Rhythmic Balanced Interchange = Sympathetic Vibratory Physics

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Rhythmic Balanced Interchange = Sympathetic Vibratory Physics

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2007 04:45 am
hi. i decided to start this thread to discuss the completely convenient connection between Walter Russell (Rhythmic Balanced Interchange) and John Keely (Sympathetic Vibratory Physics).

i link you to two documentaries where Dale Pond speaks of John Keely - and Love/Mind -- these are from 1994, before he started seriously delving into Walter Russell, in 2004 he was already much better versed in Russell/Love, but they are still interesting - real "grower" of a documentary.

has anyone done any thinking into the connection between Russell and Keely?

Dale Pond - The Basic Principles of SVP 1/2
Dale Pond - The Basic Principles of SVP 2/2

i hope some of you will enjoy these - and maybe could start up a discussion regarding why is it that this all is such a great gray area? Keely and Russell, according to rememberingiam at least - connect completely, what with Keely suggesting there is only one force, Mind Force -- and all that. but it would be great to hear if anyone else has had any thoughts of connecting these?
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 11:25 pm
@esaruoho,
Hi:

With all respect to Dale Pond and his voluminous web site - but I think that some of his pictures are not only wrong but totally misleading and as long as he is displaying such incorrect information I can only surmise that he does not have sufficient knowledge of Russell physics and cosmology to guide and teach others.

Keeley might have had some basic resonances with Russell but it escapes common mortals such as me - I have enough difficulties grasping Dr. Russell's concpets and I am nonetheless satisfied with my progress - but I get TOTALLY lost in whatever Dale has to say of and about Keely - sorry - I gave up on Keely long ago and have not regretted my choice.

By the way - and in case someone wants to challenge me regarding Dale Pond's inaccuracies - everybody in the Russell camp knows that we have two oppositely-sexed centripital vortices homing in on each other to meet at a their apex (at maturity). These vortices might temporarily bore through each other in their exuberance of meeting but then get reflected into a centrifugal spin 90 degrees from their common gravity shaft.
What Dale is saying and showing is that one vortex enters the system from above and another is then exiting from below the equator. That's a lot of balloney and can throw off a less astute thinker for years!

Thanks for listening!

Lancelot.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 04:06 am
@Lancelot phil,
I just happened to came across this thread.

I go together with Lancelot. IMHO Dave Pond has not really understood Dr's cosmogony (Well, I don't say, that I really understand it either :bigsmile:). Prior to Dr's cosmogony I also occupied myself much in Keely's world. But it's really a hard task, as he uses a very very special language and cosmogony. But even as far as I could understand what Keely meant, I came to a different interpretation of Keely as Dale Pond. Therefore from then on, I only read Keely's texts and not anymore Dale's, like that I could discard a lot of the confusion that I had prior.
As soon as I got to know Dr's work. I also gave up on Keely, and never regretted my choice.

But as far as I understood Keely, his cosmogony is extremely similar to Dr's. He only uses completely different terms. And he mainly focused on the practical (oscillatory) side of the cosmogony, whereas Dr more described the basic principle and just said, one would have to do some experiments to get to know, which pressures are exactly needed for what. What has exactly what oscillation frequences, ...

But e.g. when you have something like that (pure random out of the book):

Quote:
He states that compound negative vibration of the neutral centers of the molecules in the Trexar and Trexnonar causes antagonism by differentiation and the attractive power of aggregation becomes radiant force with immense rotational velocity, carrying the "force beyond the molucular inner one-third"


The link to Dr's cosmogony is obvious.
With just a bit of omitting the "strange Keely stuff" it reads:

[...(The)] negative vibration of the neutral centers of the molecules in the [some special "alloy"] causes [...(that)...] the attractive power of aggregation becomes radiant force with immense rotational velocity [...]

This now, exactly fits Dr's cosmogony. He just mentions how to force a body which was charging before, to discharge. He even mentionend the increase in rotational velocity with the discharge. He also clearly describes, that the aggregation has attractive power (and we do know, that positive charging system do attract).
 
esaruoho
 
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 04:16 am
@Peace phil,
yeah, safe to say is this:

Keely never understood anything of Russell's cosmogeny. In fact, Keely never even met Russell or read his books (Keely died before end of 1890, possibly earlier).

