Looks like Perplexity
went philosophical on me. I'm not really a fan of idle philosophy, except for those parts possessing potential for real life application.
Which is not unusual.
However, rather than believe, with regard to the anthropic principle, I have yet to see how to prove the existence of a reality apart from the human being to perceive it.
Subjective perception is the only possible perception, but when I mentioned the difference between common reality and RemberingIAm
's reality, I was merely differentiating between forming logical conclusions, devoid of internal conflict, divorcing oneself from mental feel-good concepts and on the other side magick
al thinking and esoteric teachings, that are unverifiable in real life.
You knew what I meant but you opened your mouth anyway.
Precisely because there is no reality apart from human perception.
You cannot conclusively prove the reality of human perception, nor reality of any kind anywhere. Without conclusive proof, we can't reach any conclusions, we can only keep stirring fog until we get tired. Einstein once asked himself: is the moon there even when I'm not looking at it? I personally don't like to dwell on philosophical dead ends like that and prefer concentrating on matters that can positively improve human existence.
Some things you need to want badly enough to make them be true literally, or else the negativity of the sceptic plays an active part to block the effect.
You just need to establish a base for reasoning and stick to it. I also like this thought: [RemberingIAM
's views seem to be in stark contrast with it]
Thinking without action images visions which die stillborn. Dreamers and visionaries who do not act to give form to their dreams and visions do not express power. They are impotent even though their inspiration be the mightiest ever conceived in the mind of man. They do not serve the world, even though their inner ecstasy makes them feel as a god.
Life itself fails to conform. Because of problems with entropy scientists continue to speculate with regard to a supposed Fourth Law of thermodynamics, a law to account for what they call "configuration", with quite some entertainment to be had frrom observing the argument over that.
What is life? Mind giving me your take on that? Define life for me, will you?
It can simply be defined as accumulation of qualigen, but I know that is not your definition.
The human being is in effect a closed loop free energy device.
Then why don't you construct a device that mimics a human being on a small scale? That should take care of at least the internal combustion engine. Can't do it? Then you are no authority here, mummbling about it only identifies a discrepancy between what's said and done and makes you look like a swindler or deluded man. Let's listen to heretic statements of those people who can make things happen, yes? And read the red
text again, okay? Russell wrote it.
The profoundly energetic effect of what they call consciousness has never yet been explained by science.
Nor by anyone else for that matter. Science doesn't explain everything but it sure beats pseudoscience, shamans and healers.
Note: asserting consciousness is A or B or whatever doesn't necessarily make it so.
Particular criticism in scientific terms is certainly helpful but I fail to see that that is.
It is unkind to think that the Russells did not do their best, and kinder to remember that there were two of them.
I didn't say he did not do his best. I said that Einstein and Newton should be given a break. They were two individuals trying to further our understanding of the universe, not self-centered idiots [okay, maybe Newton, but that's it]. If Russell did his best also, we have to conclude he was so-so. He did not eradicate war, hunger, oil dependence, but he often spoke about those things. He could have at least provided instructions on how
to experimentally validate his octave waves, which would in the eyes of the world make him a far more respectable individual.
Or maybe he didn't know how
Lao? Please. I read some of her works, that's pure mysticism [albeit with good intent], sorry. If she was alive today, I'd ask her to read the red
text as well.
Beware though, please, of what it means. According to scientific determisim your free will is not your own.
You have no choice about anything at all. The Universe already determined absolutely everything on your behalf.
Now tell me, do you own a choice or do you not own a choice?
I believe the mechanism of the universe cannot be changed. But hey, I could be wrong. However it is possible to disturb the equilibrium, and thus modify the universal dynamics, resulting in a different equilibrium. Disturbances of equilibrium are everywhere, but the magnitude of the disturbances varies from one event to another. We humans, with our present capabilities don't realize much so we're drowning in an illusion of free will.
Please expand on the Bloch wall
I'll let RemberingIAM
do that. Isn't it interesting that he sometimes accepts valid scientific principles, but only when they support the message he's trying to convey. Let's attend to him now...
Honestly what other way is there to perceive reality other than mentally? You being of a different opinion please tell me what reality is, on what it is based, from what it extends and to what it extends, it's function and it's purpose.
Well, to ensure we broadcast on the same frequency, I'd need a few definitions. Define: mentally projected idea, idea, reality and mentally. Then perhaps I can help. Oh, and don't forget to define: Mind.
Instead of attacking my views prove, me wrong.
It is common practice that the proponents of principles violating the established views prove their claims, not vice versa. Those views themselves were established going through this process, empirically invalidating previous rules, be it the very obvious flatness of the earth, human heart as the location of human soul or something similar.
That aside, I have nevertheless indirectly proven you wrong at least three times already. You cannot construct a perpetual motion machine, you cannot demonstrate a violation of the entropy law under controlled conditions, nor can you provide an empirical base for your belief system. I don't know what your definition of proof is, maybe a "mental picture of Jesus", mine is physical demonstration. If you forget about yours for a second and employ mine, you'll notice that I can't prove your views wrong, because the non-existence of something cannot be proven.
