What is the matrix?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Pinocchio
 
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 06:15 pm
@Gillis,
I should have started a new topic, rather than posted in an existing one. I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with folks like RemberingIAM, whose words are yet to surprise me in a positive way. I believe RemberingIAM and the like don't preceive reality the way it is, but rather the way it is in their head.

RemberingIAM wrote:

What does it matter what Walter Russell said or didn't say, if we approach his works with a closed mind?

Is doesn't matter to you? That's okay. It does to some. Nobody is approaching anyone's works with a closed mind here, au contraire, but we won't glorify blatant errors and feed on a personality cult.

RemberingIAM wrote:

Have we been able to reproduce or top the the greatest of achievements of our forefathers?

If you believe those were spaceships, wizardry and Buddha consciousness, we haven't. If you believe those were mud brick houses, wooden ships and hundreds of thousands of human slaves, we have.

RemberingIAM wrote:

If anyone here would just take a few minutes and search the Internet, searching for free energy technology (for example), and then seriously study what you find, you will come to discover that they all have the same foundation.


I've done just that. I mean, I'm the first person that would support any free energy device. As long as it's a real free energy device.Very Happy
But...
All free energy proponents that are unwilling to have their work examined are in my view crooks. Those who have it examined usually 'land' on earth rather harshly. There is no closed loop overunity system available at present time, and people who claim they have one can apply for the James Randi One Million Dollar challenge like right now and shut everyone up. Why does it not surprise me that that never happens?

RemberingIAM wrote:

Walter Russell shared with the world on more than on occasion in detail what this foundation is. Fact is, his methods are so simple that the men of science, of today disregard them because they lack complexity.


Since it's so simple, why don't you just tell us. I admit, I have no clue as to what you're saying here. So let's hear it from you. All the stuff that's so simple and lacking complexity, what more can a simple individual like me ask for? So please, let me know. If you don't let me know, I'll have to start assuming you're full of bullcrap.

RemberingIAM wrote:

Because it does not conform to the physics of Einstein, and Newton, and the laws of thermo dynamics. Unfortunately most of these men and woman of science lack intuition, or are mislead in their observations.


Well, what exactly does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics? And how would you know anything about it? Are you an inventor who has discovered an entropy law violation? Nope, you're just someone who thinks he can convince people with unsubstantiated talk. You can, of course, save yourself now by instructing me on how to make a closed loop free energy device. If I succeed and get rich, I will not forget you.

RemberingIAM wrote:

A force attracted this apple to the earth. (Gravity) (True) He failed however to explain how the apple got up where it was to begin with, in defiance of gravity! Russell explained this in plain everyday language.


Newton never claimed to have had an explanation for the apple prior to its fall. Walter Russell, though, thought he knew how the apple got there in the first place, right? He just never told anyone in proper terms. But Newton did tell us what he knew in proper terms. Equations. No equations - no egineering. No engineering - no application of science in real life. Russell - talk, talk, talk. Newton - equations anyone can use, albeit some weren't very accurate. But they were useful, he did his best, openly.

By the way, you can't have a legit theory without setting conditions under which that same theory could be falsified. We know what needs to happen for Einstein or Newton to be proved wrong. But how can we prove Russell wrong? What potentially falsifiable information can he supply us with? If we prove him wrong once or twice or five hundred times, should we then stop listening to him, just as we will stop listening to Newton and Einstein when we learn how to attain superluminal velocities? So RemberingIAM, after how many errors in Russell's teachings, provided we find them, should we say - no more??

RemberingIAM wrote:

No need to be sorry. If it is a no brainer as you say then please explain to us how the apple got up to those heights in defiance of gravity.

Hey, didn't you just say Walter Russell had an explanation Newton didn't have? Now you're asking another person to explain it. Looks like Russell hadn't really explained it, despite your claims of simplicity and all. And there's little simplicity in his cosmogony, by the way. It's all very complicated looking.

RemberingIAM wrote:

Short synopsis. The corner stone of our universe is Mind. Light and Mind are One. This light cannot be experienced physically, (through our senses) for Light is of the realm of the spiritual.


Then how would you know it exists [except by just making it up, or repeating after someone?]? Sorry to break this to you, but what you can't sense -> you can't know. Take all the senses away from a human and he can't think, he can't speak, he can't do anything but vegetate. Any quack can sell you their version of reality if you believe you can know things without sensing. This light cannot be experienced, this purple flying pig cannot be experienced, this invisible ghost cannot be experienced.... god.

RemberingIAM wrote:

In the position the seed once occupied is where Mind centers its creation, this location is identical to the position separating the north and south pole of a permanent magnet (block wall).


