Comparing Traditional Science with Walter Russell’s Vortex Cosmology

COMPARING TRADITIONAL SCIENCE AND RUSSELLIAN COSMOLOGY

With Questions & Answers

The full series of Fulcrum Magazine can be found here: https://www.philosophy.org/fulcrum.html#/

The following was sourced from the Fulcrum Magazine Volume 1, No 1, 1992
which can be downloaded HERE

TRADITIONAL SCIENCE vs RUSSELL COSMOGONY

We shall use these abbreviations to reference the literature:
Atomic Suicide : AS
The Secret of Light : TSOL
The Universal One : U1
A New Concept of the Universe : NCU
Home Study Course : HS
The Divine llliad : DI

 

 

A FEW QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

These first five (5) questions concern “A New Concept of the Universe” (NCU) by Dr. Russell.

(1) What are the divisions between wave octaves of the elements?

A. The Russell Periodic Chart confuses me with the lines drawn horizontally through wave amplitudes (uniting equators) and designations for octave waves written between the horizontal lines.

B. Postulates 102 and 108 and figure 88 (pages 114, 116 & 154, resp.) of NCU indicate octave waves start and end at an inert gas (dividing equators).

(2) From figure 88 and postulate 102 of NCU, are two helium atoms required to form a positive-negative pair as the helium octave unfolds?

(3) Describe the sequence of helium unfolding to carbon and refolding to neon. What positive-negative pairs are created during unfoldment and which are transmuted (transformed) as refoldment into neon occurs?

(4) What is the nature of an electron? What position does it occupy on the Russell Periodic Chart? How does the Russell Cosmogony explain conductivity in metals?

(5) Describe the differences in mass and charge of protons, electrons, neutrons, and the hydrogen atom using the Russell Cosmogony.

To clarify questions 1, 2, & 3:
On Russell’s periodic chart, the lines are drawn from wave amplitude to wave amplitude to indicate the octaves have nothing to do with the wave amplitudes. The lines only relate to the inert gases which center them. The 4th octave is the Helium octave, the 5th the Neon, etc. Each octave is like children’s building blocks – lined up they form a train – but each is individual and separate. In the Helium octave, Helium begins and ends the octave. All the Helium elements unfold from Helium and refold back into Helium…. not Neon, as is implied on the Russell chart. Yes, it takes two Helium atoms to form all the elements as is shown on page 154. Just as it takes a male and female anything to procreate offspring. All of the elements are formed at resistance points as the female Helium vortex interchanges in and through the male Helium vortex. Carbon is created at the point of maximum resistance as the opposing vortexes meet and unite at the wave amplitude. Each octave is countless zillions of atoms of its inert gas, from which spring the elements of that octave.

Questions 4 & 5 require a broader answer:
The elements of nature (elemental tones) can be compared to the keys of a piano (musical tones) – except nature’s piano has 9 octaves. Each key of the piano and each element of nature has a specific “PRESSURE CONDITION” that produces it. On a piano the pressure condition is produced by the length, size and tautness of the piano wire. The “C” or “D” tone of any given octave is not a “different substance”. It is a different pressure condition (the cause) which in turn produces specific effects as tones, frequencies and sound qualities. Likewise the elemental tones of carbon, silicon or gold are not different substances. They too are only different “pressure conditions”. Each pressure condition has it’s own specific measurable identity as frequency, color, temperature, mass, weight, number of electrons, protons, etc. Walter Russell came to teach us how to reproduce all of nature’s elements in the laboratory and factory as easily as we reproduce musical tones on all our instruments. With abundant planetary resources, the “cause” of most wars is removed, thus paving the way to world peace and prosperity for all humanity.

