Questions about Potential Pressure and its Consequences

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Questions about Potential Pressure and its Consequences

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 03:09 am
Well, although I really try hard, there are surely quite some things which I didn't get yet. Therefore I would be very grateful, if people could help me understanding.

This time (:bigsmile:) it's about different potential pressures and it's consequences.

As Dr said, the outer planets are in a much lower potential pressure than we are, therefore e.g. iron would melt there.
This so far I could understand, but I have problems with the following:
When e.g. the Voyager passed in these low pressure environments, it didn't get liquified to a blob of metal. Instead it remained in its shape completely.

But this doesn't mean Dr is not right, for I know of at least two examples which show, there's some more seemingly complexity in it.

E.g. John Hutchinson is famous for his effects, where metal got liquid and started to levitate just due to some "strange" electric configuration environment he built.

But the best example, which, if somebody could explain this to me, would certainly explain, why the Voyager didn't liquify, is, the Flying Saucers of Otis Carr.
An employee of Carr (Ralph Ring) described, how Carr showed him the first time a working model flying saucer. He said, as the saucer was started and was about to levitate, Carr asked him to touch it. And Ralph was puzzled when he touched it, as the metal saucer was now like a Jello. It was liquid in consistency, when touched with the hands.
But although it was liquid in consistency the saucer didn't just became a blob of liquid metal, but remained in it's shape perfectly, and when again the engine was stopped, it was just as hard metal in still the same shape as at the beginning.
This sure has to do something with the different pressure conditions, as the hand of Ralph was still in the earth pressure condition, but the saucer metal was in a much lower pressure condition. This is actually IMHO how these saucers worked. They forced the desintegration, so that a much lower pressure condition is achieved. And as now the saucer searches like pressure conditions, it will levitate.
So this must have something to do with relative pressure conditions...
Can anyone explain this to me, why the Voyager didn't liquify and why the saucer did just relatively liquify (it was only liquid in respect to his hand and not in respect to itself)?
 
Phoenix phil
 
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2009 01:09 pm
@Peace phil,
Hi Peace, just so we are clear .... a concentrated light unit (positive sphere) is surronded by a negative cubic wave field, the potential of which is equal to the positive centre, they just differ in volume.
WR is correct when he comments a bar of iron would melt at about 2 degrees because the potential on Neptune is preponderently negative, tending towards nebulosity. I would expect voyager to also tend towards nebulosity if it too were on the surface of Neptune. But it's not. In fact one could argue it's not even inside Neptunes cubic wave field.
WR does mention that an inertial plane does exist between any two masses, a place where the potential between the masses is equalised. When the radiative force from Neptune impacts this plane it reverses it's potential and becomes generative wrt voyager.
I see this situation applying if voyager is OUTSIDE the cubic wave field of Neptune. Voyager itself would also be surronded by it own wave field, though how perfectly cubic that would be I am not sure.
Regards...alan
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 02:53 pm
@Phoenix phil,
Thank you a lot for your answer.

Quote:
WR does mention that an inertial plane does exist between any two masses, a place where the potential between the masses is equalised.


Sure. This we call the point of equal gravity. Where you're exactly in the gravity zero-point between two masses. There degeneration stops and regeneration starts.

The problem I see is that, these wave fields are embedded in a much larger wave field, namely that of the sun.
As I understood Dr. Pluto is at it's position exactly because it's current pressure condition equals itself there with the pressure condition of it's environment, which is mainly caused by the sun.
But exactly at this point I really have to say I don't really see through how this "fractal" behaviour of wave field "within" wavefield does work, as I already told in another post.
If anyone could enlighten me on this fact of fractal behaviour, I would really be very grateful...
Unfortunately Dr only mentioned sometimes a few words in this direction, but never explained it explicitly.

