Energetic Forum

Energetic Forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/)
-   Renewable Energy (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/)
-   -   Walter Russell, Im so sorry.................... (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19737-walter-russell-im-so-sorry.html)

TheoriaApophasis 09-07-2014 02:24 AM

Walter Russell, Im so sorry....................
 
................so sorry that MOST of your hardcore followers are INSANE.

Well, after about 20+ encounters with these moonbats, Ive had it with their insanity. :thumbsup: :D


Lets get honest, Walter Russell is right on about 75% or so of what he says (OTHER than his religious twaddle). [no offense, or at least not much].

Running across these people is like running into the Taliban of cultist "strange-ness"
Science and religion dont mix , physics/science and METAphysics DO mix.

Walter Russell, bless his little heart, ....dropping out of school at the at the AGE OF 9,....that wasnt the wisest choice.
Considering MOST "experts" dont even get 30% of the "big picture" right, and Russell getting 75 or 80% right is HIGH PRAISE in my book........


however Russell suffered many very serious mental 'defects'

1. he denied the Ether
2. he had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER what electricity was from dielectricity / electrostatics.
3. Some of his conclusions are outright mind bendingly absurd.
4. Ultimately Russell replaced the Ether and logical Platonic Emanationism (uttelry opposite BOTH nihilistic atomism AND "old guy in the sky" Creationism) with just ANOTHER form of materialistic atomism.

After running across yet another one of his "all or nothing Russell all the way" insane followers is about all I can stand. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
....these people are moonbats.

Its like running into Einstein cultists "what?!!! How dare you say Einstein was wrong........"

Yes, demented lunatics can turn scientific persons into CULT figureheads.
Its just a wee bit too sick for my blood.

I seen this form of trash out of Einstein followers
Ricky Feymann cult followers

and ESPECIALLY Walter Russell koolaid drinkers.

Heck, I support 75% or so of what Russell said.......but when it comes to the "true believer" moonbats, that 25% is heresy
here, folks, is where religious nonsense meets logic and flushes wisdom and common sense down the toilet.

You would think MYSELF, digitizing Russells works, and spreading them out LIKE CRAZY to everyone would be enough. :rofl: :rofl: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Noooooooo, you have to drink the Koolaide and accept the insane ILLOGICAL trash Russell espoused that is absolutely unwise, untrue and PURE 100% nonsense.



Blind devotion, like any religion, is just a mild form of insanity. :rolleyes:

As an ancient philosopher once said "I will praise him where he is right, but I will not praise him where he is wrong"

This absolutist Deification of Russell as someone who wrote and said NO WRONG is

1. pathetic
2. absurd
3. laughable
4. insane
5. Cult-ish
6. blind religious dogmatism.

Wally Russell was FAR from infallible in his conclusions. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

After running across the "Walter Russell Taliban" cult followers ONE TOO MANY TIMES is about enough. :D



All this moonbat trash reminds me of this comedy bit....100% JUST LIKE IT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmeqSzvIFs


beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here :rofl:
:beamup:

Dingus 09-07-2014 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis (Post 263774)
4. Ultimately Russell replaced the Ether and logical Platonic Emanationism (uttelry opposite BOTH nihilistic atomism AND "old guy in the sky" Creationism) with just ANOTHER form of materialistic atomism.

I don't see what's wrong with nihilistic materialistic atomism.

ldrancer 09-07-2014 12:57 PM

taliban isnt a cult. its a government cia op. but hey. sun worship, is also a cult.

TheoriaApophasis 09-07-2014 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingus (Post 263783)
I don't see what's wrong with nihilistic materialistic atomism.


:rofl:



I dont know whats wrong with arsenic either, its good sprinkled on toast.

TheoriaApophasis 09-07-2014 02:26 PM

I thought Id add this to my book:

I must give remission to quoting Walter Russell and frame him properly lest there is a misunderstanding as I have noticed from prior editions of this work and its reaction from Russell cultists, while he was roughly 75% accurate in his position, his 30% or so of inaccuracy is stunningly demented, namely his rejection of the Ether and his incapacity to differentiate electricity from dielectricity among many intellectual conclusions and failure Russell committed; dropping out of school at the age of 9 (essentially utterly education whatsoever) did him harm ultimately. His dogmatic cult-like followers have deified Russell to a cult figurehead and they are rather an insane and rabid lot of moonbats. As an ancient philosopher once said “I will give him great praise for his accuracies, but I will not do so on his failures.” Blind dogmatic “all or nothing” devotion to the ‘deified dead’ as regards Russell or anyone is the realm of cultish maneuvers which cannot be intelligent or logically supported. Such rabid insanity can be seen of followers of Russell, Einstein, Feynman and a few others. The difference being of course that Russell was roughly 80% correct, whereas Einstein and Feynman were 80% wrong.