That's called Bloch wall, not 'block wall'. Nice story, but anyone building on subjectivity and illusions, that have zero reality beyond the memetic reality, cannot build himself a castle, only a hay hut. Enjoy your hay hut, RemberingIAM.Smile
 
pilgrimshost
 
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 06:30 pm
@Pinocchio,
Very well put analysis, couldnt have put it better myself. What, may I ask, out of curriosity did you mean by 'personality cult'? And have you read Russell? Who, can anybody tell me, is Ramtha- some sort of Guru? I think ive missed alot of this as im also confussed to what all this talk about MASTERS is. Are we talking about a Messiah, because if it is something like this, let me warn you- dont be miss led and manipulated by some wise mans 'teachings'. Megalomania and a lust for power, with a dose of charasmatisism and a pinch of lies only leads to one thing.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:33 am
@Pinocchio,
Pinocchio wrote:
I should have started a new topic, rather than posted in an existing one. I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with folks like RemberingIAM, whose words are yet to surprise me in a positive way. I believe RemberingIAM and the like don't preceive reality the way it is, but rather the way it is in their head.


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.


Pinocchio wrote:

Is doesn't matter to you? That's okay. It does to some. Nobody is approaching anyone's works with a closed mind here, au contraire, but we won't glorify blatant errors and feed on a personality cult.


Straw man alarm!

I never saw that anybody said that it did not matter

Pinocchio wrote:

There is no closed loop overunity system available at present time, and people who claim they have one can apply for the James Randi One Million Dollar challenge like right now and shut everyone up. Why does it not surprise me that that never happens?


Precisely because there is no reality apart from human perception.

Did you ever fall in love?

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.

Pinocchio wrote:

Since it's so simple, why don't you just tell us. I admit, I have no clue as to what you're saying here. So let's hear it from you. All the stuff that's so simple and lacking complexity, what more can a simple individual like me ask for? So please, let me know. If you don't let me know, I'll have to start assuming you're full of bullcrap.


A prime requisite is to speak the same language. Without a certain amount of experience with regard to particular issues beyond the normal, the words tend to mean nothing.

Pinocchio wrote:
Well, what exactly does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics? And how would you know anything about it?


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.

Pinocchio wrote:

Are you an inventor who has discovered an entropy law violation? Nope, you're just someone who thinks he can convince people with unsubstantiated talk. You can, of course, save yourself now by instructing me on how to make a closed loop free energy device. If I succeed and get rich, I will not forget you.


The human being is in effect a closed loop free energy device. The profoundly energetic effect of what they call consciousness has never yet been explained by science.
Did you never yet notice the way that human creativity defies entropy? When you put a coat on to stay warm while out in the cold wind, you defy entropy.

Pinocchio wrote:

Newton never claimed to have had an explanation for the apple prior to its fall. Walter Russell, though, thought he knew how the apple got there in the first place, right? He just never told anyone in proper terms. But Newton did tell us what he knew in proper terms. Equations. No equations - no egineering. No engineering - no application of science in real life. Russell - talk, talk, talk. Newton - equations anyone can use, albeit some weren't very accurate. But they were useful, he did his best, openly.


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.


Pinocchio wrote:

By the way, you can't have a legit theory without setting conditions under which that same theory could be falsified. We know what needs to happen for Einstein or Newton to be proved wrong. But how can we prove Russell wrong?


By refusing to be the victim of reality.

Pinocchio wrote:

What potentially falsifiable information can he supply us with? If we prove him wrong once or twice or five hundred times, should we then stop listening to him, just as we will stop listening to Newton and Einstein when we learn how to attain superluminal velocities?


The creative version allows you the opportunity to prove it wrong if you will. The choice is yours.

If you believe it impossible to transcend the limit of Netwonianism, that is up to you, to choose to enslave youself to it.

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.


Pinocchio wrote:

So RemberingIAM, after how many errors in Russell's teachings, provided we find them, should we say - no more??


To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

Pinocchio wrote:

Hey, didn't you just say Walter Russell had an explanation Newton didn't have? Now you're asking another person to explain it. Looks like Russell hadn't really explained it, despite your claims of simplicity and all. And there's little simplicity in his cosmogony, by the way. It's all very complicated looking.


I have just explained it for you.

Now tell me, do you own a choice or do you not own a choice?

Is this your own criticism or did Newtons's determinism force you into it?

Pinocchio wrote:

Then how would you know it exists [except by just making it up, or repeating after someone?]? Sorry to break this to you, but what you can't sense -> you can't know. Take all the senses away from a human and he can't think, he can't speak, he can't do anything but vegetate.


Eaxactly, as I was saying, there is no reality apart from your senses.

Pinocchio wrote:

Any quack can sell you their version of reality if you believe you can know things without sensing. This light cannot be experienced, this purple flying pig cannot be experienced, this invisible ghost cannot be experienced.... god.


May one therefore interest you perhaps in the purchase of your own reality?

Pinocchio wrote:

That's called Bloch wall, not 'block wall'. Nice story, but anyone building on subjectivity and illusions, that have zero reality beyond the memetic reality, cannot build himself a castle, only a hay hut. Enjoy your hay hut, RemberingIAM.Smile


Please expand on the Bloch wall

Does this appertain to Humpty Dumpty or what?

