NYT 1930: Mr. Russell finds scientists too ready to accept theory

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » NYT 1930: Mr. Russell finds scientists too ready to accept theory

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2007 03:07 pm
MR. RUSSELL FINDS SCIENTISTS TOO READY TO ACCEPT THEORY

HIS ATTEMPT AT REFORMATION NOT BASED ON METAPHYSICS, HE DECLARES.

To the Editor of the New York Times:

Since publication in THE TIMES of my statement that modern science is without a foundation and needs a major surgical operation to put it in line for a logical cosmogenetic synthesis, I have been bombarded by telephone and by letters questioning this statement and others made in my book "The Russell Genero-Radiative Concept," recently published.

May I tell those people who think I have a superficial, metaphysical concept which I am trying to inject into practical science for its reformation that I am as thoroughly prepared to carry out my program with dynamic answers, not metaphysical ones, as Copernicus was when he upset an equally obstinate world of thoroughly satisfied Ptolemyites! Also I am as thoroughly aware of the difficulties of uprooting established ideas as he was.

I am also thoroughly conversant not only with every experiment that has given science its present unstable state, but also with the wrongful deductions which have resulted from these experiments.

KNOWS SCIENTISTS' THEORIES

I am as familiar with the experiments and observations of Newton and Kepler as I am of those of Faraday, Cavendish, Rutherford, Bohr or Millikan, and I also am as familiar with the things which these great men did not see in their own experiments as those which they did see, and even then misinterpreted.

An observation of an effect of Nature is equal to an experiment and a proper deduction from either is [H: Two Lines missing from press clipping.] ... then become inventors and work out wonders which Nature never thought of. I can cite hundreds of such inventions born of supposedly observed facts of experiment.

LA PLACE'S MISTAKES

Mathematics are useless if the premises they start with are wrong. La Place, the greatest mathematician of his day, "proved" many things which have since been disproved . He even went so far as to prove that the outer edges of his rings moved faster than their inner surfaces and his contemporaries accepted the impossibility as Niels Bohr's "jumping electron" was accepted by his contemporaries.

Nature hasn't one separate series of laws for big mass and another series for small mass. She has one law for both, but science unhesitatingly invents a series of laws for little mass that outdoes the reliance of the Arthurian sages upon a credulous public.

The moons of Jupiter and the planets of the sun pursue their courses around their primaries in an orderly periodic fashion, in strict obedience to the two forces which command and control them from two foci.

It would be the most astounding claim imaginable to state that this earth could suddenly jump to the orbit of Mars without consuming one-millionth of a second of time, yet that invention is the utterly fantastic and completely unfounded belief of modern science regarding the planets of the atom.

I could write volumes based upon modern electrical experimental data to prove that such a happening is not in Nature's scheme.

Science attributes this deduction to [H: Another two lines missing from the clipping-- copy machine cut off the bottom.] ....ments as those which they did see, and even then misinterpreted.

An observation of an effect of Nature is equal to an experiment and a proper deduction from either is more important than either.

Newton, for example, would have solved the other half of the gravitational problem if he had found out how that apple and the tree upon which it grew got up in the air before the apple fell.

I challenge the world of science to correctly and completely answer that question. Let your readers qualify for the right to subject me to their criticism as an impractical visionary by first giving a dynamic answer to this by no means simple question.

Therefore I say to all my critics who wonder why I do not go into the laboratory and "perform experiments" that I do perform experiments in physical laboratories and make profound observations in Nature's vast laboratory that have fitted me to make new and logical deductions from old experiments which have no inconsistencies and no exceptions.

EFFECTS OF MOTION ILLUSIONS

To illustrate: Suppose a man experimented with the moon running behind the trees as he ran, then set down his conclusions from the "facts", as he saw them, such as the correspondence of acceleration and deceleration to his speed, we would easily point out the error of such a deduction because we are familiar with the illusions of perspective.

Science has never considered the fact that in this universe of motion all effects of motion are illusions. Illusions are not limited to perspective but to every electrical, chemical and astronomical relation.

Nature is the supreme deceiver, the champion "poker bluffer", who, with a simple hand, makes you think she has much.

Nature is simple. She has but one force (which she divides into many), and seven patterns (which she complexes by repeating them in such marvelous systems of wave periodicities that it needs imagination, rather than eyesight, to coordinate them). [H: Again, a couple of lines are missing from the clipping.] ....modern electrical experimental data to prove that such a happening is not in Nature's scheme.

Science attributes this deduction to a "brilliant young Dane, Niels Bohrs", who working under Rutherford, proved it by experiment, backed by Rydburg's constant, Coulomb's law, mathematics and the evidence of the spectroscope.

