Plasma Physics / Keshe Pre-Primer – As I Understand It

We’re now at a time in history where we are beginning to cure misconceptions entertained by some regarding physical world and aberrated understandings of physics.

What is plasma? What is the universe (and everything) made of? How can we, like Keshe and the 10,000 scientists playing with Keshe’s work, use this understanding for practical things like anti-gravity, creating abundant pure water, healing people, or generating matter (like gold or anything else we want) on-demand?

In hopes of helping others to understand plasma as I believe I do (or helping me to better understand it), I want to share the metaphor I’m currently using which helps me obliterate some of my own misconceptions about physics and the physical world: the Water and Whirlpool metaphor.

Originally I wrote this for the Keshe forum.

If you get something out of what I’ve written here, I’d appreciate hearing back from you. It would feed my need for companionship and confirmation that what I hope to contribute is actually being helpful to someone.

Meanwhile I’ll keep studying.


1. The Dynamic Body of Stuff – Imagine for a moment the “void” of space – not as empty, because it is not – but as a body of some sort of stuff in dynamic activity. If it helps, think of space as a body of water or smoke.

2. Movement – Within that body of water or smoke, direction of movement is possible. Look at a slow cloud of smoke or dust in sunlight, you will see strands of smoke (coherences) moving through the air. Stand in a pool of water and you can move in various directions.

3. Spiral, Spin and Donuts – So so far we have stuff in movement in a direction. That stuff in motion in one direction can fold in on itself, form a u-curve, which can then fold in on itself like a spiral with a u at the very center. Or two movements can come in from opposite directions and fold in on themselves and spiral together (yin/yang). In either case we name this coherence ‘spin’. A complex combination of spin, spiral and folding in on itself we call a “toroid” (donut).

4. Coherences – So now we have stuff in motion that can develop coherences that we call direction or spin or waves or other toroidal dynamics. A coherence is just a cluster of movement that appears organized to us.

5. Attributes and Effects – As spin coherences become large / complex enough for us to observe, we notice that they have effects and properties we can recognize, for example: density, volume, electromagnetic charge/polarity (longitudinal wave effects), and spin direction (gravity/radiation – transverse wave effects), just to name just a few. We name coherences by virtue of their different attributes and effects.

6. Increasing Complexity – When those clusters of movement come together in increasing complexity, we notice the attributes and give those clusters names. If water in the ocean is spinning together we say, “Whirlpool”. But there is no object called ‘whirlpool’ – stop the spin and the whirlpool dissipates back into the stuff from which it came (body of water). Organs are more complex combinations of coherences we call cells. Cells are complex combinations of coherences we call molecules. Molecules are complex combinations of coherences we call atoms. Atoms are complex combinations of coherences we call sub-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are nothing more than complex combinations of spiral, spin and toroidal coherences. So are planets, suns, solar systems, galaxies….turtles all the way up and all the way down. But our names of “things” can blind us to the reality – it’s all “stuff in spin” – whirlpools of different scales of coherence, each with unique properties (direction, density, polarity/charge) and effects (sound, color, light).  One coherence we call “hydrogen”.  Another coherence we call “oxygen”. Another we call “Sun” or “solar system” or “galaxy”, but those are just descriptions from one perspective of scale.

RECAP – Everything we observe at our scale within “space” is made up of stuff in motion, spin and the emergent vorticular dynamics. Sub-atomic particles are based in spin dynamics – stop spin and the sub-atomic particle ceases to be. Atoms are slightly more complex combinations of spin dynamics. When that complexity increases, we call it ‘elements’, then ‘particles’, then gas, liquid, solid. Sound, light, electromagnetic and scalar waves are all dynamics that we identify because we can observe them at our scale, but they are – at the core – nothing more than complex (and measurable) motion/wave/spin effects.