Simpler stated. E.g. every "Atom" of this Planet has or is it's own Wavefield. But alltogether form the Wavefield of the Earth. So we have wavefields embedded within wavefields. What exactly is the principle of this fractal buildup?
Or simpler stated: If the voyager is coming near the planet. At which point would you call it as part of the planet's wavefield. As the actual inertial plane between these two fields would be changed while approaching all the time, and from this point of view it could never ever get past this inertial plane. But from other systems viewpoint, e.g. the earth, the voyager would already long be in the wavefield of the planet, as the inertial plane between the earth and pluto is far away from pluto.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2009 03:51 pm
@Peace phil,
Peace;21266 wrote:

...it's about different potential pressures and it's consequences.

There are no consequences from 'potential' anything.
'Potential is not 'actual'.
'Potential pressures' can only have 'potential consequences'; speculative, hypothetical, not actual.
Dropping a piece of iron on Pluto will result in a solid piece of 'cold' iron sitting on the ground of Pluto. It will not 'melt'. Simple physics...
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 06:33 am
@nameless,
Quote:
Simple physics...


Laughing

You mean our current main theory in physics. As there are many many theories...And we must always remember all these are just theories, which do not and cannot claim to picture the complete actual truth!
Believe me, I had a lot of physics during my technical study. And our professor was working at the CERN, so we also got quite some information in this field of physics, and not only standard mechanics...
Actually, if you really know a lot in physics, you will easily come to the conclusion that physics doesn't know anything...
There are so many many effects already today observed which do not fit into the standard model...
So IMHO declaring anything that is outside this mainstream theory as "wrong" doesn't make sense...As there is no profound argument to say, the current theory is "correct". Sure you can describe a lot of observed effects. But as mentioned before there are also a lot of effects not explainable by the current model.
E.g. in the Astro-Physics this is quite a strong problem. Most of the current theories are nothing but (sometimes wild) speculations...
So let's just tolerate each other, and let us compare our different models with the observed effects and their prediction capability for new not yet observed effects.
And here it goes about Dr Russell's cosmogony. And this cosmogony deals with potential pressures.
And the funny thing is, that a lot of things he already explained long ago (1926) in his book "The Universal One", are now lately observed and surprise and baffle scientists around the world...
Just a short example:
About a year ago NASA scientists discovered and were surprised, that the rings around Jupiter are positively charged on the sun side and negatively charged on the shadow side. Dr explained this already in his book in 1926 together with a nice picture...(So much about prediction capability...)

But I got Offtopic. Sorry for that. Let's get back to the original question about the potential pressures...

Wish you all a lovely weekend
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 03:22 pm
@Peace phil,
Peace;59879 wrote:
Laughing
You mean our current main theory in physics. As there are many many theories...And we must always remember all these are just theories, which do not and cannot claim to picture the complete actual truth!
Believe me, I had a lot of physics during my technical study. And our professor was working at the CERN, so we also got quite some information in this field of physics, and not only standard mechanics...
Actually, if you really know a lot in physics, you will easily come to the conclusion that physics doesn't know anything...

So far you haven't said anything to refute what I said or support your position.
Appeal to authority is a cognitive fallacy...

Quote:
There are so many many effects already today observed which do not fit into the standard model...
So IMHO declaring anything that is outside this mainstream theory as "wrong" doesn't make sense...As there is no profound argument to say, the current theory is "correct".

As it it the best working theories, and has not been refuted (theories are not proven, they are disproven or tentatively accepted.

Quote:
Sure you can describe a lot of observed effects. But as mentioned before there are also a lot of effects not explainable by the current model.

There are no 'effects' ('causality' is an obsolete notion), there are observations of natural phenomena. That is what physics does.
You are talking science fiction, and bad sci-fi at that.
When you present evidence/experimental justification of your 'beliefs' (fantasy), then they will deserve more thought than this easy dismissal due to lack of evidence and violation of what present experiment reveals.
You can hypothesize the tooth faerie all you like, but it remains your personal fantasy until you present one for disection and study, at which point is enters the world of science and exits fantasy.
My initial post remains valid and relevent.
I like sci-fi as well as anyone, but the only good sci-fi (IMO) is based on 'actual sci', the more so, the better, and probably the more 'predictive' sci-fi is; Jules Vern's submarine, Captain Kirk's communicator (cell phone), etc...
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2009 08:05 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:

There are no 'effects' ('causality' is an obsolete notion), there are observations of natural phenomena. That is what physics does.