Stunningly important is the fact that Walter Russell never and at no time defines, or attempts to even broach the topic of what a FIELD is. Having digitized his works and making quick work of a word search of ‘FIELD’ will reveal absolutely nothing whatsoever in his three main works. As I have taught many people, you can tell more about what someone doesn’t say than what they do say. Absence is as strong or stronger than presence. Any incapacity to define the term FIELD an utter incompetence and abysmal failure of the absolute highest magnitude. Everything is fields, absolutely everything; as such an absolute failure to broach the topic is a monumental failure that must be pointed out.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ernst 09-08-2014 02:12 AM

You want to add that, then you should certainly do so! It is your book isn't it?

Just,... perhaps... well... look here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TA
... he was roughly 75% accurate in his position, his 30% or so of inaccuracy ...

accurate and inaccurate are mutually exclusive. What is accurate can not be inaccurate and vice versa. Yet Walter was (about) 75% accurate and (about) 30% inaccurate, you say. That adds up as 105% ? Was he more than 100%? If so, we should all join his cult!


Quote:

Originally Posted by TA
The difference being of course that Russell was roughly 80% correct

So he was 75% accurate and 80% correct, so 5% of his inaccuracies are still correct.

No offence, but, did you finish primary school, TA?

Ernst.

TheoriaApophasis 09-08-2014 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 263823)
No offence, but, did you finish primary school, TA?
Ernst.



Hence the word "roughly" 70-80 accurate

roughly 20-25% inaccurate.



I dont do sophistry. 6 years college, and 7 foreign languages.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 263823)
accurate and inaccurate are mutually exclusive.
Ernst.


Absolutist fallacy
. Try again.

One might be right about some things and utterly wrong about others.

What one is accurate about has no exclusivity either mutually or otherwise as pertains what one is INaccurate about or pertaining to.




I suggest a course in logic for you. :rofl:



Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 263823)
What is accurate can not be inaccurate and vice versa.
Ernst.


As pertains his position, a "position" is not a singular entity by a spectrum of views and conclusions.
As such he is both accurate on points, and utterly inaccurate on others.

Again, I suggest a course in logic that you might grasp simplex deductions.

Your position is untenable. ;)



( its cannot, not 'can not' )

Ernst 09-08-2014 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis (Post 263825)
Hence the word "roughly" 70-80 accurate
roughly 20-25% inaccurate.

:D :D :rofl:
Shall I say it?
Nah!
I will leave it there

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis (Post 263825)
I dont do sophistry. 6 years college, and 7 foreign languages.

No it is:
You don't do sophistry, 6 years college, nor 7 foreign languages. Among others as math and logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis (Post 263825)
One might be right about some things and utterly wrong about others.
...
As pertains his position, a "position" is not a singular entity by a spectrum of views and conclusions.

Of course otherwise it would even be impossible to be partly right (as in x%) and partly wrong (as in 100-x-y%)
You can be neither wrong or right on some point, hence the -y%.
But the wrong points can not be right, or vice versa....

Ah, what am I doing here? Trying to explain the obvious while you are trying to wriggle your way out of your obvious mistakes.
I'm going to do something more useful!

:cheers:
Ernst.

TheoriaApophasis 09-08-2014 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 263831)
:D :D :rofl:
Ah, what am I doing here? Trying to explain the obvious
Ernst.


you explained nothing. Youve made some obtuse and sophistic statements of pure logomachy :rolleyes:




Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 263831)
:D :D :rofl:
You can be neither wrong or right on some point
Ernst.



Strawman fallacy, I never said he was both right and/or on wrong only as per ANY (single) POINT

Only as pertains the full spectrum of his POSITION, which is multifold, as is anyone's on a broad topic and its explanation.

Youve been caught twice already in insidious errors of egregious breaches in logic and fallacies.


I stated earlier "As such he is both accurate on points, and utterly inaccurate on others. "


"Points" being plural. All points of which comprise a POSITION, which is a spectrum of collected POINTS, ...within which some are accurate, others inaccurate.



Insert 25 cents and try again, this time without the transparent fallacies and sophistry.


Your attempt to reconcile your errors has both failed and even reversed progress. :D

Dingus 09-08-2014 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis (Post 263789)
I don't know whats wrong with arsenic either, its good sprinkled on toast.

You must be confused by all that arsenic you've been consuming. I was talking about materialism. I wonder if the arsenic poisoning has also been linked to over-use of emoticons, line-breaks & rambling.

