Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post new topic   Reply to topic

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by esamawuta on Wed May 25, 2016 5:37 am

Happy to find a group with interest in the Mathis charge field. I have been into Miles Mathis documentation since 2010 but also during the past years in the russellianism, the science created by Walter Bowman Russell in the 1920-ties. I have mostly been looking for similarities due to the fact that both these real scientists work intuitively which will sooner or later result in a mutual understanding of science.
Great also to see a graphic solution to visualize the nuclear diagrams. But the neutron is not a point-like particle; is it possible to show the neutron as a magnetosphere as the one surrounding planets and suns?
We also have to think of the nucleus of something that is growing from the inside out; the charge field is expanding from the center of the carousel level to the adjacent protons building up the nucleus. The axial emission makes up gravitation and the equatorial creates radiation. (MM&WBR)
All this works like expanding spheres in spheres (check: WBR).
We have an interface in the alpha particle where our perception starts, (check: c for the alpha is 0,05=5% of of matter). This perception limit is created due to resonance when two protons start to interact. WBR has the same solution with alphas 2-6 but it seems all a bit misdirected with the naming of the same alphas as He-Li- Be-B-C by the mainstream during 150 years. The carbon is the only balanced true sphere(WBR).
We do have some evidence of the above in the newly corrected size of the proton (by MilesM) and lack of knowledge of the resonance is of course suppressed due to the energy hoax.
The nuclear diagrams are schematic as Miles has written several times, the spheres create the hologram which is our reality through different densities of matter. Matter is all about energy, and to make science turn 180 degrees is not made in a few years. This will merely take at least a generation to accomplish and this group seems a great start. Meanwhile we can have some good laughs with Miles Mathis writings on history, politics&al....

esamawuta

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed May 25, 2016 5:16 pm

.
esamawuta,

Yes, the charge field turns mainstream in several 180 degree directions at once. I don’t expect to read about it in any reputable online journal anytime soon.

I’ve looked at Walter Bowman Russell energy transformation and matter creation diagrams but I cannot say I know his work. Do you recommend any in particular? Having examined Mathis and Russell’s works, do you have any conclusions or ideas you’d like to share?  

esamawuta wrote:But the neutron is not a point-like particle; is it possible to show the neutron as a magnetosphere as the one surrounding planets and suns?

I would differ to Nevyn’s theoretical understandings or his atomic models; still, I would say the neutron is a one-way (pole-to-pole) charge channeling particle, and not point-like at all. IMO the lack of equatorial emissions from neutrons prevents them from creating their own small magnetospheres. Alpha particle also refers to an atomic group of two protons and two neutrons, but I don’t suppose that relates to the alpha of perception (?).

Welcome. We’re a small group. Try not to tear the place down.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by Nevyn on Wed May 25, 2016 9:28 pm

Hi esamawuta,

Welcome to our little community.

I must admit that I have not heard of Walter Bowman Russell (or can't remember if I have) and am not familiar with his work. Would you like to explain some of the similarities and differences to Miles work?

My personal research has been with Miles' work for many years now. I haven't found much need to step outside of it and there are plenty of concepts to try to figure out as it is. Even when I have looked elsewhere, I find myself trying to explain it all in Miles framework.

esamawuta wrote:
Great also to see a graphic solution to visualize the nuclear diagrams. But the neutron is not a point-like particle; is it possible to show the neutron as a magnetosphere as the one surrounding planets and suns?

Are you referring to the neutrons in my Atomic Viewer app (green spheres)? It is not meant to suggest that they are point like but quite the opposite. They are very large compared to the charge photons or electrons (small yellow spheres) and are the same size as the protons (just the red spheres, not their charge fields which is represented by the colored disc around them or by charge particles if you have charge channeling turned on).

Why do you think that neutrons are like a magnetosphere? I don't believe Miles has suggested that, is it coming from Russell? You could probably say that a protons charge field is some-what like a magnetosphere (since they are the same thing but on a very different scale) but not the neutrons which only channel charge from pole to pole, not out the equator like a proton, electron, planet or star.