To accomplish this we need more understanding. The inert gases are the “Cosmic Piano Strings” from which all the elements arise – the “silicon chips” of the Universal Computer. The process of going from a gas to a solid is just a matter of squeezing the space out of the gas. The harder you squeeze, the denser the solid. Different pressures create different elements. Release the pressure and the elements “disappear” back into their inert gas from which they came. The space of a domed football stadium might be squeezed down to single pea or less. Contrary to the low pressures required to produce musical tones, the elemental tones require the “pressure of the heavens ” – huge wave fields – a lever many miles long – to compress the gas into a solid. Atoms of solids are “balloon like”, pumped full of pressure and spin like a gyroscope. The scientists search for a cosmic glue that holds the atom together will not be found within the atom itself but in the surrounding “space” that compresses/freezes/balances the solid into form.

And the mechanics of creation? Thought you’d never ask.

Quite literally, “thought”, at the speed of light, creates. The inert gases lying in their concentric idle orbits within the vastness of all space are the recording medium for all IDEA ….. not unlike a recording album. Thought impacts the inert gases, dividing the stillness into  polarity, shapes the wave field and begins the compression of invisible black cold light of space into spiral visible vortex motion and into suns. Suns born planets. Planets born seas and eventually life.

The secret of creation is in the motion. All motion looks like a tornado, a vortex. All motion has two aspects – a spin and an orbit. All motion is like a child’s toy spinning “top”, with the compressor rod on top. As you push down it spins. Push hard enough and there will be no wobble or orbit- only fast spin. As the speed of the spin slows down the speed of the wobble or orbit increases till it falls over. A toy gyroscope is better balanced and a better example, for its spin and orbit are visible longer. All atoms and sub-atomic particles are gyroscopes/ vortexes/motion only….but different from the above toys. In nature’s three dimensional realm, as you increase the pressure from all directions, squeezing space out, the spin slows down and the orbit/wobble speeds up as the volume decreases. This is the  imploding/ centripetal/gravity/positive charge vortex that turns gases (fast spin – slow orbit} into solids (slow spin – fast orbit). As the pressure  is reduced the spin speeds up and the orbit slows down as the volume expands. This is the exploding/centrifugal/radiative/negative discharge vortex that turns solids into gases and eventually back to the cold “black light nothingness of space”. Each element in nature has its own 3 dimensional pressure and a specific speed/frequency to its spin/orbit and a specific angle of orbit to its wave axis. Scientists of the future, as Russell predicted, will work to identify the frequency of the elements gyroscopic spin and its angle of orbit in order to create all the  known elements in the laboratory as well as the many unknown “split tones” available to man.

An added thought. The recently discovered and named “Buckeyball”- the 60 atom Carbon “soccerball like” molecule which is as close to a sphere as you can come could more appropriately have been called the “Russell-ball”. It was Russell, who since 1926, has been trying to awaken science to the cube/sphere nature of Carbon. Bucky deserves all credit due him. He was a great thinker. In time the Cosmic Knowing of Russell will likewise be appreciated.

From Howard Davis , Atlanta , GA :

Question 1:  Octaves originally were considered to begin and end at inert gases. In the Universal One (see chart on page 13), Russell had 10 octaves and only the beginning of the first and the end of the last were on the inertial line (the first and last inert gas being the same). This seemed more elegant to me than the 9 octave system of the later books. I asked Lao about this and she said that it was because she convinced (Walter) Russell that you cannot go beyond 9. I am not convinced that the ten octave universe is not correct. It may be that Russell was still thinking in these terms and had not fully revised his thinking. Or his thought may have encompassed two concepts of octave: perhaps not differentiating the two with different words. Look at figure 125 on page 161 of NCU. This shows another illustration of the octave concept as is shown in the charts of elements. An octave starts from a resting place. In the Russell charts there are two resting places (figure 88), could this lead to some understanding of this seeming contradiction?

Question 2:  No, there seems to me to be one helium atom for each positive-negative pair in the drawing, there being two illustrated.

Question 3: In both the new chart of elements (page xvi NCU) and the older version (page 13 of the Universal One), the inert gases are not centered over the inertial line. Rather they are slightly past center. I believe that I remember Russell writing that the effort to attain the +4-4 position brings the swing back to -inertia slightly past the inertial line for the next inert gas. This swing begins the effort to the next +4-4 position.