Russell never understood anything of Keely's cosmogeny. In fact, Russell never even met Keely, or read his books.

Dale Pond has read Keely and Russell, and this lecture is very old, focusing on Keely. some say it is useful, others say its just a work in progress.

but Keely and Russell do mesh together, not word-for-word due to the lexicon differences. unfortunately neither of them are easy going. :nonooo:
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 05:01 pm
@Peace phil,
Peace;21508 wrote:
I just happened to came across this thread.

I go together with Lancelot. IMHO Dave Pond has not really understood Dr's cosmogony (Well, I don't say, that I really understand it either :bigsmile:). Prior to Dr's cosmogony I also occupied myself much in Keely's world. But it's really a hard task, as he uses a very very special language and cosmogony. But even as far as I could understand what Keely meant, I came to a different interpretation of Keely as Dale Pond. Therefore from then on, I only read Keely's texts and not anymore Dale's, like that I could discard a lot of the confusion that I had prior.
As soon as I got to know Dr's work. I also gave up on Keely, and never regretted my choice.

But as far as I understood Keely, his cosmogony is extremely similar to Dr's. He only uses completely different terms. And he mainly focused on the practical (oscillatory) side of the cosmogony, whereas Dr more described the basic principle and just said, one would have to do some experiments to get to know, which pressures are exactly needed for what. What has exactly what oscillation frequences, ...

But e.g. when you have something like that (pure random out of the book):



The link to Dr's cosmogony is obvious.
With just a bit of omitting the "strange Keely stuff" it reads:

[...(The)] negative vibration of the neutral centers of the molecules in the [some special "alloy"] causes [...(that)...] the attractive power of aggregation becomes radiant force with immense rotational velocity [...]

This now, exactly fits Dr's cosmogony. He just mentions how to force a body which was charging before, to discharge. He even mentionend the increase in rotational velocity with the discharge. He also clearly describes, that the aggregation has attractive power (and we do know, that positive charging system do attract).

Greetings, Esaruoho!

I echo your sentiments regarding Keeley and Dale Pond!
To stimulate your thirst for understanding and to prove to you the validity of Dr. Russell's teachings (what he remembers from the disclosures received in his "illumination") - I urge you to attentively look at the following video: YouTube - windhexe video

This is just half of the creative/destructive dual opposed vortex syndrome - the other half is unseen. You can easily see that this concept and many derivatives thereof (Viktor Schauberger, Baumgartner et al) are about to explode into a wealth of applications that will soon be commonplace and accepted. One day we will marvel at our ignorance and wonder why it took us so long to finally make use of Dr. Russell's concepts.
Should you need an in-depth explanation of that video and its underlying concepts, just ask.

Your thoughts would be welcome!

Lancelot.
 
mr4v0
 
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 11:56 am
@Lancelot phil,
Please explain the video. Wink
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 04:00 pm
@mr4v0,
mr4v0 wrote:
Please explain the video. Wink

Hello, mr4v0:

You must agree that the object of the video has a distinguishing appearance, that of an inverted cone.
According to Walter Russell, cones (in pairs) are the creation tools of Nature, whether microscopically or macroscopically. However, keep in mind that what you see is only half of the cone pairs - the other half is invisible because it would be below ground level in this case. There have been tornados that exhibited dual opposing cones!!!

What is important to remember is that one of the cone pairs would be 'female' and the other opposing cone would be 'male' in the truest sense of the word. They both thrust centripitally towards their mutual apices (apexes) or vertices (vertexes) in the effort to join in the creation of an offspring, a sphere (when mature, like carbon). That would be an incandescent sphere like the sun because the accumulated pressures would result in a very hot environment. The direction of the internal movement of each cone would be one continuous motion or rotation when viewed from one end but would appear opposite each other when viewed from either end. These are the awesome spirals one can see in the night sky with the help of a decent telescope.

Once these two cones (one visible and the other invisible) meet at their common vertex, they encounter a mirror-like equator (of the created sphere) and that acts as a reflecting surface. The concentrating centripetal movement (rotational manifestation) then reverses to an outward, centrifugal and radiating force, at right angles to the former - but still continuing - condensing two-way inward-thrusting centripetal force. This too can be observed in the starry heavens but constitutes the same dual-cone creation principle - only from an edge-on point of observation.