-- RH.
 
RemberingIAM
 
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 07:38 am
@RemberingIAM,
I should have started a new topic, rather than posted in an existing one. I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with folks like RemberingIAM, whose words are yet to surprise me in a positive way. I believe RemberingIAM and the like don't preceive reality the way it is, but rather the way it is in their head.
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. I am sure an individual of your level of intellect knows that thought is a mentally projected idea. That we are but thoughts projected onto the canvas of nature, that nature itself is but a thought expressing the infinite ideas of Mind. The fast tracking world we have created for ourselves is but a mental projection, the intermingling of ideas of millions of men and women around the world. The automobile began as an idea, as did the multibillion dollar business that sprang from it.
Instead of attacking my views prove, me wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
What does it matter what Walter Russell said or didn't say, if we approach his works with a closed mind?

It doesn't matter to you? That's okay. It does to some. Nobody is approaching anyone's works with a closed mind here, au contraire, but we won't glorify blatant errors and feed on a personality cult.
I am of the opinion that people approach the works of others be they philosophic works, religious works, or scientific works with a closed Mind. As an example, Christians view Muslims close-minded, and vice versa. The learned scientist views the researches of a lone hobby experimenter close-minded. Examine how the haves view the have nots. The list can and does go on and on, the more one desires to see the more one sees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
Have we been able to reproduce or top the the greatest of achievements of our forefathers?

If you believe those were spaceships, wizardry and Buddha consciousness, we haven't. If you believe those were mud brick houses, wooden ships and hundreds of thousands of human slaves, we have.
For a minute forget all of the conspiracy websites, and books you've ever read. Now relying solely on your education alone, what do you know about the ancients? What excites me is that in all honesty we are taught to make up our own Minds. For example we were only provided with a theory of how the Pyramids were built. Egypt
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
If anyone here would just take a few minutes and search the Internet, searching for free energy technology (for example), and then seriously study what you find, you will come to discover that they all have the same foundation.

I've done just that. I mean, I'm the first person that would support any free energy device. As long as it's a real free energy device.
But...
All free energy proponents that are unwilling to have their work examined are in my view crooks. Those who have it examined usually 'land' on earth rather harshly. There is no closed loop overunity system available at present time, and people who claim they have one can apply for the James Randi One Million Dollar challenge like right now and shut everyone up. Why does it not surprise me that that never happens?


All energy is free. If this were not true all would seize to exist. Our atmosphere is alive with energy we can harness, so is the earth surface itself. The phenomenon we call magnetism (once comprehended) is the key which will unlock one of the many doors to advanced (magic) technologies in the coming years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
Walter Russell shared with the world on more than on occasion in detail what this foundation is. Fact is, his methods are so simple that the men of science, of today disregard them because they lack complexity.

Since it's so simple, why don't you just tell us. I admit, I have no clue as to what you're saying here. So let's hear it from you. All the stuff that's so simple and lacking complexity, what more can a simple individual like me ask for? So please, let me know. If you don't let me know, I'll have to start assuming you're full of bullcrap.
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.
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. I thank you for showing me that I am capable becoming one of these few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
Because it does not conform to the physics of Einstein, and Newton, and the laws of thermo dynamics. Unfortunately most of these men and woman of science lack intuition, or are mislead in their observations.

Well, what exactly does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics? And how would you know anything about it? Are you an inventor who has discovered an entropy law violation? Nope, you're just someone who thinks he can convince people with unsubstantiated talk. You can, of course, save yourself now by instructing me on how to make a closed loop free energy device. If I succeed and get rich, I will not forget you.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
A force attracted this apple to the earth. (Gravity) (True) He failed however to explain how the apple got up where it was to begin with, in defiance of gravity! Russell explained this in plain everyday language.

Newton never claimed to have had an explanation for the apple prior to its fall. Walter Russell, though, thought he knew how the apple got there in the first place, right? He just never told anyone in proper terms. But Newton did tell us what he knew in proper terms. Equations. No equations - no egineering. No engineering - no application of science in real life. Russell - talk, talk, talk. Newton - equations anyone can use, albeit some weren't very accurate. But they were useful, he did his best, openly.

By the way, you can't have a legit theory without setting conditions under which that same theory could be falsified. We know what needs to happen for Einstein or Newton to be proved wrong. But how can we prove Russell wrong? What potentially falsifiable information can he supply us with? If we prove him wrong once or twice or five hundred times, should we then stop listening to him, just as we will stop listening to Newton and Einstein when we learn how to attain superluminal velocities? So RemberingIAM, after how many errors in Russell's teachings, provided we find them, should we say - no more??