So here’s where we change our thinking. We don’t think simply in terms of particle/atom/sub-atomic particle/object anymore. Instead we think of “stuff in spin coherences”…like whirlpools. We can stand back and point to the movement phenomena and call it, “Whirlpool” – but really this is not a “solid” thing or a “matter” unto itself.  If the spin ceases, the whirlpool ceases to exist.  That is true of all “matter”, right down to the subatomic particles and beyond.

So we no longer think of “names” of things for a moment – let’s think only of Stuff in Movement and Vibration and Spin. Hydrogen is a coherence made up of a certain combination of spin, density, electro/magnetic charge, vibrational frequency… So is oxygen. So chemistry is the art of seeing how the combinations of attributes and effects interact and play together. Some coherences play well together and blend, some explode with force. What happens when we start playing with the more and more fundamental vibrational dynamics and coherences instead of the larger, more complex ones like particle physics does?

7. Interaction Effects – Spin coherences can interact (or not) in the same way sound vibrations can work in harmony or multiply, not work together (dissonance), cancel each other out or create new overtones. In terms of objects, we describe these interactions as gravity/attraction, repulsion, anti-matter and recombining (but these terms can sometimes blind us to the fundamental properties).

Here’s an illustration of interaction between spin coherences: watch two tornados (whirlpools of air) come near each other and one of three things will happen: Either a.) differences of spin dynamics will fail to merge – which looks to us like the two tornados repel each other or b.) the dynamics, in harmony, will merge together and combine movement to form a super-tornado (a more complex coherence), or c.) they will both dissipate (the spins will cancel each other out and the energy will dissipate into other forms). When we observe this at the scale of atomic elements, we call it Chemistry. We put 2 atoms of hydrogen (a coherence) together with 1 atom of oxygen (a coherence), the properties of each are such that they merge and become H2O. At a far, far smaller scale, we’re combining vibrational and spin dynamics to produce results. I sometimes think of it as a kind of micro-subatomic-chemistry – Fusion (combining), Fission (spinning off), etc.

This brings me closer to understanding Mr. Keshe’s work. What I’ve read so far in the patents shows how to put ingredients together (some which are the result of interactions) which – in turn – results in the attributes or effects that we want (current, gravitational effects, directional propulsion, matter generation, charge effects which result in health impacts).

This is possible *** because *** we are playing at the more fundamental level of the vibrational dynamics and resulting effects. This is hardly “new” science (for starters, see the work of Walter Russell, Frank Znidarsic, Tom Bearden’s results in scalar wave research, or the ‘cold fusion’ successes that TPTB hurried to trash earlier this century, just to name a few). We’re simply playing with coherences happening at scales that mainstream science has yet come to master.

So now we come back to where we started – #1 on the page. If everything is a product of movement, motion, spin and coherences of “stuff”…then…. What is that “stuff”? The ancients called it aether. So far, I understand it as Plasma – I see plasma as the greater field and ‘stuff’ within which coherences can happen. These mini-whirlpools will each have different properties and effects. Mix certain coherences together and they will blend, or not, to create other coherent results.

From this perspective it’s sometimes counterproductive to think of things in terms of “solid, liquid, gas, etc.” – instead, it helps me to think of those things as varying degrees of complex vibrational dynamics in interaction.

This helps me understand more from Mr. Keshe’s work than others I’ve met.

Here’s an example:

Some people have difficulty understanding “the wall” Mr. Keshe refers to. When I think of two tornados or two whirlpools, the ‘wall’ becomes self-evident to me. There is a zone between the two where the spin and other attributes are not identical, and there’s not enough pressure to force them together, so they don’t merge. We call this “repelling”, but really it’s just the attributes finding zones more in harmony with their own. This is the same between two magnetic fields, or the apparent solidity that means you can’t put your hand through a wall. The intensity of spin of two coherences can bounce off each other. If you press the two objects together, the apparent boundaries between the two coherences wall will compress together more and more tightly, but without a fundamental change of properties or sufficient force they will continue to not merge. On the other hand, if you learn the proper frequencies of things and how to tune them, as Ed Leedskalnin and John Hutchinson did for playtime, then you can merge objects together and get historically inexplicable gravitational effects.