Cheers,
Nevyn
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by esamawuta on Thu May 26, 2016 7:08 am

Hope not to steer up too much! On the contrary. If the neutron does not have any position it should be regarded as a part of the ambient charge field imho. This meaning the charge field in the vicinity of the proton and its natural form would be as the magnetosphere of any rotating body channeling a charge field. There are no straight lines in the universe, everything is curved.  I think MM has something in his papers on the sinoidal curve being a paper construction, the true form is always an expanding sphere. In any case the interface to our perception at the alpha is the most interesting subject as Walter Russell made thousands of drawings in 2D trying to visualise it. He is easily found on the net and has a career path very similar to the one of Miles Mathis. He was all into  arts&science and politics of his time but suppressed. His books are constructed in the same way as the home page of Miles M so you have to read them through first to understand the basics. Takes some time but it is worth the effort as he is very repetitive. No html here! A good hint is to start to study the periodic table of WBR. He had already named the subatomic spins (eg particles) in the 1920-ties and also predicted deuterium and tritium. If you follow the path down the octaves in his periodic table with stops by the inert gases you will find numbers +1 to +4 and -1 to -4. These are protons added to the elements, the (+)proton goes in at the axial level (adding gravity) and a (-)proton goes in at the (carousel) equatorial side for the radiative effect. Suits nicely with nuclear diagrams of Mathis. Regards JR  
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=147

esamawuta

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu May 26, 2016 4:46 pm

.
esamawuta,

Please excuse us, we rarely entertain guests.
esamawuta wrote:If the neutron does not have any position it should be regarded as a part of the ambient charge field imho. This meaning the charge field in the vicinity of the proton and its natural form would be as the magnetosphere of any rotating body channeling a charge field.
“If the neutron does not have any position”. This makes no sense to me. What is “position”?

Here within the Earth’s ambient charge field, the neutron is not stable on-its-own, lasting about 15 minutes before becoming another particle/s. Neutrons are perfectly stable within atomic structures.

The natural state of the charge field about protons and matter does resemble magnetospheres. Neutrons, however, are the exception, in that they do not radiate photons. Instead, those photons are scooped back into the neutron by its top-level spin. As stated earlier, neutrons do channel photons pole-to-pole.

There are no straight lines in the universe, everything is curved.
That sounds right to me. We are able to see a detailed universe which implies light travels in straight lines, even though individual photons are spinning.

Does that tie back to neutrons? Pole-to-pole channeling isn’t straight lines; I think MM should consider incorporating vorticular polar charge flows. Russell’s images are enlightening.



I think MM has something in his papers on the sinoidal curve being a paper construction, the true form is always an expanding sphere.
I don’t recall a paper construction. The sinusoid is based on the field mechanics of sound in air and in water waves. Miles doesn’t use it. He describes electromagnetism in terms of photon spin waves, with photon forward velocity/momentum as the pre-electric component, and photon tangential spin being the source of the pre-magnetic component.

“the true form is always an expanding sphere”. Possible match - all matter is expanding at the rate of gravity. Miles’ Expansion Gravity Theory. Not just a Big Bang, we have a Continuous Bang. Many MM supporters struggle with or even deny this idea.

Thanks for the Russell background summary. Brilliant thinkers are always suppressed, active or otherwise, it’s their ideas that win in the end.    

A good hint is to start to study the periodic table of WBR. He had already named the subatomic spins (eg particles) in the 1920-ties and also predicted deuterium and tritium. If you follow the path down the octaves in his periodic table with stops by the inert gases you will find numbers +1 to +4 and -1 to -4. These are protons added to the elements, the (+)proton goes in at the axial level (adding gravity) and a (-)proton goes in at the (carousel) equatorial side for the radiative effect. Suits nicely with nuclear diagrams of Mathis.



We should replace the old periodic table. Russell’s looks interesting. It isn’t really 2 dimensional. Describing orthogonally expanding atomic structures in terms of octaves doesn’t seem unreasonable. I'll try.

Years ago, Russell’s work struck me as meta-physical. In my experience, (including a friend and fellow engineer), Russellians tend to be artists, spiritualists, and new age thinkers – not so many hard science guys. Personally, with no ‘adequate’ description, I’ve never been satisfied with just pretty pictures. My friend says I take things too literally.

Miles reveals how the charge field influences hundreds of otherwise ordinary or badly understood facts. He's tearing down the old mainstream explanations – and in simple math!  He may confirm many Russellian ideas. We can certainly expand our perspectives.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by esamawuta on Fri May 27, 2016 4:28 am

Sorry for the word position, must have been something on my mind from the Heisenberg era, the neutron is just an energy unit of the charge field just like the proton. The naming of protons can be regarded as a tool to visualize protons in different combinations. And to encourage the scientists of course. Promotions can get people enourmous efforts. Finding Miles Mathis and understanding ther charge field was a heureka-moment for me. He made the path to make me understand chemistry&physics at the smallest levels but we still have a long way to go to grab the rest. JR

esamawuta

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by Cr6 on Fri May 27, 2016 11:54 pm

Hi esamawuta and welcome to our little "Mathis Forum".