Question 4: I am not sure about the nature of electrons . This has always been a little confusing to me as well. Jeff Swan could look into this. Russell does talk about conductivity and says that all elements that are neither inert or pure carbon do conduct because of their imbalance (page 113 NCU).

Answers From Dr. Timothy A Binder, University President

(1) The divisions between wave octaves of the elements are at the dividing equators, the inert gases. The wave amplitude, or uniting equator, is not a division between one octave of elements and another, it is the point of maximum maturity, equilibrium of generative-radiative forces, switch point from preponderant generation or radiation to its opposite, the point of most visible change in a system, and that point which simulates rest by the most violent motion in opposition.

(2) From Russell’s description of the inert gas and from what I believe science has observed of “noble” gases that do not unite with any other elements, the inert gases are quasi, so called, “one or two dimensional” creatures that would appear to violate the Russell dictum that no part of Universe can exhibit a single charge. The reason they do not violate it is that they do not have any charge or any polarity, as is suggested by their being in the zero position of the wave. The inert gases are sexless in this sense. As sexless creatures they would not unite in positive- negative pairs as do all other parts of Universe. This would appear to violate the statement on page 58 of NCU that there are no single charged positive or negative particles, and no neutral particles. Also in our ordinary language that is used to describe the sensed transient universe it would appear to be impossible to conceive of any thing that has less than 3 dimensions in the tangible universe. One or two dimensions only are abstractions. It would appear that the Russells’ description of the inert gases as without polarity and as existing in a flat plane or in one or two dimensions only was their best attempt to describe the nature and physical characteristics of these noble gases.

Since the inert gases can be measured, they must exist in three dimensions. They do take up space, exert pressure, and emit a spectrum when charged. As they do exist in the relative universe, they also must be made up of positive and negative charges, or exhibit some degree of polarity. If not then there are neutral particles in the inert gases. PGS 68-69 in NCU postulates 13-22 describe the inert gases variously as the fulcrum, centering zero, seed, recording repeating system, fulcrum zero of polarity, that centers all elements to control their unfolding, and balances them from without to control their refolding. This description appears to say in effect that the inert gases are neutral particles as “zeros”, and as the fulcrum zero of polarity. As the recording-repeating system of nature there may be some experiments that could be done to demonstrate this.

Perhaps there is some way to demonstrate the recording action of them, some way that this information can be accessed in demonstration. Does anyone have any ideas? Perhaps this is the way we can access the “akashic records”, the memory of all things. On page 271 of TSOL the inert gases are said to, “represent minimum motion in the wave, just as amplitudes represent maximum motion”. This would imply that the inert gases must have some amount of polarity, albeit only a minimum amount of polarity. If not we must explain how anything can exist in  the transient changing universe as motion and not demonstrate polarity. For is not motion the basis of polarity? The inert gases are the beginning of motion in a centripetal direction, and they apparently are the end of motion in a centrifugal direction. Preponderance of motion to or from the center of a system determines polarity.

On pages 233- 234 in AS it is stated that ‘the seed of an acorn is an inert gas or a combination of several octaves of inert gases’; also that, “the nine inert gases are the shores of the visible universe, where the invisible bridges, which link mind and motion, touch the moving-action universe. There are nine of them because the bridge has nine parts, which we might call entrances to mortality and exits to immortality”.

On page 236 in AS it states that, “each inert gas is constructed by four rings in one plane, centered by a hole which is the invisible mind- source of those four rings. At the very center of that hole is a point of stillness, within which is lodged all the ……..qualities which are a part of the God nature in non-dimensional qualities”. These last two paragraphs speak of the inert gases as being in the transient universe, which we also know from experience are in that transient universe, and therefore are again states of motion and particles which as such should exhibit “charge” and/or “discharge” or male and female characteristics. If each gas is constructed of four rings in one plane, even that “one plane” must have length, breadth, and depth to it (again, one or two dimensions alone are an abstraction) and all the other 18 dimensions of matter, if it exists in the transient universe of motion. It is in that position in the wave where it is a more flattened out sphere than any other position, yet even a flat line drawn on a piece of paper with a thin laser light has length, breadth, and width. This appears to contradict the statement that they are sexless. To anticipate the summation of my comments, I will say that perhaps it would be more intelligible to say that the inert gases are the youngest stages of matter within every octave, and as such have not the maturity to mate with other elements, and in this way can be thought of as “sexless”.