What benefit have we (those of the peanut gallery) from Newton's laws of gravitation. We had astronomy before him. We knew of the precession of our planet and its meaning too. High sciences existed in Egypt, long before the birth of Newton. I beg you; please inform me of the benefits of the Newtonian sciences. What do we know and understand now, that we did not know prior to the publishing of these laws.
What it does boil down to is that Mr. Newton was a man of the church. In view of the church astrology (now astronomy) was saturated to its very core by the pagan beliefs of the heathens and could not be used. The majority of philosophers of the time were students of these pagan systems. The church condemned them, and stole and sealed their already sealed knowledge (or so they thought). Newton, a man devoted to the gospels (pagan texts) sought to explain the impossible lacking the key only a heathen could give him. He didn't know that the gospels were written by the heathens; the church knew but didn't share this with him. Had the church done this we'd have flying cars today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
No need to be sorry. If it is a no brainer as you say then please explain to us how the apple got up to those heights in defiance of gravity.

Hey, didn't you just say Walter Russell had an explanation Newton didn't have? Now you're asking another person to explain it. Looks like Russell hadn't really explained it, despite your claims of simplicity and all. And there's little simplicity in his cosmogony, by the way. It's all very complicated looking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
Short synopsis. The corner stone of our universe is Mind. Light and Mind are One. This light cannot be experienced physically, (through our senses) for Light is of the realm of the spiritual.

Then how would you know it exists [except by just making it up, or repeating after someone?]? Sorry to break this to you, but what you can't sense -> you can't know. Take all the senses away from a human and he can't think, he can't speak, he can't do anything but vegetate. Any quack can sell you their version of reality if you believe you can know things without sensing. This light cannot be experienced, this purple flying pig cannot be experienced, this invisible ghost cannot be experienced.... god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RemberingIAM
In the position the seed once occupied is where Mind centers its creation, this location is identical to the position separating the north and south pole of a permanent magnet (block wall).

That's called Bloch wall, not 'block wall'. Nice story, but anyone building on subjectivity and illusions, that have zero reality beyond the memetic reality, cannot build himself a castle, only a hay hut. Enjoy your hay hut, RemberingIAM.


 
perplexity
 
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 08:53 am
@RemberingIAM,
How does the notion of Spontaneous emission fit with Newton's determinism?

While I have not yet digested the entirety of the argument, it sounds to me more like a continuous process of redetermining.

I have started a new thread to discuss

Energy Transformation and Flow: A theory of evolution.

--- RH.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 04:13 am
@RemberingIAM,
RemberingIAM wrote:
Making love is a failed attempt at sensing love, (for the record the five senses: sight, smell, hearing taste, and touch).


Nevertheless, to paraphrase Woody Allen:

Making love may be a failed attempt at sensing love, but as failed attempts go it is one of the best.

I know the sort of knowing in question, but there is a terrible confusion between that and the other sort:

Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial
Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while.

(Bob Dylan, Visions of Johanna)

-- RH





 
Pinocchio
 
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 06:03 pm
@perplexity,
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.

perplexity wrote:

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 magickal thinking and esoteric teachings, that are unverifiable in real life.

You knew what I meant but you opened your mouth anyway.

perplexity wrote:

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.

perplexity wrote:

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.

perplexity wrote:

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.

perplexity wrote:

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.

perplexity wrote:

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.

perplexity wrote:

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.Very Happy

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.

perplexity wrote:

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.

perplexity wrote:

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...

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:


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.

RemberingIAM wrote:


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.Very Happy

RemberingIAM wrote:


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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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?

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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:

RemberingIAM wrote:


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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:


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 magickal conjectures and start doing real world research.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.

RemberingIAM wrote:

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.
RemberingIAM wrote:

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.Very Happy

plgrimshost wrote:

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.

http://www.lohengrin-verlag.de/images/Atlin2001.gif
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.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 05:06 am
@Pinocchio,
Pinocchio wrote:

You knew what I meant but you opened your mouth anyway.


Which I take to mean that you meant to have the last word on the strength of ......?

Pinocchio wrote:

I personally don't like to dwell on philosophical dead ends like that and prefer concentrating on matters that can positively improve human existence.


In which case the need is to convince us that the supposedly undead philosophy is alive and well, and that it does improve human existence. The mere assertion does not necessarily make it so.

Pinocchio wrote:

You just need to establish a base for reasoning and stick to it. I also like this thought:
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.


Everybody acts. Everything we do is consequential.

Pinocchio wrote:

What is life? Mind giving me your take on that? Define life for me, will you?


There was already a What is life? thread to discuss that, with my own observations contained. Life is the very result of karma, our doing, which includes thought. Thought activity exerts an effect. Meditation is not a waste of time. It physically affects the brain.

Pinocchio wrote:

[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?


Why not? Precisely because I for one would therefore see no need. Behold already six and a half billion free energy devices to play with.

Pinocchio wrote:

Nor by anyone else for that matter. Science doesn't explain everything but it sure beats pseudoscience, shamans and healers.
... didn't say he did not do his best. I said that Einstein and Newton should be given a break.


