Can someone tell me more about Walter Russell's books: The Universal One, Secret of Light and the Home Study Course? Some time ago, I decided to find out if there could be any truth in the Russellian version of the universe...
I have Atomic Suicide and The New Concept of the Universe, but I'd like to know what exactly [in detail if possible] Mr. Russell talks about in the three above mentioned works also. Can someone upload all of his scientific drawings to Philosophy.org or something so that people can study them [there are many already there, but there are many more [some of them also have broken links]]??
Those drawings about optics... In what book does he talk about optics? I'm not interested in any kind of spirituality, only verification and possible application of his theories. I can't afford to just buy all his works and spend a thousand dollars, but would like to acquaint myself with all his scientific works as much as possible. Can anyone help?
Are there any other books I forgot to mentioned where he talks about science and paints scientific diagrams?
I must say I have spotted some errors in the two books of his I am proud to own, certain stuff is definitely wrong, yet he mostly talks with great assurance as if he could not be wrong even once. I've only seen him say "I don't know" once in the whole of Atomic Suicide. He also talks very ambiguously, his definition of light is not science's definition of light, his definition of gravity is not science's definition of gravity, so you never know what's he's talking about, because those phenomena have a totally different meaning to him, which he doens't sufficiently explain. When he talks about an experiment performed, he tells nothing about it, other than the result, which makes it impossible to duplicate. In fact, he goes to extreme measures semantically to ensure too much information is not divulged. Experiments are about repeatability and letting others do it so there can be no doubt about the validity of the results, why the secrecy? Other than that, I still think it's possible that the fundaments of his views are indeed correct, whethere he really understood it all or not.