The Gulf War, The war in Iraq, Aids, Outsourcing, Vietnam, World Hunger, Racism, World War I & II, Oil for Food, Unemployment. These and many other blatant errors are constantly being glorified.
I don't know what that has to do with what I said but, those are errors? Depends on the point of view: the Iraq war is a blessing for the defense contractors for instance. You need to adopt certain humanitarian predispositions, if you are to speak about those things as errors. I don't like any of those supposed errors, but they're here because morons are running this world, and there's not enough capable people who are willing to put their own butts on the line to stop them.
Perhaps they were using a heretofore undiscovered principle of lift? Prehaps it wasn't them who buit them. We don't know. So let's not listen to folks who think that they do know, yet can't duplicate anything. Thank you.
It might be, because it defies logic. It only makes sense if the universe is an open system. As for my definition, you already know it: a closed loop overunity system, being a device whose output that exceeds the input, can optionally be connected to the input, thus powering itself and supplying a surplus of energy at the same time. In turn, a hundred of them can be connected together, each magnifying the output further.... don't you see where this leads? Just one discovered overunity device means unlimited energy for ALL, since all you need is a large number of these devices, to magnify the output and manufacture power virtually from nothing. Assuming a 2:1 overunity factor, a simple car battery could be hooked up to 20 of those miraculous machines one after another, rivalling the output of a gigawatt powerplant. I guess the free energy inventors out there never thought of that. The setup just mentioned sure would carry enough conviction to convert any sane man, so why not do it, all you free energy folks? Well I just might know why not.
Randi doesn't wanna buy anything. James Randi is an investigator of the paranormal, pseudoscientific and supernatural. He is offering One Million US to anyone that can demonstrate something along those lines. He doesn't buy your invention, he lets you keep it and slaps you with a million on top of that. Yeah. Oh and what you described prior to these words I'm quoting, by the way, is a standard procedure of all free energy swindlers when it comes to putting the money where their mouth is.
Start like I did, develop an interest. Become motivated by that interest. It led me to Russell, the only one who had the pieces of the puzzle I was missing.
I take it you went to school, and were a good student. How long did it take you to understand your teacher, grasp the subject matter? How is it that you expect to understand in a few posts that from which you have neither prior experience nor interest.
Be careful. You don't wanna state things that - I can show you - happen to reek of falacy again. Perhaps it's the other way around?
You assume my use of the word simple means effortless. Mental effort is necessary, but not in the way you are familiar. To better understand my meaning start viewing the world around you as a work of great inspired art, which is constantly under the ever so watchful eye of the Master painter who envisions it. To you and me the picture would appear complex, yet to the painter simple.
Our assumptions of others are a direct reflection of how we view ourselves. I respect you, you challenge me. You force me to exercise patients that few are capable of.
So in this sausage you're basically saying that you can't make an overunity machine? Then perhaps you should read the red
text I pasted above one more time. You're studying Russell's teachings with great neglect I must say. I'd also like to extend the invite I gave to Perplexity
and urge you to turn the tables on yourself, and start producting dough first, speeches later.
I thank you for showing me that I am capable becoming one of these few
I didn't show you that you're capable of becoming one. Only you can show yourself and the world that you're capable of doing it - by actually doing it. My words can't make your talents appear or disapper. It is illogical and somewhat unfounded to think otherwise, but that doesn't stop you from thinking exactly so.:rolleyes:
Superconductivity is unity. The material at low temperatures possesses no resistance, and even if it did, it would still be unity, with ohmic and other losses that need to be taken into account. Where's the over- in this unity? MIA? If there was any, we'd already have cryogenic power plants.
am an inventor of sorts yes, and through my researches and studies I have come to the conclusion that these laws, as we call them are limits, Mind barriers constructed and placed specifically where we find them by powers high up the food chain in our educational system to keep the sheep from discovering that they are men.
Great. You'd be a better inventor if you had a self regulating valve, that would make you reject or accept a theory or idea based on real life evidence, not occult teachings.
What benefit have we (those of the peanut gallery) from Newton's laws of gravitation. We had astronomy before him.
Believe it or not, Newton's physics was enough to put a man on the moon. Oops, there's some controversy over a possible moon hoax, so let's put it this way: it was enough to put a man in orbit. You don't seem to be aware of the extent and far reaching consequences of his work. Based on Newtonian mechanics, you can construct a working truck, dam, mechanical computational device, cannon, a pair of glasses... you name it. Perhaps you should read a book or two, why not by the man himself? Elementary school physics for our 'inventor'. Read Leibniz' work also.
Don't get upset with Russell. Russell was a self made man. You must also be self made in order to understand him.