Any game may be won because the winner allowed himself to fix the rules

Seems to me that Newton et al. were already given the break, while Russell awaits the same, e.g.

"Russell - talk, talk, talk. Newton -......he did his best, openly."

Pinocchio wrote:

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.


I'd be more inclined to see that as an insult to the intelligence of a potential researcher.
Do you have any experience of music?
Observe the vibration and look for the harmony.

Pinocchio wrote:

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.


So you deny your own free will then?
I'd just like to be clear about that.

Pinocchio wrote:

Define: mentally projected idea, idea, reality and mentally. Then perhaps I can help. Oh, and don't forget to define: Mind.


The meanings of words differ according to their context. Language would otherwise be a poor cripple, a a lamentably dull affair. Reality is a mentally projected idea. Perception is always projected in the sense that objects and events are interpreted in terms of our supposed knowing of what to expect.

Pinocchio wrote:

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 was already understood, but it is not the only way to proceed.

Pinocchio wrote:

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.


For all intents and purpose the Universe is already a perpetual motion machine.
"Controlled conditions", in so far as such may be possible, would themselves violate the law of entropy, a law supposed to control the conditions.

To meaningfully control one needs to be blessed with free will, while your own would appear to already be sacrificed to serve the great god of determinism.

Pinocchio wrote:

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.


This is a question of personal realities. You stick to the limit of a conventiional reality as a lowest common denominator, which is fine if that is what wou wish to do. To a certain extent it gets the job done.

Others respect the fact that the personal experience of other people extends beyond that.

Pinocchio wrote:

.....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.


The said errors also arise directly from the single reality philosophy. With a supposed single reality one side believes it best knows the one while the other claims a different knowing of a supposed single reality, and then there is the fight. With two or more realities respectfully allowed for, there is no need for the fight.


Pinocchio wrote:

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.


Some things are only possible by virtue of a shared participation, when both sides find the same way to believe. For as long as one side fails to see the way forward, there is no mutual way forward.

Pinocchio wrote:

It might be, because it defies logic. It only makes sense if the universe is an open system.


Perhaps the Universe is an open system.
Perhaps it is only open to the extent that our mind is open.

Pinocchio wrote:

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....


The Atomb Bomb and Global Warming come immediately to mind.

I am always surprised when science attempts to present itself as a commonly appreciated benefit.

A majority of the population out there are rather inclinded to look to a god or to some other sort of superior power, in terms of absolute value.

Pinocchio wrote:

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.


Yes it does look fishy, but if somebody sees something in it, if it makes sense to somebody, then that is a fact, an energy of itself, the ignorance of which is ignorance.


Pinocchio wrote:

....What if I tell you love doesn't exist? Care to prove conclusively the existence of love? Seriously, I'd like to know.


That was already explained. The love referred to was by definition beyond the sensing of it.

Does that not make sense from ordinary experience?

"I love if and only if and when..." is not reputed to be the best way to go about it.

Pinocchio wrote:

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.Very Happy
We're labouring under false impressions, that make an individual greater than he really is....


I concur with that.

I think in terms of seeding. If the seed is good and if the conditions are good, a good crop is the end result, but only with both, good seed, good soil and good weather.

Pinocchio wrote:

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.

.......

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?


I find that criticism to honest and valuable, not unwelcome, but only in so far as it goes.

Between the lines do I detect a nagging fear of flushing the baby out with the bathwater?

I see a congruence with, for instance, the style of the Buddha Gotama, 25000 years ago. The Dhammapada and sundry Sutras were unashamedly poetic, for the times had not yet caught up with the scientific method as we now know it. Nevertheless it is remarkable to me the way that upon examination so much of it actually concurs with the current thinking that I see in the present day field of metaphysical analysis.

--- RH.
 
RemberingIAM
 
Reply Wed 22 Nov, 2006 06:38 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Friends,

Walter and Lao Russell described the world we move and have or being like no other balanced pair before them or after them. They planted seeds in a time when the soil of the human mind lay fallow, the fields of the human imagination in mass still uncultivated, uncivilized, and ignorant of the genius centring us all. Theirs is a story of love. Love interacting with love rhythmically. Seeking finding and losing itself to itself, for love does not take from itself it gives to itself. What is the matrix? Many who have asked this question will be surprised to find that it is love that they seek. Some may laugh and many more will frown at this and say that love is but a word. These are they who forget or have forgotten that in every language; in every religion and in every creed one thing has remained unchanged. In the beginning was the WORD, one word, Love.

The matrix is real, and slowly humanity is beginning to realize that love is the matrix. It is the source of things seen and unseen. Rhythmic Balanced Interchange is the nature of love when love gives to love. The scientific and philosophic truths of Rhythmic Balanced Interchange were given to the world by the Russell's in the hope that it would help humanity to free itself from its unnecessary sufferings. Our sufferings, our true teachers; are placing in our possession much needed experiences, experiences necessary for our development in our never ending journey, the search for our true selves.