TheoriaApophasis 09-08-2014 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingus (Post 263840)
You must be confused by all that arsenic you've been consuming. I was talking about materialism. I wonder if the arsenic poisoning has also been linked to over-use of emoticons, line-breaks & rambling.



If you dont know what is wrong with materialism , in absolute, then all hope is lost.


As for emoticons, I love to laugh. :D

Dingus 09-17-2014 06:46 AM

Well, to the best of my knowledge every thing can be explained as being either made of matter or as the result of the movement of matter. How can you have a wave or a vortex without matter? It's like the nebulous explanation of a "field" you always get so riled up about.

I don't know much about Walter Russell, but I agree with him that the known periodic elements could be arranged on a diagram in a far better order than the current periodic table. When done properly it should accurately predict the properties of matter not present on the periodic table possibly including sub-hydrogen matter. And I don't really think there'd be a true beginning or end to the periodic table. As far as I'm concerned, it's turtles all the way down.

TheoriaApophasis 09-17-2014 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingus (Post 264249)
Well, to the best of my knowledge every thing can be explained as being either made of matter or as the result of the movement of matter. How can you have a wave or a vortex without matter? It's like the nebulous explanation of a "field" you always get so riled up about.



In the chain of things, as per an analogy, matter/mass are flies around the horse dung.


You have several steps before getting to matter, namely the dung, then the horse, then the "feed" (as it were).


A wave is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
A vortex is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
A field is qualifier and means nothing in itself.


wave of what
vortex of what
field of what. :D

MasterBlaster 09-17-2014 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernst (Post 263823)
You want to add that, then you should certainly do so! It is your book isn't it?

Just,... perhaps... well... look here:


accurate and inaccurate are mutually exclusive. What is accurate can not be inaccurate and vice versa. Yet Walter was (about) 75% accurate and (about) 30% inaccurate, you say. That adds up as 105% ? Was he more than 100%? If so, we should all join his cult!




So he was 75% accurate and 80% correct, so 5% of his inaccuracies are still correct.


Ernst, I am 100 and 10% behind you on this one!

Dingus 09-17-2014 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis (Post 264254)
In the chain of things, as per an analogy, matter/mass are flies around the horse dung.


You have several steps before getting to matter, namely the dung, then the horse, then the "feed" (as it were).


A wave is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
A vortex is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
A field is qualifier and means nothing in itself.


wave of what
vortex of what
field of what. :D

I have no idea what you're on about.

TheoriaApophasis 09-17-2014 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingus (Post 264260)
I have no idea what you're on about.


apparently not.


saying WAVES, means nothing. Waves of pixie dust, waves of water? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
When I called out one of Russells cult followers that Russell made enormous errors


namely never explaining what a field was, this person spit blood and fumed at the mouth like a mad dog. :D :D :D
He said 'sure he did, he talks about wave-fields' !!!!

Actually of course, that is untrue, he uses a the term wave-field 32 times (i have a digital search engine).

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........

Dingus 09-17-2014 10:07 PM

Could you just explain the horse dung analogy. The rest of the stuff you said I already said, only in fewer words (and line-breaks, and emoticons, and changes in font)

TheoriaApophasis 09-17-2014 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dingus (Post 264283)
Could you just explain the horse dung analogy. The rest of the stuff you said I already said, only in fewer words (and line-breaks, and emoticons, and changes in font)


Well, the one thing I agree with Russell on is he said he grasped so much by ignoring phenomena


basically all the BS minutia. Ive always worked off the same premise.



The horse poo analogy was meant to be a point about people who study phenomena is like being a Scatologist.


Im only interested in the horse (Fields, WHAT they are, WHY they are etc etc etc etc etc ).


Too many people are poking their fingers in the POO (phenomena) :rofl:

Dingus 09-18-2014 06:09 AM

Oh, I thought it was something pertaining to what I said about matter.

wayne.ct 09-22-2014 02:33 AM

Star Trek (original series)
 
This thread reminded me of the episode where the two immortal antagonists disturb the universe and Kirk "tickles" them with his little nuclear device!

TheoriaApophasis 09-22-2014 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wayne.ct (Post 264463)
This thread reminded me of the episode where the two immortal antagonists disturb the universe and Kirk "tickles" them with his little nuclear device!


Walter Russell was turned into a CULT HEAD


His hardcore followers are just in another type of religion.



The fact that I support 80% of what Russell said doesnt matter to them. :rofl:


That 20% is religious heresy to his moonbat followers :rofl:




Here be how cults are created. Consider Russell really DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL AT ALL (a plus really, he didnt get brainwashed) its amazing what he came up with.