You know I did look over Russell a few years back and found his work intriguing. I would say though that a lot of research he did then can be clarified with recent discoveries and analysis. Like Maxwell, he's pretty ancient these days when atoms can be photographed.

I can only recommend this link... you may find it a little more descriptive around the forms of molecules with neutrons.  How would Russell look at Beryllium?
Atomic Number: 4

229. HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force
http://milesmathis.com/stack.html

http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t51-mathis-chemistry-graphics#391


Last edited by Cr6 on Mon May 30, 2016 10:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 711
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by esamawuta on Sat May 28, 2016 7:54 am

Thank you! I will go a bit further from both Russell and Mathis. I am showing a kind of alternative in just counting the protons after a resonant event. In my visualization the protons are all repelling each other inside a rotating sphere, so the stacking of the alphas in the way Miles does is to show the channeling, one on top of the other. Bor will the have 5 repelling same with Li with 3 protons. Carbon has 3+3 protons crossing each other in two planes and rotating. This 2-plane system makes graphene stable and at the same time a great channeler. Maybe I am way out in this but the interface has to somewhere here just due to the fact that c for the alpha is 0,05. We also have a discrepancy in the fact that Mathis calculates alphas and I am counting protons. Maybe it is the neutron making this difference, as I reckon the proton (and all spins) materialize from the subatomic level in the center of each spin. In the Mathisfield spins collide, in matter spins grow from inside out. Remember also all is curved, no straight lines! All this would of course lead to a new way to construct the periodic table. Regards JR

esamawuta

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat May 28, 2016 2:13 pm

esamawuta,
I am showing a kind of alternative in just counting the protons after a resonant event. In my visualization the protons are all repelling each other inside a rotating sphere, so the stacking of the alphas in the way Miles does is to show the channeling, one on top of the other
It’s clear you have an alternative view – I don’t see it yet.

Let’s start from a mutual basis:

What do you think of Miles’ nuclear models?
Or Nevyn’s simulation?

If a periodic table should be 2D, I think that the best candidate for a new periodic table is Cr6’s Slot Layout diagram. It’s sort of a 3D projection – onto a 2D spreadsheet. We have many examples in-house (see Cr6’s link above).

Particles follow spin-stacking rules, thereby becoming electrons, neutrons and protons. Atoms are made from those particles.  Any spinning should conform to the model.

Please be patient. What is your alternative and what does it do that is not in the 'existing' model?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by esamawuta on Mon May 30, 2016 9:51 am

The nuclear models of Mathis are essential for the understanding the charge flow and chemical binding in the nucleus but I still have some problems with the simulations of Nevyn. Great job though. Maybe a 3D would make it more transparent? I usually write the models up on my whiteboard, sometimes leaving them during several weeks or months to grab how they would move in the 5D environment Miles Mathis shows in one of his papers.
But you are right, longtime airman, no good rushing away. Better keep a low profile, and I recommend Russell's “The Universal One” as a starter. The “Genero-Radiative Concept” has a clever way to explain gravity. All in this thread and everybody else understanding the Mathis charge field will be way ahead of the others in the coming decades. You will find the similarities one by one if you look for them.

esamawuta

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by Cr6 on Mon May 30, 2016 10:50 pm

esamawuta wrote:The nuclear models of Mathis are essential for the understanding the charge flow and chemical binding in the nucleus but I still have some problems with the simulations of Nevyn. Great job though. Maybe a 3D would make it more transparent? I usually write the models up on my whiteboard, sometimes leaving  them during several weeks or months to grab how they would move in the 5D environment  Miles Mathis shows in one of his papers.
But you are right, longtime airman, no good rushing away. Better keep a low profile, and I recommend Russell's “The Universal One” as a starter. The “Genero-Radiative Concept” has a clever way to explain gravity.  All in this thread and everybody else understanding the Mathis charge field will be way ahead of the others in the coming decades. You will find the similarities one by one if you look for them.

