Birth of a Star

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Birth of a Star

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 01:51 am
Infomation which follows was gathered and presented to the forum by: Starchild


Title: THE BIRTH OF A STAR
Thank you for the link to NASA, Pithagorean. It reminded me of something I had seen on TV- News in Australia a few years go.
It was just "flash news" from something recorded by the Hubble Station: it was really the filming of the birth of a new star.

Here is what was captured by the Hubble Telescope:

Two spheres of light (looking like stars from the angle of observation) approaching one another from opposite direction (seen in real time as fast speed) but when they reached one another, they were NOT on a crashing course, meaning they did not crash into one another and become one. What they did is... they surpassed one another (like from inertia), stopped suddenly and reversed their direction. In so doing they unwrapped themselves and looked like two ribbons of light which quickly wrapped each other up in one sphere.

It was the most amazing thing to witness! It happened exactly as Dr. Russell described how stars are created: two rivers of light (male and female) are projected toward one another from opposite direction and when they meet they wrap each other up into ONE sphere, giving birth to a new star. Only, since he never explained exactly what happens at the moment of encountering one another, I imagined that they would have been on a crashing course. But NO, they are not, what happens is that when they meet (close enough to look at it from our distance and God knows how far they really are) they stop, although inertia will make them surpass each other, and then.... incredible to look at it...they actually reverse their course, in so doing unwrapping their tightly concentrated spirals of light becoming two ribbons or rivers of light and quickly wrapping themselves up together in one unique sphere.

There was only a brief comment to it: "We may have witnessed the birth of a star" and nothing else, no emphasis on it, no surprise and no scientist or astronomer ever commented on it. As usual what conscious mind doesn't understand, conscious mind will reject and forget.

I wonder if any of you has seen it.

Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 06:10 am
@RemberingIAM,
Could you please post a link to the video. How do you think our solar system was created? I'm thinking only about the planets, not the creation of the Sun. WR speculated that our system is like Fe or Mg atom. Would the planets be electrons then? And what about the moons?:confused:
-M
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 06:30 am
@mr4v0,
Video Archive: View All ...enjoy Smile
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 01:26 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Sorry MR4,
I have never seen a video of that "Birth of a star"
Probably they did not even realize how sensational that recording was because I don't think they accepted that it was the birth of a star. If they did, they would change their stupid theory of the Big Bang as creation of the universe, wouldn't they?

Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 01:38 pm
@starchild phil,
Nevertheless i have posted a link to european hubble videos page. Maybe you can find something interesting there. I have downloaded file about galaxy collisions, but it's not what you're talking about. Anyway, can you answer my question(s)? What do you think about our solar system, if you're interested in this aspect of WR's work that is? If you want, i can post some of my thoughts so we can have a starting point.
best regards.
-mravo = mr4v0 Wink
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 01:53 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Hello Mr4vO,
I have answered you but kept losing the message - it would not go through (I don't know why) so I sent it by email to RememberIAm who will post it in the Forum as soon as he sees it.
Could
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 01:54 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Hello Mr4vO,
I have answered you but kept losing the message - it would not go through (I don't know why) so I sent it by email to RememberIAm who will post it in the Forum as soon as he sees it.
Could you please tell me what the name you chose means? thank you!

Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 02:01 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Hi starchild,
thanks for the answer. About my nick: mr4v0 is mrAvO written in hex or leet Wink. It'
s actually my nickname and my friends and people who know me call me mravo, it comes from my lastname. Smile
What about your nick?
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 02:14 pm
@RemberingIAM,
What can I tell, MrAvo? starchild....isn't it obvious? We are all children of the stars! and so I like to call myself like that, I even like the sound,

ciao,

Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 02:30 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Well i'm not mister Avo, maybe mr. mr4v0 hehe.
bye
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 02:33 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Starchild you can mail me too, if uR havnig difficulty posting. Just DL my vcard.
 
RemberingIAM
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 04:27 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Hello RemberingIAM,

I haven't been able to post the following either, I keep losing it. Will you be kind enough to post it just after the MR4 posting in the "Birth of a star"?
Thank you, Starchild


Title: The Birth of a Star

Hello MR4,
from your question it is very obvious that you have never done the HS Course and most probably not even read a single book by Dr. Russell. So, what are you doing on this Forum?

