June 19, 2013

PJ-74

CHAPTER 12

REC  #2  HATONN

MON., JULY 26, 1993   12:11 P.M.     YEAR 6, DAY 344

MON.. JULY 26, 1993

Continuation: Articles regarding Walter Russell, from the NEWYORK TIMES.

EINSTEIN SEEMS TO SAY THAT THE

UNALTERABLE CAN BE ALTERED

August 10, 1930

 

THEREFORE, ONE HOLDS, VIEWS OF BOTH DR. JACK­SON AND MR. RUSSELL ARE BORNE OUT.

 

To the Editor of the New York Times:

 

The letters of Dr. John E, Jackson and Walter Russell in The Times of Aug. 3 contain, respectively, "For nearly 300 years no one, not even a scientist, has had the temerity to question New­ton's laws of gravitation,' and "science needs the imagination of an artist or poet to synthesize her heterogeneous complexities .,," both of which statements seem to be representative of aca­demic static and dynamic thought, for the contributions of sci­ence to art and art to science are relative with respect to the analysis and synthesis of primitive symbolism.

 

The questioning of Newton's laws and Kepler's extensions is a timely and healthy inquiry directed at contemporary cosmoge­netics. The assimilation of knowledge within an individual ex­perience, therefore, can be regarded rightly as either static or dynamic, can be applied as a simple correlation of established facts, or can be accepted as a means for concentrating on and contributing to progressive thought.

 

In the latter instance it is clear that a metaphysical perspec­tive upon the collective result of recent scientific research is causing many to refer to earlier basic laws. For the most part this reversion seems to extend as far as Newton and from thence is carried forward again in general, through Faraday and Maxwell, Eddington, Compton, Heisenberg and Einstein. The net result permits a repostulation of the laws of gravitation linked with the electromagnetic theory and tied to the cosmic continuum by means of a conception or reconception of time, space and matter.

 

THE ARTISTIC "CENTRE"

 

In supporting Mr. Russell's request for fair treatment, it may be added that the abstractions of science, along with the reality of art, present a fundamental intellectual and physical process to which the effort and production of the individual is irrevocably linked. The binder is found in the symbolism of primitive form. Just as the mathematician frees his mind from the concrete by conceiving modern zero to be infinity, and from it working out or back to his problem by means of symbolic devices in com­mon usage within his field, so the metaphysician accepts the as­sumption of a point as the centre for induction and the scientist regards it as the beginning for all deduction and correlation.

 

If the laws of gravitation be considered as contributory rather than final, and if the electro-magnetic theory of a "field" be ac­cepted as local rather than inferential, then it is evident that the Russell genera-radiative concept of foci postulates an inert but not a natural centre-the "centre" used by the artist, poet, philosopher and scientist alike as a point for departure for all creative work. This "centre," however, seems to serve an addi­tional purpose, for it defines and subordinates the orbit of New­ton and the ellipses of Kepler--both of which are in elaboration of the Cartesian and Pythagorean theorems and axioms of coor­dinates.

 

MUST ASSUME FOCI

 

But in assuming the existence of "centres" (foci) as purely scientific abstractions within the cosmic structure (the recogni­tion of the actuality of coordinate systems of reference in rela­tion to infinite solar and planetary systems), we are able to dif­ferentiate within our mind the idea of force, acceleration, rota­tion and speed (time and distance), and to minimize the zero of the mathematician along with the esthetic and spiritual signifi­cance of the circle. The hypothesis then possible to establish provides a mental perspective on the metrics and geometries of both physical and cosmic space, and we find that Newton's laws contribute rather than define, and space itself resolves and evolves into a measurable unit in terms of physical content and direction. It remains to articulate and delineate our current knowledge from an inert point, which we can place into ab­stract, real or natural movement within our particular field as a true centre--the pure symbolism of which is evident because of the simplicity of the concept. If we do just that, and no more, we find that we must introduce the basic elements that form our individual opinion or experience with the laws of centripetal and centrifugal force. The application of these elements in logical or structural sequence (elements drawn from the contemporary re­search field of pure and applied science) provides a simple "tool" for effecting abstract, physical and social deduction so that we can bring any inert point into continuous movement, the direction of which is horizontal or vertical, with respect to the laws of gravitation, and the delineation of which forms a true and natural centre.

 

NEWTON'S LAWS OUESTIONED

 

To aid and abet an escape from academic finality by means of such generalities is admittedly the essence of temerity, but Newton's laws have been repeatedly, consistently and profitably questioned. They are rightly finite in analysis so why not let them provide for the infinite in synthesis?

