> Well, I suppose that if one calls any specific wave construct
> (matrix) as "matter" then I agree with you. However, I don't
> think that this is the present definition of what physical
> matter is!
> IMHO, you are using the word "matter" too loosely here!
> In terms of what the the physicists are doing, I don't agree
> with you. The reason why they are called "physicists" in the
> first place is because they are studying physical stuff only!
They may think that all those particles--which they can't actually see--are physical, but they are not. The etheric is composed of etheric matter, and physicists have been into the etheric since the invention of the atom bomb which released etheric energy. Energy is also etheric, but there are also etheric particles.
> One has to be able to transcend the physical matter in though
> in order to grasp what it really is. Maybe that is more like
> meta-physics, or something like that...
> I can also grasp your lingo, but I don't necessarily agree
> with your statement that "they have defined subtle matter,
> and matter that can even be in more than one place at time".
> In general, traditional science tends to say that anything
> that is discovered that is considered to be a building block
> of matter is generically called a "particle"! Then they also
> say that, those "particles" tend to have both wave and mass
> properties, but not both at the same time! That is bogus to
> say the least!!!
I don't know if it's bogus or not, but it's etheric. It's the first,the closest, of the parallel dimensions that many physicists now admit exist.