Wisdom and insight cannot be taught.

TheoriaApophasis 10-01-2014 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purelyconstructive (Post 265088)
Let's take a look at only one "wave-field"


wave of WHAT

field of WHAT



wave and field are QUALIFIERS, are descriptive of a SUBJECT to which Russell had no idea about NOR tries to explain.




Ive already stated that Russell is about 80% right, thats about as high as it can go for anyone.


Russell has countless errors in his work, some are just horrible, but its no reason to dismiss the BULK of his work.



Likewise Russel NEVER and at NO time differentiates electricity from DIELECTRIC(ity). Which is a titanic error and wholly unforgivable.






Russells rejection of the Ether and his TOTAL LACK of describing what a FIELD is ,............

its just as bad as being a car expert without ever having seen or described what an ENGINE is.


BroMikey 10-01-2014 01:32 AM

Now that is good stuff
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by purelyconstructive (Post 265088)
A note to Ken and anyone who may read this post:

The following is merely some ideas for your consideration, not a plea for your belief. You are probably already familiar with much of it in some way. Please have patience for me. This personality is continuously learning, and needs to familiarize itself more with your work, Eric's work, Walter and Lao's work, Tesla's work, Boscovich's work, Pythagoreanism, Electrical Theory, etc. So as over-complicated or fragmentary as it may seem, I merely desire to be a humble servant of The ONE...

<><><>

The way in which words are defined (and thus interpreted) is always dependent upon context. Rather than thinking in terms of judging another's words as either "right" or "wrong", I find it more efficient to ask myself "what concepts are they trying to convey?". With an understanding of each other's points of view, people may more effectively communicate. I feel that the purpose of communication is to share what has been useful to you with the sincere hope that others may derive constructive use from it as well.

For example, the term "space" is usually interpreted in two different senses:

1) In the sense of the "space" between two things (i.e.: the distance separating them). This is what you might refer to as "counterspace". Eric uses the measurement of centimeters taken to negative powers to describe this situation.

2) In the sense of how much "space" a thing takes up (i.e.: its internal volume). This is what you might refer to as just "space". Eric uses the measurement of centimeters taken to positive powers to describe this situation.

However, both of these are aspects of what Eric might refer to as "the single dimension of Space". Care must be taken so that "Space" in this general sense, is not confused or conflated with definition #2 above. Usually, the concept of "dimension" within mathematics is seen as synonymous with definition #2, how many "coordinates" or "degrees of freedom" a system has. Hence, there is sometimes talk of there being "3 or more dimensions of space" (what Eric measures as cm.^+1, cm.^+2, cm.^+3, and so on).

One might notice that all of this is purely geometrical in nature. It is a conceptual framework that can be applied to many, seemingly different situations. Likewise, I believe the term "wave-field" is actually Optics jargon for "the space through which a wave moves". As you have already pointed out, the meaning of the terms "field" and "wave" depend upon the context in which they arise. We will return to this concept again in just a moment...

Walter and Lao often generally refer to what they are describing as "Space geometry". One might think of all these patterns as akin to the archetypes within Plato's "World of Forms". All manifest, material bodies correspond to some aspect of this geometry.

On the most fundamental level, the flat planes that make up Walter and Lao's "wave-field" are equivalent to what you refer to as "dielectric inertial planes". These exist everywhere, endlessly. Where any three of these planes converge, they make a point, a center of absolute potential out of which all things emanate. All together, these points make up what Walter and Lao refer to as "The Universal ONE". In this way, one might think of them as equivalent to the "Monad" or "First Principle".

An endless cubic lattice:
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...ps263c42a4.png

A segment of said lattice:
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8b6fb274.png

While there are seemingly many different points in this infinite lattice, each one actually contains all others within the whole. Like the "jewels in Indra's net", the self-similar nature of this geometry lends it a "holographic-like" quality. This is why it can be applied to any object on any level of scale throughout the Universe, from the "atomic" to the "galactic" and anywhere inbetween.

On the "sub-atomic"/"atomic" scale, these points have a special relationship to the inert gases. Notice that the inert gases are "monatomic", discrete or "point-like" in nature...yet also collectively exist as a continuous, fluid medium (in this case, a gas).

There are several models of the Aether that treat it as being eqivalent to an inert gas (e.g.: Steven Rado's Aethro-Kinematics). Similarly, a significant portion of The Russell Cosmogony revolves around delineating how the inert gases are analogous to the "seeds of trees" out of which other elements (and thus all material forms) unfold, and simultaneously, as "electric recorders" that operate as a type of Cosmic "Akasha".