On page 246 of AS it is stated that all of the inert gases are within one another. This is similar thinking to where in the DI message as partially reproduced on page 142 of TSOL it says, “Everything that is is of every other thing that is. Nothing is of itself alone. All things are indissolubly united”. Also in the same book on page 214, “Say thou to him: each thing is everything and each is everywhere. For I say all things are the same thing, for all things are universal. Each thing reaches through every other thing to the farthermost star”. On page 215, “… all things occupy the same space, and each thing occupies all space”. And again, on page 217, “…..every element which man thinketh of as of itself alone is within every other element, e’en to the atom’s veriest unit”. Intimidations of a holographic model of Universe indeed!

All of this poetic language states that there is no exact science, and that there are no unchanging things. It appears to be a paradox, a similar paradox to the age old question is the “ONE” real or is “THE MANY” real? The obvious and only answer for me is that they both are real; and that is not a paradox! In considering all of the differing points of view on the inert gases that I suggest are paradoxically presented us in the Russells’ writings, it appears to me that we can best understand them as the first appearance of matter in the material world. They are the birth of matter. As the seed into which all elements refold they are also the end of matter. Life and death are again to be seen as one, as a continuum. Just as an old person begins to take on many of the appearances of a baby before death, the inert gases stand at the beginning and the end of matter’s appearance and disappearance. From this vantage point it is more accurate to say that the inert gases are not sexless, or one or two dimensional, for the only thing that is without sex or at least 18 dimensions is the ONE, the entire Universe. All parts of Universe must demonstrate sex and 17 other dimensions. At the same time the ONE has within it both sexes, and all dimensions. THE ONE IS REAL AND THE MANY IS REAL. The inert gases exist in THE MANY, the relative Universe; and THE ONE, the absolute Universe contains within it the inert gases and all else. To directly answer the question, “are two helium atoms required to form a positive-negative pair as the Helium octave unfolds?”, I will say it is not required, but it might happen if they are precocious!

(3) From Helium’s flat O to 6 degree plane of rotation, four rings are projected centripetally in four successive efforts. In the first effort Lithium is produced which is at a plane angle of approximately 48 degrees. All things in nature evolve and devolve cyclically, or there is a time lag, or there is a harmonic periodicity to the process. In the second step the element Berylium is formed and it has a plane angle of  rotation of about 72 degrees. In the third step at a plane angle of about 84 degrees Boron is formed, and at about 90 degrees in the fourth step Carbon is formed.

Each ring itself as well as all four rings together as parts of Universe must have polarity preponderance. Those rings are all preponderantly male on the red side, the male side of the wave, up to the fourth position, the amplitude position. At amplitude the polarity preponderance is so even that the element can be said to be a true hermophradite, or to exhibit both sexes equally. From the fourth position on the other side of the wave, again these same four rings continue to be projected in similar manner and these exhibit female preponderance as the dimensional changes progress in form that signifies female preponderance. The structure changes from one of prolation to oblation, etc., etc. In this phase of the cycle the element ends its octave changes at neon as it refolds into it to rest, and in time, to reappear in the next octave cycle. As the substance, the motion, the idea, evolves through the entire nine octave cycle it expresses the one whole idea of creation. As “it” evolves up the cycle it becomes more dense, compressed, and pressurized etc… 

Since all the inert gases are said to be within each other, (as all things are from a ONE or universal viewpoint poetically expressed in the DI) all records are in all of them. From a MANY or relative world measuring the parts “scientific” viewpoint, each inert gas is the seed beginning for each octave and it gets its information from the octave preceding it.

On page 269 of TSOL Russell says, “Octaves unfold from their past recorded seed into which their present record can refold. That principle is absolute in nature”. This would imply that helium is the seed for the carbon octave and it refolds into neon via flourine as well as itself! As matter is wound up and further compressed it becomes the next octave of elements and flourine finally finds rest in neon which is also paradoxically within helium.