Hi esamawuta,

At the end of day, Mathis is an excellent and valuable overall "critic" of current Chemistry-Physics-Cosmology.  He really pushes to see "what" is "actual" and "described" in terms of the greatest provable detail.  He's definitely empircal..even with the photon. Building up from the lowest levels of charge field, it overall must be "logical" to the largest expanse of the galaxies.  Mathis is brave and smart enough to try and keep it on the same 'rule of measure' using the Charge Field.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 711
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue May 31, 2016 12:21 am

esamawuta said: I recommend Russell's “The Universal One”.

Thank you Sir, I've started reading it and it is fun. I must admit I do like the pictures.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by Nevyn on Tue May 31, 2016 7:59 pm

esamawuta wrote:The nuclear models of Mathis are essential for the understanding the charge flow and chemical binding in the nucleus but I still have some problems with the simulations of Nevyn. Great job though. Maybe a 3D would make it more transparent? I usually write the models up on my whiteboard, sometimes leaving  them during several weeks or months to grab how they would move in the 5D environment  Miles Mathis shows in one of his papers.

What do you mean by 'Maybe a 3D would make it more transparent?'? Are you looking at the images on this site or using the Atomic Viewer application on my site? I am still writing documentation for that app but there is a thread here on the forum under Projects that has a lot of the information about it.

What do you mean by '5D environment'? Did you mean to write 3D because Miles would have a fit if anyone thought he worked in 5D, or even 4D for that matter.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:00 pm

.
esamawuta,

I’ve looked through Book one of Walter Russell’s, The Universal One Alchemy; Chemistry:
http://bluestarenterprise.com/files-outside-wordpress/walter-russell/49306379-Walter-Russell-the-Universal-One-Alchemy-Chemistry.pdf

Walter Russell conveys ideas well. He has an old-fashioned formalism, with strong religious, even mystical, overtones. Overall, a unique and positive style. Great diagrams. He surprised me by sounding like me at times.

The main similarity between Russell’s cosmogony and Miles’ Unified Field is, of course, Light:  
WBR pg 18 wrote:All matter is light. The universe is one of light. Solids of matter, heavy, dark, and cold, are as much light as flaming Arcturus.
WR – The universe, God, Mind, matter, energy, spirit and life are all one, all is Light.
MM – All matter is created from photons.  

We also have two opposing Forces of Nature:
WR – There are two basic forces – gravity and radiation; also expressed as magnetism/electricity.
MM – All matter is subject to two opposing fields, gravity and the charge field.

A big  difference - the cause of Mass.
WR – pg 10 wrote: Form, like time, space, mass, color, weight, temperature and or the effects of motion is an attribute of motion only, and in no way an attribute of substance.
Form without substance? Light has no substance? What is doing the motion? There seems to be an implied ether where empty space can acquire physical properties.
MM - The ‘substance’ is real, spinning photons with stacked spins.

WR pg 21 wrote: All motion is oscillatory, swinging in sequence between two apparently opposing forces, gravitation and repulsion, which are respectively electric and magnetic.
So, if I understand correctly, Russell believes that physical matter, including photons, are defined as oscillating E/M waves. The periodic table is further shown to be seven tones of "motion-in-opposition", within the 10 octaves of ‘integrating’ light. Larger octaves have additional half tones.

MM - Photons create all the elements, using combinations of electron, neutron and proton charged particles.

If elements are resonant extensions of Light - How do the motions maintain the integrity of the many electrons, neutrons and protons that are known to be present?

Russell identifies 18 dimensions primarily corresponding to aspects of motion corresponding to various physical properties: length, breadth, thickness, time, pressure, temperature, sex, ionization, valence, etc.

There’s more than I could include here.

Do I understand Russell’s ideas? Have I left out anything important? Please feel free to point.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////

I see it’s difficult to obtain WR works without investing in package training deals. The one free pdf I found (above) involves limited use of quotations with required citations, for which I’m grateful; requiring students and the public to pay to learn WR cosmogony is wrong - in my opinion.

Please note: Miles gives his ideas away freely.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by Nevyn on Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:26 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
A big  difference - the cause of Mass.
WR – pg 10 wrote: Form, like time, space, mass, color, weight, temperature and or the effects of motion is an attribute of motion only, and in no way an attribute of substance.
Form without substance? Light has no substance? What is doing the motion? There seems to be an implied ether where empty space can acquire physical properties.
MM - The ‘substance’ is real, spinning photons with stacked spins.