That radiating outward-thrusting force constitutes the base of two cones that now repeat the process of creation from the outward radiating and seemingly dying point to a renewed living position.

All that happens in 3 and 4 dimensions and one needs to delve deeper into these simple but 'foreign' concepts that very much involve anti-matter, so-called 'black holes' and sexuality (as a force of never-ending self-sustaining creation). Without opposing polarities you have nothing. Man calls these polarities NORTH and SOUTH, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, ACID and BASE etc. but in reality these are all expressions of the dual nature of NATURE, the never-ending dance of sexuality.

To properly understand the video, one needs to comprehend the basic building blocks of Nature. Only then does one realize that the inventor of this apparatus did not really 'invent' anything. He made use of some simple concepts that anyone even superficially conversant with Schauberger or Russell would recognize in a flash. He is very secretive about the inner workings of his apparatus, and I guess he is right - there is nothing to explain!!!

The principle is easy - namely that of the introduction of heated compressed (accelerating) air at the base (that's the top in this case) of the visible cone. Deflecting vanes on the inner surface of the cone force this heated air to become a spiral motion that converges toward the cone's vertex (apex) - which is the bottom in this case. In doing so, the moving hot air multiplies its pressures and speed - to the point (pun intended) that the pressures and speed are so incredibly high at the bottom of the cone (bottom meaning internal apex) that anything within that moving condensing and compressing air mass within the cone is simply reduced to a fine powder, be it glass or metal or a simple rock.

Mind you - the funnel (cone) needs to be pretty robust to withstand all that pressure and grinding; but that aspect seems to have been resolved very well by the 'inventor'. You may have noticed that he introduces the objects into the funnel by throwing them INTO the vertex of the cone, and that is just as valid as introducing them at the base or top of the cone.

It does not really matter whether the air within the cone rotates clockwise or anti-clockwise, just like you can easily make the vortex in your bathtub rotate either way.
In essence, the hot compressed air introduced at the base of the cone maintains its starting rotational speed while the very geometry of the funnel augments its velocity and power. This principle can be used for so many industrial applications that it simply boggles the mind.

Even more power can be extracted from such a system if one uses opposing cones (apex to apex). With the proper gases (instead of air), like helium which is the seed of all creation, one can even achieve transmutation of one element into another, however, it would be better to use high-wattage sound so that the proper frequency can be used to better select and control the necessary pressures desired in the end result.

So, here you have it - I hope that my description of the video is adequate to get you thinking. Your comments would be very welcome!

Lancelot.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 08:09 pm
@Lancelot phil,
So, just out of curiosity, are there any individuals with more standard qualifications that have looked into russell and keely's work? How does one know that this stuff is any more or even reasonably close as far as its legitimacy to modern physics? I would very much like to see some investigations done into russell by a modern physicist.

It is true that according to modern theoretical physics, mass is given by vibrational energy through one dimentional structures called strings(string theory). So resonance makes some sense in that context, but what is supporting these theories?
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 08:43 pm
@Zetetic11235,
I think russel's speculations get the mindd churning, who cares if they're right of not in this case.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 09:03 pm
@Holiday20310401,
You are missing the point - Russell's cosmology and physics go BEYOND present-day physics, and its various lofty theories are just that - theories - whereas a reasonable understanding of Russell's physics leaves one with knowledge that can be put to the test and the Windhexe video above is a decent example, and there are others.

Frankly, I was hoping to see some meaningful responses to my explanations. Don't they merit SOME acceptance or even disagreement? Why don't my thoughts stimulate a lively and meaningful dialog here? Maybe I am in the wrong forum!

Lancelot.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 09:40 am
@Lancelot phil,
Quote:
Frankly, I was hoping to see some meaningful responses to my explanations. Don't they merit SOME acceptance or even disagreement? Why don't my thoughts stimulate a lively and meaningful dialog here? Maybe I am in the wrong forum!
Your're quite impatient:bigsmile:. First give people time to come across this forum, then give them time to read this, and then give them time to answer.

As you so vehemently asked for any thoughts about it, I will throw in my idea what's happening, and this is actually quite the other way as yours :bigsmile:.

But first I have to say, that I really never would tell anyone I understood Dr's cosmogony. So what I say, needn't have any relation to truth.

