Touching the subject of Ether/Aether is most famous subject amongst alternative and truth knowledge seekers around the world. But there are also much misleadings and incorrect information not only in the mainstream science but also among alternative researchers that includes many ''New Agers''. In this article I will quote some essential texts from rare antique book ‘’Chemical Conception of the Ether’’ (1902) with my own comments on this subject. I hope I will not disappoint some researchers but rather I will provide some confident information. After reading this book that is written by famous russian chemist and periodic table creator Dmitri Mendeleev (1834 - 1907), which is published in his lifetime and that means the book has avoided censorship what happens quite often after death of authors when original books are edited and republished with ''new upgrades'' according to actual paradigm. I realized that his views was more related to subatomic and plasma science which wasn't yet even appeared as terms in science at that time or was just idea in a cradle.
To get a complete view what D. Mendeleev thought about the ether in his book you might need to read whole book yourselves, if you can find one. I'll try to be short as possible, thus for those who are impatient to read any scientific publication and wish to get quick and general concept. Please take account that it is the period at the end of 19th century and beginning of 20th century and chemistry was just started to become a independent in the field of science.
‘In his ‘Dictionnaire Complet,' P. Larousse defines the ether as an imponderable elastic fluid, filling space and forming the source of light, heat, electricity, etc.' This is laconic, but sufficient to raise some misgivings in the mind of a thoughtful man of science. He is obliged to admit, in the ether, the properties of a substance (fluid), while at the same time, in order to explain in some way the transmission of energy through space by its motion, the ether is assumed to be an all-pervading medium.' Moreover, in order to explain the phenomena, of light, electricity, and even gravity, this medium is supposed to undergo various disturbances (perturbations) and changes in its structure (deformation), like those observed in solids, liquids, and gases. If the fluid medium permeates everything and everywhere, it cannot be said to have weight.’
Pierre Larousse (1817 - 1875) was a French grammarian, lexicographer and encyclopaedist. He published many outstanding educational and reference works of 19th century. Larousse dictionaries are still known and used today. In 19th century concept of ether was very popular and this subject had based on ancient knowledge and experiences. Such definition of ether from Larousse encyclopedia is removed today and just referring to mythology and sky. Systematically there is a place for the conspiracy or it was removed to avoid confusion in science. Make your own ideas and thoughts about it here!
‘Yet the ether must have weight, because, since the days of Galileo and Newton, the quality of gravitation or of weight forms a primary property of substances. From various considerations Lord Kelvin came to the conclusion that a cubic metre of ether should weigh about and not less than 0.000,000,000,000,000,1 grm., while a cubic metre of the lightest gas, hydrogen, weighs 90 grams under the atmospheric pressure. The above-mentioned misgivings of the thoughtful scientist begin in his most plausible endeavours to ascribe a certain weight or mass to the ether, for the question naturally arises: At what pressure and temperature will this weight be proper to ether? For at infinitely small pressures or exceedingly high temperatures steam or hydrogen would have as small a density as that given by Lord Kelvin for the ether. And as regards the density of the ether in interplanetary space, neither steam nor hydrogen would have.’
Hearing first two scientists, for some of you it will immediately invoke sceptic reaction. I also disagree with some of the synopses given by these two scientists, but we must sometimes make mistakes before you can start to see things what they really are. Especially when it comes to gravity, which still has not been proven. I think it also will never be proven! But this subject we will leave for future discussion. As we can know Kelvin also had pointing out some theory about ether, which we never heard in the science class at school.
Since beginning of human history methods or art of healing been very changing but at the base they remains the same. We can approach different ways how to heal a being. But are we aware what is the real thing behind a curved light that heals? To read more clikc here.
