ST fields, Chandlini Plates, Crystalography, passive reciever

[Raui]

Think about it....How does this concept challenge gravity?

Not sure if I'll be saying what your after as I'm only repeating what you've already said but I think this thread is one of the best threads on this forum and to see it die again would be a shame.

I think it laughs in the face of the academic definition of gravity and gives credenece to Russell's 'Cyclic' model of gravity. At 3:25 on this video; Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube you see that the sand is thrown outwards and the lycopodium is drawn in toward the center.

All this is in the same way that a balloon filled with air will rise because it's out of balance with its environment whilst a balloon filled with mercury would sink and lastly a balloon filled with water would sit comfortably between the water and the air because it is in balance with its environment.

So scientists label the force which makes the particles accumulate in the center 'gravity' and try to explain the cause of this force without even bothering to tie in the force which makes the particles flee from the center instead trying to tackle the situation with talk of the curvature of the space-time continuum.

Raui

[Dave45]

lets put a coil in the high density areas

[Armagdn03]

@ Raui, Dave,

Absolutely guys! That last photo is a more complicated version than what I am originally describing which is the initial stratification of a sphere. The "dense" areas are the central core, while the vacuous areas are the "atmosphere". What I am getting at here, is how the GEOMETRY created by the VIBRATION, also rectifies and affects the ambient energy that our object sits in! Not only are the shapes a creation of vibration, but they also rectify, and accumulate external vibration!!!

This is a macroscopic version of what Bedini was playing with when he was poking around different crystals like iron pyrite and getting voltage gradients.

[SilverToGold]

A reflection

Hi Armagdn03, as always a great post and good insight. Seems we share some common interest and it's nice to see that others are heading along similar directions - though maybe through somewhat different perspectives.

For some reason, this is the first time I saw this thread and when I saw "alchemy" - my interest was peaked.

With a devout interest in alchemy, I would like to offer a few points.

The alchemy of old was all about understanding Nature. It is the oldest science, the most true and most occulted. Even the Bible itself has MANY references to alchemy but that is not obvious to someone who is not a student of alchemy.

One interesting point about alchemy is that it very much takes an 'ether' approach to the creation of the universe (like the Bible itself as Genesis was written with alchemical understanding of everything coming from one prime matter). Even Tesla himself referred to the Bible at points to gain understanding of Nature.

Although chemistry/physics takes it's birth from alchemy, alchemist did NOT have a mechanistical but a spiritual understanding of the world. As a point, Newton was first and foremost an alchemist (everything else he did was an aside to his true interest in alchemy), though he failed at it and in no small measure, it was mostly because he was a mechanistical scientist.

I see you guys are trying to learn Russell. If I may offer a suggestion, I would say to study old school alchemy & it's principles deeply and it will open your eyes so you can better understand Russell.

What was the goal of alchemist? No, not to make precious metals or gems - though they succeeded in that. They were unlocking the primitive force of Nature, the very basic building hand of God.

If you unlock this key, you unlock it all. They were able to live over 1000 years in perfect youthful health. Stop any disease. They could literally do almost anything with this knowledge, even on the darker side, create new life forms by mixing existing life forms. There is no doubt they were able to generate indefinite amounts of power for anything.

I was just curious what goal you guys are trying to get at with this study of cymatics was? What is the end goal of it all?

I have just come to the understanding that we can gain greater knowledge going back to the 4 essentials of the alchemist (using Fire, Air, Water and Earth interpretation of the universe). They did not use atoms in their understanding... yet their achievements have been greater than anyone. My point though maybe not very popular, is that looking at atoms, their shapes, molecules ... basically taking a mechanistic view of things will only inhibit our power in understanding Nature. To use a cliche, we won't see the forest for the trees.

Just something for you guys to consider. I have not yet read the alchemanual.net text but it does look interesting. Armagdn03, is there a way to get a full PDF or buy a book of this text, I'd like to look it over better. When they say they are "star people"... what exactly does that mean? Aliens?? Channelled info?? Could you explain this further.

Thanks.

[Armagdn03]

Hi Armagdn03, as always a great post and good insight. Seems we share some common interest and it's nice to see that others are heading along similar directions - though maybe through somewhat different perspectives.

For some reason, this is the first time I saw this thread and when I saw "alchemy" - my interest was peaked.