I share your ideas of the first part of your post. But I think what is built here is not the 2 cones which meet their apexes, but which bore through each other, so developing a mainly discharging condition. Where one cone is visible, and the other invisible.

Quote:
He is very secretive about the inner workings of his apparatus, and I guess he is right - there is nothing to explain!!!
Well he's not that secretive about his invention as you can download his patent right here: PAT2PDF - Free PDF copies of patents: Download and print! (Patent Nr 6971594)
And I do believe him, that he really doesn't know why exactly it works.

Quote:
to the point (pun intended) that the pressures and speed are so incredibly high at the bottom of the cone (bottom meaning internal apex) that anything within that moving condensing and compressing air mass within the cone is simply reduced to a fine powder, be it glass or metal or a simple rock.
Well exactly at this most important point, where it would be interesting why, you just say, it happens, but don't explain why. Why should this condensing compressing mass of air pulverize and dry anything, but without heating/burning it?

Quote:
Mind you - the funnel (cone) needs to be pretty robust to withstand all that pressure and grinding; but that aspect seems to have been resolved very well by the 'inventor'.
Well If you look at this from a pure conventional mechanical viewpoint: The grinding cannot happen by impact on the exterior, as the funnel could only withstand these forces for a very short time.

As we know a Tornado has a low air pressure zone in the middle. As we also know, in a Tornado charge separation is happening, positive in the middle and negative on the outside (this also Schauberger described).

Well, this is how I understand it, maybe how it could work.
In a Tornado all heavy masses will be gathered in the middle low air pressure zone. As we know, heavy masses have a high accumulated potential. The fast centrifugal action at the base of the cone forces disintegration. Therefore matter is stimulated to negative discharge in the equator plane of the cone (this is IMHO why the outer rim of the cone of a Tornado is negatively charged...).

The matter in the funnel exhales in a outward spiral and inhales from it's center. Like that the matter in the center discharges more and more. And by the way of discharge it starts to lower potential and starts to repel. Like that, the matter will be able to get more and more out of the center of the funnel, as it seeks like pressure conditions. At the same time the repellent forces of the atoms will be increased. This actually results, that the matter will become much less stable, and either tear apart by itself, or at the end will be smudged against the wall of the funnel, but as it is now much less dense, it will easily break apart and the funnel will not be much affected.

The water itself will easily "evaporate" due to the low pressure conditions, and by that I don't even mean the air pressure or the temperature, as my experiments have shown, that it is very easy to evaporate or condense water just by changing potential pressure (air pressure and temperature not altered).

At the end as the matter is still heavier than the rest, it will be able, as it is now at the outside of the cone, to go down the cone and as the potential pressure increases there, it will also start to get it's original potential back. By the time it's again in the conventional "earth" pressure it behaves the same as before. But it is now dust.

The water which has evaporated due to the low pressure condition will rise against gravity, and will come out of the upper exhaust, together with the air.

Unseen would be the cycle of the negative discharge as it again enters through the poles to charge.

Well as I said before, I have no problem if people think this is complete bs, as it probably is :bigsmile:
But you wanted to have some comments...

Addition:
Well, if I think again about it, according to my opinion there would be a lack of some points that would be needed to really make the desintegration that strong that this can happen. So I would doubt that one is able to create like that the needed pressure conditions for this idea. But anyway, I think every contribution is helpful, as it keeps the creativity alive...
And my experimental experience in such mechanical devices, like Schauberger occupied himself, are zero.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 12:31 pm
@Peace phil,
Hi, Peace!

Sorry for my impatience - you are right - one needs time to reflect and respond.
Many thanks for the detailed reply. Good stuff!
I need some time to mull this over and will contribute my thoughts in a day or so.

Lancelot.
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 12:34 pm
@Peace phil,
YouTube - Conical Motion 5 - Walter Russell
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 02:25 pm
@Peace phil,
Hi, Peace:

Thanks again for the detailed reply.

When you say that matter in a funnel exhales in an outward spiral and inhales from its center - then I am a little lost. The definition of exhaling (in an outward spiral) is a good one because it eloquently decribes the radiating, disintegrating and seemingly dying cycle that nevertheless is eventually the start of yet another birth of a generating (opposite of radiating) cycle. The video Justin posted explains this well.