Remember Love. Remember Rhythmic Balanced Interchange.


We are all One in the Love which centres us.


RememberingIAM
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:51 am
@Pinocchio,
If you people really want to know what is the Matrix you should connect to Academy of Remote Viewing and Influencing through Time and Space: Home page
But in two words the Matrix is the mass consciousness around planet earth which is influencing people's thinking and that we have to 'get off it' if we want to really know Who we are.
starchild
 
RemberingIAM
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 02:22 am
@RemberingIAM,
Greetings starchild,

Interesting..... I will view this website. I too consider the matrix as the sum consciousness of the beings of this planet, and all others as well, for my faith is that all is one. However when I use the word matrix I am referring to the structure of the invisible world our physical world extends from. It is my opinion that a persons thinking will forever be influenced (by who and what ever) as long as the individual(s) in question are ignorant of the laws which govern the unseen material. The invisible becomes the visible, to later become the invisible again. This manifests as a never ending cycle of giving, and re giving. We have been taught (beginning at very young ages) only to consider the material, (at least in western society) and through this we have willingly separated ourselves from our cause, searching for it in vain within the effect.


Rem
 
Electra phil
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 04:17 am
@RemberingIAM,
RemberingIAM wrote:
Short synopsis. The corner stone of our universe is Mind. Light and Mind are One. This light cannot be experienced physically, (through our senses) for Light is of the realm of the spiritual. The Light that individuals involved in near death experiences is the same that is experienced by the illumed as reported by those who've become illumed to whatever degree. What we call light is not Light. It is but a simulation. What we experience and name light is in reality incandescence, Light is indivisible, it is stillness. Incandescence is motion. Mind is indivisible, and as such cannot be given attributes pertaining to motion.

Gravity is presently considered to be the attraction between bodies. This thinking however reveals to us only one half of a dual process. If there is an attracting (generating) then there must be a repulsing (radiating). Gravity is directly related to Mind, as it is the builder and destroyer of the form. In Mind all exists unformed, and undivided, this can be considered as idea. Gravity builds bodies for that which is ever present in Mind unformed and undivided (the ideas of Mind), and then breaks down these bodies returning them to the stillness of Mind. Idea belongs to Mind and is never created, only simulated. It is comparable to an artist who is possessed by and image in his/her "Mind"; this idea (image) is simulated on the canvas. The idea remains where it must. With Mind.

Gravity is the principle of polarization in action. Polarization is one of many principles used by Mind. Through its use undivided Mind seemingly divides, (mentally).

What follows is a visual demonstration of the principle of polarization.

Imagine you find yourself in a pitch black room. In this room is a source of light which is too weak to be pinpointed. As weak as it may be, this source of incandescence evenly wets all in the room. You are paralyzed, as your dominant sense of sight is no longer effective. This is not a handicap however, for as time passes in this dark vault you take notice that your sense of hearing, smell, and touch, have heighten. After a considerable amount of time has passed you notice a faint glow off in the distance ahead of you. You carefully feel (with your remaining heightened senses) your way towards it through the blackness of your surroundings. Upon arriving at your destination, you realize that the glow was coming from a highly polished mirror, which is absorbing and reflecting large amounts of the weak undetectable light saturating the room. As you focus on the mirror your eyes absorb the light reflecting off of it. After several moments your gaze relaxes as you no longer need to strain in order to make out your reflection. The mirror reflecting your image back at you provides you with a point of reference. With the assistance of the mirror you divide yourself as Mind divides itself, seemingly only (mentally).

Now you accomplished polarization with the help of a mirror. Where does Mind get a mirror if Mind is indivisible? At this point all that is necessary is to realize that one of the ideas of Mind unformed is that of a mirror. Just think of it the infinite gazing into a mirror and beholding the image of the infinite.

Now how does this all apply to the apple getting into a position where it comes under the influence of gravity? There was never a moment when the apple was not under the influence of gravity. The tree which birthed the apple exploded from a seed in two directions simultaneously. In one direction the roots were formed and the other the vegetation. Growth in the direction of the roots is gravitive (accumulative). Growth in the direction of vegetation is radiative (disintegrative). In the position the seed once occupied is where Mind centers its creation, this location is identical to the position separating the north and south pole of a permanent magnet (block wall). High frequency radiation is being emitted explosively from the center of our planet, while at the same time radiation is gravitating towards the center of the earth. Where these two intersect in vegetation, nodes are formed and in within these nodes seeds. For the purpose of nourishment and to assist in the further development and maturity of the seeds, they surround themselves with fleshy coatings. When the seeds mature they are released from the tree falling towards the earth, assisted by the gravitating radiation penetrating the planet. This radiation drives the seeds into the ground via compression not attraction. The new seed under the influence of gravitive radiation explodes once again repeating the process.

I realize that this is not what most were expecting, but as far as I am concerned, for me it explains all.


