Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Walter Russell, Im so sorry....................

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by purelyconstructive
    Is there any particular aspect of Walter & Lao's work you wanted to focus on, or should we just pick up from the point we left off?
    If it is up to me...
    Could you answer 2 questions first? (and then continue from where you left off)
    - in the second last image you see 4 rings being compressed into a hemisphere. As I imagine it; +1 has one big ring, getting compressed the density increases, more "matter" in less space, thus +2 has 2 medium rings and +3 has 3 small rings. Then in the +4 state this becomes a hemisphere. This part sounds more or less logical to me, but why are there 4 rings in 0? Or perhaps I should ask: What is the precise meaning of these rings?

    - in the last image you assign an imaginary dimension to the horizontal axis, while if you take it back to the initial cubic lattice it is a real dimension just as the vertical. Is this just a mathematical trick to make it easier to describe or is there any deeper meaning in it?

    Ernst.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by purelyconstructive
      It is only "creationist" in the sense that this reality being extended from The ONE can be considered a creative act.

      In all seriousness though, my apologies if it came off as if I was trying to force my opinions on you.

      . So while they may use a smattering of Christian terminology here and there

      There as much a "smattering" of Creationism and God (not merely symbolically) in Russells works as there is a "smattering" of calories in a Lard & Sugar factory.


      No, you didnt come off as trying to "force" anything.

      Russell in no uncertain terms speaks of God in specific, and not symbolically.




      Russells "doubly charged sphere"
      (likely due to ineptitude on his part and a complete and 100% total lack of ANY education [which isnt all that bad, since educations are mostly brainwashing, however he still is inept in his lexicon and verbiages] ) would confuse MOST people, he means Absolute or True inertia

      True Ether potential without any actualization. The who verbiage of "doubly charged sphere" is just absurd, sillyass, and most people would never made a damn thing out of such verbiage on his part.


      Russell has lots of crazyass sayings as this. I know what he means, but its just a total Screwup in Royal-Blue.



      Originally posted by purelyconstructive
      While I can't speak for Walter and Lao,
      I agree. U Probably cant.

      but then, nobody can but them, and only their works remain.



      but THEN you SAY:

      Originally posted by purelyconstructive
      Originally Posted by Walter & Lao Russell
      ,


      I didnt know they posted anything on this board.
      Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 10-03-2014, 12:43 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by purelyconstructive
        Well, that is true and is definitely very important to keep in mind...The terminology might confuse many people for many reasons...

        *The coining of new terms; a particular set of jargon associated with it.
        *Using the same word in multiple senses, some even seemingly dichotomous with one another.
        *Redefining already existing scientific terminology to suit their needs and/or using it in a very creative way.
        *Radically evolving expression of concepts; significant changes between prior and subsequent works.
        etc.



        Yeah, I have a tendency to use the quote function in a very general way. I should have put the reference...in this case, pg. 229 of Atomic Suicide?.


        Im on Russells side at least by 75 or 80%.


        and thats 50% more than anyone else will ever get except for Dr. AK Coomaraswamy.



        However, running into a foaming mouth rabid lunatic (a few of them) Russell follower (not you) , ...........they concluded that 20% rejection was just shy of Satanic heresy.



        I actually despise conspiracy theories to be sure, but the more cross comparison I do of Russells works, the more and more sure I am that he didnt actually write the UNIVERSAL ONE himself at all.


        His LATER works are generally PURE CRAP,

        and his EARLY work, THE UNIVERSAL ONE, contains about 80% of his "good stuff"



        ALL other humans on earth, their EARLY WORKS ARE CRAP, and they get better, .... Russell is the INVERSE of this sacred 'law'



        Also, lots of stuff IN the Universal One are NOWHERE discussed in his later works.




        20 years AFTER
        writing the Universal One, he writes "Secret of Light"


        generally a CRAP work.


        and his BIG "last" horrah, "A New Concept of the Universe,".........its well, its generally CRAP.


        No authors do this. You get 20 years MORE under your belt, and write a FAR FAR inferior pile of writings like Russell did?

        Nobody does this, nobody.





        The Universal One, 1926
        The Russell Genero-Radiative Concept or The Cyclic Theory of Continuous Motion, L. Middleditch Co., 1930
        The Secret of Light, 1st ed., 1947, 3rd ed., Univ of Science & Philosophy, 1994, ISBN 1-879605-44-9
        The Message of the Divine Iliad, vol. 1, 1948, vol. 2, 1949
        The Book of Early Whisperings, 1949
        The Home Study Course, (in cooperation with Lao Russell), 1st ed., 195052
        Scientific Answer to Human Relations, (in cooperation with Lao Russell), Univ of Science & Philosophy, 1951
        A New Concept of the Universe, Univ of Science & Philosophy, 1953
        Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 10-03-2014, 02:10 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          @TA
          However this means NOTHING.
          waves OF WHAT
          fields OF WHAT

          saying wave is no different than saying HOT, HAPPY, IGNORANT, etc.
          wave and field is an empirical qualifier, an attribute said of the QUALITY or attribute of another Principle, a noun, a thing.