With a devout interest in alchemy, I would like to offer a few points.

The alchemy of old was all about understanding Nature. It is the oldest science, the most true and most occulted. Even the Bible itself has MANY references to alchemy but that is not obvious to someone who is not a student of alchemy.

One interesting point about alchemy is that it very much takes an 'ether' approach to the creation of the universe (like the Bible itself as Genesis was written with alchemical understanding of everything coming from one prime matter). Even Tesla himself referred to the Bible at points to gain understanding of Nature.

Although chemistry/physics takes it's birth from alchemy, alchemist did NOT have a mechanistical but a spiritual understanding of the world. As a point, Newton was first and foremost an alchemist (everything else he did was an aside to his true interest in alchemy), though he failed at it and in no small measure, it was mostly because he was a mechanistical scientist.

I see you guys are trying to learn Russell. If I may offer a suggestion, I would say to study old school alchemy & it's principles deeply and it will open your eyes so you can better understand Russell.

What was the goal of alchemist? No, not to make precious metals or gems - though they succeeded in that. They were unlocking the primitive force of Nature, the very basic building hand of God.

If you unlock this key, you unlock it all. They were able to live over 1000 years in perfect youthful health. Stop any disease. They could literally do almost anything with this knowledge, even on the darker side, create new life forms by mixing existing life forms. There is no doubt they were able to generate indefinite amounts of power for anything.

I was just curious what goal you guys are trying to get at with this study of cymatics was? What is the end goal of it all?

I have just come to the understanding that we can gain greater knowledge going back to the 4 essentials of the alchemist (using Fire, Air, Water and Earth interpretation of the universe). They did not use atoms in their understanding... yet their achievements have been greater than anyone. My point though maybe not very popular, is that looking at atoms, their shapes, molecules ... basically taking a mechanistic view of things will only inhibit our power in understanding Nature. To use a cliche, we won't see the forest for the trees.

Just something for you guys to consider. I have not yet read the alchemanual.net text but it does look interesting. Armagdn03, is there a way to get a full PDF or buy a book of this text, I'd like to look it over better. When they say they are "star people"... what exactly does that mean? Aliens?? Channelled info?? Could you explain this further.

Thanks.

Hello!

I cannot say that I was an intentional student of alchemy. My learning strategy from the beginning has been to "follow my intuition". There are thousands of pages and volumes of things to read, and one must in some way shape or form discern some things from others. Tesla seemed "true" to me, which led me to Russell. After reading his material, and taking his course as prescribed (one section per month, with plenty of reflection and meditation to understand), I started to find other cosmologies which agreed with what he wrote and channeled.

The closest I found was the Alchemanual, and Dewey B Larson's Reciprocal theory. The Alchemanual agrees with Russell almost 100%. It clarifies, and elaborates on many points without contradiction. I contacted the scribe, Aaity Olson and we exchanged emails for a while. I learned that her information was channeled, and in fact she had asked about cosmologies like Russells, even using his name in particular. The response was that while Russell was correct, there were points that needed elaboration help the student really absorb.

Many many of the experiments and understandings I have come from these 3 sources, I know them inside and out, and have spent many hours in meditation over them. I know this is not necessarily a classical approach to learning, but it has served me well.

In actuality, while I care about free energy, it has never been my main goal. I have an almost obsessive want to "know", and electrical engineering seems to be my artistic medium of choice for displaying what I have learned.

[MonsieurM]

Hi Armagdn03, as always a great post and good insight. Seems we share some common interest and it's nice to see that others are heading along similar directions - though maybe through somewhat different perspectives.

For some reason, this is the first time I saw this thread and when I saw "alchemy" - my interest was peaked.

With a devout interest in alchemy, I would like to offer a few points.

The alchemy of old was all about understanding Nature. It is the oldest science, the most true and most occulted. Even the Bible itself has MANY references to alchemy but that is not obvious to someone who is not a student of alchemy.

One interesting point about alchemy is that it very much takes an 'ether' approach to the creation of the universe (like the Bible itself as Genesis was written with alchemical understanding of everything coming from one prime matter). Even Tesla himself referred to the Bible at points to gain understanding of Nature.

Although chemistry/physics takes it's birth from alchemy, alchemist did NOT have a mechanistical but a spiritual understanding of the world. As a point, Newton was first and foremost an alchemist (everything else he did was an aside to his true interest in alchemy), though he failed at it and in no small measure, it was mostly because he was a mechanistical scientist.

I see you guys are trying to learn Russell. If I may offer a suggestion, I would say to study old school alchemy & it's principles deeply and it will open your eyes so you can better understand Russell.



Thanks.

In complete agreement with you SilverToGold...and it is quite a "Natural Process" ...The Pythagorian School of thought was born out of the Mystery School...Walter Russel was considered one of the last great Pythagorian thinker (imo )

[MonsieurM]

In actuality, while I care about free energy, it has never been my main goal. I have an almost obsessive want to "know", and electrical engineering seems to be my artistic medium of choice for displaying what I have learned.

In ancient times, it would have been considered walking your own Alchemical Path...which i believe is innate in all men..but as you said...the condition is to let intuition or as the Egyptians called the Intelligence of the Heart take the Helm

[SilverToGold]

Well, I like your style. My approach is very similar and the more time I spend in my form of meditation (usually prayer), the closer I get to the truth through my "intuition" and experimental results usually follow from insight gained through meditation. Of course, this also stems from a lot of reading before/after doing anything.

I love Russell but honestly I have felt mostly unprepared to grasp it totally till recently so I have been putting it off for later but collecting his material for that time. But my reading of old alchemical texts has made me feel able to more completely get it. Russell is not easy to understand. For me, Reich's work is a more approachable and easier to work with in a practical manner.

I also am a lover of truth and seek wisdom, more so than a "device" to save humanity. If anything, the device would only serve to point out the lies that form "reality" for most people and such a device only can come after understanding.

Are there any PDF's or printed books for the Alchemanual? I have a hard time reading from the internet, don't get the "feel" for it. I respect your opinion and will look further into it.

Thanks again!

Hello!

I cannot say that I was an intentional student of alchemy. My learning strategy from the beginning has been to "follow my intuition". There are thousands of pages and volumes of things to read, and one must in some way shape or form discern some things from others. Tesla seemed "true" to me, which led me to Russell. After reading his material, and taking his course as prescribed (one section per month, with plenty of reflection and meditation to understand), I started to find other cosmologies which agreed with what he wrote and channeled.

The closest I found was the Alchemanual, and Dewey B Larson's Reciprocal theory. The Alchemanual agrees with Russell almost 100%. It clarifies, and elaborates on many points without contradiction. I contacted the scribe, Aaity Olson and we exchanged emails for a while. I learned that her information was channeled, and in fact she had asked about cosmologies like Russells, even using his name in particular. The response was that while Russell was correct, there were points that needed elaboration help the student really absorb.

Many many of the experiments and understandings I have come from these 3 sources, I know them inside and out, and have spent many hours in meditation over them. I know this is not necessarily a classical approach to learning, but it has served me well.

In actuality, while I care about free energy, it has never been my main goal. I have an almost obsessive want to "know", and electrical engineering seems to be my artistic medium of choice for displaying what I have learned.

[MonsieurM]

Alchemical Manual for this Millennium Vol. 1:index.html

[SilverToGold]

Thanks but I would have to compile that myself into a book to print. I was looking to see if there was already a book to buy or a PDF to print out so I could read it in hand and not on a screen. I want an analog copy.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any such creature on their site.

Alchemical Manual for this Millennium Vol. 1:index.html

[MonsieurM]

If you are a member of Scribd, they allow you to download a pdf

[SilverToGold]

Well, Thanks you MonsieurM, that was what I was looking for!

For anyone else interested.

Alchemical Manual for This Millennium Vol-1 by Aaity Olson

Alchemical Manual for This Millennium Vol-2 by Aaity Olson

If you are a member of Scribd, they allow you to download a pdf

[Armagdn03]

Dewey B. Larson

Dewey B Larsons Reciprocal theory, another theory revolving around the concept of "1"

[Raui]

As a supplement to the above link posted by Armagdn03 this little paper should be of interest: Unified Theory: Standard units / ST conversion. All natural constants are derived from Larson's units although the paper doesn't mention Larson which is a shame. Quite an interesting read if you ask me If anyone wants to skip the read and see the table which I don't suggest have a look at this table: Unified Theory: Standard units / ST constants

Raui