This is part of the reason why they do not make reference to an "Aether". Although, explaining all of this more fully is somewhat complex and requires going through this process in depth...We will explore a small portion of it...

<><><>

Let's take a look at only one "wave-field". It functions somewhat like a "unit cell", the minimal pattern by which all other aspects can be derived:

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4b024a7a.png

Extending out of each point in mirrored directions is what you refer to as a "Z-axis radial dialectric". They are like the "Yin" and "Yang", a Universal "Mother" and "Father".

And around them is a "dielectric field" (represented by the "spiral vortices"):

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...psf4d84487.png
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...pse9a08c56.png

While Walter & Lao would refer to this shape as two cones that meet at their bases, perhaps it would be better approximated by a "pseudosphere"/"Dini's surface", "hyperbolic cone" ("Gabriel's Horn"), or some other mathematical figure.

All of the above is called "one wave-cycle" in The Russell Cosmogony. However, we must take two adjacent "wave-fields" to extend this pattern further...

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...psdf4be802.png
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...ps18540b62.png

Paying attention to just the top halves, we see another double-cone formation (a "magnetic field"). At regular intervals along the "Z-axis radial dialectric", the "dielectric and magnetic fields" wind up into rings:

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...ps724f1451.png

Technically speaking, these are helices of complementary handedness, which in turn, wrap up into tori. They are analogous to "optical vortices". The "plus" and "minus" represent their direction of rotation, while the numbers represent how compressed they are. All of this happens in pulsations of four (a rhythmic pattern Walter and Lao call "The Universal Heartbeat"). Just as an aggregate of discrete points can function as a continuous medium, something continuous can become discrete through pulsation/rotation (e.g.: "standing waves", "solitons", "vortices", etc.). To continue...

A sphere is formed where the apices of these two cones meet. All of the rings compress together to become its two hemispheres:

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...ps049e7e52.png

Walter and Lao refer to this as a "Doubly-Charged Sphere". This is akin to a prototypical bit of matter. The reason it is "doubly charged" is because all material forms are created through the convergence of these "Male" and "Female" archetypes.

This is referred to as "The Sex Principle" within The Russell Cosmogony, and is equivalent to Wilhelm Reich's "Cosmic Superimposition". It is the reason why galaxy-like formations arise from the convergence of two "dielectric discharges" within Eric's "Cosmic Induction Generator" experiments.

Everything we have been describing up to this point has been taking place in "counterspace". The spin-axis of the sphere is the "Z-axis radial dielectric", and its equatorial plane is another "dielectric inertial plane". Therefore, the sphere itself has formed 90-degrees away from where we first began, at a point Walter and Lao call "wave amplitude":

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...psf201b075.png

This connection is what Eric sometimes calls "grounding the extra-dimensional". To give it a very elaborate mathematical description, we might say that this 90-degree "phase shift" is a rotation in the "complex plane" represented by an "imaginary number". It is how Steinmetz "synthesized energy from the square root of negative one" and why a theoretical physicist might say that all matter arises from "a dimension orthogonal to our own".

<><><>

While it can be taken much, much further, we will stop here for now. If it is of interest to anyone, we can explore more of it together.

Thank you for reading!

P.S.: If ever you become overwhelmed when contemplating these subjects, go outside, take a slow breath, relax your body, and feel your feet on the ground.

Hey that is real intelligence due thanks and yeah with the right intent, awesome, you have my vote already.:thumbsup: Nice reasoning great.:thumbsup:

Mikey

Ernst 10-01-2014 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purelyconstructive
While it can be taken much, much further, we will stop here for now. If it is of interest to anyone, we can explore more of it together.

Please do take it further! :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by purelyconstructive
Thank you for reading!

It's been my pleasure!

Ernst.

TheoriaApophasis 10-01-2014 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purelyconstructive (Post 265088)
1) In the sense of the "space" between two things (i.e.: the distance separating them). This is what you might refer to as "counterspace".



Absolutely 100% NO


Neither I , nor Dollard, nor the ancient Greeks , nor ANY intelligent person EVER referred to the SPACE between objects as = Khaos, Counterspace etc.


How did you arrive at such a completely bass-ackwards statement?




The loss of inertia is lost AS space, not IN space. This extremely important principle must be grasped otherwise nothing can be
fully comprehended. If one were to analogize this as the air within ones lungs as inherent bodily inertia ‘keeping one going’ (alive)
being lost to a balloon in its inflation and creating space that would be a crude but accurate analogy; if this assists in visual
comprehension then all the better. Looking into the depths of space one is looking at the discharge of mind bending enormous
amounts of inertia in dissipation. Magnetic reciprocation ultimately reassimilates along the centripetal or dielectric inertial plane
however this hyperboloid in dissipation creates space, the footprint or trail of inertia in loss, which is definitionally movement. Space
is movement, which is the loss of inertia which is space. What is ‘left behind’ of divergent magnetism is movement, is space, but this
not imply implicitly or explicitly that space is anything or has properties or is an entity with attributes to a principle we deem as
‘space’. Ultimately this space is unwound in convergent bodies via gravity, or dielectric voidance, or centripetal charges.


The Poincaré disc maps the point at infinity of a hyperbolic space to a circle where hyperbolic lines are represented as
arcs of circles intersecting the Poincaré disc at 90 degrees. As we move away from the origin of a hyperbolic space, the space
itself expands due to negative curvature (convergent centripetal magnetism) so as we reach the perimeter of the Poincaré disc,
the scale of the space changes dramatically, subdividing into an infinite number of pieces. Lines passing through the center of
the Poincaré disc are on circles of infinite radius and this look like straight lines. Images below bottom are the hyperbolic
extrapolation of divergent and convergent concentric stereographic projections of magnetic radiation as per the necessitated
reciprocation of magnetism in the loss of dielectric inertia. In more complex and accurate detail, these draw out a
hypotrochoid pattern.


A moving body by means of charge, gravity, or dielectric voidance (between ‘magnets’) is empirically seen to be increasing
movement in voidance but this movement is in fact actually a voidance of movement in eliminating the space between these objects
and thereby increasing inertia. This is the cogravitational field of Oliver Heaviside which is an accurate model of gravitation and
opposed to the incorrect model of gravitation as posited by the fool Einstein. All movement is a discharge, all relative movement in
voidance is not movement at all but spatial (=movement, magnitude) voidance between two or more inertial charges or masses.
A cogravitational field is any spherical domain, or region of space between two or more bodies where these masses undergo the
cogravitational field by which space itself, definitionally movement, is either voided or increased (due to divergent decelerating
movement). When Maxwell defined the electromagnetic field he utilized similar words, [3, Vol. 1, paragraph 44, p. 47]: “The
Electric Field is the portion of space in the neighborhood of electrified bodies, considered with reference to electric phenomena.” All
phenomena are definitionally discharges and movement, the loss of inertia and the creation of space within which phenomena must be
observed and noted. True Ether inertia is the antithesis of phenomena. It is incalculable.
At first one might ask: How can a region of space propagate in space? This makes no conventional sense. If the field is not a region
of space, what definition should we utilize? Space itself is connected to one or more magnetic divergent fields. Space has no existence
whatsoever of its own accord, and is only a posterior attribute of magnetic divergences; there are no “fields in space”, only divergent
space in creation as posterior attributes of polarized and or transverse fields. This space, an attribute of divergent fields, has itself an
attributional (but no attributes!) limit of induction or propagation as measured in C squared however this only applies to transverse and
spatial phenomena, not longitudinal phenomena nor to dielectric inertial fields which exist underneath space as defined by their
existence in counterspace.

DavidE 10-01-2014 05:24 PM

TA,

You are such a charmer.

BroMikey 10-01-2014 06:39 PM

Common Denominator
 
Hey T

You have much to offer way over me but I am trying to learn from you both. The root of why you have explainations that differ is this tendency to believe

Emanationism is a common teaching found in occult, esoteric and metaphysical writings. According to (Owen, 2005):


Theosophy draws on Neoplatonic emanationism, in particular the concept of separation from and return to the Absolute, and reworks the Eastern concepts of karma and reincarnation to provide an evolutionary theory of both humankind and the universe.[4]

Theosophy teaches that human beings and all organisms including animals and all matter "flow" from a pure spiritual formation in the absolute to a material one over time to become materialised but later will return to the absolute after the cosmic cycle of life.


Emanationism

Emanationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediais the mode by which all things are derived from the First Reality, or Principle


We all know this just like each one of us are swayed by our culture.

Atoms are almost empty this is why a ghost can pass right through you.

I'll listen awhile.

Mikey


Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis (Post 265106)
Absolutely 100% NO


Neither I , nor Dollard, nor the ancient Greeks , nor ANY intelligent person EVER referred to the SPACE between objects as = Khaos, Counterspace etc.


How did you arrive at such a completely bass-ackwards statement?




The loss of inertia is lost AS space, not IN space. This extremely important principle must be grasped otherwise nothing can be
fully comprehended. If one were to analogize this as the air within ones lungs as inherent bodily inertia ‘keeping one going’ (alive)
being lost to a balloon in its inflation and creating space that would be a crude but accurate analogy; if this assists in visual
comprehension then all the better. Looking into the depths of space one is looking at the discharge of mind bending enormous
amounts of inertia in dissipation. Magnetic reciprocation ultimately reassimilates along the centripetal or dielectric inertial plane
however this hyperboloid in dissipation creates space, the footprint or trail of inertia in loss, which is definitionally movement. Space
is movement, which is the loss of inertia which is space. What is ‘left behind’ of divergent magnetism is movement, is space, but this
not imply implicitly or explicitly that space is anything or has properties or is an entity with attributes to a principle we deem as
‘space’. Ultimately this space is unwound in convergent bodies via gravity, or dielectric voidance, or centripetal charges.


The Poincaré disc maps the point at infinity of a hyperbolic space to a circle where hyperbolic lines are represented as
arcs of circles intersecting the Poincaré disc at 90 degrees. As we move away from the origin of a hyperbolic space, the space
itself expands due to negative curvature (convergent centripetal magnetism) so as we reach the perimeter of the Poincaré disc,
the scale of the space changes dramatically, subdividing into an infinite number of pieces. Lines passing through the center of
the Poincaré disc are on circles of infinite radius and this look like straight lines. Images below bottom are the hyperbolic
extrapolation of divergent and convergent concentric stereographic projections of magnetic radiation as per the necessitated
reciprocation of magnetism in the loss of dielectric inertia. In more complex and accurate detail, these draw out a
hypotrochoid pattern.


A moving body by means of charge, gravity, or dielectric voidance (between ‘magnets’) is empirically seen to be increasing
movement in voidance but this movement is in fact actually a voidance of movement in eliminating the space between these objects
and thereby increasing inertia. This is the cogravitational field of Oliver Heaviside which is an accurate model of gravitation and
opposed to the incorrect model of gravitation as posited by the fool Einstein. All movement is a discharge, all relative movement in
voidance is not movement at all but spatial (=movement, magnitude) voidance between two or more inertial charges or masses.
A cogravitational field is any spherical domain, or region of space between two or more bodies where these masses undergo the
cogravitational field by which space itself, definitionally movement, is either voided or increased (due to divergent decelerating
movement). When Maxwell defined the electromagnetic field he utilized similar words, [3, Vol. 1, paragraph 44, p. 47]: “The
Electric Field is the portion of space in the neighborhood of electrified bodies, considered with reference to electric phenomena.” All
phenomena are definitionally discharges and movement, the loss of inertia and the creation of space within which phenomena must be
observed and noted. True Ether inertia is the antithesis of phenomena. It is incalculable.
At first one might ask: How can a region of space propagate in space? This makes no conventional sense. If the field is not a region
of space, what definition should we utilize? Space itself is connected to one or more magnetic divergent fields. Space has no existence
whatsoever of its own accord, and is only a posterior attribute of magnetic divergences; there are no “fields in space”, only divergent
space in creation as posterior attributes of polarized and or transverse fields. This space, an attribute of divergent fields, has itself an
attributional (but no attributes!) limit of induction or propagation as measured in C squared however this only applies to transverse and
spatial phenomena, not longitudinal phenomena nor to dielectric inertial fields which exist underneath space as defined by their
existence in counterspace.


BroMikey 10-01-2014 06:48 PM

Terminolgy
 
Thanks for the crash course of reality. Really good stuff and you did what I always do. Find the common denominator as to why people go out on a tangent to find the SELF EXISTENT ONE.

If people are not sure of the EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING basis of an ever present POWER that holds all thing together, their building blocks will be miss alined.

TA is very smart fellow and I do not claim to even scratch the surface on every theory put forth but thinking everything is just like water running over and a hill to "somewhere" wherever that is does not add up.

Ultimately the running water headed south has to end up somewhere.

The beginning and the end, this is all mankind can grasp.

Mike




Quote:

Originally Posted by purelyconstructive (Post 265133)
To Ken...



Exactly; this is why it was stated that:



The entire post seeks to address many of the points you have brought up within this thread...

It begins to describe how Emanationism shows up in their cosmogony and how their geometric concept of a "wave-field" matches up with dielectricity.

Also, we began to describe that while Walter and Lao may not use the word "Aether", they utilize concepts that are equivalent to an "Aether" (depending upon how one defines that word):



Honestly, I understand your concerns (and how their work might be interpreted in that way), which is why I wanted to explore it more together.



Perhaps it is just my interpretation...To quote Eric:


*Bold added for emphasis.

So in summary:
*The less "space" between objects = the more "counterspace" there is, and vice versa.
*Because Dielectricity is Counterspatial and Magnetism is Spatial, they have this same reciprocal relationship.

A very large portion of Walter and Lao's work revolves around describing these reciprocal motions in a way very similar to your "lung analogy". However, they do not refer to these things by the same names.

The way in which you use "hyperbolic space" and the "hypotrochoid" geometry to describe these patterns I find fascinating. It seems to mesh well with Vortex-Based Mathematics...

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2d932465.png

<><><>

To Mikey and Ernst, thank you for your kind comments. Anything good of the posts made through this account are humbly and gratefully attributed to The ONE. I'm glad that can be of use in some manner.

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?


TheoriaApophasis 10-01-2014 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purelyconstructive (Post 265133)
It begins to describe how Emanationism

You have forgotten that your buddy Walter Russell was a hardcore creationist

Emanationism is WHOLLY opposed to Creationism in every way


the two are oil and water, wholly incompatible. :rolleyes:


However The Russell cultists for SOME REASON keep forgetting that even I have said he is about 75 to 80% correct on what he writes about.
which is about 50% better than the rest of the presumed (idiots) 'experts' on the same topics.


Russell is guilty of the VERY SAME thing the early Christian mystics are guilty of, 'stealing' 90% of Platonic and Neoplatonic Emanationist Cosmological mechanics and then SLAPPING GOD on the last 10%


This tactic has worked beautifully to the ignorant many, however some of us know what utter BULL PLOP it is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D


As a translator of Plotinus, I can assure that NO LESS than EVERY famous "Christian" mystic from 600 CE (AD) to about 1600s studied Plotinus in extreme depth and used HIS works to support Creationism.
Of course they leave out the very same 2 Ennead tractates that not only dismisses all of Creationism but drops a steaming pile on it to boot, in no uncertain terms.

TheoriaApophasis 10-01-2014 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroMikey (Post 265134)
Atoms are almost empty this is why a ghost can pass right through you.
Mikey



This long held believe is 100% twaddle.
To wit that an atom is "99.999999% empty yada yada"


Time, Space, Dielectricity, and Magnetism. Only magnetism is a spatial dimension, space is not calculated by space. Electrification, in
Plancks is the product of magnetism and dielectricity. Only magnetism gives volume to the atomic and likewise volume to the
dielectric-electric universe. Ignorantly and in error GR and QM have declared 99.9999999% of an atom is “empty space”, when in
fact not even .00000001% of it is empty, it’s a magneto-dielectric dynamo driven by enormous nucleal rotary spin and charges.

If the atom were 99.999999% empty space as the priests of the cult of quantum advocate, then their non-existent electrons would
spiral into the nucleus. All atoms, as is necessary to understanding the magnet itself, are multifaceted ‘balloons’ with magnetic and
dielectric charges throughout. There isn’t even .00000000001% of ‘empty space’ in the atomic structure. To believe in quantum is just
placing false beliefs based upon nothing, this is CNAP (convoluted nonsense and poppycock).


For example the Schwarzschild solution of the presumed inertia of a mass can assume any value depending upon the spatial
coordinates. Inertia is pre-extant to any and all phenomena and inertia likewise cannot be quantified based upon bodies or masses.
That presumed fallacious 99.9999999999% of ‘nothing’ or ‘empty space’ at the inter-atomic of every atom accounts for 100% of the
energy released at the explosion of a nuclear device, NOT the conversion of any matter into energy. If this does not define inertia for
you as being wholly separate from phenomena, then nothing will. As such, from the idiocy of Einstein and others 100% of “nothing”
is in fact responsible for 100% of the power and energy released in a nuclear blast. As per wisdom, the world still exists deep in the
dark. Here we can see that the general theory of insanity as posited by Einstein and parroted by others as per “inertial mass” (a pure
contradiction) depends upon the spatial dimensional coordinates of that mass and therefore has no ultimate meaning whatsoever.
Likewise therefore the assertion of the equivalency of mass and inertia is purely insane and wholly untrue. Inertia has neither
magnitude, space, nor direction, only divergent magnetic fields do. This magnetism is movement, is phenomena, is discharge. What is
potential, inertia, goes unseen and unknown and is without measure in the absolute sense and as the Absolute. The ‘unspooling’ of
counterspatial inertia in discharge as magnetism, just like a spring unwinding creates space, this space is movement, is motion. All that
presumed ‘empty space’ is a motional after-shock of inertia in discharge, waiting to be voided. All motion, all space must terminate
and end, even if it persists for an incalculable seeming eternity, it will terminate in reversal, the movement (spatial reversal) into
counterspace. What is potential is not actual. What is actual or actualized is the unspooling of potential and the ‘winding’ up of
movement. Motion and space are both (one and the same) the mirage of inertia in phenomenal actualization.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved