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.

__________________
 

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.



I agree. U Probably cant.

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



but THEN you SAY:



I didnt know they posted anything on this board.

__________________
 

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., 1950–52
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

__________________
 

@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 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

__________________
 

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?

__________________
 

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.

__________________
 

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.

__________________
 

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.

__________________
 

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.

__________________
 

"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.

__________________
 

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

__________________
 

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

__________________
 

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.

__________________
 

Ok but that review I posted from you was about A New concept of the universe. And you repeated here it is great, above. So you dont consider this particular book worthless.

__________________
 

its a great book riddled with huge errors.


breaking the 20% accurate mark is excellent for MOST books


his breaks the 50% or better.


You see a contradiction where none exists.

__________________
 

thinking about this topic, a little. i was thinking and asked, whats the difference between sight and sound? one is light the other is voices or something thats about all i can get out of it. so is a sound a light? ok, well, im confused here some now. the thing is i think they come from the same thing. so whats the difference between those two? like say if, you wanted to send music as fast as you can see something. is what we see, light actually, a wave? is there proof its not?

__________________
 

The one thing I don't get 100% about Walter Russell and other people who talk about Light as the prime thing that exists... why light? I mean, I understand that when we look into space, we see stars and from them comes the elements, but, still.

I don't get "The Light" that people like russell talk about. Why is it Light the primary thing? What is this light?

I can understand how our different senses are different kinds of Light

__________________
 

good gosh man.

i think the thing walter russell, was pretty much saying, is that the stars, the sun, stuff is where the waves come from. he's saying that something else is charging it besides, itself, or nothing at all. the sun. its getting its power from somewhere else. its not producing it itself. its coming from a light. thats what he says.
as eric dollard says, the suns a converter, or something, like that.

the thing about the aether is, that it doesn't explain our sun.

you can understand how our senses are different kinds of light? uhh, then you dont understand this light, but then you understand different sources of light. as our senses are different lights, sourced.

its like that the sun is powered by a light. something that powers things. sun doenst produce its own power.

and i think that, the aether doesnt' explain the sun. the aether, is like, all this extra stuff. here. without it i mean.. thered be no, air and distance. and no building here, and building there. and table here, then someoen who sits over there. there wouldnt be things, and there wouldnt be stuff.

like the geometry things, the radial is one, and the others. all .. something, . those .. things.

__________________
 

Theoria apophasis, do tell what you think of these videos against the ether. But dont just say you hate them lol explain to us

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVbgZJ7rgc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=caY17C29x5o

__________________
 

those videos are trash. Theyre SUPPOSED to be based upon Russells works.



RUSSELL only ONCE (I have a digital search engine) mentions the Ether, and says nothing about it.


So, to attribute anything about the Ether to Russell is BRAIN DEAD nonsense., since he never discusses same.

those videos are 2 bars short of new age crap and 2 bars long of Alien/God trash.


Ultimately those crap videos work off the premise to have some magical replacement for the Ether.

But it produces NOTHING to support same.


NOT ONE SINGLE THING,.... well it says "The Creator" (God)...... yeah, right



The ancient Greeks figured this out long ago.

Nobody on earth can negate the Ether, its impossible.



However those CRAHP videos replaced the Ether with "The Creator" (so sayeth the crap videos).


You can piss yourself laughing over that absurdity.

__________________
 

"The ether theory postulates that there are extremely small indivisivle particles which is the universal substrate, and electrical tensions tensions in that create the illusions of matter and space"

Indivisible particles, is this true?

He says the ether would actually be inert gases, but the problem is, where do these gases have their being (ether), right ?

__________________
 

You miss the point ....there are OVER 1000 "ether theories".....


Most are insane BS ......he attacks one of them



As such it's meaningless crap on his part.


That guy in the videos is a mental midget

__________________
 

Prepare yourself because im translating very interesting stuff that, despite not mentioning ether, is about it.

As to leave all this wr talk for now, last question:

Would counterspace be the still magnetic light in russell lingo?

__________________
 

Close enough, yes



Nothing is known except thru the modality of the knower



Counterspace is non-Euclidean projective geometry


All geometry is projective geometry


Study the Poincaré disk model

__________________
 

Let me finish the sentence
.
Stunningly important is the fact that Walter Russell never and at no time ever invented ONE USEFUL APPLICATION for his drivel, err I mean theories.

Well?
Please name ALL of the APPLICATIONS for his great ideas?

the only APPLICATION I have come across for his rebirth is how he he has spawned so many stupid clones spewing his nonsense as divine intervention and still not coming up with ONE USEFUL APPLICATION for his genius.

Name the APPS please

__________________
 

You crucified yourself by your own tongue with that BS statement.



While you are busy trying to figure out how to f*ck over someone by inventing something to SELL SOMEONE


people like Russell, and myself are more interested in wisdom and comprehension.



intellectually, you're a RAPIST. Your motive is profit, fame, and superficial bullsh*t.



Mine is just the inverse







I can name your fans on ONE FINGER, yourself, which deserves the MIDDLE one.


I cannot count his on a million HANDS.



lets see who remembers your lifeless worm riddled CORPSE in 80 years.


NONE is the answer

__________________
 

i dont know about any of this stuff, but. you know how a dog is a wolf, just breed different, and not genetically modified. and everyone knows a wofl is a wolf. well, how about cats? arent cats, just lions? and other versions of felines? bobcats, wildcats probably same thing, i dont know just hear, abou tthese things, cheetahs, leopards, all those tip furred things. arent all, cats, just lions?

so isnt having a dog, wolf worship> like egyptians, had cats? and people have cats, cause they think it's normal? egyptians, done the cat breeding. and they,dug them out of gold and all the rest of that dumb crap. so. .. any one else any thoughts? want to discuss it.

__________________
 

iaad im going to define as, light. isnt light, something that happens, then, its instant action at a distance? so.

__________________