 

In The Times of June 29 the pioneer achievement of Frank Lloyd Wright in the field of architectural form, design and the adaptation of materials, was outlined in a comprehensive article illustrating not only the functional relation of the engineer, the architect and the draftsman within the creative accomplishments of an individual, but also including contributions to modern ar­chitectural practice which may be attributed almost entirely to an understanding of Newton's dynamics. The catalogue of the Harvard Society for Contemporary Art states that Buckminster Fuller's dymaxion house is "the first complete attempt in archi­tectural design to acquire a symbolism of the fourth dimension as the designing method is literally from the 'inside out' on a ra­dionic, time space and quantum basis." Mr. Fuller's approach to his problem is through spherical geometry and the application of simple dynamics to the evolution and introduction of new materials in the logical relation to height, bulk and weight re­quirements.

 

"Roadtown" of Edgar Chambless, a practical conception of continuous structure within which is integrated all ways of communication, and the utilities of service, along with the bal­anced social system, constitutes a recognized application of the laws of centripetal and centrifugal social force (the centraliza­tion and decentralization of population) and is based upon social dynamics.

 

My adaptation of historical and chronological time (the "inverted" or "coreless" pie-chart outlined in a letter to The Times of June 29 last) delivers a "linear scale," the simple graphics of which postulate the inert foci of Mr. Russell and give natural movement and direction to real and abstract deduc­tion, the dynamics of which is based upon the articulation of multiple correlations carried along at one time in logical, inte­grated and continuous sequence.

 

Recent correspondence from Geneva published in The Times leads us to believe that Dr. Einstein has the temerity to extend the pure symbolism of his mathematical abstractions to include a world application to child education--an indication which seems to bear out the viewpoint of Dr. Jackson and Mr. Russell that the future is behind us, is common property, and anyone, even a scientist, is privileged to alter the unalterable.

 

G.P. HERSEY,

Ridgefield, Conn., Aug. 6, 1930

 

***

 

Now, readers, I would think that the last paragraph above repre­sents the intent of "public property" of these GREAT ideas as well as almost any statement found thus far. These men, ALL, recognized they gained knowledge from a source somehow and somewhere "higher" than the presenting "self" AND this pro­jects that these higher bits of information are for mankind--NOT TO HIDE BENEATH A BUSHEL IN SECRET PLACES GARNERED BY ONLY SELECT GROUPS OF ELITE OR FANCIED SELF-APPOINTED "KEEPERS". PLEASE REC­OGNIZE THAT IN HIS DAY G.P. HERSEY WAS PERHAPS FAR BETTER RECOGNIZED THAN EITHER RUSSELL OR JACKSON.

 

Next comes a repeat of one we have already offered but I ask that Dharma retype it for I want it in her head, please. In the first offering we had "deleted lines" which were actually present but the one who did the copy work had carefully explained and marked the papers and Dharma just didn't see it in time to get the missing parts into that writing. It is important enough to re­peat it with the insertions. Please be patient for by the time we did that prior writing. Dharma had been at the keyboard over seven hours at start and the brain and the fingers get awash.

 

Further, I had a VERY GOOD REASON for allowing the printing of the information EXACTLY as copied, with the lines missing, BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO NOTICE VERY CAREFULLY--THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE THE WHOLE THING--YOU CANNOT KNOW OF THAT WHICH YOU SPEAK OR HAVE OPINION! YOU MUST HAVE ALL OF THE MISSING INFORMATION TO FORM VALID CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ANYTHING. YOU SCIENTIFIC MINDS WOULD HAVE ALREADY HAD YOUR IMPA­TIENCE WITH ME FOR PRESENTING ONLY THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE ARTICLE AND THAT, DEAR ONES, IS THE HALF-TRUTH AT BEST, THAT HAS COME TO BE IN YOUR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SERVICES.

 

MR. RUSSELL FINDS SCIENTISTS TOO READY

TO ACCEPT THEORY

 

IDs Attempt at Reformation Not Based on Metaphysics, lie Declares.

 

The New York Times, Aug. 17, 1930.

 

To the Editor of The New York Times:

 

Since the publication in the TIMES of my statement that mod­ern science is without a foundation and needs a major surgical operation to put it in line for a logical cosmogenetic synthesis, I have been bombarded by telephone and by letters questioning this statement and others made in my book The Russell Genera­-Radiative Concept, recently published.

 

May I tell those people who think I have a superficial, meta­physical concept which I am trying to inject into practical sci­ence for its reformation that I am as thoroughly prepared to carry out my program with dynamic answers, not metaphysical ones, as Copernicus was when he upset an equally obstinate world of thoroughly satisfied Ptolemyites? Also I am as thor­oughly aware of the difficulties of uprooting established ideas as he was.

 

I am also thoroughly conversant not only with every experi­ment that has given science its present unstable state, but also with the wrongful deductions which have resulted from those experiments.

 

KNOWS SCIENTISTS' THEORIES

 

I am as familiar with the experiments and observations of Newton and Kepler as I am of those of Faraday, Cavendish, Rutherford, Bohr or Millikan, and I also am as familiar with the things which these great men did not see in their own experi­ments as those which they did see, and even then misinterpreted.

 

An observation of an effect of Nature is equal to an experi­ment and a proper deduction from either is more important than either.

 

Newton, for example, would have solved the other half of the gravitational problem if he had found out how that apple and the tree upon which It grew got up in the air before the ap­ple fell.

 

I challenge the world of science to correctly and completely answer that question. Let your readers qualify for the right to subject me to their criticism as an impractical visionary by first giving a dynamic answer to this by no means simple question.

 

Therefore I say to all my critics who wonder why I do not go into the laboratory and "perform experiments" that I do perform experiments in physical laboratories and make profound obser­vations in Nature's vast laboratory that have fitted me to make new and logical deductions from old experiments which have no inconsistencies and no exceptions.

 

EFFECTS OF MOTION ILLUSIONS

 

To illustrate: Suppose a man experimented with the moon running behind the trees as he ran, then set down his conclu­sions from the "facts", as he saw them, such as the correspon­dence of acceleration and deceleration to his speed, we could easily point out the error of such a deduction because we are familiar with the illusions of perspective.

 

Science has never considered the fact that in the universe of motion all effects of motion are illusions. Illusions are not lim­ited to perspective but to every electrical, chemical and as­tronomical relation.

 

Nature is the supreme deceiver, the champion "poker bluffer", who, with a simple hand, makes you think she has much.

 

Nature is simple. She has but one force (which she divides into two), one form (which she divides into many), and seven patterns (which she complexes by repeating them in such mar­velous systems of wave periodicities that it needs imagination, rather than eyesight, to coordinate them).

 

Nature can be beautifully described by that child's toy of hexagonal mirrors which makes the most exquisite and complex patterns in color and form out of a bit of feather, some chips of colored glass, a toothpick and other odds and ends.

 

Everyone knows how those simple things are not only com­plexed but glorified by such a treatment.

 

NATURE'S SIMPLE PRINCIPLES

 

My humble contribution to science is to point out these sim­ple principles of Nature which would, if known, have prevented one untruth to pile up on top of another until, even with the aid of experimentation, a theory which can survive five years is ex­ceptional.

 

I will warrant that the dinner coat which Sir Oliver Lodge wore in New York when he delivered his lecture on energy and atomic structure is still presentable, but Sir Oliver himself would under no consideration repeat that lecture today.

 

The entire modern theory of atomic structure is so utterly without parallel or precedent in Nature that fantasy only mildly expresses it. It is to be regretted that the profound thinking of profound men is thus being wasted on conclusions which cannot possibly endure. [H: It might be added that the profound thinking of those profound men are also kept from use and presentation by ones who do not understand the magnitude of the offering in point. It Is most certainly a time of coming together and sharing the gifts as given so that civilization CAN ENDURE.)

 

Scientists ignore Nature when they choose, or when mathe­matical formulae work out in accordance with preconceived premises. Scientists then become inventors and work out won­ders which Nature never thought of. I can cite hundreds of such inventions born of supposedly observed facts of experiment.

 

LAPLACE'S MISTAKES

 

Mathematics are useless if the premises they start with are wrong. La Place, the greatest mathematician of his day, "proved" many things which have since been disproved. He even went so far as to prove that the outer edges of his rings moved faster than their inner surfaces, and his contemporaries accepted that impossibility as Niels Bohr's “jumping electron” was accepted by his contemporaries.

 

Nature hasn't one separate series of laws for big mass and another series for small mass. She has one law for both, but science unhesitatingly invents a series of laws for little mass that outdoes the reliance of the Arthurian sages upon a credulous public.

 

The moons of Jupiter and the planets of the sun pursue their courses around their primaries in an orderly periodic fashion in strict obedience to the two forces which command and control them from two foci.

 

It would be the most astounding claim imaginable to state that this earth could suddenly jump to the orbit of Mars without consuming one-millionth of a second of time, yet that invention is the utterly fantastic and completely un­founded belief of modern science regarding the planets of the atom.

 

I could write volumes based upon modern electrical experi­mental data to prove that such a happening is not in Nature's scheme.

 

Science attributes this deduction to a "brilliant young Dane, Niels Bohr", who, working under Rutherford, proved it by ex­periment, backed by Rydburg's constant, Coulomb's law, math­ematics and the evidence of the spectroscope.

 

Of what use is Bohr's mathematical equation regarding the hydrogen spectrum, for example, if the four admittedly assumed premises upon which it is based are not in accord with Nature's plan of motion?

 

WRONG BASIC CONCLUSIONS

 

Of what value also is the spectroscopic evidence if the pre­sumption that band-spectra are caused by molecules and line spectra by atoms is found to be a wrong one? In respect to this I am prepared to offer consistent reasons why band and line spec­tra have another and more logical cause.

 

I can cite wrong premise after wrong premise which has caused science to form wrong basic conclusions, such as that there are separate negative and positive charges instead of dou­bly charged masses, also that positive and negative "charges" attract each other when the evidence in its favor is the simplest of Nature's illusions and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against such a law. Take only one for example: How does science explain the fact that in all decomposing compounds like charges seek like charges and repel all others? If this law were true the universe which we know could not hold itself to­gether, for all similar substances and atoms of substances would be explosive, and a pound of anyone substance would be im­possible.

 

WALTER RUSSELL

New York, Aug. 12, 1930

 

* * *

 

SCIENTISTS SHOULD EXPLAIN

 

The New York Times,Aug. 24, 1930.

 

Written: GENEVA VIOLA WOLCOTT, New York, Aug. 18, 1930.

 

To the Editor of the New York Times:

 

Owing to the fact that the world and his wife are becoming astro-minded, the letter from Walter Russell that appeared in the Aug. 17 issue of the Times impels me to air my views de­spite the fact that the press's attitude is decidedly against the "female of the species" going scientific.

 

Mr. Russell's arraignment of scientists who work by rod and plumbline, so to speak, and in many instance reckon without their host--Nature--stresses a striking example: From era to era scientists have explained the orbital ellipse, postulating the fact that in the solar system (by way of concrete example) the sun (Sol) forms one of the two foci of an ellipse, let us say, of the orbit of Earth. This, as every schoolboy knows, is inevitable.

 

Granted, but no one seems to have given a thought to the other focus. Kepler devised the radius vector in order to pro­vide for the sweep over equal areas in equal time as Earth per­formed its trajectory from perihelion to aphelion, then on again to perihelion. This device has been demonstrated by means of delineation, oral and written description until every student knows it as he knows his alphabet. So far, so good; but what of the other focus without which no ellipse is possible?

 

Now along comes Mr. Russell to demonstrate, first of all, a forcible axiom that appeared recently in the Times: "The only thing stronger than armies is an idea whose time has come."

 

Accounting for the other focus demonstrates Mr. Russell's idea (concept, rather) that the twin focus is a vacuous force functioning just as effectually as its mate, the sun. Thanks to everyday utilities, this function is within the grasp of the lay mind. Now, if the professionals decline to accept this view, why should they "hold out on us", to drop into the vernacular, by failing to account for the second focus without which no el­lipse is complete? [H: This is the same question I raise when disallowed from utilizing, with full recognition, Dr. Russell's work in the PLEIADES CONNECTION series of JOUR­NALS.  Why do these people wish to keep this information under singular lock and key? We have no wish nor intent to validate nor pull down the thrust of such as US&P--but in checking most carefully in full detail, we found that even though some copyrights may well have been ASSUMED shifted off to said "University"--the proper corporate records do not present such. The line of appropriate pa­perwork would have to explicitly shift each and every title and manuscript in every detail. They do not!  Further, if the material is such that it is "joint" but only one facet of in­formation is utilized--it is "literally" not in question if an­other UTILIZES THE MATERIAL ISSUED AS FACT TO FURTHER FACT OR DRAW OPPOSING CON­CLUSIONS. We who offered the CONNECTIONS series only wished honor and attention in a most wondrous way--to Walter Russell. We do not share the same appraisal of the work of Lao nor to her intentions or actions. Lao was an avowed humanist and although her so-called metaphysical conceptions were "new age" and even "spiritual" on the sur­face of it--she was humanistic in every recognized aspect.]

 

Surely they are not afraid of losing their laurels! Perish the thought! If so, they differ from the sportsmen who are always scouting about to enlist amateurs into the professional ranks. Let us hear from the acknowledged scientists why the second focus has been ignored; also if there is any law in celestial me­chanics against adopting new discoveries--inventions, if you will. GENEVA VIOLA WOLCOTT

 

* * *

 

These articles bring forth a lot of information and a lot of ques­tions, don't they? From "why not recognize women's input" to "wise reasoning" is visible from the above article--from, by the way, a very prominent personage of the day!

 

I think I shall ask for a break here so that we have the approxi­mate amount of material for the next chapter without interrupt­ing it.

 

I hope you are finding the information interesting and thought provoking for I find the puzzle fascinating--most especially since you find yourselves in something similar to a confrontation on the magnitude of a "Darwin" Scopes trial. The great difference here is that no "trial" IS EVEN ALLOWED AND THE WRITER, DHARMA, IS CONVICTED, CHARGED AND PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR NOT ONLY WRITING--BUT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BY SIMPLY BEING ALIVE. YES, INDEED, INTERESTING!

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