Of what use is Bohr's mathematical equation regarding the hydrogen spectrum, for example, if the four admittedly assumed premises upon which it is based are not in accord with Nature's plan of motion?

WRONG BASIC CONCLUSIONS


Of what value is the spectroscopic evidence if the presumption that band-spectra are caused by molecules and line spectra by atoms is found to be a wrong one? In respect to this I am prepared to offer consistent reasons why band and line spectra have another and more logical cause.

I can cite wrong premise after wrong premise which has caused science to form wrong basic conclusions, such as that there are separate negative and positive charges instead of doubly charged masses, also that positives and negative "charges" attract each other when the evidence in its favor is the simplest of Nature's illusions and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against such a law. Take only one for example: How does science explain the fact that in all decomposing compounds like charges seek like charges and repel all others? If this law were true the universe which we know could not hold itself together, for all similar substances and atoms of substances would be explosive, and a pound of any one substance would be impossible.
WALTER RUSSELL.
New York, Aug. 12, 1930.

***
I AM Hatonn, Journalist
July 23, 1993.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 08:02 am
@esaruoho,
Well that's all nice and dandy. But what in our science isn't founded on a wrong conclusion. I haven't foun a single line of text that says "Ok, this is law is good, you should work from here on". It seems that everything is upside-down. So where to start? In the stoneage?? This is becoming ridiculus...:p
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 08:05 am
@esaruoho,
where to start? home study course..
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 08:20 am
@esaruoho,
You might have a point. Smile I just doubt that W.R. was the only enlightened man in 2000 years of our known history. This is starting to look like a religion, everything we say is good, all other things are bad. I mean, we made a lot of scientific discoveries in the last 100 years. And it's hard for me to belive that Laplace and others are all wrong. Engineers are using his methods for some 150 years now for solving all sorts of problems. I must say that I give W.R. credit for all the philosophycal and "man changing" topics, but science works in a different way (at least today).
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 08:36 am
@esaruoho,
he took the time to explain, over ~900 pages, what electricity, gravity, magnetism, light, energy, radioactivity/gravitation etc are, what light is, and how invisible light becomes visible - what the inner workings of electricity is etc. yes he based it on the one Mind, and yes you could very easily read that as religious text. that doesnt make it one. nor am i suddenly a member of a religion just because ive been led to know that leedskalnin,schappeller,schauberger,reich,moray,stubblefield and many many others can be explained more fully with the explanations of russell on what matter and energy really are.

engineers can live in a box of entropy and yeah it will give you working solutions, but as long as cars run around getting hot and battling friction by burning more, and nuclear is the only solution, ill be going through what schauberger and russell say and find out whats missing.

tell me, has science come up with how exactly russell changed the condition of one element to another condition, thus being able to measure it being changed from element 1, to element 2?
russell got ignored back then, and still gets ignored back now, because people think its metaphysics, well, im really sorry, but it just isnt only metaphysics.

you might as well say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is completely accurate, because it works -- that doesnt mean that its the full image or truth of things. just because its been accepted by the academia, and anyone who thinks differently, gets scoffed at, does not mean that, just because it works, it is 100% full.

p.s. doesnt science work by what you can prove by experiments? westinghouse labs hydrogen experiments, NORAD coilage and so forth. id still keep my eyes peeled with the expectation that russell doesnt just slink away and become another self-help author, but gets taken seriously as a scientist.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 08:49 am
@esaruoho,
I see you're a firm beliver, don't get me wrong - I am too. It takes two poles for a debate... Back to the topic:

I like the quote I found somewhere on the net, that scientist (I think it was talking about quantum physicist/s) is like a blind man trying to find his cat. For example I haven't found any text or documents where N. Tesla was saying that science is wrong and that the mathematics don't work. Yes, he had his own views about electricity, but he was using same math as everyone else (Laplace's math).

About the Westinghouse experiment, I found out about it only in A New Concept of the Universe. It's not mentioned anywhere else, and I (luckily) had a chance to e-chat with someone who actually visited the University and met the Russells (or was it just Lao, don't know anymore). And that person didn't know anything about the Westinghouse experiment.