Anyway, the planets are not electrons of the sun. They are the "children" of the sun, like the moons are the "children" of the planets they orbit.

To understand how this happens to be, you must know how the sun and all stars (and planets and moons) are created.

How do you think the sun keeps sending out its light, rays and warmth without losing its charge? Any star is energized through its poles by two rivers of light (now visible to scientists with certain equipment, although there was nothing to prove this when Dr. Russell said this) - and, if the sun did not radiate out of itself as much light as it received, it would explode.

The radiation occurs from its equator band and you can actually see it as a corona of light spouting out of its equator. The radiation that comes out from the sun's equator is projected in space and received as rivers of light by all its planets through their poles. All the planets (including earth) radiate this energy through their equator also.
Through the equators suns and planets also radiate light in rings which will keep multiplying (and stay around the sun or planet) until they are enough to form another planet or a moon. Everyone is familiar with the rings of Saturn.... well, what are they? they are the preparation for another moon formation. When they are enough for it, Saturn will through them out of itself and they will wrap each other up to form another moon.

Dr. Russell in the 20s made a picture of our sun having colored rings around it: without any equipment he had seen this while in the Light.
Well, in the 90s some new equipment allowed the verification of this. Again, I was in Australia when this picture was shown: the coloured rings around the sun... but of course the scientists did not know what they represented and they came out with the most ridiculous speculations.

Dr. Russell had explained that the sun is about to have another 'child' ...planet. Of course this 'about to have' is very figurative because it might take thousands of years before this happens.

And when it happens, earth, venus and mercury will be further away from the sun. The last projected 'child' planet is always closer to its mother (sun) while the older siblings move further away in their orbits.

I hope this satisfy your question, MR4, but it will not help you unless you are really interested and then you start studying the Home Study Course by the Russells.

Love and Light to you,

Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sat 9 Dec, 2006 04:51 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Thank you for that. But you told me what i had already grasped myself and probably any1 who read a book of WR's. And by the way ...i've read and i'm still (re)reading WR's work (but not the home study course, but some day...). One more thing: WR said that solar system = atom... so go figure it out.

Thanks
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 02:58 am
@RemberingIAM,
Hello Mr4,
if you already new that, how is it that you could not grasp that what Dr. meant with: solar system = atom
meant the solar system is like an atom, that is nucleus plus orbiting electrons (using the language used by scientists). I tell you why: because reading his books where he gives statements...this is so, that is so, etc.etc. does not make people THINK and reflect. They only compare it with what they have already studied and guess .

Dr. Russell wrote the Home Study Course with Lao not for dumb people or for primary school but because he realized that NO one could understand his books - not even the most brilliant minds around him, and he had many. In this, Lao's presence and input was essential, if she could not understand...no one else would have either.

He then had to first replace the wrong premises people were starting from as if you start from a wrong premise you will never understand: that is why scientists could not understand him.

And then he had to explain things in such a way that made people THINK and reflect and IMAGINE. Only then the understanding/knowledge sinks in loud and clear.
As long people pick up his books, read his "statements" - as they really are such - and try to fit them in with what they have studied at school or university, they will NEVER understand. In the HS Course, Dr. expounded on those 'statements' and made them clear and in so doing sometimes gave the statements another meaning.
The H S Course must be done as it is recommended, that is one unit per week from the beginning: read it paragraph by paragraph and reflect. If you go directly to the units which contain all the diagrams you will still not understand because in the previous units he removed the "wrong premises" and built the correct ones.

Just to confirm what I am talking about, just after Lao's passing to a better life, the new President of the University of Science and Philosophy, Dr. Tim Binder, had decided to change some of Doctor Russell's writings because to him they were unexplainable and therefore incorrect. I wrote to him with copy to all the then Directors, a pretty strong letter asking NOT to change any word or we would have done what was done to Jesus words. He wrote to me a very rude letter (as if to say... who are you to tell us what to do) and challenged me to explain some sentences and paragraphs, which I did. They were very clear and simple to me, but, realizing that if he and the rest of directors did not understand them was because they had never done the HS Course, so the wrong premises had not been removed and replaced in their mind, I had to write a very long letter, like 16 pages, and explained step by step.
Well, he never answered me, but I received a letter from two Directors who apologised for Dr. Binder's rudeness towards me and also confirmed that they had all agreed NOT to change any words as written by Dr. Russell.