          The very qualifying term WAVE means absolutely and utterly NOTHING.
          If however I said "waves of water which are composed of H20 which....etc etc"
          This is where DESCRIPTIONS diverge from EXPLANATIONS.
          Descriptions are the 'realm of the pathetic and inept, the ignorant'.
          Explanations however........
          You know it is a peculiar thing that so few people reach this point you have just touched on. They speak of aether and waves and fields however the context in which they use the terms has no real meaning because they are never defined in any way. It is as if they have drawn a line in the sand in terms of their understanding and perception which for some strange reason they are unwilling to cross.

          I have read some of Russell's work with all the pretty pictures however it is lacking in any real substance in my opinion. It is as always the skin of an onion with all of the most fundamental layers hidden from view as is most everything I have read. So I would have to agree that the descriptions so many use are basically meaningless once one understands what may be happening on the most fundamental level.

          Cymatics is a good example of the illusions of substance we have created in our minds ie. Russell. Take a flat plate then throw on some sand and start vibrating the plate and you may witness our pseudo-universe in action. The creation of space and substance, of magical lines of force and aetherial vorticies...but it's just sand and a little vibration. So when I hear people speak of fields and waves and spins and charges, of magnetism and dielectric planes I have to scratch my head. As if a person might say oh look see that pattern in the sand over there that's magnetism and that pattern there is charge, see the field pattern and how the force acts at ninety degree's, see the spin. They might see all of these things without ever knowing exactly what it is they are seeing, I'm not sure I even understand what it is they think they are seeing any more, I know I used to see what they think they see but that seems like a very long time ago.

          The question I think everyone should ask is what if at the most fundamental level our universe was stupid simple?. I have seen the big picture momentarily every now and then in my happy place and it appears to be stupid simple it's just that it's very large. It is however fleeting in it's nature and my mind wants to revert to it's old bad habits... that magnetic electric field wave nonsense. You see once we have seen what we call the primary fields, inertia, matter, space etc.. for what they really are then how we percieve them and the context in which we use the terms seems to make no sense at all.

          It's no wonder Russell, Tesla, Schauberger etc.. used such abstract terminology and raises the question how do we explain something without meaningful terms to fully explain it?. I'm still thinking on that one.

          AC
          Last edited by Allcanadian; 10-04-2014, 06:43 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Allcanadian View Post
            @TA


            You know it is a peculiar thing that so few people reach this point you have just touched on. They speak of aether and waves and fields however the context in which they use the terms has no real meaning because they are never defined in any way. It is as if they have drawn a line in the sand in terms of their understanding and perception which for some strange reason they are unwilling cross.
            AC



            There is gold in the golden lion, but NO lion in the GOLD.


            Ether modalities are of 4 diff. natures, but its all still one Principle differentiated by its attributional qualifiers etc.


            But that I have said Russell failed on many fronts, I would be remiss and a dirty SOB &#*($ to wag my finger at Russell who laid down "half the road to Rome" as it were for many other peoples.
            half or better is more than enough for most people with a brain to make the rest of the way.


            I certainly wont BitC-H at Russell for passing out free ice cream and then call him a putz for forgetting the nuts, sprinkles and chocolate on top.

            I know people like that and I wont be one myself.



            I can only think of one person in the past 2000 years that actually got it all right, that being Plotinus.

            Considering Russell had a wife and he was dabbling in lots of things and carving statues, he did damn well and I wont really fault him. Id be an ass.

            He did the best with what he knew and had, and he did a damn good job, despite what is lacking.






            Besides, who can despise a guy that can carve marble like this?




            Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 10-03-2014, 06:47 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by purelyconstructive
              @TheoriaApophasis

              That "ice cream" comment had me rolling. You also make me want to read Plotinus.


              I cant believe what I found today, and that nobody else found it before.


              Im more convinced than ever that Russell never wrote his main work Universal One

              I cant stand conspiracy BS, but it seems this one might very well be true.

              I knew a person like Russell never could have composed such a work.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by purelyconstructive
                Sounds intriguing! What did you find?

                ...And thank you so much for the book on the Aoristos. It is very thought provoking! In general, I find Plotinus' words quite humbling and I enjoy your interpretations.
                ill hold my tongue for a while on what I found until I find a bit more information.

                I pretty much always felt for certain that Russell never wrote his main work.


                ALso it made NO sense that his LATER works were so inferior to his first book.


                No author has ever done this when it comes to technical fields.



                By the way, have you SEEN or READ Russells first 3 books?

                Theyre childrens books , literally they are on the order of "See spot run, see dick and jane chase down the road"

                ...literally that.