Nameless, could you elaborate; is this your something to do with how the universe exists in moments, and does not actually flow?
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 06:47 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;59952 wrote:
Nameless, could you elaborate; is this your something to do with how the universe exists in moments, and does not actually flow?

Exaxctly.
Where is the linear notion of 'cause and effect' in a wholistic 'Reality' in which all moments are synchronous, Now!
'C&e' is a relic of a particulatly linear Perspective. What might 'c&e' be to a Perspective that perceives the 'flow of time' to be exactly the reverse from that which we might perceive? Or perceiving a 'stream' of linear appearing moments (memory) of every other possible juxtaposition in every possible combination of moments.
Yes, the appearance of 'causality', from a particular Perspective, is the appearance of 'causality' in Reality, a feature, but not the big picture.
Any clearer? *__-
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 09:01 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Exaxctly.
Where is the linear notion of 'cause and effect' in a wholistic 'Reality' in which all moments are synchronous, Now!
'C&e' is a relic of a particulatly linear Perspective. What might 'c&e' be to a Perspective that perceives the 'flow of time' to be exactly the reverse from that which we might perceive? Or perceiving a 'stream' of linear appearing moments (memory) of every other possible juxtaposition in every possible combination of moments.
Yes, the appearance of 'causality', from a particular Perspective, is the appearance of 'causality' in Reality, a feature, but not the big picture.
Any clearer? *__-


Yes, but doesn't it matter why the universe would not in actuality flow? In reality, in the quantum world there is what appears to be randomness, which 'gradually' becomes more flowing through upward causation. Aren't the combination of moments determined by this causation? So if the juxtaposition changes then the causation changes, and well... wouldn't you get a completely different universe?
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 01:58 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;60317 wrote:
Yes, but doesn't it matter why the universe would not in actuality flow?

The 'why' is in it's structure. 'Why' a hand is not a wing, is that it is a hand, and not a wing. The isness is the only 'why'. Due to the perception of linearity, we imagine 'causality' which is context for the brains thoughts to posit a 'why'. No 'why', just is!

Quote:
In reality, in the quantum world there is what appears to be randomness, which 'gradually' becomes more flowing through upward causation.

Nope, not in reality. The 'appearance' is 'linear movement' (as context for the linear notion of 'causation'), which is only possible as a relic of memory/Perspective. Outside one's 'imagination'/mind, there is no light, no sound, no 'motion', nothing to move... The 'show' is really on the inside of your eyelids, we don't really look out of the portholes!
The 'show', nevertheless, is a bunch of 'still frame' moments appearing to move like a 'flip-book', like a movie, due to different Perspectives of the still frames. Nothing moves. There is no 'causation', it is a fairy tale from a dream, an 'appearance' believed... The pile of still frames (Perspectives) just sits there on the table for a moment and is gone. Nothing 'causing' anything, no 'effects', just is.

Quote:
Aren't the combination of moments determined by this causation?

NO, all moments are synchronous, all 'existence' appearing at the same (Planck) moment. There is no 'combination of moments' other than as 'memory'/Perspective. It is memory from which motion is conceived.
A crude analogy;
Cut apart all the individual frames from a movie (these are 'moments'), shake em all up, mix them well. Pile them on a table. Imagine that you can look through the pile. One Perspective is the movie as you know it. Another Perspective sees it in exact reverse order, as that Perspective knows reality' Other Perspectives see every other combination of moments. All possible Perspectives, in sum total, give the fullest, complete 'movie' of existence (Mind) to Consciousness.

Quote:
So if the juxtaposition changes then the causation changes

Nothing changes, but the universe appears different from/as moment to moment! All that is 'different' is Perspective...

Quote:
wouldn't you get a completely different universe?

There can be only One elephant, which is many (all unique) Perspectives.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 03:05 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
The 'why' is in it's structure. 'Why' a hand is not a wing, is that it is a hand, and not a wing. The isness is the only 'why'. Due to the perception of linearity, we imagine 'causality' which is context for the brains thoughts to posit a 'why'. No 'why', just is!