I'm not upset at all. Why would I be? You don't have to be a self-made man or a man in the first place, you could be a woman, and yes you can understand it. But if it doesn't make sense, the fault doesn't lie with you, it lies with someone else.
Sounds like brainwashing. It's like studying the Bible and finding alternate meanings for different passages, just because the orignal meanings aren't compatible with 21st century mentality.
Hold on a minute, I'm channelling... It's Walter Russell, I'm gonna ask him what he thinks about this:
WR: No principle has been demonstrated. The thinker has not demonstrated creative ability until he has acted to bring the form of his idea into being
Hear that? That's what he said. Amazing. The same thing he wrote in one of his treatises. Awesome. Now learn from that, throw away your magick
al conjectures and start doing real world research.
What personal reasons do you have for being sceptic?
It's better to be a skeptic than a gullible sheep. You need to be able to rationally think things through. Sometimes you realize you're being fed something akin to: 1 + 1 = 4. Then you see that the world is full of that type of junk food. And you start liking healthy food and become a crusader against junk food, while at the same time remaining open for real and amazing results that might have heretofore been considered impossible. That's what I do. Got something? Let's see it. Got nothing but preaching? Then do it where it's supposed to be done - in the church.
Love for example cannot be sensed
What if I tell you love doesn't exist? Care to prove conclusively the existence of love? Seriously, I'd like to know. An emotion doesn't necessarily lack phyisical response, so perhaps it can be sensed. How do you know it can't be sensed? You don't know, you're just claiming something you haven't even investigated.
Currents enter on side of the apparatus and without physical contact with the opposite side emerge changed.
Oh yeah? Currents? Many of them? How many? What is: current? What is: physical contact? I need to read you right here.
Both Electricity and Magnetism can be and are conducted. You are familiar with how electricity is conducted; now familiarize yourself with how magnetism is conducted.
What? Really? Define conduction for me please, I wanna get you here.
My friend you have stumbled onto this forum for what ever reason.
I can tell you I've been waiting for this forum for a while. I came here hoping someone could help me get the remaining works of this man, and all the diagrams and explanations he's ever produced, just in case I missed something. Just in case there's a magic line or shape somewhere that could illuminate me.
What, may I ask, out of curriosity did you mean by 'personality cult'? And have you read Russell?
I guess I have read Russell.
Cult of personality, let's see. Well google for Kim Il Sung, Ataturk or Saparmurat Niyazov, and you'll know what I mean. Of course Walter Russell can't come close to these individuals, but the principle is the same. We're labouring under false impressions, that make an individual greater than he really is. Then we are told we should be interested in him because of his super abilities to breakdance on eyelids or juggle with 57 watermelons.
Einstein and Newton's works are far greater than Einstein and Newton themselves personally, but Russell's talents are greater than his science, so the only selling point for his books is his genius, the glorification of the man himself, what kind of super duper hero he was, not his books and actual applicable wisdom written therein, as is the case with Einstein and Newton. That's why their works can be found in every library, and are taught in every school, and Russell's aren't.
Suppose I'm wrong and Russell is spot on. Even in this case he won't go down in history of science as someone great, the man or woman who brings this science of his into practical use will take his place. He will be known only as the originator of the principle and nothing more. For comparison, the conceptual originator of the atom is Democritus, a philosopher from ancient Greece, but the pioneers of the atomic and subatomic science are others, and those are the guys with the Nobel prizes. Just as Russell had supposedly predicted the existence of deuterium and tritium, rather than DISCOVERED them [chemically isolated them], the real work regarding his advanced concepts will have to be done by others. He had words, not deeds. So if anyone is wondering why he's practically a forgotten man, that's why.
He should have followed his own teachings more diligently:
WR: This creating universe of all that is, or ever has been, is the result of balanced thought and action.
It is also a disservice to his reputation to let dubious websites or individuals [dowsing, free energy] sell his works. You can't see his works in bookstores.
Take this site for example, maintained by Dale Pond. http://www.svpvril.com/russell/russell.html
Description of Atomic Suicide: this is the book that Tesla advised Russell bury for a 1,000 years.
I guess it never occurred to Pond that Tesla died in 1943
and Russell published Atomic Suicide in 1957
. Speaking of Pond, check out his musical dynasphere. If I read correctly [it's so bizarre I just might be seeing things], he's waiting for this thing to move by itself. Yes, move. This is religious fanaticism. And I thought Christians waiting for the statues of virgin Mary to start crying blood were weird.
The dynasphere. You can order one, just contact Pond. Only $30.000. I kid you not. Perhaps yours will move.
Should we now say, birds of a feather flock together, or should we give Russell a break? That might be hard to do. He was an accomplished musician, sculptor, artist and architect, true. But scientist, championship figureskater and equestrian athlete?
Producing no real scientific work, never appearing in the top ten at an olympic games, national or world championships irrespective of the name of the sport, only cements those supposed achievements of his merely as integral parts of his cult