If you want to "see the matrix" this is what a person should do as well--
 
Electra phil
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 04:45 am
@Pinocchio,
Pinocchio wrote:
I should have started a new topic, rather than posted in an existing one. I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with folks like RemberingIAM, whose words are yet to surprise me in a positive way. I believe RemberingIAM and the like don't preceive reality the way it is, but rather the way it is in their head.


Is doesn't matter to you? That's okay. It does to some. Nobody is approaching anyone's works with a closed mind here, au contraire, but we won't glorify blatant errors and feed on a personality cult.


If you believe those were spaceships, wizardry and Buddha consciousness, we haven't. If you believe those were mud brick houses, wooden ships and hundreds of thousands of human slaves, we have.



I've done just that. I mean, I'm the first person that would support any free energy device. As long as it's a real free energy device.Very Happy
But...
All free energy proponents that are unwilling to have their work examined are in my view crooks. Those who have it examined usually 'land' on earth rather harshly. There is no closed loop overunity system available at present time, and people who claim they have one can apply for the James Randi One Million Dollar challenge like right now and shut everyone up. Why does it not surprise me that that never happens?



Since it's so simple, why don't you just tell us. I admit, I have no clue as to what you're saying here. So let's hear it from you. All the stuff that's so simple and lacking complexity, what more can a simple individual like me ask for? So please, let me know. If you don't let me know, I'll have to start assuming you're full of bullcrap.



Well, what exactly does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics? And how would you know anything about it? Are you an inventor who has discovered an entropy law violation? Nope, you're just someone who thinks he can convince people with unsubstantiated talk. You can, of course, save yourself now by instructing me on how to make a closed loop free energy device. If I succeed and get rich, I will not forget you.



Newton never claimed to have had an explanation for the apple prior to its fall. Walter Russell, though, thought he knew how the apple got there in the first place, right? He just never told anyone in proper terms. But Newton did tell us what he knew in proper terms. Equations. No equations - no egineering. No engineering - no application of science in real life. Russell - talk, talk, talk. Newton - equations anyone can use, albeit some weren't very accurate. But they were useful, he did his best, openly.

By the way, you can't have a legit theory without setting conditions under which that same theory could be falsified. We know what needs to happen for Einstein or Newton to be proved wrong. But how can we prove Russell wrong? What potentially falsifiable information can he supply us with? If we prove him wrong once or twice or five hundred times, should we then stop listening to him, just as we will stop listening to Newton and Einstein when we learn how to attain superluminal velocities? So RemberingIAM, after how many errors in Russell's teachings, provided we find them, should we say - no more??


Hey, didn't you just say Walter Russell had an explanation Newton didn't have? Now you're asking another person to explain it. Looks like Russell hadn't really explained it, despite your claims of simplicity and all. And there's little simplicity in his cosmogony, by the way. It's all very complicated looking.



Then how would you know it exists [except by just making it up, or repeating after someone?]? Sorry to break this to you, but what you can't sense -> you can't know. Take all the senses away from a human and he can't think, he can't speak, he can't do anything but vegetate. Any quack can sell you their version of reality if you believe you can know things without sensing. This light cannot be experienced, this purple flying pig cannot be experienced, this invisible ghost cannot be experienced.... god.



That's called Bloch wall, not 'block wall'. Nice story, but anyone building on subjectivity and illusions, that have zero reality beyond the memetic reality, cannot build himself a castle, only a hay hut. Enjoy your hay hut, RemberingIAM.Smile


The effects of entropy are directly correlated to consciousness. With greater consciousness, there is less and less entropy.

The idea of a 'closed system' is based upon the erroneous IDEA of an objectified universe. Aging and space travel are some other fields of application.

Once we get our pineal glands going, this all should be a lot easier to swallow. :rolleyes: A shift from linear to non-linear consciousness is required for this discussion. There is a reason many great religions tell us to break through the veil of illusion.

I don't believe this is anything too many humans can accomplish overnight -- but is rather a future sight based on a universal truth.

Before I am screwed to the wall to provide proof or to give the blueprints for a free energy device, suffice it to say this is a recent illumination that I can only say is verified by my experience with Truth and my own system of verification -- and it is fairly recent at that. You won't find me debating the point, but rather quietly exploring the possibilities alone.
 
Electra phil
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 05:00 am
@RemberingIAM,
RemberingIAM wrote:
Greetings starchild,

Interesting..... I will view this website. I too consider the matrix as the sum consciousness of the beings of this planet, and all others as well, for my faith is that all is one. However when I use the word matrix I am referring to the structure of the invisible world our physical world extends from. It is my opinion that a persons thinking will forever be influenced (by who and what ever) as long as the individual(s) in question are ignorant of the laws which govern the unseen material. The invisible becomes the visible, to later become the invisible again. This manifests as a never ending cycle of giving, and re giving. We have been taught (beginning at very young ages) only to consider the material, (at least in western society) and through this we have willingly separated ourselves from our cause, searching for it in vain within the effect.