So, is this a philosophy for you then? I understand ofcourse that in actuality, sure, there is no why. Reality is like a syntax for 'why' though. And what is the logic behind regarding the Planck moment as a basis for assuming there is no flow in reality on a 'higher' causal level? In actuality sure, I understand, but reality, no, I am troubled as to finding where this link comes from.

This is why I brought up causation. Micro/quantum to macro perception let's say. The planck moment expresses the synchronicity and causal-free reality in the 'frame' (if we stick to the analogy) of the quantum causation, but does this mean the macro causation is inherently linked in some way? Automatically it is assumed that actuality provides this link, but it is an egoistic rendition here; fallacious, or rather, useless. (I know you don't use the term 'actuality', so don't mind me)

The planck moment implies discontinuity, right? There is no 'infinite resolution'. I am confused though. What does the planck moment apply to? Is it both length and time? Length relates to causation, time relates to causality.

Before I continue, am I with you so far?
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 01:48 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;60409 wrote:
So, is this a philosophy for you then?

Philosophy is 'critical thought'. Any workings of 'critical thought' is philosophy, to me.

Quote:
Reality is like a syntax for 'why' though.

'Syntax' (in itself) is certainly a context for the appearance of 'whys'.

Quote:
And what is the logic behind regarding the Planck moment as a basis for assuming there is no flow in reality on a 'higher' causal level?

A Planck moment is the smallest quanta of 'time' that retains any 'integrity'. Quanta are discrete and deny any possible 'flow' (as anything other than in the imagination/perspective).
In a 'quantum leap, that of an electron from energy level to energy level, for instance, it was once thought that the little electron that could, actually 'jumped' from one energy level to the next.
It has subsequently been found, now that we have superior 'measuring' equipment, that there is no electron to be found between energy levels. Nothing 'moving' here to there. An electron on one energy level winks out of existence, with the moment, and in the 'next' moment, an electron appears on another level. The 'appearance' to 'naive/limited' observation, was that something moved.
That 'appearance' has been shown to be an illusion. Nothing moves.
One moment there is a universe with an electron here. Another moment the universe appears with that electron gone and another one appearing there. Nothing 'leaps' in a quantum 'leap'. It has been found to be metaphor.
I deny the existence of any 'higher causal level' other than as 'appearances' and 'ego'.

A 'moment' is a single percept of the universe/existence (Mind).

Quote:
In actuality sure, I understand, but reality

I am unsure of your definitional differentiation between 'actual' and 'real'?

Quote:
This is why I brought up causation. Micro/quantum to macro perception let's say. The planck moment expresses the synchronicity and causal-free reality in the 'frame' (if we stick to the analogy) of the quantum causation, but does this mean the macro causation is inherently linked in some way? Automatically it is assumed that actuality provides this link, but it is an egoistic rendition here; fallacious, or rather, useless. (I know you don't use the term 'actuality', so don't mind me)

It is the non-linearity of moments that make any notion of universal notions of 'causality' meaningless. If there is no linearity, there is no 'time' and no 'motion' and certainly no 'causality.
And your term 'quantum causation' sounds neet, it is an oxymoron as it is quantum that has transcended the naive notions of universal causality. It's just a local notion, of appearances, like a mirage, like a movie.
Nothing really 'moves' but 'Consciousness'. Metaphorically, of course.


Quote:
The planck moment implies discontinuity, right?

That is what quantum discretion means.

Quote:
There is no 'infinite resolution'. I am confused though. What does the planck moment apply to? Is it both length and time? Length relates to causation, time relates to causality.

Not sure what you mean by 'apply to', but if you take the smallest 'slice' of the 'bar of time' one finds individual discrete moments. The Planck moment is the smallest 'slice' of time that retains any integrity yet no qualities of 'temporality/duration'.
There is a Planck 'length' also.

Actually, the perceptions of (Length relates to causation, time relates to causality) 'time' and 'linearity' are context for the notion of 'causality'. It is a 'naive' understanding. It's a whole new world Now! thanx to QM. There will be lots of 'sacred cows' to butcher in light of our new understandings of existence.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 06:36 pm
@Peace phil,
This is actually a thread in a forum for the discussion of the ideas of Walter Russell, thus, the discussion has gone way off topic.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:01 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:

A Planck moment is the smallest quanta of 'time' that retains any 'integrity'.