What I a have trouble understanding is your expression ..."inhales from its center" because, in my mind, there really is but one force within a funnel - that of uniting with its mate and there is of course the gravity shaft (the relatively still center) that originates from the base of the funnel and projects all the way to its apex - and maybe that's what you call "center".

In my understanding, there is no such thing as "repel" or "repulse" - there is only male and female and there is a natural aversion of like polarities toward each other (seeming repulsion such as two North poles of a magnet) while there is mutual "attraction" or "affinity" when dissimilar polaries face each other as male and female.

I can understand the water evaporating due to its low pressure condition but that can only happen when the radiative condition has been reached - which is the reversal of the concentrating centripital cycle.

I wonder if you could kindly elaborate on your sentence: "Unseen would be the cycle of the negative discharge as it again enters through the poles to charge" - and possibly you are referring to the fact that there is a reversal at the point of highest compression, becoming less and less dense toward the perimeter (90 degree from the gravity shaft) but when it has reached its farthest expansion it then meets another mirror against which it reflects (actually a corner reflector) and starts generating and concentrating in a new repetitive cycle.

I'd live to see someone turn this paradigm into a self-sustaning and controllable rotating motive system, like a generator that runs on itself.

I enjoyed your comments, Peace!

Lancelot.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 03:59 am
@Lancelot phil,
Quote:
In my understanding, there is no such thing as "repel" or "repulse" - there is only male and female and there is a natural aversion of like polarities toward each other (seeming repulsion such as two North poles of a magnet) while there is mutual "attraction" or "affinity" when dissimilar polaries face each other as male and female.


Well, lets cite Dr:

Quote:

[...]that like charges repel and opposite charges attract is an inconsistent and flagrant error.
[...]
Is it not evident that a charging force moves in the opposite direction from a discharging force?
If these premises are well founded, is it not impossible for a charging force to be attracted by a discharging force?
How then did the error creep into our consciousness?
[...]
Herein follows the law which not only accords with observed facts, but is also logical.
Positive charge attracts positive charge. Negative discharge repels both negative discharge and positive charge.
[...]
In any mass, its content of centripetal force is its content of power to attract.
In any mass its content of centrifugal force is its content of power to repel.



Well sure, according to me, negative discharge and positive charge still can attract each other, if the positive charge is preponderant.
I see it also like you about the sexes. But according to how I understood it, the current charging/discharging balance must not have any relation to the sex. (E.g. females are also preponderantly charging in their youth)
From this point, I see it more like in Keely's oscillatory world. Where the phase/freq shift between the two determines the sex, so that both extensions from the zero point of stillness always add up to zero.

The rest you got approximately, how I meant it.

Quote:
I'd live to see someone turn this paradigm into a self-sustaning and controllable rotating motive system, like a generator that runs on itself.


Well, then look at Schaubergers machines. They are exactly based on these principles. (e.g. his Repulsine, or his home power plant)
But me personally, I don't experiment with these kinds of apparatus, as it would be very time and money consuming. You can't just easily change the shape of your cone or your centrifugal "plates", as everything has to be made very rigid. If you take e.g. an electric apperatus, there it is very easy to rewire a coil, and compare the effects...
And you will also recognize that these electric approaches are very efficient, as you can easily create quite strong relatively negative or positive potential pressures with almost no power needed.
Sure, as I said, I have no idea how efficient these mechanical Vortex approaches are, as I never experimented with them.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 08:29 am
@Peace phil,
Hello, Peace!

Thanks for the interesting reply!
However, you might want to re-read my reference to attraction and repulsion in the proper context and maybe I did not explain myself coherently. To further illustrate my point, allow me to quote Russell from his book "Atomic Suicide", page 84 and 86...
"... all matter is divided into mate-pairs..." and "... every particle of inorganic and organic matter in the universe is perpetually seeking unity with its balanced mate. There is no exception to this fact in all of Creation. Sodium seeks balanced unity in chlorine. It does not seek it in aluminum, phosphorus or silicon..." "...Why don't we discard the old text-book idea of two kinds of electricity, one which repels and the other which attracts, as being the basis of matter and motion?..." "...The Coulomb law of attraction of opposites and repulsion of likes has no relation whatsoever to Natural Law. Nature does not attract, nor does it repel. Pairs of opposites in Nature are projected [by desire?] centripitally toward each other by the light of mirrors of wavefield projectors [corner reflectors/projectors] of light images..."