I don't think this is quite as different as it may seem at first. Yes, Miles has real substance at the heart of everything but that real particle (BPhoton) uses stacked spins to become bigger things. So, in a way, we can say that the BPhoton uses motion to create many forms.

We have also discussed the idea of mass being a result, or part of it, of stacked spins which would still fit this definition, somewhat. I can accept mass being a result of motion quite easily, in fact, I don't see how it could be anything else. What else could resist motion except motion itself? If mass had anything to do with space, then it would have to be attached to that space which requires that space be something.

However, the original statement explicitly states that form is in no way an attribute of substance and I find that a bit strange. I'm not sure what his definition of substance is though and just from this statement, it seems like something different to my idea of substance since I can't see how any substance can not have some form. Maybe his definition of form is a bit different to mine. I don't know.

I also can not understand how space could be a result of motion. I agree with you, Airman, he is invoking an ether. While I can agree with an ether in some circumstances (a very reduced idea than what ether has come to represent) I can not agree with space being anything at all. That is, space does not have substance, form, mass, motion or anything. It is the lack of something, the void, the no thing. Only things can have properties, so space can not have properties because it is not a thing.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by esamawuta on Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:37 am

Sorry for not writing earlier, had some problems with connectivity during change of locations. I wasn’t able to get any secure line and did not want messages and pw hijacked.
WR has his understanding of the physical parts of the universe from contemporary science in the 1920-ties. He opposed the Bohr model in the same way MM does today and now as then we do not have the language to directly explain for ex a 5-dimensional movement. We have to do the visualization. At the same time they did not have internet with free information, though he must have made huge investing in his promotion of Russellianism, all in contradiction of the mainstream science of the time. I think he was both ridiculed and silenced as MM has been.
But as WR states; all mass is energy (spins; as to MM) and my suggestion is to look at the interface where the alpha in its different combinations of protons is created by resonance. The alphas then build up matter just like MM shows in his nuclear diagrams.
This is why WR has his 18 dimensions, for him all matter is vibrations. It is all a matter of perception.

esamawuta

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:59 pm

.
esamawuta said. Sorry for not writing earlier, had some problems with connectivity during change of locations. I wasn’t able to get any secure line and did not want messages and pw hijacked.
Airman said. The real world comes first. Yours sounds more difficult than mine.

WR has his understanding of the physical parts of the universe from contemporary science in the 1920-ties.
I agree. WR indicated that hydrogen was at the small limit of our perception. He also expressed highest consciousness/One/universe as the same physical parts.

He opposed the Bohr model in the same way MM does today
WBR - As I see it, WBR cosmogony explains why the Bohr model makes sense, since matter at both the atomic and solar system scales look and behave the same.
MM - Electrons are not orbiting the nucleus like planets around the sun, there are no stable electron positions outside the alphas (or larger nuclei).  


and now as then we do not have the language to directly explain for ex a 5-dimensional movement. We have to do the visualization.
I would argue that visualization of a 5-dimentional movement in the real world is impossible.

Why refer to a 5-dimentional movement when non-russellians have no idea what you’re talking about? Pressure?
WR starts with the same: length, breadth, thickness - but then adding 15 more dimensions seems unique. Each of those ‘dimensions’ equate to physical properties. We need to track those properties. Calling them higher dimensions makes no sense to me.


At the same time they did not have internet with free information, though he must have made huge investing in his promotion of Russellianism, all in contradiction of the mainstream science of the time.
Many were no doubt attracted to Walter Russell's Foundation, later the University of Science and Philosophy, Swannanoa. Contradicting mainstream is a present-day construct.

I think he was both ridiculed and silenced as MM has been.
I have no idea about WR. MM has been mostly ignored or derided.

But as WR states; all mass is energy (spins; as to MM) and my suggestion is to look at the interface where the alpha in its different combinations of protons is created by resonance. The alphas then build up matter just like MM shows in his nuclear diagrams.

Miles describes how a series of spin radius doublings beginning with B-Photons leads to the whole sub-atomic zoo, including electrons, protons and neutrons. The universe is then created from those particles. Saying the basic unit of atoms is the alpha – 2 protons and 2 neutrons – is reasonable.

I do not believe Walter Russell would agree. There are no building blocks. Elements aren’t ‘fixed’ in time. All matter is oscillations, part of a continuous spectrum.
pg 85. A radium particle was once a light unit of hydrogen and will be so again.