That brings us to another example:

How can Keshe’s work claim gravitational effects? Well that’s easy. The effect of a spinning object on its environment means it can kick off “energies” (waves radiating outward = radiation), and it can draw in “energies” (gravity).  Large boats have been taken down by large whirlpools. There’s no mysterious force inside the center of the maelstrom; the direction of activity is convergent, so anything within that field can be drawn into the same direction.  Anti-gravity isn’t magic either – it’s simply putting two coherences against each other in a way that are dissonant. The spin effects push against each other, which appears to us like anti-gravity.

Here’s another:

How might this generate matter? Well that concept is easy now too. The effect of a whirlpool on its environment means it can kick off “energies” (ex: put water on a fan and watch it fly off when the fan spins, or look at “waves” that radiate outward from a radio tower = radiation), and in the micro-chemistry of dynamics re-combining the newly formed coherences can produce atomic layers of elements that we can recognize. This is how we get graphene on the inside of the coke bottle reactors.

These are just a few examples of how using the Whirlpool metaphor has helped me to make more sense of what I’m reading from Mr. Keshe’s work. I no longer see matter as static or solid, rather I think of all things in terms of constellations of activity like whirlpools – where some are large enough that we can perceive them at our scale (and we call them solids, liquids, gases, elements, atoms etc) and some are not (yet) perceptible to us given our current scientific advances.  

I hope that this has somehow helped you make more sense of how we can use Mr. Keshe’s work or plasma physics in practical ways.

Blessings to you,


12 Responses to “Plasma Physics / Keshe Pre-Primer – As I Understand It”

    • 2 Gail (Maya-G) Taylor March 5, 2013 at 11:41 pm

      @QuestionEverything – Shrug off? Effortlessly, as could anyone who does their homework well. She claims he has no patents – She claims there’s no actual proof (you can make one too) – The oversight is so flagrant, that it tells me that either she’s paid by someone to trash him (wouldn’t be the first time TPTB have tried to take down advancements in science), or she’s just done really poor homework. I invite us to wake up to the tactic of ridicule and subject-changing as a means of trying to suppress dialogue and discovery. In any case, sure, I can easily shrug this off and get back to the topic I wrote about —

      My interests is to support learning what is emerging in science. If you don’t want to trust Keshe’s work, then Don’t. There are plenty of others in Plasma Physics re-defining our understanding of even the Sun (oh it just happens to correspond to Keshe’s work though). Oh and then there’s John Hutchinson’s (“the Hutchinson Effect”) work, Tesla’s work, Ed Leedskalnin’s, Tom Bearden’s, Walter Russell’s work (to whom we owe many a debt; he ‘discovered’ many elements on the periodic chart), Dr. Thomas Valone’s work, Paul LaViolette, Frank Znidarsic, Nassim Haramein and many others (do research on “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”). Whew! That’s a lot for our cynical friends to exhaust themselves with.

      As for me – Bottom line – My interest is simply to understand what all these people are trying to show us.

      So how about you? How distractible are you by those who would rather ridicule than show curiosity? Which energy are you more attuned to? Did you get anything out of what I wrote? — Maya

  1. 3 QuestionEverything March 6, 2013 at 12:09 am

    Well, maybe you should look a little closer. The link to the European Patent Office in the comment provides much more information about the documents you call patents than the link you posted. Especially that none of these is a patent. They are all failed patent applications (which means mere attempts to secure patents).

    But it seems you are not willing to question anything about Keshe. So be it.

    • 4 Gail (Maya-G) Taylor March 6, 2013 at 12:19 am

      Thank you, I took your invitation – and I stand corrected; it seems there’s no “international patent”. Meanwhile, I could have done without your sarcastic barb at the end of your post. What I notice is that you did fail to address either of the Points of my comment – 1.) disproving Keshe’s patent does not dismiss the numerous points of science emerging (or all the other researchers) – the information is worth trying to understand – and – 2.) I take it you want me to understand you got Nothing out of what I did write. Between the mean-ness of sarcasm, your choice to hide behind anonymity, and your ignoring my question – this tells me more about you and your spirit than about anything else.