                The Sea Children, 1901
                The Bending of the Twig, 1903
                The Age of Innocence, 1904




                Translating Plotinus is tough stuff, of the 4 who tried, 2 tried to commit suicide, its that hard.


                1. ancient greek
                2. ancient greek with heavy metaphor
                3. ancient greek philosophical shorthand
                4. cryptic ancient greek.

                its literally a colossal mind screw to dare attempt to translate a PAGE of it, much less 100s.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by purelyconstructive
                  So while it doesn't seem like such a stretch to me for him to be an author of both The Universal One and the books that came later, I'm very interested in what you have to say
                  NEITHER one of those things happened.

                  He didnt correct any mistakes in his work New Concept Universe, in FACT it goes BACKWARDS
                  His later books are horrible, and contain NO mentions of key concepts he stresses so much in the Universal One

                  There is NO mention of Inertia in later books and about 12 other KEY points.
                  (digital searches of words).


                  I dont doubt he did write the later works, theyre INEPT and show it.
                  The later works are the OPPOSITE of correcting any early mistakes.

                  the later works are horrible, contain LOTS of mistakes, and are MISSING ANY mention of key topics....

                  but that isnt the 'important' thing I found, .....I wont mention it until I have more proof.
                  Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 10-09-2014, 02:09 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Apophasis, whats up with you reviewing A new concept of the universe as great on amazon and trashing it here?

                    "Good stuff is NOT popular! This book is a top 10 "must own at all costs" and yet finding a hard copy of it (or softcover) is impossible.

                    Laughingly, someone should be horsewhipped for not reprinting this book a million million times and selling it cheaply."


                    (T.A.'s review from 7 months ago.)

                    My guess is, you just changed your mind. I've seen you do that before with reviews (I like to read all your stuff, even reviews). If you want, I can attest here what other review you changed your mind about, in a quick span of time, and then deleted the discordant review. And also in which review you recently give a point of view which you would shun nowadays.

                    That just means I'm interested in your ideas.
                    Last edited by allaxul; 02-06-2015, 03:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by allaxul View Post
                      Apophasis, whats up with you reviewing A new concept of the universe as great on amazon and trashing it here?

                      "Good stuff is NOT popular! This book is a top 10 "must own at all costs" and yet finding a hard copy of it (or softcover) is impossible.

                      Laughingly, someone should be horsewhipped for not reprinting this book a million million times and selling it cheaply."


                      (T.A.'s review from 7 months ago.)

                      My guess is, you just changed your mind. I've seen you do that before with reviews (I like to read all your stuff, even reviews). If you want, I can attest here what other review you changed your mind about, in a quick span of time, and then deleted the discordant review. And also in which review you recently give a point of view which you would shun nowadays.

                      That just means I'm interested in your ideas.


                      It is a great book, you have no idea what I said in this posting / thread here.


                      however Russell gets a lot wrong



                      I said Russells hardcore followers are insane (many of them, VERY insane).


                      Likewise there are numberless things Russell gets wrong, .....but I will not fault him for the 60% or more he gets RIGHT


                      as said, thats about 50% MORE than most people.
                      Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 02-06-2015, 09:07 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "He didnt correct any mistakes in his work New Concept Universe, in FACT it goes BACKWARDS
                        His later books are horrible, and contain NO mentions of key concepts he stresses so much in the Universal One"


                        So what later books are they? Atomic Suicide and A New Concept... sem pretty good.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          what later books? ALL books of his.



                          Ive got a running list of about 20 things he horribly messes up, not to mention he never EVER explains what a FIELD is

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            TEST:

                            keep getting error::


                            Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 33554432 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 25428081 bytes) in /home/esmforum/public_html/dbtech/dbseo/includes/class_core.php on line 4436

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              All books of his WHAT? You said after the universal one the books started going bad, and you said that in A New Concept... He got stuff wrong instead of improving. I think there is a misunderstanding.

                              I hink atomic suicide is good, as alao a new concept...

                              And why do you say he made a different kind of atomism?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by allaxul View Post
                                All books of his WHAT? You said after the universal one the books started going bad, and you said that in A New Concept... He got stuff wrong instead of improving. I think there is a misunderstanding.

                                I hink atomic suicide is good, as alao a new concept...

                                And why do you say he made a different kind of atomism?


                                Communication error on your part, lets make it really really simple, ok.


                                His book Universal One is about 60% accurate (which is HIGH praise).


                                He makes ENORMOUS errors, .....and a lot of them, to wit he never defines a field,.... and other unforgivable "sins"


                                He never defines the agencyship of the Ether. NEVER, which is necessary to have IAAD (instant action at a distance)

                                LIKEWISE, he confuses electric with dielectric

                                on and on and on.....




                                His other books while interesting, are mostly worthless.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X