This is why WR has his 18 dimensions, for him all matter is vibrations. It is all a matter of perception.
Vibrations occur in real space. Why create dimensions in order to explain vibrations? Calling them higher dimensions is not justified.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by esamawuta on Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:13 am

Sorry to have been away all this time. Been out in the wilderness for a while with no internet. Hope some here have been checking more on the Walter Russell item and checked his books&drawings. Here is some more regarding the connection between the nucleus and the solar system. The charge field is definitely a part of the puzzle.
Planets are like alphas created and thrown out from their creators, in the Mathis  nucleus at the carousel level and in a solar system from a sun. Look at a system with a sun and planets. The planets start after been dissipated circulating in the equatorial plane of their sun until they disintegrate by turning their polar axis 90 degrees from the sun equator. Here they flatten out as rings to form new bodies. Everything is about recycling. Compare this picture to the nuclear model of Miles Mathis. The very center of the  alpha at carousel level is a gravitational core produced by two centripetal vortices, as a doubly charged sphere. That means spins and antispins. Important: note that the subatomic field comes from within in the carousel alpha. The carousel alpha then creates the alpha satellites surrounding it when the charge field is emitted at the equator. These alphas are created/grown from the spins from within of the charge field to adjust to the ambient charge field when building the nucleus. The perpendicular axis is the electrical and gravitational centripetal vortex of the Russell papers. It is here the charge field creates gravitation by electricity, as to the Russell generative-radiative theory. He shows this in his drawing no. 129, Home study part 12, page 13. Check also the Russell octave periodic chart where the +1 to +4 protons add to gravity in each octave.  A radiative centrifugal vortex works in the dissipating process in the very same axis (=radiation). This is what is called the universal breathing, we have two systems working simultaneously. The Mathis system is about expanding spheres with a linear component. Remember the nuclear diagrams only show how the field is distributed in 2D. Russell gives the linear component a deeper explanation by his radial system of change in potential which works in every radial direction in all spherical layers. So the universe is not expanding, it is just breathing. Just like all matter.   Regards JR

esamawuta

Posts : 7
Join date : 2016-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LegeNet on Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:04 pm

Illustration to above by JR:



(JR asked me to provide this.  A copy of his above comment is also at  http://blog.lege.net/?/333-Ovetenskapsparadigmet.html#c2515)
avatar
LegeNet

Posts : 2
Join date : 2016-04-18

View user profile http://blog.lege.net/?/333-Ovetenskapsparadigmet.html

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:36 pm

Hello Sir,

Welcome.

I looked at  http://blog.lege.net/?/333-Ovetenskapsparadigmet.html#c2515). I could almost understand... .

Would you please share where THE FLIGHT OF THE BUMBLEBEE AND THE LAWS OF NATURE came from?
The bee is now free from the gravitational influence around it, creates its own little magnetic bubble and hovers around. There are some lizards and hummingbirds that do the same thing.
Maxwell's asymmetrical open systems also sounds very interesting.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by LegeNet on Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:57 pm

Hello LongtimeAirman

It was not me but Jan Rosbäck who in turn quoted Ralph Ring's presentation at the Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference, where Mr. Ring gave this amazing explanation of the flight of the bumblebee.  Jan Rosbäck quoted Ralph Ring in comment #45 2015-06-21 11:36 (this is a clickable link).  So, unless Jan Rosbäck want to add anything here I will have to refer back to Mr. Ralph Ring.

As for Maxwell's asymmetrical open systems I can only refer to the original James Clerk Maxwel equations defined for 20 field variables known in electrodynamics since 1865.  The original equations are for example published by André Waser, Birchli 35, CH-8840 Einsiedeln; andre.waser@aw-verlag.ch, Copyright © (2000) by AW-Verlag, www.aw-verlag.ch.  14 pages.  As I understand it, the original equations for example contains the vector potential A, which today usually is eliminated.  Thomas E. Bearden, who as you are most likely aware have written extensively on Higher Order Electrodynamics, often refer to this potential.  Perhaps you were thinking of the 1873 modification of his original 1865 equations that Maxwell himself did where he tried to introduce the quaternion notation by writing down his results also in a quaternion form?  The "Maxwell's asymmetrical open systems" refer to the original equations from 1865.

Best wishes.
avatar
LegeNet

Posts : 2
Join date : 2016-04-18

View user profile http://blog.lege.net/?/333-Ovetenskapsparadigmet.html

Back to top Go down

Re: Miles Mathis & Walter Bowman Russell

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum