I examined the development of western science to see where and when we determined that such a phenomenon was IMPOSSIBLE. Einstein's analysis of the Michaelsen-Morley experiment is credited with the distruction of the, until then respectable, concept of ether. The theory was tested and failed. No ether was detected and Einstein's explanation using the Lorenz formulae succeeded in predicting further test results without an etheric component.
That has not stopped the controversy, indeed, it is the source of it today. The Newtonian concept of an aether, a substrate through which the waves of light moved, was an inadequate model to explain what was then and now the experience of consciousness.
A fully relativistic model is required, one that can remain consistent with today's theoretics, while lifting prediction to a new level. Pursuing this, these two areas of inquiry stand out. First, does undetectability equate to non-existence, or poor detection strategies? Second is the need for a theory upon which to base experiments to detect the existence of "ether, or aether" .
The first must be resolved before the second can be pursued. Like a court case, much evidence is disallowed in science. Most importantly, only forces which are detectable by laboratory instruments are qualified. This seems reasonable, until you realize that like affects like, that the range of frequencies, vibrations and fields generated by life forms have components that can't be detected by material devices. But what is detected is assumed to be all that is there! "Evidence" means allowable, excluding much and tilting the scale toward a totally material conclusion at odds with our experience of consciousness. So we are at a permanent loggerheads with the issue of "proof".
A theory that enables us to predict material AND immaterial phenomenon is needed. Such a theory will explain the "structure" of energy, breaking each change event into discrete parts, providing a level of analysis magnitudes beyond the present methods.
An important aspect of this new theory will be its treatment, of the "negative", or my preferred term, the receptive polarity, ascribing it an equal status from the cosmological beginnings to the present. How that will change our perceptions is difficult to express here. Suffice to say that the present approach includes the receptive force only as a balance to each projective (positive) event, without any acknowledgement that ALL actions have equal and opposite reactions, meaning that the receptive polarities have a system of consequences which are as ancient and complex as the projective. They interact with each other just as we know EM does, and we can predict their behavior similarly. All we need is a theory with which to create experiments.
A relativistic system to achieve this is the objective of SCIET Dynamics. The Single Cycle Integrative Effect Topology freezes change in a set of incremental steps representing a complete cycle. It includes the receptive component, providing a foundation for the conceptualization of a comprehensive theory of nature.
I suggest that you revisit my web site with this in mind. The geometric forms are only the meager first steps of a presentation which must illustrate the undeniable truth with all its complexity in a form which is easy to understand. This will take time and money.
Your time is appreciated. Your interest is important in the pursuit of this truth