Changes and Contradictions in Dr's work

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Peace phil
 
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 06:26 am
@mr4v0,
Sure Dr speaks of electrons, but I said
Quote:
electrons, as we know from conventional science do not exist in Dr's cosmogony


And this is true. Conventional science thinks in different layers and hulls of electrons in atoms, and Dr clearly stated, that this is not true!
An electron also does not have a negative "charge". The "charge" is always relative. E.g. when it is dissipating from an atom it's a negative discharge, but as soon as it hits the plane of zero curvature to the next one it gets a positive charging "particle", as it's changing from a centrifugal vortex to an centripetal vortex.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 06:55 am
@Peace phil,
(It was explained to me, by one of the WR students, that planes of zero curvature and such are not physical. Because my question was, how is it possible that a ball doesn't get rebounded by this plane, but it travels on and how am I able to touch someone else. Well, the reply was that only motion is affected by planes of zero curvature. I don't understand this thing correctly, so please don't take my word for it.)

If by charge and discharge you mean like Birkeland currents from the Sun where they are actually Sun's discharge and when they hit the Earth they become Earth's charge, ok. But if we are talking about particles, I can't agree. There are definitely negatively charged particles and positive ones, as well neutral. I am well aware that charge and voltage are really virutal and relative things. Voltage by definition is a relative concept and it is defined through physical work, but I won't go into details here. Hm, ok, maybe I shouldn't be talking about charge and voltage, but about electrical potential. I hope we agree that electrons (whatever they might be) and protons (w.t.m.b.) don't have the same electrical potential. One are more negative than others in regards to electrical potential. My point being here, that particles in Birkeland currents from the Sun, don't change their "charge" or electrical potential. Electrons don't become protons, and positive ions don't become negative ions when they hit Earth - if we haven't changed our reference (0 volt point, from where we are "measuring" to everything else). It's hard for me to write about these concepts in my own language, I just hope you can read and understand me in english.:rolleyes:
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 07:41 am
@mr4v0,
LOL, I think I know what you mean.

The funny thing this discussion is actually also a topic for this thread. For exactly these contradictions, about "particles", "electrons", and their "charging" behaviour is also contradictionary explained by Dr. I know, that there are still many topics which should be here, but currently I'm short of time. So please forgive me. When I got time, I will gather the different text examples in the books and post it. Or someone else can.
But the next few topics in here I would like to post are the additional changes in the elemental charts, just to have them finished...
I hope I will be able to do it this weekend, as they are quite simple...

What does "w.t.m.b." mean?
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 09:24 am
@Peace phil,
w.t.m.b. = whatever they might be Smile

Ok, please do that, 'cause I'm very interested to see all of the changes in one place.

About particles and their charging/discharging, I think that the main problem here is perspective. And by that I mean, that we (at least I am) are looking at them as some very small fundamental building blocks - macroscopic. But what Dr is saying is that every particle is like a planet, if not even a star, in our Universe. This is "microscopic" perspective and we are only talking about "macroscopic" perspective. Because when I say charge of particle, I mean like the charge of electron ([SIZE=+1][/SIZE], not it's breathing in and out. So, I wouldn't call these contradictions. That's my opinion.

Best regards.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 02:34 am
@mr4v0,
 
Phoenix phil
 
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:13 am
@Peace phil,
Really good spot, well done. For me hydrogen HAS TO BE +1. Is hydrogen a true cube? I don't think so. As I understand it, it's density indicates it is close to the plane of inertia (+1). If it were in the ++4 position it would have more matter associated with it.
Regards....alan
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 01:30 pm
@Phoenix phil,
currently go that Deuterium and Tritium are not Ethlogen and Bebegen), it has to be the amplitude element. For the amplitude element is the most dense in the octave. So it would seem very unlogical, that we are able to "sense" the 1+ element, whereas we are not able to sense the 4+- element (and also the 2+ and 3+ elements).
* As Mravo already highlighted, from the valency point of view it is symmetrical, just like any other 4+- element, and only the 4+- elements are symmetrical (balanced). Although from the valency point of view it seems strange, that Hydrogen as a 4+- element would be the only one which seems to behave differently in relation to potential pressure conditions. (Simpler explained in "mainstream" physics: It has just one electron). But as mainstreams physics anyway is quite off the track, of what an atom is, this discrepancy is neglible to me. But the valency problem, I described already before in this thread would still remain a problem...

And BTW: This valency problem is currently the only indicator for me, that Hydrogen could be a 1+ element. So I have more points on the 4+- side than on the 1+ side. So I go for the 4+- side :bigsmile:
To be really sure, one would have to do again Dr's experiments and verify the results with a spectrometer.
(Actually to be honest: I am really almost at the point to buy me a mass spectrometer, to verify my experiment results...)
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 01:51 pm
@Peace phil,
BTW: Just for the completeness of this thread. I just again repeat the Ethlogen/Bebegen is Deuterium/Tritium contradiction in a seperate post. (This has already been discussed)

If we take the later charts of the elements we see, that Ethlogen and Bebegen are the 2+ and 3+ elements of the Hydrogen octave. There Hydrogen is a 4+- element. As we know, the atomic weight increases as we go up the octave. So the atomic weight of Deuterium and Tritium would have to be smaller than that of Hydrogen. But this is not the case! In the contrary: They are heavier. This actually completely contradicts the statement, that Ethlogen and Bebegen are Deuterium and Tritium.
The other Problem we face is the fact, that the 1+, 2+, 3+, ... elements do have different plane angles and pressure conditions (position in the wave) and therefore a different valency bonding behaviour. But in practice we see, that they (H, D and T) all behave chemically equally. This again speaks for the fact, that Deuterium and Tritium are just normal isotopes in the mainstream physics sense and not different elements.
 
dalesvp
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:45 pm
@mr4v0,
mr4v0;24410 wrote:
w.t.m.b. = whatever they might be Smile

Ok, please do that, 'cause I'm very interested to see all of the changes in one place.

About particles and their charging/discharging, I think that the main problem here is perspective. And by that I mean, that we (at least I am) are looking at them as some very small fundamental building blocks - macroscopic. But what Dr is saying is that every particle is like a planet, if not even a star, in our Universe. This is "microscopic" perspective and we are only talking about "macroscopic" perspective. Because when I say charge of particle, I mean like the charge of electron ([SIZE=+1][/SIZE], not it's breathing in and out. So, I wouldn't call these contradictions. That's my opinion.

Best regards.


Part of the solution to this seeming contradiction is these finer elements or sub-elements are kinda mixed up in the Russell arena. I mean there are a LOT of quanta and sub-quanta level entities. For instance as regards the inertial plane wall - it is not impacted by electrons or protons as they cannot exist within that particular vacuous realm wherein other more subtle bodies do exist. These then can and do change polarity. A brief illustration shows some of this:

http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/Cosmic%20Chart11407.gif

Other elements to this and other knotty issues are explored a little bit here:

SVP Universal Cosmology - Part 1 of 17
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/01/2024 at 05:24:52