So, you are not the only who tried to understand Doctor's teachings without doing the Course. Therefore I suggest that you do that because asking a question here and a question there does not give you a clear picture and a deep understanding.

Be well, my friend, and be happy and in joy and grateful for the Love and Beauty that we truly are and the Love and Beauty that is reflected all around us.

Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 04:40 am
@RemberingIAM,
So you are saying that if i want to have the whole picture, i should get the HSC. I will do that very soon. Eventhough i have his other (four) books i would need HSC, if i don't want to go completely nuts. Well, i thought i read that between the lines (in his books)Wink. I guess you're not interested in "scientific" (natural laws) part his of work.

Best regards, thank you again.
mravo

ps. I have been wondering from the start what's in HSC, thank you for shining some light on me.
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 05:05 am
@RemberingIAM,
Hah , Mravo, you make me smile! And no, you are not right thinking I am not interested in the scientific part of Dr.'s teachings. Very incorrect. Had there not been a scientific side to the philosophy side... I would not have even started as I was really tired of any kind of philosophy unsupported by science. But, once understood it, I am not one that goes crazy trying to verify it: I KNOW it is true!
Besides, if I was not not interested in the scientific side how would I ever had understood it more than others?

Tell me, dear, do you ever sleep? It seems you posted your last one at 5.45 in the morning your time. Well, have a fantastic Sunday!
Ciao,
Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 06:11 am
@starchild phil,
starchild wrote:
But, once understood it, I am not one that goes crazy trying to verify it: I KNOW it is true!
Besides, if I was not not interested in the scientific side how would I ever had understood it more than others?

Tell me, dear, do you ever sleep? It seems you posted your last one at 5.45 in the morning your time. Well, have a fantastic Sunday!


When i read A New Concept of the Universe (first book i got) i too knew that it was true. But then i kept asking myself, is it really true or do i just want it to be true (and so to stop with my "quest for knowledge" and concentrate on his work). So i got his other books and Atomic Suicide really blew me away. I to know his teachings aren't wrong, 'cause i keep coming to the same "answers" wherever i look for more (science, occult...). I'm just interested in a best way of studying his work and you say it's the HSC (right?). I'm not going nuts trying to scientificaly prove his words, but just reading it, is so different from anything i've read.

Well, actually i sleep a lot Wink and you can belive me i don't remember the last time i saw 5.00am on my clock. One more thing, i was not born in 1999 (if you checked it) but some 20 years before. I'm an electricalengineering undergraduate (almost an engineer, hurray) at my University, but it stoped making sense (if you know what i mean:().

bye
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 07:19 am
@RemberingIAM,
Mravo, you are really funny. So you were not born in 1999....imagine that...and here I thought you were a child prodigy....joking.
Well, if you have studied electrical engineering you will really like to understand Dr. science from the HS Course. It will become much, much clearer to you. Really, everything will become clear.

Ciao,

Starchild
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 07:52 am
@starchild phil,
Ok, you decided for me;). I know (better to say: i feel) that what WR said about electricity and magnetism is true (even Tesla confirmed it, presumably). Anyway, none of my professors can answer questions he did. Like what's voltage or amperage (or magnetic field), not to go into definitions of physical work and some other mathematical constructs. Fact is we are led to belive only our senses and sensors. But i know (from my humble experience) it's very hard to make a "fair" measurement of almost any object of obseravtion (electrical in particular). It's even one of the hardest exams i had (still have half) to take. But even when i get HSC i would like to share my thoughts with someone, i hope we will communicate again in the future.

best regards,
thank you!
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Sun 10 Dec, 2006 01:35 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Sure you can still comunicate with me. I'll leave my email address with your vcard.

Ciao,

Starchild
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Birth of a Star
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/27/2020 at 11:28:04