  2. 5 Kevin March 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm


    Sorry, but I fail to understand, why Keshe in the discussion with the patent office mentions, that copper was formed on the elektrodes of his “coke – bottle – reactor”, but in his forum and publications it is suddenly graphene.

    He does not know, what Phobos is (in a discussion with NASA)
    He is unable to calculate the volume of a sphere correctly (his result is 8 times off)
    He mixes relative humidity with absolute humidity and does not even recognise how far his results are off

    These are just three of a number of really embarrassing mistakes…[that say a lot about Keshe’s “expertise”]

    • 6 Gail (Maya-G) Taylor March 7, 2013 at 2:10 pm

      @Kevin, As I say, you can dismiss Keshe all you want, that doesn’t stop me from being interested in the aspects of what he is (and all the others I have listed in the other comment are) bringing to the table. Nobody’s perfect, and you sure aren’t either – neither am I. We all have a choice about this – You can choose to put your energy into dismissing, or you can choose to be curious to learn. I am curious to learn the things that ARE of value. I want to play with others who are curious to learn things of value. And – There IS information emerging – Not only through Keshe – but through Many in this conversation – that IS of value to learn. Instead of pointing out flaws, you *could* help figure out the aspects that are accurate and help us all build on those. Your choice – But when you choose to slander (which was edited out), it tells me more about Your spirit than anything else, and it devalues your perspective. FWIW. In comparison, at least Keshe is dogging for peace.

  3. 7 Kevin March 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Ok, Gail, I am sorry for the slander – I a now watching and following Keshe since more than a year and at some point I got tired of writing polite comments and getting attacked in response.

    Believe me, I have tried a lot to figure out, what could be worth learning from Mr. Keshe. here was nothing and the main problem is, that, whereever I looked there were contradictions – often even in the same thread of his forum, promises which were never fulfilled, false claims and faked “proofs”
    I am used to do my homework and before I make a statement I investigate very thoroughly.

    (just a few examples:
    1) A photoshopped Google earth foto of the Centre in Ninove, suggesting a whole building belonged to his foundation, while he just has rented a few rooms
    2) An obviously faked Raman – Diagram of the alleged Graphene coating of the electrodes in his coke – bottle reactor. This “Diagram” is so amateurish faked, that I could not believe what I saw when I first came across it.
    3) A video “presentation” of the alleged antigrav effekt, where the device under Test is never shown together with the display of the instrument.
    4) A flying car which was allegedly confiscated when he tried to bring it into Canada for a demonstration (and later he shows proudly, that he can reduce the weight of a “reactor” by a few percent, but only in a blurred video where the reactor and the display of the weight are never shown at the same time
    5) A photo of a “demonstration” where he sends the current from a 9 Volt battery over two twisted and allegedly graphene – coated wires to a christmas tree lighting (for the graphene – coating see his patent – application where the coating is suddenly not graphene, but copper)
    6) An alleged energy output of his “coke – bottle reactor”, where he uses the DVM in a way, that you can see that he gets a reading long before he touches the elektrodes of the “reactor” with the probes because the instrument picks random noise from power installations.

    I could continue this list ad nauseam, almost every statement of Mr Keshe presents examples.

    During all the time while I followed the development of the Keshe – case I have not seen a single promise which was fulfilled, not a single credible demonstration, not a single allegation which turned out to be true.

    Let me clarify – I do not think, that Keshe is a scammer. It seems, that he desparately and unsuccessfully tries to get his theory to work in practice. All attempts up to now failed, however he hopes, the next effort will be a success and so he postpones the delivery of the reactors, the cooperation with different nations and the world peace treaty endlessly, not recognizing, that his attempts must fail, because his theory is dead wrong. Just read his responses to technical questions in the forums and to the study – groups and you will understand

  4. 8 Gail (Maya-G) Taylor March 7, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Hi again Kevin, Thank you – That information is worth sharing. I’m with you – not only in Keshe’s case, but in all cases with Science – we are all trying to get the substance we can build on, and it’s frustrating when we can’t get it fluidly and easily.