This entire process is an evolution in form and all dimensions, not just sex, as the motion that is demonstrating the element goes through the universal cycle. Each element appears and in some time must disappear, the question is how much time must take place under what circumstances to witness the appearance and disappearance. The answer to those questions will possibly allow us to experimentally demonstrate the process. In Chapter 10 of AS in the summary on page 229, the Russells again speak of the ONE or in their terms God the knower as nondimensional. That is consistent with our ordinary language. They then assert that God’s thinking is two dimensional, this is an abstraction in that we cannot sense anything in the visible 3D universe that is only two dimensional. Their statement that God’s thinking is two dimensional is an attempt to relate the ONE with the MANY, or GOD with the material universe. Relationships can be thought of as abstract when you consider them as relationships. When you experience them, sense them, or know them, they are the experience of identity and are not abstract. The ultimate meaning of any relationship is identity. So when you experience a relationship, not as an abstraction, as an idea, it is both ONE and MANY, unity in diversity. When they state that God’s creative actions are three dimensional that is again consistent with our ordinary language. We can also say that God’s destructive actions are 3D.

In the process of elemental formation each set of rings that is projected wherever it is in the wave cycle has within it again the same polarization process, the same division into male-female pairs. When a Lithium atom is created it will only find a simulation of complete balance when it is in mated contact with Flourine. Whether or not at the creation of a Lithium atom its equal mate Flourine is also created is a question that can only experimentally be demonstrated when some of the time and other dimensional circumstances necessary to demonstrate the creation of elements is mastered. Until such demonstrations are manifested we can only talk in terms of principle and attempt to reason as to the outcome.

If everything is created in equal mate pairs it would appear that as Lithium comes into being Flourine must also come into being. In any case it would create a cosmic tragedy of unrequited love to have Lithium created without Flourine or vice-versa! I want to point out that each element is created from the projection of the four rings and these all contain both polarities within them at all times, the degree of preponderance determining its position in the wave and whether or not we call it male or female. At wave amplitude the element formed is a union of the rings projected from both sides of the spectrum in hermophraditic balance.

In summarization of the question #3, all the elements are transmuted within the Helium octave in time from one stage to the next up or possibly even down the cycle. And for the motion in the Helium octave to be refolded into Neon it would end that process at Flourine. 

(4) The nature of an electron is to expand as it leaves it’s primary, whether leaving an anode or cathode, and it is then discharging. It changes its intensity of polarity every bit of distance of travel from cathode or anode, thus the many names for different particles that science has. When the particle arrives at wave amplitude, or any equator like the cube wave field boundary plane equator, where the pressure condition, direction of travel to or from a gravity center is reversed, then it can be termed a neutron, as polarity is balanced at this reversal point. See pages 78-79. The electron is not on the Russell periodic chart as it has no existence in the classical or modern sense in  Russell’s understanding and statements. The electron is motion away from it’s primary. It is a “light unit” a component of the motions that make up an element and all things.

An explanation for how conductivity in metals occurs can perhaps be gleaned from the following maxims derived from the Russell Cosmogony:

Charged bodies seek to discharge their potential into the low potential – pressure inertial position of equilibrium which lies between it and its neighboring mass. Charged bodies discharge slowly into the insulating medium of poor conductivity which surrounds dense mass near the nucleus of a system, and quickly in the more tenuous masses far out in the system where the insulation against discharge is poor. The environment of a mass influences and/or acts as an insulator to protect its stored energy from discharging or not. The more dense the mass the dryer and hotter is its insulating environment, therefore the poorer the conductivity for discharge and decomposition, and the greater the inductive quality of absorption of outer energy.

The less dense the mass, the colder and wetter the insulating environment, therefore the better the conditions for discharge and decomposition and the poorer the inductive ability to generate. The generative direction is the inductive direction of greatest heat; and the direction of cold is the opposite or conductive direction. The direction to which radiation leads is to the condensing zones of cold and low pressure; the direction to which generation leads” is to the expanding zones of heat and high pressure. The direction that radiates expansion must be away from heat and toward cold; the direction that generates condensation must be away from cold and toward heat.