So, in this moment in time it comes down to what you belive. There is not a single proof of concept. I hope I'm wrong.
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 08:58 am
@esaruoho,
in the article published in Magnets Magazine (written by grotz,kovac,binder) there is a photocopy of the original westinghouse report of analysis, sent to russell, in the 1920s. im inclined to believe a receipt/report. btw. this is the exact reason why i am interested in finding more actual information of the dates, results, etc, of the tests, and the norad coilage. and the h.h. sheldon new york university elements tests of russell, which are also left undated. im in here to find out more, pertinent, exact data about all of this, and wont be content with one mention from a new concept of the universe. thus im interested in purchasing atomic suicide to find out more.

he did things that are related to science, and thus they can be extracted from wild claims by other people paraphrasing things and distorting them, or via original articles of the 20s-30s-40s-50s-60s, lectures, talks, and biographical data from other places. this is what im doing -- not as well as i probably could, but i am still at it.

tesla:
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. - Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934

if tesla said that in 1934, where are we now?


and regards being unknowledgeable about a specific russell scientific achievement - it has already become perfectly, blatantly clear that not many people are aware of the actual science of russell, and the scientific achievements. many will know that he did this or that sculpture, or did a periodic chart of elements, but the other information comes as surprises, consistently, to many people. judging by various reactions to data that ive mined. thats why ive been spamming this forum by trying to populate it about the actual notes left behind by the science, so its not just another forum where people fight over what "mind" "consciousness" "self" "unity" means when russell uses these words..
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 09:13 am
@esaruoho,
I have found some references about the Kovac, Binder & co. article, but I couldn't get it myself. Do you have it? Could you mail it to me, if you have it?

Well science is even more "mathematical" than it was in those day. Today everything is simulated, it's much cheaper than experiments. But W.R. said that you can't know the cause, by observing it's effects. So, simulation and experimentation is worthless. If I understand him correctly we should meditate upon our subject of interest and we should get our answers. It's like monks in China, somewhere I read (my local "science&people" magazine) that those monks are in fact scientist, in a way. Western science is good at locating the root of the problem and examining it to all extents. But the monks can see the branches of that problem.
See, we could make thousands of experiments and we would never found out the cause of the effect. And N. Tesla's thinking/meditating process was somewhat "uniqe". He had a very good imagination (so to call it), and only when he saw his "device" (or whatever) clearly in his mind, he went experimenting... just to fine tune it, not to find out wheter it works and how. He knew that already.
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 11:01 am
@esaruoho,
the magazine article is called
Use of Magnetic Fields for Hydrogen Production using Dual Polarity Control & Walter Russell's Experiments with Zero Point Energy
by Ron Kovac, Tim Binder, Toby Grotz.


heres some of the text attached as a jpg.. i can write it down later from the actual article.
Zero Point Energy - Russell Walter - MDG 2007
i think this page contains a bit of the text
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 11:24 am
@esaruoho,
Whoa, great! Thanks! It would be great if you could scan or take a picture of the article with a digital camera. But this is great too. Thanks again.:cool:
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 11:56 am
@mr4v0,
Hm, not the coil setup I had in my mind, but nevertheless. Do you have a better picture of coil setup used in their (Kovac, Binder, Grotz) experiment?
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 12:01 pm
@esaruoho,
i was already scanned a low resolution PDF of the article and that scan mightve been a photo-copy already. its fun, because the last page shows the russell coils, but it is completely dark with just a shadow of something. cant see aught. i know its in a magazine called Magnets.. so it would perchance be good to find out if there is any way of going back to the 1930s New York Times - at the height of the discussion of the Russell Two-Way Universe .. and get those, and also see what else is available.
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 12:03 pm
@esaruoho,
it was a lucky shot someone on a message-group happened to have the article. of course i want to get the magazine from somewhere, but i lack the monetary possibilities and contacts.
i still keep wondering if in the USP archives there are magazines and articles such as these all laid out so that we could access them, if they were to become accessible online. what do you think?
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 12:32 pm
@esaruoho,
It would be great if the University made that information available to the public. And about the devices WR built and are now just picking up dirt in the basement. But somehow I have a feeling that the people from the Uni are very alergic about us, the technological or scientifical folk ("Who are here just for the devices."). Cause it's the truth, you can build a marvelous invention and yet you can't make this world a better place if you can't "build" the man. That's the bottom line.

Have you tried to remake the experiment?


Thanks again for your information, it's priceless... Very Happy
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 12:46 pm
@esaruoho,
i know nothing wahtsoever enough of the experiment. i havent read the universal one, the secret of light, or the home study course properly. i would in no way want to start doing an experiment like this withuot fully knowing what i am doing. these are not trifling things, in fact, ive been notified by trusted individuals that i should really watch out and not do anything that i dont first understand proper-proper. there is danger there in changing conditions.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 12:58 pm
@esaruoho,
Well, I don't know. I gave this a lot of thought through the years, it's funny how the pieces are slowly falling together. In my opinion the worst thing you can do with the experiment is - that it won't work. To change conditons so seriously to damage your health or someone else, would take a lot of energy to the uninitiated to this process. And I doubt your coils (or the wireing in your house) could handle it. Besides, human body is well protected against all sorts of "changes" of conditions. What would the Curies have to say about it... (lame joke).:rolleyes:
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » NYT 1930: Mr. Russell finds scientists too ready to accept theory
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 02:03:10