Rem


We can 'drive the universe' and end the incorrect view that we are singular and separate "rock like things" in a random and chaotic universe. This is done by working on the concept of FEAR, which was the first lie....the lie that has kept humans unevolved and disempowered. Prayer is not a whimsical wish tossed to the winds of a faraway Creator Father. Prayer is a power of manifestation (which is directly related to this topic). If spaceships were real, they would be driven with an evolved consciousness...

There are certain requirements for entrance into this area exploration.

Humans baffle me with their backward thinking and argumentative attitudes. Doubt, fear, and suspicion are useful--but should not be the main operating principle of exploration. This is an unique time on earth, where "spirituality" and "science" are at a merging point. Metaphysics is the science to be looking at with a renewed reverence.
 
RemberingIAM
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 05:03 am
@Electra phil,
Hi Electra,

I wrote this as my predestined path was beginning to unfold. Your posting it here allows me to see how much I have evolved since it's composition.

It is my hope that one day I will be able to share all that I have found, or should I say all that has been revealed through study, and conversations with the creator through meditation. Most will not accept anything that I will share in the future, but those who do are in for a real treat.

The most important of my findings I could share would probably be that there is only one real truth in all the universe and beyond, it is the only thing that anything governed by motion should take seriously, and that is the law of Rhythmic Balanced Interchange (Walter and Lao Russell) between divided pairs of created things. The dividing and uniting pairs constitute matter and space, or the Sphere (circle - matter - male) and the Cube (square - space - female). All is hidden in plane sight. To bad we can't ask Da Vinci, I bet he knew....

Two symbols (square, and circle) have within them more meaning than could be expressed in a thousand books, in a thousand different languages and dialects.
 
Electra phil
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 05:34 am
@RemberingIAM,
RemberingIAM wrote:
Hi Electra,

I wrote this as my predestined path was beginning to unfold. Your posting it here allows me to see how much I have evolved since it's composition.

It is my hope that one day I will be able to share all that I have found, or should I say all that has been revealed through study, and conversations with the creator through meditation. Most will not accept anything that I will share in the future, but those who do are in for a real treat.

The most important of my findings I could share would probably be that there is only one real truth in all the universe and beyond, it is the only thing that anything governed by motion should take seriously, and that is the law of Rhythmic Balanced Interchange (Walter and Lao Russell) between divided pairs of created things. The dividing and uniting pairs constitute matter and space, or the Sphere (circle - matter - male) and the Cube (square - space - female). All is hidden in plane sight. To bad we can't ask Da Vinci, I bet he knew....

Two symbols (square, and circle) have within them more meaning than could be expressed in a thousand books, in a thousand different languages and dialects.


Remembering IAM - I am sorry to flood this thread with posts, but this too is of great interest to me. I am not so interested in free energy devices as the greater possibility that these kinds of 'discoveries' have the potential for changing the face of the world in many, may ways for the human animal. :p

Looking forward to future discussions and the sharing of your work. Smile

XX
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 12:48 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Hello Rem, I answered your message using Outlook Express pressing the Reply button, because I have found it is the only way I don't lose my messages before sending them. But where is it the Forum?
Does it mean that if one answers through Outlook Express it doesn't get into the Forum?
Ciao, Starchild
 
RemberingIAM
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 03:50 pm
@RemberingIAM,
Starchild,

I am also new at using forums so I regret that I must direct you to one who is more experienced in these matters, I would ask the administrator Justin for further guidance if I were you.

Speaking of Justin, his latest post indicated you spent time with Lao Russell, and that you are familiar with all of their works. What is your area of greatest interest, their art of science or philosophy? I have been searching for someone who is versed in both if possible. I too have studied all of their written works, (that I know or heard of) to include the home study course. I do admit however that I am a neophyte. In my quiet times of study I have learned so much from them. My desire is to listen, and converse with one who has also spent time studying and meditating over their works, so that through our interchange I too may grow stronger in my interpreting, understanding, comprehending, and knowing. Are you this someone?
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 01:10 am
@Electra phil,
Hi Pinocchio, you are free to believe and think exactly what you like. But if you desire to 'understand' Dr. Russell's teachings, THE ONLY WAY to do it is by studying and reflecting on the entire one year Home Study Course. There is absolutely no other way. , Well, it is true that the scientists, not bothering with the HSC, have verified a lot of what he did say, but they had a lab. at disposal, and years of 'trial and error' way of doing things which we don't have and yet, if you do the course you will understand much more than what they do.
All your conceptualizing doesn't take you anywhere. If you are a seeker of Truth there are better ways than spending hours in writing critiques on a website.

Starchild
 
starchild phil
 
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 01:14 am
@RemberingIAM,
Hi Rem, have you received my long answer which I sent via Outlook Express? I don't see it posted on the Forum so I am not sure you received it. Let me know please, thank you

Starchild
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/14/2020 at 07:50:31