From these principles we should be able to derive an explanation for predicted or observed conductivity of metals and be able to predict what they should be in some type of a scale and check our theory from experimental evidence that should be readily available. It will be the above factors factored into an understanding of the wave and where each metal lies within its own octave in regards to the pressure zone and the red or blue side of the spectrum, and the conductivity determined in relation to these factors as well as what your standard for measurement is. 

It would appear to me that metals are generally good conductors because they have a higher mass, are more dense, generally appear in the third pressure zone of increasing resistance and therefore are able to discharge into a lower potential – pressure zone, and less dense environment.

I would guess that insulators would be those elements that are in lower pressure zones, on the blue side of the spectrum that are incapable of discharging into a lower pressure zone as readily as those previously mentioned. Conductivity must be intimately related to the polarization process, as to conduct a current must be the exchange of potential between the two “yin-yang” principles in nature. It takes two to tango, the divine dance which is the conductive – inductive dance of creation is the polarization process!

Perhaps you metallurgists can derive a formula from all of this admittedly philosophical discussion that is devoid of mathematical description.

(5) I will refer back to answer #4 in answering this question as background. Electrons and neutrons are as described there, and a proton would be a positively charging particle contracting as it centripetally radially approaches its anode, and the center of gravitative mass of its system.

All of these are the one substance in motion, or are simply motion in various degress of centripetal-centrifugal preponderance, density, etc. The mass of a particle or systems will increase relative to other mass in its zone of similarity or its zone of reference as it is subjected to greater compressive, wind-up, pressure. than its neighbors. A proton or neutron has more mass than an electron because it is a more compacted structure for its size in the wave that determines that element. It is more compacted because it is closer to the center of mass of the element.

A hydrogen atom is different in mass than any of these others because of the above stated factors and because it is on a different scale of measurement than they are, like a sun is different than one of its planets or a comet that travels around it. The hydrogen atom has mass determined in the same way that an electron, neutron or proton does, it is the relative compression that was pumped into the atom  that determines its mass.

In basic structure there is no difference between any of these parts. There is no difference from this point of view because the basic structure of one is that of all of them and indeed all other conceivable structure. The vortex whirl, the Trinity and Tao of the ancients, the sphere and the cube are all models for all form. These four parts of universe all exhibit the basic structure that is modified as to whether the part is approaching or receding from the center of the system, and the amount of pressure that has been pumped into the time-space we are observing.

The next questions for your inspired consideration and response are:

1) Voidance Principle: “Every action-reaction in Nature is voided as it occurs, is recorded as it is voided, and repeated as it is recorded.” How can you reconcile the Voidance Principle with your experience of time and space?

2) What are the differences in ‘motion-in-inertia’ and ‘motion-inopposition’ as used by Walter Russell to describe states of motion in the inert gases as compared to the elements?

Dr. Tim Binder and Toby Grotz are pursuing two areas of scientific investigation of the Russell Cosmogony.

1) Transmutation experiments are in process using magnetic fields to recondition the atomic vortexian field shape. (An argument can easily be made to identify the change from one elemental form into another (say, iron into bismuth) as simply a ‘transformation’–for in actuality there is only one substance, with different appearances of the one substance. Walter used the word ‘transmute’ to better communicate with establishment science and used ‘transform’ to identify changes in the properties of an individual metal or element. I will use ‘transmute’ unless otherwise directed by you the students.) Preliminary results are encouraging! The second series of experiments will be completed by mid-April. A full report will be the feature story of the next issue of ‘FULCRUM’.

2) Coils from Dr. Russell’s experiments here at Swannanoa were recently pulled from the basement and shipped to Colorado for testing by Toby Grotz! Hopefully by the third issue of ‘FULCRUM’ we will have some test results to publish. Toby has proven out the mirror winding designs of Earl Koenig and can now take the next step to see if power multiplication is practical!