So, maybe we should not elaborate further on these two terms. I know you understand where I am coming from and any divergence of opinions are probably only semantic misunderstandings.

Since you lean towards an electrical exploitation of Russell's concepts, I wonder whether you have explored Herb Wachspress' levitator. It is a direct application of of Dr. Russell's cube wavefield best described in Dr. Binder's book "In the Wave lies the Secret of Creation", page 85. Essentially it is a set of 6 cones, arranged with their bases along the 6 faces of a cube [static wavefield] while the vertices all point to one common center. Wachspress states that, if the cones are wound longitudinally and not circumferentially as in a common solenoid, the power is vastly augmented while power consumption drops dramatically. He was able to levitate the 6-cone cube at will around the room while contolling the 3 axes with a joystick. That goes back quite a few years. He put in a phenomenal amount of work, even with NASA, and got nowhere with them. In his website he tried to interest investors to pick up $1 million dollar/pound moon dust, apparently the ideal industrial lubricant. I wonder whether he ever got anyone seriously interested.

When one looks at Wachspress' patent, one cannot help but think that this is possibly an ideal application of Dr. Dussell's concepts, especially since the latter also advocates such work in his home study course (Fig 34 of Lesson 10).

This is a fascinating area of investigation - and one has to applaude Wachspress for even looking in that direction.

Your comments would be very welcome.

Lancelot.
 
Peace phil
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 09:50 am
@Lancelot phil,
LOL, I think the problem here, as it is quite often with Dr's teaching is at what level of abstraction you're looking at it. I personally have quite some problems with these, as Dr mixes explanations on the different abstraction levels, and this doesn't make it easier to understand.

If you look from top level, you would say, matter doesn't even exist. If you go a little down, you come to where single corpuscles exist (cube fields), but never ever move (outside of the cube), they just project. If you further go down, then you actually see particles moving, ...
But as I think from a practical approach, it quite difficult to say which level of abstraction (which just means, getting more and more in the complex effects world of the one cause) is best usable. In my current approaches, I mainly focused on the lower level abstractions, which are nearer to our "reality".

Therefore IMHO, this attraction repellent forces Dr is talking is in relation to our "reality". And not to a higher abstraction level, where no motion exists at all. But IMHO to get a working device here, you also need to explain this "reality", as you can "see" (although it's an illusion) that things get attracted and repelled, and this is what Dr explains in long e.g. in The Universal One.

BTW: This is also one concept I couldn't really grasp until now, how exactly this should work, that nothing every moves, but still is able to create this world of seemingly moving reality. I would really be grateful, if anyone could explain this to me (and if possible not in Dr's words, as I couldn't understand it there either:bigsmile:)
Best would be, if somebody could explain to me, what's really happening, when I walk 1 meter in one direction, and why I didn't really move at all.

Another thing, I'm currently having problems to get is the fractal behaviour of the cube wavefields. First you have the little wavefield which e.g. create an atom. But e.g. our stellar system is one big wavefield, but in itself made of a lot of smaller wavefields (atoms). And this big stellar wavefield also has its boundary planes, .... So how exactly does this go together with the wavefield boundaries of the smaller units???
(Well, actually I joined this forum in the hope, someone here could explain these points to me.)
 
zeroone
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 02:35 am
@Peace phil,
Peace wrote:


Another thing, I'm currently having problems to get is the fractal behaviour of the cube wavefields. First you have the little wavefield which e.g. create an atom. But e.g. our stellar system is one big wavefield, but in itself made of a lot of smaller wavefields (atoms). And this big stellar wavefield also has its boundary planes, .... So how exactly does this go together with the wavefield boundaries of the smaller units???
(Well, actually I joined this forum in the hope, someone here could explain these points to me.)


I think the answer lies in ... You'd better look for yourself - The Resonance Project :: Products and look at the Crossing the event horizont trailer.:cool:

Hope this will help. (tell me please)
ZeroOne
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 09:51 am
@Lancelot phil,
Lancelot wrote:
You are missing the point - Russell's cosmology and physics go BEYOND present-day physics, and its various lofty theories are just that - theories - whereas a reasonable understanding of Russell's physics leaves one with knowledge that can be put to the test and the Windhexe video above is a decent example, and there are others.

