Changes and Contradictions in Dr's work

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Changes and Contradictions in Dr's work

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 07:39 am
As we all know, in the writings of Dr quite some things changed over time. The same words, got a different meaning etc. Also some contradictions surfaced mainly between the older writings ("The Universal One" & "The Genero-Radiative Concept") and his later writings (e.g. "The Secret of Light", "Atomic Suicide?" or the HSC). But there are also some contradictions within the same book.

So this thread is for all the people, who got confused about that (like me), and also for new beginners to get a better start. Here we gather all the changes and contradictions. Everybody can contribute, but please indicate exactly where you got your text samples from (book and page).

This first post will be updated with all the agreed points.

It would be especially nice, if the people, who still knew Dr or Lao could answer, as most of these changes/contradictions are quite obvious. I guess they will surely have been discussed at the USP.
Thank you for your contribution!
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2008 08:08 am
@Peace phil,
I will make the start.

Sure there are quite a lot of points. But due to I will travel for a week in the US next week, I will only post here one first point.
I already apologize for the many pics in here, but I think in this thread it will be helpful for comparison. So please forgive me Justin!

I think everybody which got involved into Dr's work will immediately have recognized the Hydrogen/Carbogen Change:

In The Universal One Dr stated, that Hydrogen is a 1+ element, and Carbogen is the amplitude element (4) in the same octave:

The Universal One Page 13:
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7708/theuniversalonepage13hyaa7.jpg
The Universal One Page 89:
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3425/theuniversalonepage89smwc2.jpg

But in all his later work, he changed this, so that Hydrogen is now the amplitude element and Carbogen the 1+ element.

E.g. in the famous pics, which are also available as posters from the USP:

Poster Pic and in many books, here from "Atomic Suicide?" Elemental Chart No 1:
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6606/atomicsuicideelementchapq1.jpg
(One can see, that this chart has been modified, for Carbogen has now an N too much at the end and not on the same line. Also Hydrogen and Carbogen are not correctly vertically aligned like the other elements)

Poster Pic and in many books, here from "Atomic Suicide?" Elemental Chart No 2:
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8319/atomicsuicideelementchabd5.jpg
(Here it seems they only changed the Carbogen to Hydrogen, but forgot to change the Hydrogen to Carbogen, so now Hydrogen is 2 times on this chart which is obviously an error)

The question is now, what is correct?
As in the Universal One he describes the valencies of the elements, and from this point of view Hydrogen should be a 1+ element:

The Universal One, Page 111:
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/1833/theuniversalonepage111sww7.jpg

On the other hand in "Atomic Suicide?", he shows which elements are mainly important for us, and which are mainly used in us:

Atomic Suicide? Figure 5:
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/6363/atomicsuicidefig5smalltm8.jpg
Here Hydrogen has to be an amplitude element, otherwise they would not be in such a nice triangle.

Now from a pure theoretical approach:
If Ethlogen and Bebegen are really Deuterium and Tritium, then Hydrogen has to be a 1+ Element, because Deuterium and Tritium are heavier than Hydrogen. They could theoretically also be the 3- 2- Elements Luminon and Halonon or even Helionon. But as he descibes them as very special elements this is not very probable (additionally the higher densities and melting points of D and T also trashes this theory). Otherwise they would have to be - isotopes, which is also unlikely, as midtones should not be developed in such early octaves according to Dr. It would certainly also be possible, that Deuterium and Tritium are just normal Isotopes (in the conventional sense) and not elements on its own. Then Hydrogen could be a 1+ or a 4 element. Also the chemical behaviour which is actually the same for H, D and T tells, that these are the same basic element, for 1+, 2+ or 3+ elements would have a different valence bonding behaviour, as indicated by Dr in "The Universal One". As stated before, from this bonding behaviour, Hydrogen should be a 1+.
From another approach one could say, as we only know Hydrogen and Helium from this octave, it is very probable that Hydrogen is an amplitude element, for as an amplitude element it would be the most dense in this octave and therefore the best visible. From this point it would be very unlikely, that we can see the 1+ element, but the amplitude element we can't.
So we have pro and contra for Hydrogen being a 1+ element or an amplitude element.
Comments?
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 08:55 am
@Peace phil,
Hi:

Speaking of hydrogen - it seems that there is an counterpart of hydrogen - Brown's Gas.

Please look at this URL:
OS:Joe Cell:Theory - PESWiki

It states this:
Browns gas is Helionon (Yahoo! Groups) - Walter Russell has a name for this gas unlike modern science. The name of this gas is Helionon the last element of the forth octave. Every thing that exists in the world has an opposite. So now you know that Browns gas is really Helionon, and it is the opposite of Hydrogen. You can see it plain as day with the bang test, so anyone that says that this is regular electrolyses is wrong.

Would you agree that the above is correct?

Lancelot.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 12:30 pm
@Lancelot phil,
Well, I would have my doubts if Helionon is Browns Gas. You could actually easily verfiy it: It should be much lighter than hydrogen! (density weigth not atom weigth)
And that Helionon is the "partner" of Hydrogen is only true in the old Universal One charts, as I stated. In the newer charts Hydrogen is an amplitude element and has therefore no "partner".
And I really don't think, that a Joe Cell works like that. I have my own theory, how it works, and it's very simple explainable by Dr's work. And if you build a cell, based on this knowledge it's no big deal to get it working...you don't even need electrolysis...
(but don't ask me how, as as I stated before I won't tell anyone how to build a FE device, just study Dr's work, and you will quickly be able to get some results. Just a hint: Just change potential pressure and work will be done, due to the effort to again create a balance...)
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 03:05 am
@Peace phil,
There's no such thing as free energy. Nothing's for free in nature, except at your mother's... if you behave. Wink There are only more or less efficient power sources. I agree that some would seem like "free energy" by today's standards. I don't understand why you don't want to share your information. Like we are competing in something or I don't know what is in your head. It just shows your spirit, writing such things on forum. I have my doubts about you. I see people who actually know (or had luck finding out) about FE all over youtube, they are very eager to share their info. I guess you are just in the dark as we are. I don't mean to insult you or anything, I just can't understand your viewpoint. Please explain.

regards
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 04:24 am
@mr4v0,
Dear Mravo,

I already explained this in another thread, but I can repeat this again if you like. When I saw the impact that some of these devices have on the environment, it became very clear to me, that people are not yet responsible enough to handle such things. We are all just in the infancy of our spiritual development. And would you give a sharp knife to a little child to play?
I'm sure that sometime in the future time will be ripe, and then people will come forward with their devices. Then also I will show my devices. I am not at all intersted in any money, for I always had enough money for my living, why should I need more?
I personally think, that anyone can get the knowledge how to make such a device, especially if you study Dr's work. But I personally think, that somehow the cosmic plan foresees, that the people who are able to develop these, also immediately see their consequences, and so will not publish them.
Or they get otherwise "forgotten" or "lost", as it happened to many many devices since more than 100 years, as time is not yet ripe.
As long as people are still killing each other on the battlefield, I have the feeling it would be unresponsible to show them how to make this even drastically more effective...

And about the many many videos on the net, I can just tell, that IMHO more than 99% are not really FE-devices but rather a display of lack of EE knowledge how to measure circuits correctly.
But enough of this here, as this thread should be about the CHanges and Contradictions in Dr's work.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 10:01 am
@Peace phil,
Well, I find this very patronizing. If everyone shared your viewpoint then we'd still be in the jungle. Almost every new invention brings new weapons and ways to harm others, but there are two sides of the blade to every sword. Fire can kill or keep you warm.

Fair enough, you have the right to your opinion. If this is how you feel, so be it.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 12:14 pm
@mr4v0,
Thank you for your understanding. I also mean, that it would be too dangerous to use a device, if you don't 100% understand how it's working (in relation to the environment). E.g. Take Nuclear Fission: There you have the certainly bad use of bombs, on the other side the peaceful use of power plants. But what do we now know, even this peaceful use is an extremely destructive force for this planet. And these devices can change the environment even stronger than a nuclear power plant. So I'm very cautious about them and also don't use them for myself. I just make them until I see they work, and then again disassemble them...

Back to the actual thread: Doesn't anyone wanna comment on the first topic I mentioned: The Carbogen/Hydrogen change?

I really would appreciate every comment and ideas from all the people, for as I think the more people get involved the better for creativity.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 12:56 pm
@Peace phil,
I've never noticed this in Dr's works. I've always thought Hydrogen to be an amplitude element. Why do you find this change important? As I remember, Dr wrote that all of this must be confirmed by experiments. So his charts might not be totally accurate, in regards to element names and maybe even their attributes. What's the difference if it's Hydrogen or Carbogen? And W.R. was a human after all.Wink
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 01:38 pm
@mr4v0,
Quote:
I've never noticed this in Dr's works.

Interesting.

Quote:
Why do you find this change important? As I remember, Dr wrote that all of this must be confirmed by experiments. So his charts might not be totally accurate, in regards to element names and maybe even their attributes. What's the difference if it's Hydrogen or Carbogen?


Well it's not the most important thing, but certainly has some interesting side effects in it. As I said, this is just the first of many topics in this thread about changes and contradictions in Dr's work. I choose it pure randomly.

I really think the interesting side is e.g. the often mention of the Deuterium and Tritium as already proclaimed by Dr, as they were not yet discovered. But as I said before, this could not be true if Hydrogen is an amplitude element.
And as Dr's work is meant to describe how this "reality" works I think it should be important to show up all these problems. E.g. also that the valencies as descibed by Dr would not be correct for Hydrogen if it would be an amplitude element. So I think the question why Dr did change Hydrogen from a 1+ element to an amplitude element is quite interesting. He must have had some reason to change his charts. There must surely be some people here who know this...
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 02:24 pm
@Peace phil,
Why wouldn't the valence for H be correct if it's amplitude element, what would be it's valence then?
 
zeroone
 
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:56 am
@Peace phil,
Nice thread Peace! Very important for all of us who study Dr's work.

Now about Hydrogen: The Secret of Light, page 265:
"In carbon are all of the elements of its previous stages, just as in man are all of the actions and reactions of his previous stages. Hydrogen is a one octave younger prototype of carbon. It forms on the wave amplitude at four-zero-four just as carbon forms at four-zero-four ane octave ahead. In hydrogen is a whole octave of elemental tones. ..."
Chapter: THE ELEMENTS OF MATTER - talks about arrangement of elements.

Zeroone
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 06:16 am
@zeroone,
Quote:
Why wouldn't the valence for H be correct if it's amplitude element, what would be it's valence then?


See the Fig in the first post about this thread from The Universal One. There it is explained. Mainly the principle is, that 1 Elements have a much lower pressure than e.g. 4 Elements. Therefore E.g. it needs 4 1 Elements to build a stable aggregate with a 4 Element. And as CH4 is the stable aggregate between Hydrogen and Carbon, this would mean, Hydrogen is a 1 Element.

Quote:
Now about Hydrogen: The Secret of Light, page 265:
"In carbon are all of the elements of its previous stages, just as in man are all of the actions and reactions of his previous stages. Hydrogen is a one octave younger prototype of carbon. It forms on the wave amplitude at four-zero-four just as carbon forms at four-zero-four ane octave ahead. In hydrogen is a whole octave of elemental tones. ..."


Sure, as I said in all his later work, he always says Hydrogen is an amplitude element, no doubt about that. But when it is an amplitude element, Deuterium and Tritium cannot be Ethlogen and Bebegen and more important, we get problems in explaining the valency of Hydrogen...
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:37 am
@Peace phil,
H has +/- 1 valence (and C has +/- 4), that's why I'd put it on the amplitude.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:48 am
@mr4v0,
Quote:
H has +/- 1 valence (and C has +/- 4), that's why I'd put it on the amplitude.


??? I don't really understand, what you would ike to tell with that?
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 07:53 am
@Peace phil,
There are not many elements which can give and accept electrons. Most either give electrons (- valence elements) or accept (+ valence) when bonding. But H can do both, take 1e or give 1e. Similar to C, which can give 4e or take 4e in it's bonds.

Quote:
But when it is an amplitude element, Deuterium and Tritium cannot be Ethlogen and Bebegen and more important, we get problems in explaining the valency of Hydrogen...
Deuterium and Tritium are different from H only in their mass number, not valence (or number of electrons). H has 1e 1n 1p, D has 1e 2n 1p and T has 1e 3n 1p. If I still remember correctly.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 11:53 am
@mr4v0,
Quote:
But H can do both, take 1e or give 1e


Quite an interesting point! Didn't thought yet about that...
Just read again a bit in the "A New Concept of the Universe". There Dr wrote, that Hydrogen and Carbon do have the same plane angle. So this is my suggestion
Quote:
Deuterium and Tritium are different from H only in their mass number, not valence (or number of electrons). H has 1e 1n 1p, D has 1e 2n 1p and T has 1e 3n 1p. If I still remember correctly.

Yeah, this was also one of my suggested possibilities in my first post. I also suggest Deuterium and Tritium are just isotopes (in the conventional sense) of Hydrogen, and not separate elements like Dr and Lao explained at several places.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 01:27 pm
@Peace phil,
I don't know about the first octave. It's strange in many aspects. If H is the 4th element, does that mean that lower elements have no electrons? But if it is the first element, then there should be unknown heavier elements than H - which is very unlikely.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Mon 8 Sep, 2008 05:53 pm
@mr4v0,
Quote:
I don't know about the first octave. It's strange in many aspects


Well, it's the first visible octave...

Quote:
If H is the 4th element, does that mean that lower elements have no electrons?


Well electrons, as we know from conventional science do not exist in Dr's cosmogony. So this no electrons is not any real problem...

Quote:
But if it is the first element, then there should be unknown heavier elements than H - which is very unlikely.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 03:22 am
@Peace phil,
Quote:
Well electrons, as we know from conventional science do not exist in Dr's cosmogony. So this no electrons is not any real problem...
Of course they exist! Even Dr wrote that the Universe is electricaly (energeticaly) balanced down to the last electron. And he is talking about electrons in many parts of his work. We can't throw away every thing that science knows today. Dr's work isn't radical tearing apart of science, but more of a logical-reasoning and philosophycal aproach (not so effect related) to science. Experimentaly confirmed data still hold, and must hold. It's just a matter of interpretation and science has many misinterpetations - opposed to Dr's words.

And that electrons are real and are infact planets around a star (nucleus) is again stated in "The Electric Universe" (by W.Thornhill and D.Talbott - I can't thank you enough for directing me there Peace). They say that our Sun (and probably every other star in other systems) has imense positive charge oposed to other objects in the system. Planets and comets/asteroids are negatively charged bodies circling the positive primary. Now isn't that a description of an atom?? And Dr stated that atoms are solar systems on a different scale - nothing else to it.

Kind regards.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Changes and Contradictions in Dr's work
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 03:39:15