Interesting. So if we gave the planck unit a value of 1, do we know what 0.75 is like? Why is it that the integrity falls apart at all, and why at the level that it does?

nameless wrote:
Quanta are discrete and deny any possible 'flow' (as anything other than in the imagination/perspective).


I don't understand, I mean, I understand this concept, but why any possible flow? Sure at the causal level of the quantum world I understand, but why in the macro world is it assumed so too?

I know this is kinda gearing more off topic, but I want to know what you'd have to say about this(if it's too linear a train of thought, etc). Let's say the purely discrete causal level has a value of 0, just for the sake of it, not trying to imply anything whatsoever. And the macro level (our level for example) has a level of say, 100. Upward causation is the process of going from 0-->100. Downward causation is the process of going from 100-->0. And I'm assuming of course that if 'integrity' were valued as is here, it would have a domain; I mean, if it has a domain in the quantum direction, being the planck length, then why not in the macro direction, like Olber's Bubble or something like that.

If we assign integrity as a y value, and the causation value as an x value, would there be any correlations, or can this be modeled by some form of measurement; or are causal 'levels' just some idealistic notion that has been turned into an assumption, and that's the fallacy you've been trying to drill into my head.

Is it possible that when talking about upward causation and downward causation, the processes themselves are intrinsically discontinuous?

When physicists (you seem to know everything about this stuff so I'm comfortable asking you) found this quantum length, does it apply to width and height too, or is it relevant to dimension?

nameless wrote:

I deny the existence of any 'higher causal level' other than as 'appearances' and 'ego'.


Metaphorically, fine.

nameless wrote:
I am unsure of your definitional differentiation between 'actual' and 'real'?


It's just a way for me to organize what is more intrinsic than the other. Actual is more intrinsic than real.

nameless wrote:
If there is no linearity, there is no 'time' and no 'motion' and certainly no 'causality.


So how should one go about transcending the "linear perspective" of causality?
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 04:33 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;60621 wrote:
nameless wrote:

A Planck moment is the smallest quanta of 'time' that retains any 'integrity'.

Interesting. So if we gave the planck unit a value of 1, do we know what 0.75 is like?

There is nothing to exist less than "1".
Remember, that what we are speaking of, is existence as perceived (perceiver and perceived are one! there can be no existence unperceived), Mindstuff, 'information waves' (perceived by Conscious Perspectives (us).
It is at the '1', that the 'information waves' can be perceived. One 'moment' = one percept(ion)! Less than one percept/moment can not, of course, be perceived, and, therefore, cannot exist.

Quote:
Why is it that the integrity falls apart at all, and why at the level that it does?

The question is, rather, why is there any perceivable 'integrity' at all (which is impossible in something as perfectly symmetrical as Mind/Consciousness), when the Mind is 'chaos', pure 'undifferentiated potential', completely featureless, qualityless. Mind becomes 'differentiated, by the inherent limitations of Conscious Perspective. Like the 'flaws' (crazing) in perfectly clear glass allow us to see it, the limitations of Perspective allow it to 'see' Mind.

Quote:
nameless wrote:

Quanta are discrete and deny any possible 'flow' (as anything other than in the imagination/perspective).

I don't understand, I mean, I understand this concept, but why any possible flow?

Well, as we perceive 'flow', it exists. So, I withdraw my statement of "any possible" flow. The "flow" of 'time' associated with a diffferent Perspective of the universe every moment, is perceived by us. As such it exists. If I perceive a purple pig with three heads, it exists, and is a 'feature' of existence. Hence, 'time' and all associated phenomena (linearity, motion, existence as it is commonly perceived, etc...) are 'features' of the complete universe. Hydrogen is a 'feature' of water, yet 'needs' the Perspectives of another hydrogen and an oxygen atom to completely describe (chemically) 'water'. Of course much more than that is needed to fully define and describe water; all possible Perspectives, actually, from molecular and particle physics to poetry and swimming...

Quote:
Sure at the causal level of the quantum world I understand, but why in the macro world is it assumed so too?

There is no 'causal level' of the quantum world (other than in your understanding, of course, a 'feature'...).
There is no inherent division between the tiny and the large but completely arbitrarily/synthetically. It seems a silly and unsupportable notion to imagine two distinct worlds due to size differences. "As above, so below!" It is one existence, One Mind, one universe, many Perspectives of One Consciousness;
Monism.

Quote:
Let's say the purely discrete causal level has a value of 0, just for the sake of it, not trying to imply anything whatsoever. And the macro level (our level for example) has a level of say, 100. Upward causation is the process of going from 0-->100. Downward causation is the process of going from 100-->0.

There's that 'causal level' again... The only 'causing' that I can almost accept (the word would have to be redefined) is that existence is 'caused' by perception of it. But, synchronicity, as the basic nature if existence, cannot bear any hierarchy of moments. For any 'causation' at all, there must be actual linearity. There can certainly be 'causation' (and 'time' and 'motion', etc...) for/from the Perspective that perceives 'linearity'.

Quote:
And I'm assuming of course that if 'integrity' were valued as is here, it would have a domain; I mean, if it has a domain in the quantum direction, being the planck length, then why not in the macro direction, like Olber's Bubble or something like that.

I think that I spoke to this when I spoke of 'integrity' being the level of perception, above.

Quote:
If we assign integrity as a y value, and the causation value as an x value, would there be any correlations, or can this be modeled by some form of measurement; or are causal 'levels' just some idealistic notion that has been turned into an assumption, and that's the fallacy you've been trying to drill into my head.

First, I hate 'assigning values'. What is, is, as it is, and suits me fine. It seems too artificial, to me, to 'assign values'. I understand the 'value' of doing so in aid of logic and conceptualization, though, but it is not my style.
I'm sorry if I appear to be trying to drill anything into your head. I thought, by your intelligent questioning, that you are interested in understanding 'this' Perspective. I'm not looking for converts, just offering some food for thought (and a glimpse into the 'future') as my own thoughts 'evolve'.

Quote:
Is it possible that when talking about upward causation and downward causation, the processes themselves are intrinsically discontinuous?

Playing mix-n-match, I don't see how anything that is discontinuous can be considered causative. If there is no 'connection' between moments/perceptions wherein one thing can ('touch') cause another, 'causality' is again, moot.

Quote:
When physicists (you seem to know everything about this stuff so I'm comfortable asking you) found this quantum length, does it apply to width and height too, or is it relevant to dimension?

Far from knowing everything, perhaps touching some 'high points'...
I am less familiar with 'Planck length' (look it up, wiki should be fairly simple reading), and the physics involved. I'd imagine that 'length' can be considered in all directions; sideways length is 'width'...
I do notice it on the buffet, but seem to have gotten a full nutrition without too much of it. It has not been a particularly relevent or fruitful (yet?) area of study. 'Length' seems a feature of existence/Perspective. There are many 'features' to studt for those interested. I'd imagine that all sincere studies of any features will lead 'here'. All roads do lead to Rome, but one cannot travel, nor need to travel, more than one.

Quote:
So how should one go about transcending the "linear perspective" of causality?

I have found moments of meditation can allow the experience of nonlinearity.
Sometimes it just happens naturally (ok, all the time) that I can be aware of various 'moments' simultaneously. That is what 'prophesy' is.
Ever had a feeling of dejas vous? That might be an experience of non-linearity.
A very good question deserving more time that I'm offering right now as you ahve asked many good questions and I've been here on this for over an hour expending much energy on thought. Perhaps more later...
Peace
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 09:36 pm
@Peace phil,
Sorry but this is way off topic. Whether or not this is value to the couple of users that are still left, nameless' philosophy has nothing to do with affirming or countering anything that Walter Russell had to say. Sorry Holiday and nameless, but if this is a discussion you want to continue having, find the appropriate place to do so.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Questions about Potential Pressure and its Consequences
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 08:37:09