Frankly, I was hoping to see some meaningful responses to my explanations. Don't they merit SOME acceptance or even disagreement? Why don't my thoughts stimulate a lively and meaningful dialog here? Maybe I am in the wrong forum!

Lancelot.


Smile

Before 1905 and Einstein's Relativity, vortex physics was in the running, but with Relativity came some mathematics that many could deal with as opposed to Vortex Theory and almost everyone moved over to the new theory. Vortex Theory has never entirely gone away but those who have taken the trouble to master tensor algebra and now statistical mechanics are too heavily invested to spare some time for alternatives.
 
Lancelot phil
 
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2008 12:15 pm
@zeroone,
Hi, Zeroone:

Thanks for contributing!
I took a good look around - and, depite my best efforts and intentions, I get more and more frustrated at the way the illustrious scientists in the "Resonance Project" website you quoted above are twisting and turning their "theories" to somehow conform to each other and their beloved science - while everything the say and quote is always just THEORIES - I have my belley full of theories by now and I maintain - unless you can help me visualize truth and help me APPLY it to a common-day challenge - and unless you can put all this into simple and easy-to-understand verbology, then I refuse to be confused by 'scientific facts' that are neither based on natural truth nor stand up under scrutiny. I know that I am uttering motherhood statements here; but how often have you seen these lofty scientific theories crumble to dust when confronted with more modern and updated facts that come closer to the ultimate truth that really should be 'out there' for all of us to see. Nature knows no formulas or theorems - Nature only knows her own immutable laws whether this be cosmology or health.

After more than an hour of sincere and earnest scrutiny, I hightailed out of that site - and I don't think I will return. Their ramblings are infinitely worse (to me) than Dr. Russell's best-intentioned and worst-expressed explanations. He spent a lifetime trying to translate into layman's language what he already knew intuitively. His semantics don't always resonate as scientific facts but more often than not they do as natural truth - and that will ultimately not only survive scientific scrutiny but will also lead us closer to full comprehension of the immutable underlying truth.

I don't necessarily embrace Russell's concept of a male God but I do have a healthy respect for a larger-than-life entity "out there" that equates to a certain presence "within us all" and it would be HER thought process, HER imaginings and HER thinking that perpetuate the universes (plural). In all seriousness - this entity called GOD cannot possibly be either male or female - that's an aspect of ITS thinking, translated into ITS CREATION.

I really don't have any problems with macroscopic and microscopic creation being totally in harmony, based on idential natural laws - and I don't mean the incredibly naive concept of the Rutherford-Bohr notion of planetary-like electrons spinning around a common nuclus (gasp) - but I do have a problem with grasping the notion (of Russell's) that the 'Creator' extends power to only one half of his creation cycle (and I have looked in vain for the written reference of that statement in Russell's books). In the various illustration in Russell's books I can clearly see the matter and anti-matter cycles, and the underlying mechanisms, but there is total absence of anything originating from, or propagating into, that elusive second (other) cycle of creation. Or is this part of other dimensions? I don't know. The Vedas clearly state that WE ARE ALL ONE - there is no separation of anything from anything else in all of nature - and what happens here, happens all over the universe - instantly - and permanently - nother is ever destroyed or dies. So, we may well be "connected" in all respects - maybe not visually but certainly conceptually and on other elevels - maybe harmonically.

When one looks at Russell's wave cycle, then one sees a fine spiral wave and energy progression that is very much like the DNA chain but if, as I mentioned above, we are all connected, then the propagation, the expansion and harmonic extension of any action, thought or deed must also extend in a direction 90 degrees to that of the wave shaft. Or is thinking only linear and not spatial? That would negate the Vedas and limit God to linear expressions - clearly a wrong and futile notion.

So, like member Peace's frustration, mine is not getting any better either and no "Resonance Project" can help shed more light into this dark tunnel of comprehension.

Sometimes I wish I had the illuminative quality of Russell's intuitive knowing but he too had his share of frustration trying to put into layman's words what he knew to be the truth.

Thanks for listening!

Lancelot.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Walter Russell
  3. » Rhythmic Balanced Interchange = Sympathetic Vibratory Physics
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 12:05:48