtoCam to discuss Bohmian mechanics.

  • Retroburrower

    Dear Aaron,
    .
    Modern physics textbooks contain the myth of how the original M-M
    experiment supposedly proved the non-existence of a light-carrying
    medium, the aether, because they rely on replications of it that were
    performed in a vacuum rather than a gas medium.
    .
    A 2003 paper by Reginald Cahill and Kirsty Kitto of the School of
    Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences at Flinders University, published
    in a “heretic” journal, Apeiron, demonstrates in theory how the later
    replications should give clear null results, all the while that the
    earlier experiments should give small but detectable non-null results,
    when the earlier interferometers had been filled with gas, whereas the
    later ones were evacuated. It presents a (virtually) unified theory of
    M-M-type experiments that derives consistent estimates of the absolute
    speed of the Earth from gas-mode M-M experiments, while predicting
    observed null results in vacuums.
    .
    To keep you from falling down a worm hole, please read the article
    “Comments on Cahill’s Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity”
    (GRI-040715.pdf at gravityresearch,org) that critiques Dr Cahill’s
    over-generalisation of his work into the realm of general relativity
    So, he’d have done better to limit himself to the non-accelerated
    reference frames of the gas-medium M-M experiments, and just
    the special relativistic implications.
    .
    Yet GR is rooted in hypocrisy for: declaring relative motion to be an
    absolute reality while denying such a reality to velocity fields w.r.t.
    the CMB; or in asserting the reality of a space-time, yet declaring
    absolute space to have no reality–that is aptly contradicted, for
    situations having no fixed reference frame w.r.t. terra firma (in the
    flouting of the Executive Order requiring the use of SI units), by NASA
    in using statute miles whose authorising statute fails to authorise their
    use for said situations, yet for which nautical miles are authorised, if
    not the logical choice for an “Aeronautics” agency.
    .
    And as superstring & multiverse theories have never been confirmed as
    being physical solutions for reality, it qualifies them as canonical
    gospels, requiring a religious faith beyond the Transfiguration of
    4-dimensional space-time into the Mediatrix of gravity, & a banishment
    of wave functions beyond the Pale of physical entities like Bohmian
    mechanics’ pilot waves.
    .
    Heisenberg wrote in 1955:
    “Bohm’s interpretation cannot be refuted by experiment, and this is true
    of all the counter-proposals in the first group. From the fundamentally
    positivistic (it would perhaps be better to say ‘purely physical’)
    standpoint, we are thus concerned not with counter-proposals to the
    Copenhagen interpretation, but with its exact repetition in a different
    language.”
    .
    Not long before he died in 1990, Bell commented on the paradoxes of
    QM, including that of Schroedinger’s cat:
    “Those paradoxes are simply disposed of by the 1952 theory of Bohm,
    leaving as the question, the question of Lorentz invariance. So one of my
    missions in life is to get people to see that if they want to talk about
    the problems of quantum mechanics–the real problems of quantum
    mechanics–they must be talking about Lorentz invariance.”
    .
    Bell wrote in 1964:
    “In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to
    determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the
    statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of
    one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument,
    however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate
    instantaneously, so that a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.”
    .
    So if a middle ground for unified theories utilising Bohmian mechanics is
    a foliation of space-time for which they’ll be Lorentz invariant,
    wouldn’t cosmology’s college of cardinals (NASA etc.) underfund the
    gathering of relevant data in order to reduce the likelihood of having to
    revamp Einstein’s tensors? (in the belief that proper funding will lead
    to a conclusion that creation without a Creator is impossible, unless
    they discriminate in favor of over-simplification, and act as Major
    Superiors to deny “imprimi potest” to heresies not in line with their
    Schroedinger’s catechism–a set of contradictory explanations for every
    otherwise anomalous result).
    .
    As other disciplines have also turned against the Latter-Day
    Freethinkers, who rely on science to refute the Copenhagen dogmatists in
    an ironic case of role reversal, I hope that you use your next appearance
    on CtoCam to discuss Bohmian mechanics.