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

[TheoriaApophasis]

I have no idea what you're on about.

apparently not.


saying WAVES, means nothing. Waves of pixie dust, waves of water?
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.
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]

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]

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)

[Dingus]

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

[wayne.ct]

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]

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.


That 20% is religious heresy to his moonbat followers



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]

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]

Now that is good stuff

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:


A segment of said lattice:


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:



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"):




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...




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:



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:



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":



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. Nice reasoning great.

Mikey

[Ernst]

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!

Thank you for reading!

It's been my pleasure!

Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

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?

[DavidE]

TA,

You are such a charmer.

[BroMikey]

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

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?

[BroMikey]

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

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...



<><><>

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]

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.


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.


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]

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

This long held believe is 100% twaddle.