    Meanwhile I hope you will address my original topic and tell me – was there anything you got out of my metaphor?

    Thanks again,

  5. 9 Kevin March 8, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Hi Maya,
    short answer: yes.

    A long answer will follow – your metaphor seems basically to be a differently formulated explanation of what “mainstream” science tells us (if we go really deep into the theories) and to me it seems closer to reality than Keshes hypothesis.

    But i’d like to go more into detail and I don’t like “shots from the hip”, so please be patient – I will come back in a short while.

    You will for sure have noticed, that English is not my first language, so please be patient if something is not expressed clear enough.

  6. 10 u014 March 10, 2013 at 10:20 pm

    Thanks, I got some new insight when reading the section of your writing ‘ what is this stuff’ (that is spinning) …. You said plasma. Now I understand something about plasma more….. it has positive and negative parts… reminded me about the static structure of spacetime as Mr. Nassim Haramein mentions.

    After that, did a search on google of how they use the word plasma and one of the results was that it has positive and negative parts. another result was that the plasma holds other things in suspension similar to the static structure of spacetime that holds other things.

    Just got a new insight as well. You know how there could be the plasma for different things like the plasma of the proton or plasma of the apple etc. It could be that the configuration of the components of anything could be different configurations to make up the different things, such as different configuration for hydrogen and oxygen as you said. The plasma could be the default configuration that has the positive and negative aspects similar to what Mr. Haramein was mentioning.

    Thanks again for the article and all the best to you.

  7. 11 Andy April 26, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Love it!

    I don’t know of any of these guys to whom you refer, except perhaps Mr Tesla.

    There is something in it though, for sure. I kind of have my own version of it, and I don’t even think there has to be a *right* way to think about this stuff. After all, just as it is necessary to think about the space between infinitesimals, it is also necessary to think about the nature of the creation.

    We will never examine that reality properly, except *perhaps* beyond life. We can attempt to find models which predict the behaviour, and it is important to consider that this is exactly the nature of Fermilab and Cern. Humans are nothing, if not persistent.

    I love the idea of the giant plasma ball, containing spirals of emptiness! I have another way of thinking of the same thing. The simplest way to express it is as a reference identity, scalable in time and space, with a limited number of operators, and boundless permutations.

    To me, the *most* important thing is that there must be no wrong unless a perfect match model is found. I’m certain it can be proven that the actual perfect match model cannot be proven so. At the very least Heisenberg must apply.

    Some (not me) are capable of understanding the accepted model precisely (with it’s well documented flaws). It is shocking that many of those will not accept any other model, unless it is similarly well defined. It’s preposterous, how will they find it if they don’t try?

    I have always felt that a model is useful all the time it works. Eventually you find a boundary, and the boundary conditions for the model can be collated. With known boundaries, a model is useful for prediction within the boundaries.

    Where it starts to fall apart is the spaghetti which is constructed to join coherent but distinctly different models. It seems that this is where formal science actually is.

    Your inherited offbeat model is lovely to me because it only tries to interpolate. I’m no mathematician, it just feels right, and it’s as close to religion as I can get.

    No one can extrapolate or interpolate with spaghetti.

    We have a need to figure out new stuff, so we need to be able to predict things. The formal scientific model we have is running out of things to predict, and filling the difficult space with spaghetti.

    We do need a new model with less room for spaghetti.

    Needless to say, I have nothing against Pastafarians or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to go to Poland however!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Thank you Love!

Thank you to the friends who help keep my content flowing. To share your love with me, please Click Here to Donate. Thank you <3

Quick Browse

RSS Quote of the Day

March 2013
« Jan   Apr »

RSS My Recent Twitters

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

All Entries Copyright (c) 2007-2014 Gail Taylor. All Rights Reserved.


%d bloggers like this: