June 17, 2013

PJ-74

CHAPTER 11

REC  #1  HATONN

SUN., JULY 25, 1993   9:18 A.M.     YEAR 6, DAY 343

SUN., JULY 25, 1993

LET THERE BE LIGHT

 

In the interest of continuity let us just continue with the printing of articles on the subject of Mr. Walter Russell as appeared in his time, relative to his approach to science subjects, in the New York Times. Since our focused interest is toward Mr. Russell's scientific work, at this time, we shall leave alone his approach to metaphysics or philosophy. Nora is working on a "biographical study" of the Life and Times of said Mr. Russell and the Uni­versity of Science and Philosophy. So, in order to not cause trouble flares with US&P regarding contempt charges against Dharma for writing on the subject, we shall not refer to that at all.

 

Our only purpose here is to offer public "articles" regarding Russell's subjects as presented. I would, however, ask that these writings of mine AND copies of the copies of the articles themselves be forwarded to Nora for her information. Thank you. For prior articles on this subject please see the writing of July 23, 1993 of which this is simply a continuation.

 

I have two comments as we enter into this writing which I con­sider so important as to stop and pre-focus your attention. I am asked why I do not "always" refer to Russell as doctor (Dr.)? Because, even though it is that perhaps US&P and Lao Russell desired the designation to give advanced implication and infer­ence of Earth-based "physical" academic achievement-the only doctorate received EVER by Russell--was an honorary one. I have stated before that "I" may well refer to Russell as "doctor" because of my own RESPECT AND HONOR TO THE MAN IN POINT AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SURPASSES ANY SUCH KNOWLEDGE HELD BY THE PROFESSORS OF ACADEMIA.

 

Next, you will see that I reprint a lot of the prior article in this writing. Why would I do that? BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSONS ANY SCIENTIST OR STUDENT CAN RECEIVE! IN FACT!!  So, we keep our Dr. Young so very busy with his Editorial duties and swamped in every kind of "other" task that he has not time to catch up with the information on "Light" that I have provided FOR him. So, there are some facts which are so important to ANY scientist working henceforth WITH ME AND TEAM, THAT HE MUST BRING THEM TO HIS EYES AND EARS AND ATTENTION WITHOUT CHOICE. HE MUST EDIT THIS WRITING FOR THE PAPER--SO HE WILL GET THIS LESSON WITHOUT FURTHER SEARCHING! HE, NEITHER, PRIOR TO ME, HAD SO MUCH AS HEARD OF WALTER RUSSELL--AND YET HE HOLDS PHDs, OR EQUIVALENTS, IN AT LEAST THREE SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS. THIS IS WHY DR. YOUNG IS IN THIS LOCATION WITH "US"--FOR THIS SCIENTIFIC ADVENTURE IS HIS PURPOSE--NOT DAB­BLING IN PRINTED NEWSPAPERS. HE DOES, HOW­EVER, NEED TO MAKE SOME OF THE CONTACTS WHICH SHALL COME FROM THIS PAPER--SO BEAR WITH US, ALL OF YOU AS THE CALL GOES FORTH. THANK YOU.

 

Dr. Young is a young man who has all the ridiculous eccentrici­ties of "habit" as did Tesla, Edison, Einstein, etc. He stays up communing and tinkering, thinking and working ALL NIGHT--­and is found to be "absent" most of the daylight hours until "awakening" again toward evening. Does this mean that he "sleeps" all day and is unavailable? Yes, it would APPEAR TO BE THAT WAY--but NO indeedy, WE WORK HIM DAY AND NIGHT! The very hub of your cycling is based solely on PHYSICS (not mystical garbage) and he is trained to recognize the truth, assumptions, separate out theories from fact and bring some massive changes upon your place--IN TRUTH. I honor him and ask him to bear with us while we catch-up some of the citizens so that we can move on in that which is absolute and necessary. It means moving through the trash heap of politics and other human physical incantations. But, he is busy and his interests are narrow enough in attention that I have to cause him to monitor EVERYTHING (for the CONTACT) so that he doesn't simply "miss" the important messages. It makes good lessons for ALL OF YOU and allows you to see that you can NEVER learn the facts of your own BEING with the WRONG ASSUMPTIONS! Consider me simply a Cohan (professor/­teacher) and you as chela (student) and the mystical relationship will vanish.

 

Dharma is NOT some "UFO Lady" as referred to her, directly, by a most uninformed "investigative reporter" who announced that Dharma passes out misinformation and other insulting thrusts. Dharma asked this person if she "had read the paper"? The response in loud and emphatic terms: "No, I try never to read such a thing." Dharma then asked her how she could be a worthy researcher of anything in such circumstances as to "know nothing" about her subject. She said she was "going to sue" Dharma, the paper, everyone. E.J. simply told her she would have to "hurry"--at which point she flung down the phone so as to probably break it. Is this not the same as Dr. Jackson? "I refuse to even consider or read your presentations--I have heard you are a disinformation source for nit-wit scientists against our 'sacred' set ideas and do not enlighten me for I am already a "sacred research journalist/scientist." We welcome all suits in the courts of law for even as the LIES are told in court--­the Truth is also THERE and will always, sometime, some­where, someday, "when you least expect it", smile, you are on Candid Truth.

 

ARTICLES ON WALTER RUSSELL

(from the New York Times)

 

I shall reprint the "response by Dr. Russell" to Dr. Jackson as we see that the sender of the information was far more exacting than were we. He has sent the "missing" portions in a separate copy and therefore, since we may have left out much in the prior presentment, we shall simply offer the "reply" again.

 

August 3, 1930

 

RESPONSE OF RUSSELL TO JACKSON

 

To the Editor of The New York Times:

 

Dr. John E. Jackson's letter to you, a copy of which he gra­ciously sent to me, is a perfectly natural letter of resentment for which I do not blame him in the least.

 

It is true that I have challenged the accuracy or completeness of the Newtonian laws of gravitation and will just as vigorously attack the other "sacred laws" of Kepler, and any others, either ancient or modern, that need modifying or rewriting to fit the needs of a civilization whose onward march is held back by the untruths, or half truths, of those who rely upon the deceptive evidence of what their eyes think they see.

 

I am sorry that an artist had to do it, but Sir Oliver Lodge said that no scientist could make the supreme discovery of the one thing for which science is looking and hoping. He said that such a discovery would have to be the "supreme inspiration of some poet, painter, philosopher or saint."

 

SUPPLYING NEEDED IMAGINATION

 

In other words, science sorely needs the imagination of an artist or poet to synthesize here heterogeneous complexities, and put her on the path of simplicity and truth; for nature is very simple in her causes. She is complex only in her repetitive ef­fects.

 

I have not said that Newton's laws were wrong, for they are right as far as they go. They are only half-truths, though. Ke­pIer's first law is not only a half truth, but the half that is stated is inaccurately stated.

 

Science should be exact, not approximate or inferential.

 

Just as Newton left out all consideration of the equal and op­posite reaction to the attraction of gravitation, which is the re­pulsion of radiation, so does Kepler leave the other focus of his ellipses out of his consideration. "The sun is one of the foci of planetary elliptical paths,” he says; but how about the other one? My friendly critics will of course admit that there are two foci to any elliptical orbit. If one of these foci is important, why is not the other equally so?

 

What is the cause of elliptical orbits if not that some doubly acting force, concentrated at two foci, is exerting its opposite in­fluences on both masses, not on one. For this reason also it is inaccurate, because untrue, to say that the sun is at one of its foci. That infers that the sun's centre is one of its foci, which is not true. The true focus, which only happens to be within the sun, because of the sun's huge bulk, is the mutual gravitative centre of both sun and planet, or earth and moon.

 

LAW MERELY LOCAL

 

If a planet happened to be a big fellow, the focus referred to would be a long way outside of the sun. For this reason, the law is purely a local one, limited to a solar system, and would not apply to two solar systems or to two bodies of approximately equal mass revolving around each other, as a universal law should apply.

 

The neglected focus is the mutual centre of repulsion which is the lowest point in the pressure gradient between any two masses. These two oppositely acting foci are the controls which determine the orbits of both masses around each other instead of one mass around the other, which was the apparent limit of Ke­pler's consideration.

 

Perhaps Dr. Jackson will explain to me why Kepler and Newton, and all who have followed since then, have shirked this other necessary focus and have given us only the perfectly obvi­ous one.

 

If Newton had watched that apple compose itself from low potential gases and liquids to high potential solids, saw it fall, and still remained on his job watching it decompose back again into low potential gases and vapors as it arose, we might have had a complete law of gravitation which would have been a great aid in putting a much-needed foundation under the feet of science during these intervening centuries.

 

FAIR TREATMENT ASKED

 

I am offering again my contribution to what seems to me the unstable foundation beneath the feet of science. Einstein and others have already been respectfully credited for the same ideas which, when published by me, had formerly brought me ridicule. All I ask is a consideration of my ideas and fair treat­ment.

 

I have begun by correcting the Eddington idea of a running­-down universe, by supplying the other half of Newton's laws and Kepler's neglected focus, which makes the universe a con­tinuing one. This must be followed up by correcting many other things, such as the structure of the atom, the supposed nature of the electron and kindred fantasies, illusions, cosmogonies and hypotheses, which have succeeded each other for three hundred years, none of which survive the test of five years trial without becoming as ephemeral as Laplace's nebular hypothesis or as old fashioned as a 1927 model of the atom.

 

If Dr. Jackson thinks academic science is advancing, he is wrong. Industrial science is leaping ahead on restricted lines, but the theorists who draw fantastic conclusions from their ex­periments have "gone cubist". The "jumping electron" atom, and all other atomic models, with the exception of Rutherford's, for which so many Nobel prizes have been given, have no more relation to nature than green cheese has to the moon. And as for the little wire cages studded with marbles, which are supposed to show how the atoms determine crystallization--they are just FUNNY.

 

WALTER RUSSELL   New York, July 28, 1931.

http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/pdf/J074.pdf