‘But, beyond this, the conception of the ether as a limiting state of expansion of vapours and gases cannot sustain even the most elementary analysis, for ether cannot be understood otherwise than as an all-pervading ubiquitous substance, and this is not the property of either gases or vapours. Both the latter are liquefiable under pressure, and cannot be said to permeate all substances, although they are widely distributed in nature, even in meteorites. Moreover—and this is the most important—they vary infinitely in their chemical nature and in their relations to other substances, while the ether, as far as is known, is invariable. Owing to the variety of their chemical properties, all vapours and gases should react differently on the bodies which they permeate if they were components of the ether.’
As we see this very simple statement confirm that if the ether exists there it is not seen somehow interacting with matter or atoms, even with the finest gases. If it exists it has to be some interaction even if pervading the material substances. After all if it is pervading then it does not leaving any trace of it. So it would be assumption of this pervading and never ever we could see any evidences as gases would do by pervading less denser matter.
‘Atoms into yet smaller electrons ' begins to he recognised; all of which would be logically impossible were the atom regarded as mechanically indivisible. Chemically the atoms may he likened to the heavenly bodies, the stars, sun, planets, satellites, comets, etc. The building up of molecules from atoms, and of substances from molecules, is then conceived to resemble the building up of systems, such as the solar system, or that of twin stars or constellations, from these individual bodies. This is not a simple play of words in modern chemistry, nor a mere analogy, but a reality which directs the course of all chemical research, analysis, and synthesis. Chemistry has its own microscope for investigating invisible regions, and being an archi-real science it deals all the time with its invisible individualities without considering them mechanically indivisible. The atoms and molecules which are dealt with in all provinces of modern mechanics and physics cannot be other than the atoms and molecules defined by chemistry, for this is required by the unity of science. And therefore the metaphysicians of the present day should, for the advancement of knowledge, regard atoms in the same sense as that in which they are understood by natural science and not after the manner ancient metaphysicians of the Chinese or Greek schools. If the Newtonian theory of gravity revealed the existence of forces acting at in-finitely great distances, the chemistry of Lavoisier, Dalton, and Avogadro Gerhardt, on the other hand, disclosed the existence of forces of immense power acting at infinitely small distances, and transmutable into all other forms of energy, mechanical and physical. Thus all the present-day fundamental conceptions of natural science and consequently the conception of the ether—must necessarily be considered under the combined influence of chemical, physical, and mechanical teachings. Although sceptical in-difference is prone to discern only a working hypothesis ' in the conception of the ether, yet the earnest investigator, seeking the reality of truth, and not the image of fantasy, is forced to ask himself what is the chemical nature of the ether. Before endeavouring to give an answer respecting the chemical nature of ether, I think it necessary to state my opinion regarding the belief held by some in the unity of the substance of the chemical elements and their origin from one primary form of matter. According to this view, ether consists of this primary matter in an unassociated form, that is, not in the form of the elementary atoms or molecules of substances, but at he constituent principle out of which the chemicals atoms are formed. ‘
As we can now see back then science didn't recognized atoms containing even smaller particles which still can be split in even smaller particles. This still remains a mystery and is not fully understood. I personally think that many others would also deny some mysterious forces like gravity acting on far distance on any matter. Once again we see that assumption presented as proven facts in the past was not questioned in future and could lead rather to illusion then to objective reality even as though created by greatest masters of science in the past. And I want to remind that so far we haven't seen that substances have been created or dissolved back to ether, as such thing haven't been yet observed.
‘Some persons assume also that atoms can be split up into their dust or primary matter, just as comets break up into falling stars; and that, as the geological changes of the earth or the building up and dissociation of heavenly bodies proceed before our eyes, so also do the atoms break up and form again in the silence of their eternal evolution. Others, without denying the possibility of such a process in exceptional rare cases, consider the world of atoms to have been established once for all, and do not admit the possibility of decomposing the atom into its primary matter, or of forming new atoms of any chemical element from this primary matter by experimental means. In a word, they regard the process of the creation of atoms as finite and not subject to repetition, while they consider the ether as the residue remaining after the formation of atoms. This view need not be considered here, it being solely the fruit of imagination and unproved by any experimental investigation. But the former theory of a progressive evolution of the substance of atoms cannot be passed un-noticed by chemistry, for fundamental principles of this science are the indestructibility of matter and the immutability of the atoms forming the elements. If ether were producible from atoms and atoms could be built up from ether, the formation of new unlooked-for atoms and the disappearance of portions of the elements during experiment would be possible. A belief in such a possibility has long been held in the minds of many by force of superstition; and the more recent researches of Emmens to convert silver into gold, and those of Fittica (1900) to prove that phosphorus can be transformed into arsenic, show that it yet exists. In the fifty years during which I have carefully followed the records of chemistry, I have met with many such instances, but they have always proved unfounded. It is not my purpose here to defend the independent individuality of the chemical elements, but I am forced to refer to it in speaking of the ether, for it seems to me that, besides being chemically invalid, it is impossible to conceive of ether as a primary substance, because such a substance should have some mass or weight and also chemical relations—mass in order to explain the majority of phenomena proceeding at all distances up to the infinitely great, and chemical relations in order to explain those proceeding at distances infinitely small or commensurable with the atoms. If the question were restricted to the ether which fills space and serves as a medium for the transmission of energy, it would in a way be possible to limit oneself to the supposition of mass without reference to its chemical relations and even to consider the ether as a primary matter, just as the mass of a planet may be conceived without regarding its chemical composition. But such indifferent, indefinite ether loses all sense of reality and awakens the misgivings of the earnest investigator, directly he realises that it must permeate all substances. The necessity of an easy and perfect permeation of all bodies by the ether has to be admitted, not only for the comprehension of many physical phenomena (such as those of optics), but also owing to the great elasticity and rarity of the ethereal substance.’
Here I see clearly that he was described the transmutation and plasma. We know today that the Universe is made of the plasma, and electromagnetism as natural forces plays a main role. In fact transmutation is real and it was proven just a bit later and even today. I assume if he would be still alive he would think differently and maybe wouldn't even think anymore about ether existence. CERN still today tries to ''split up into their dust or primary matter'' and it is not the ether but subatomic particles, which I don't see as ether neither I guess the other researchers would agree with me.
‘The atoms of which are always conceived as being far more minute than the atoms and molecules of the known chemical substances. Moreover, this permeability of ether in all bodies explains why it cannot be isolated from substances, which indeed behave in respect to ether like a sieve to water or air. The capacity of the ether to penetrate all substances may, however, be regarded as the ideal of the diffusion of gases through metals and other diaphragms. Hydrogen, which has a small atomic weight and is the lightest of all known gases, not only diffuses more rapidly than any other gas, but also has the faculty of penetrating through walls of such metals as platinum and palladium, which are impervious to other gases. This property is certainly due, not only to the rapidity of the motion of the molecules of hydrogen, closely connected with its small density, but also to a chemical faculty of the same kind as is exhibited in the formation of metallic hydrides, of solutions, alloys, and other indefinite compounds. The mechanism of this penetration may be likened (at the surface of the body penetrated) to the solution of a gas in a liquid, that is, to the gaseous particles leaping into the interstices between the particles of the liquid with a retardation of their motion (a partial liquefaction of gas), and a bringing into harmony of the motion of both kinds of particles.’
Another good example to explain that ether is nothing like matter or the smallest atom hydrogen can penetrate all substances but still can be measured and can react with other substances, briefly.
‘Hence the ether may be said to be a gas, like helium or argon, incapable of chemical combination. This definition of ether requires further consideration. The recognition of the ether as a gas, signifies that it belongs to the category of the ordinary physical states of matter, gaseous, liquid, and solid. It does not require the re-cognition of a peculiar fourth state beyond the human understanding (Crookes). All mystical, spiritual ideas about ether disappear. In calling ether a gas, we understand a fluid ' in the widest sense; an elastic fluid having no cohesion between its parts. Furthermore, if ether be a gas, it has weight; this is indisputable, unless the whole essence of natural science, from the days of Galileo, Newton, and Lavoisier, be discarded for its sake. But since ether possesses so great a penetrative power that it passes through every envelope, it is, of course, impossible to experimentally determine its mass in a given amount of other substances, or the weight of a given volume of ether.’
Another very important missing point is that the fourth state of matter is not ether as we know today but that is plasma and it is still hardly talked and thought at schools. There are other questions I would like to raise. If it exists, it has to have a charge or it is neutral. Does it is attractive or repelling forces? Does it behaves like electromagnetic waves? Or has it any of these properties at all, so then what it has?
‘When in 1869 I first showed the periodic dependence of the properties of the elements upon their atomic weights, no element incapable of forming definite compounds was known, nor was the existence of such an element even suspected. Therefore the periodic system was arranged by me in groups, series, and periods, starting in group I. and series I., with hydrogen as the lightest and least dense of all the elements. It never occurred to me that hydrogen might be the starting point of a system of elements. Guided by this system, I was able to predict both the existence of several unknown elements and also their physical and chemical properties in a free and combined state. ‘
Nothing much to add but I included this extract to refresh our minds about Mendeleev achievement and awareness of chemistry and element properties. He wrote this to explain his periodic table why he arranged it in this particular way or not other. We know that many other concepts of element periodic tables exist which was not discussed at school either.
‘Possible to extrapolate (i.e. to determine points beyond the limits of the known) by its means, but now such a method may be followed, and I have ventured to do so in the following remarks on the ether, as an element lighter than hydrogen. My reason for doing this was determined by two considerations. In the first place, I think I have not many years for delay; and, in the second place, in recent years there has been much talk about the division of atoms into more minute electrons, and it seems to me that such ideas are not so much metaphysical as metachemical, proceeding from the absence of any definite notions upon the chemism of ether, and it is my desire to replace such vague ideas by a more real notion of the chemical nature of the ether. For until some one demonstrates either the actual transformation of ordinary matter into ether, or the reverse, or else the transformation of one element into another, I consider that any conception of the division of atoms is contrary to the scientific teaching of the present day and that those phenomena in which a division of atoms is recognised would be better understood as a separation or emission of the generally recognised and all-permeating ether. In a word, it seems to me that the time has arrived to speak of the chemical nature of ether, all the more so since, so far as I know, no one has spoken at all definitely on this subject. When I applied the periodic law to the analogues of boron, aluminium, and silicon, I was thirty-three years younger than now, and I was perfectly confident that sooner or later my prediction would be fulfilled. Now I see less clearly and my confidence is not so great. Then I risked nothing, now I do. This required some courage, which I acquired when I saw the phenomena of radioactivity. I then saw that I must not delay, that perhaps my imperfect thoughts might lead some one to a surer path than that which was opened to my enfeebled vision.’
Radioactivity was just discovered by Henri Becquerel. From my studies seems that there been some interest at that time about ether and it was no surprise that everyone tried to explain it in their own way but none has courage talk about it as part of mainstream science publicly. If you think in terms of science it wouldn't be easy because there is no evidence of it with what all would agree. Later came Einstein and put it all under one line in his general relativity theory, which might not be complete truth. Today seems that the modern science tries to explain ether with quantum theory. Please listen the video where Einstein talks about ether.
‘Here ‘X’ and ‘Y’ stand for two unknown elements having atomic weights less than that of hydrogen, whose discovery I now look for. A reference to the above remarks on the argon group of elements shows first of all that such a zero group as they correspond to could not possibly have been foreseen under the conditions of chemical knowledge at the time of the discovery of the periodic law in 1869; and, although I had a vague notion that hydrogen might be preceded by some elements of less atomic weights, I dared not put forward such a proposal, because it was purely conjectural, and I feared to injure the first impression of the periodic law by its introduction. Moreover, in those days the question of the ether did not awaken much interest, for electrical phenomena were not then ascribed to its agency, and it is this that now gives such importance to the ether. But at the present time, when there can be no doubt that the hydrogen group is preceded by the zero group composed of elements of less atomic weights, it seems to me impossible to deny the existence of elements lighter than hydrogen. Let us first consider the element in the first series of zero group. It is designated by ‘Y’. It will evidently exhibit all fundamental properties of argon gases.’
This is original periodic table published by Mendeleev. Today X and Y are removed and nobel gases now are on the right side. Because of this conspiracy has raised and alternative researchers and true knowledge seekers think that mainstream science hides something here. In my opinion if they hide something or rather not in favor to talk about that is electric and plasma phenomena, but that is changing very rapidly now and it becomes more harder for them to hide it now.
‘Being unable to conceive the formation of the known elements from hydrogen, I can neither regard them as being formed from the element ‘X’, although it is the lightest of all the elements. I cannot admit this, not only because no fact points to the possibility of the transformation of one element into another, but chiefly because I do not see that such an admission would in any way facilitate or simplify our understanding of the substances and phenomena of nature. And when I am told that the doctrine of unity in the material of which the elements are built up responds to an aspiration for unity in all things, I can only reply that at the root of all things a distinction must be made between matter, force, and mind; that it is simpler to admit the germs of individuality in the material elements than elsewhere, and that no general relation is possible between things unless they have some individual character resident in them. In a word, I see no — object in following the doctrine of the unity of - matter, while I clearly see the necessity of recognising the unity of the substance of the ether and of realising a conception of it, as the uttermost limit of that process by which all the other atoms of the elements were formed and by which all substances were formed from these atoms. To me this kind of unity is far more real than any conception of the formation of the elements from a single primary matter. Neither gravity nor any of the problems of energy can be rightly understood without a real conception of the ether as a universal medium transmitting energy at a distance. Moreover, a real conception of ether cannot be obtained without recognising its chemical nature as an elementary substance, and in these days no elementary substance is conceivable, which is not subject to the periodic law.
I will therefore, in conclusion, endeavour to show what consequences should follow from the above conception of the ether, from an experimental or realistic point of view, even should it never be possible to isolate or combine or in any way grasp this substance. Although it was possible to approximately it was possible to approximately determine the atomic weight of the element ‘Y ‘on the basis of that of helium, this cannot be repeated for the element ‘X’, because it lies at the frontier or limits, about zero point of the atomic weights.’
‘I think it is impossible, under the present conditions of our scientific knowledge, to admit the latter value, because it would in some measure answer to a revival of the emission theory of light, and I consider that the majority of phenomena are sufficiently explained by the fact that the particles and atoms of the lightest element ‘X’ capable of moving freely everywhere throughout the universe have an atomic weight nearly one millionth, that of hydrogen, and travel with a velocity of about 2,250 kilometres per second. When I was making these calculations, my friend Professor Dewar sent me his presidential address to the Belfast meeting of the British Association. In it he expresses the thought that the highest regions of the atmosphere, which are the seat of the aurora borealis, must be considered to be the province of hydrogen and of the argon analogues. This is only a few steps from the yet more distant regions of space, and from the necessity of recognising the existence of a still lighter gas capable of permeating and filling space and thus giving a tangible reality to the conception of the ether.’
Doesn’t seem he is described plasma here and there is nothing to do about the ether? We know today that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons and that's what them unites.
Electromagnetic energy is a very interesting subject around the World in various fields from simple households, health and space tech throughout the human history. As it has very wide appliance for human development and evolution, it has been kept in secret and there is very little knowledge available for public or it is presented in a controlled manner of understanding. To read more click here.
‘It seems to me that this conception of ether, as a peculiar all-permeating gas, gives a means, if not of analysing such phenomena, at all events of understanding their possibility. I do not regard my imperfect endeavour to explain the nature of ether from a chemical point of view as more than the expression of a series of thoughts which have arisen in my mind, and which I have given vent to solely from a desire that these thoughts, being suggested by facts, should not be utterly lost. Most probably similar thoughts have come to many, but unless they are enunciated they often pass away without being further developed. If they contain a particle of that natural truth which we all seek, my effort will not have been in vain; it may then be worked out, embodied and corrected, and if my conception be proved false in its basis, it will prevent others from repeating it. I know of no other way for slow and steady progress. And even if it be found impossible to recognise in the ether the properties of the lightest, most mobile, and chemically inactive gas, still, if we keep to the realism of science, we cannot deny its substantiality, and this requires a search for its chemical nature. My effort is no more than a tentative answer to this primary question, and its one object is to bring this question to the fore.’
The book is written in October 1902, just five years before he past away. Seems that it is his last work and he wrote that because felt obligated to do this work and left question about ether open for future generations to answer.
After reading this book my conclusion was that he most likely described plasma rather the ether. I support more idea of plasma as subject of science research than the ether. The ether for me seems has more esoteric and spiritual meaning, which could not be regarded as science in field of matter. The ether can be something as void, silence or nothingness. But void, silence or nothingness has its own characteristics, which still can be seen as material reality of perception. It means that the void is content of what something in with the walls; silence itself is sound of duality from its opposition; nothingness is also created from something, etc. Generally speaking, I mean if you give some properties to the ether it manifests and it can manifest, as your wish. Furthermore if the ether is something in astral plane or it is something as finest fields then we can’t measure it as constant by meaning. In order something to measure it beyond material world then it has to be made at the same level. It the field of spiritualists, they claim to have evidences by measuring with radio waves or with other electromagnetic waves that includes also light. The light itself is in the part of this material world. But as I wrote before: ‘you can manifest if you wish something to see it then you will see it.’’ It’s like the science try to explain consciousness and try to find its location in brain or somewhere else. Maybe it is just symphony from whole orchestra? You can recognize and scientifically explain each instrument in orchestra but once they all are into play as vibrations with different frequencies they are building up the mood and feelings in that room but there are specific locations, each of us in this room can perceive it differently according to many different conditions of the room itself, depending from place we sit and according to our own personality is the most important part of it how we perceive music played by orchestra. Would it be a manifestation of ether?
After all I believe electromagnetism, magnetism, vibrations, light or plasma is quite enough to explain things scientifically and use it for benefit of all mankind. Or it is for health applications or clean energy, or what ever it would be. To create alternative energy source you don’t need the ether. Magnetism, electromagnetism or plasma; these knowledge is already enough to create electricity or use for health benefits, or other technologies. That includes more deeply research in these fields of sciences because we still don’t understand them completely today, none of them are studied enough, and we don’t need to mystify these natural forces because we don’t understand them completely yet, but rather try to find an theory which can be proven for all of us and with what all can agree, and still be open to questioning it, and find a ways to use it for mankind.
I’m aware that there is an experiment, which claims to proved the existence of the ether but I will discuss it maybe later. The articles is quite long and a little be complicated, especially if you want to question it. It takes time and energy to do it. Please share with other this article and if you can please support our research as you can. Thank for you all you spend your valuable time and read it.
Everything You Need to Know about Plasma This question as seems not so easy to answer as it sounds because plasma can be very different not only from scientific point of view but also from metaphysical meaning. In physics and biology plasma has different definitions. I will try briefly explaining and describing it and what it means plasma for us as researchers. After reading this article I think you will get general concept of its meaning. To read more click here.
Thank you for reading.
Your purchases are donations and research contribution for to ''Liquid Plasma Crystals'' research to develop new skin care products and natural supplement extraction methods and use of nature-based plasma energies in the modern world. Our goal is to develop sustainable technologies as green as possible, to use only beneficial ingredients, make products without using extra energy, find best solutions that are efficient for the future of humanity and are sustainable for our dear planet Earth.
Thank you very much for your confidence and support.
You can find out more about plasma concept in skin care and health supplements in knowledge sharing blog posts in liquidplasmacrystals.com site and Facebook page, or follow us on Instagram and Pinterest.
If any questions please feel free to ask.