Rhythmic Balanced Interchange = Sympathetic Vibratory Physics

[esaruoho]

hi. i decided to start this thread to discuss the completely convenient connection between Walter Russell (Rhythmic Balanced Interchange) and John Keely (Sympathetic Vibratory Physics).

i link you to two documentaries where Dale Pond speaks of John Keely - and Love/Mind -- these are from 1994, before he started seriously delving into Walter Russell, in 2004 he was already much better versed in Russell/Love, but they are still interesting - real "grower" of a documentary.

has anyone done any thinking into the connection between Russell and Keely?

Dale Pond - The Basic Principles of SVP 1/2

Dale Pond - The Basic Principles of SVP 2/2

i hope some of you will enjoy these - and maybe could start up a discussion regarding why is it that this all is such a great gray area? Keely and Russell, according to rememberingiam at least - connect completely, what with Keely suggesting there is only one force, Mind Force -- and all that. but it would be great to hear if anyone else has had any thoughts of connecting these?

[Lancelot]

Hi:

With all respect to Dale Pond and his voluminous web site - but I think that some of his pictures are not only wrong but totally misleading and as long as he is displaying such incorrect information I can only surmise that he does not have sufficient knowledge of Russell physics and cosmology to guide and teach others.

Keeley might have had some basic resonances with Russell but it escapes common mortals such as me - I have enough difficulties grasping Dr. Russell's concpets and I am nonetheless satisfied with my progress - but I get TOTALLY lost in whatever Dale has to say of and about Keely - sorry - I gave up on Keely long ago and have not regretted my choice.

By the way - and in case someone wants to challenge me regarding Dale Pond's inaccuracies - everybody in the Russell camp knows that we have two oppositely-sexed centripital vortices homing in on each other to meet at a their apex (at maturity). These vortices might temporarily bore through each other in their exuberance of meeting but then get reflected into a centrifugal spin 90 degrees from their common gravity shaft.
What Dale is saying and showing is that one vortex enters the system from above and another is then exiting from below the equator. That's a lot of balloney and can throw off a less astute thinker for years!

Thanks for listening!

Lancelot.

[Peace]

I just happened to came across this thread.

I go together with Lancelot. IMHO Dave Pond has not really understood Dr's cosmogony (Well, I don't say, that I really understand it either ). Prior to Dr's cosmogony I also occupied myself much in Keely's world. But it's really a hard task, as he uses a very very special language and cosmogony. But even as far as I could understand what Keely meant, I came to a different interpretation of Keely as Dale Pond. Therefore from then on, I only read Keely's texts and not anymore Dale's, like that I could discard a lot of the confusion that I had prior.
As soon as I got to know Dr's work. I also gave up on Keely, and never regretted my choice.

But as far as I understood Keely, his cosmogony is extremely similar to Dr's. He only uses completely different terms. And he mainly focused on the practical (oscillatory) side of the cosmogony, whereas Dr more described the basic principle and just said, one would have to do some experiments to get to know, which pressures are exactly needed for what. What has exactly what oscillation frequences, ...

But e.g. when you have something like that (pure random out of the book):

He states that compound negative vibration of the neutral centers of the molecules in the Trexar and Trexnonar causes antagonism by differentiation and the attractive power of aggregation becomes radiant force with immense rotational velocity, carrying the "force beyond the molucular inner one-third"

The link to Dr's cosmogony is obvious.
With just a bit of omitting the "strange Keely stuff" it reads:

[...(The)] negative vibration of the neutral centers of the molecules in the [some special "alloy"] causes [...(that)...] the attractive power of aggregation becomes radiant force with immense rotational velocity [...]

This now, exactly fits Dr's cosmogony. He just mentions how to force a body which was charging before, to discharge. He even mentionend the increase in rotational velocity with the discharge. He also clearly describes, that the aggregation has attractive power (and we do know, that positive charging system do attract).

[esaruoho]

yeah, safe to say is this:

Keely never understood anything of Russell's cosmogeny. In fact, Keely never even met Russell or read his books (Keely died before end of 1890, possibly earlier).

Russell never understood anything of Keely's cosmogeny. In fact, Russell never even met Keely, or read his books.

Dale Pond has read Keely and Russell, and this lecture is very old, focusing on Keely. some say it is useful, others say its just a work in progress.

but Keely and Russell do mesh together, not word-for-word due to the lexicon differences. unfortunately neither of them are easy going.

[Lancelot]

Originally Posted by Peace

I just happened to came across this thread.

I go together with Lancelot. IMHO Dave Pond has not really understood Dr's cosmogony (Well, I don't say, that I really understand it either ). Prior to Dr's cosmogony I also occupied myself much in Keely's world. But it's really a hard task, as he uses a very very special language and cosmogony. But even as far as I could understand what Keely meant, I came to a different interpretation of Keely as Dale Pond. Therefore from then on, I only read Keely's texts and not anymore Dale's, like that I could discard a lot of the confusion that I had prior.
As soon as I got to know Dr's work. I also gave up on Keely, and never regretted my choice.

But as far as I understood Keely, his cosmogony is extremely similar to Dr's. He only uses completely different terms. And he mainly focused on the practical (oscillatory) side of the cosmogony, whereas Dr more described the basic principle and just said, one would have to do some experiments to get to know, which pressures are exactly needed for what. What has exactly what oscillation frequences, ...

But e.g. when you have something like that (pure random out of the book):



The link to Dr's cosmogony is obvious.
With just a bit of omitting the "strange Keely stuff" it reads:

[...(The)] negative vibration of the neutral centers of the molecules in the [some special "alloy"] causes [...(that)...] the attractive power of aggregation becomes radiant force with immense rotational velocity [...]

This now, exactly fits Dr's cosmogony. He just mentions how to force a body which was charging before, to discharge. He even mentionend the increase in rotational velocity with the discharge. He also clearly describes, that the aggregation has attractive power (and we do know, that positive charging system do attract).

Greetings, Esaruoho!

I echo your sentiments regarding Keeley and Dale Pond!
To stimulate your thirst for understanding and to prove to you the validity of Dr. Russell's teachings (what he remembers from the disclosures received in his "illumination") - I urge you to attentively look at the following video:

YouTube - windhexe video

This is just half of the creative/destructive dual opposed vortex syndrome - the other half is unseen. You can easily see that this concept and many derivatives thereof (Viktor Schauberger, Baumgartner et al) are about to explode into a wealth of applications that will soon be commonplace and accepted. One day we will marvel at our ignorance and wonder why it took us so long to finally make use of Dr. Russell's concepts.
Should you need an in-depth explanation of that video and its underlying concepts, just ask.

Your thoughts would be welcome!

Lancelot.

[mr4v0]

Please explain the video.

[Lancelot]

Originally Posted by mr4v0

Please explain the video.

Hello, mr4v0:

You must agree that the object of the video has a distinguishing appearance, that of an inverted cone.
According to Walter Russell, cones (in pairs) are the creation tools of Nature, whether microscopically or macroscopically. However, keep in mind that what you see is only half of the cone pairs - the other half is invisible because it would be below ground level in this case. There have been tornados that exhibited dual opposing cones!!!

What is important to remember is that one of the cone pairs would be 'female' and the other opposing cone would be 'male' in the truest sense of the word. They both thrust centripitally towards their mutual apices (apexes) or vertices (vertexes) in the effort to join in the creation of an offspring, a sphere (when mature, like carbon). That would be an incandescent sphere like the sun because the accumulated pressures would result in a very hot environment. The direction of the internal movement of each cone would be one continuous motion or rotation when viewed from one end but would appear opposite each other when viewed from either end. These are the awesome spirals one can see in the night sky with the help of a decent telescope.

Once these two cones (one visible and the other invisible) meet at their common vertex, they encounter a mirror-like equator (of the created sphere) and that acts as a reflecting surface. The concentrating centripetal movement (rotational manifestation) then reverses to an outward, centrifugal and radiating force, at right angles to the former - but still continuing - condensing two-way inward-thrusting centripetal force. This too can be observed in the starry heavens but constitutes the same dual-cone creation principle - only from an edge-on point of observation.

That radiating outward-thrusting force constitutes the base of two cones that now repeat the process of creation from the outward radiating and seemingly dying point to a renewed living position.

All that happens in 3 and 4 dimensions and one needs to delve deeper into these simple but 'foreign' concepts that very much involve anti-matter, so-called 'black holes' and sexuality (as a force of never-ending self-sustaining creation). Without opposing polarities you have nothing. Man calls these polarities NORTH and SOUTH, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, ACID and BASE etc. but in reality these are all expressions of the dual nature of NATURE, the never-ending dance of sexuality.

To properly understand the video, one needs to comprehend the basic building blocks of Nature. Only then does one realize that the inventor of this apparatus did not really 'invent' anything. He made use of some simple concepts that anyone even superficially conversant with Schauberger or Russell would recognize in a flash. He is very secretive about the inner workings of his apparatus, and I guess he is right - there is nothing to explain!!!

The principle is easy - namely that of the introduction of heated compressed (accelerating) air at the base (that's the top in this case) of the visible cone. Deflecting vanes on the inner surface of the cone force this heated air to become a spiral motion that converges toward the cone's vertex (apex) - which is the bottom in this case. In doing so, the moving hot air multiplies its pressures and speed - to the point (pun intended) that the pressures and speed are so incredibly high at the bottom of the cone (bottom meaning internal apex) that anything within that moving condensing and compressing air mass within the cone is simply reduced to a fine powder, be it glass or metal or a simple rock.

Mind you - the funnel (cone) needs to be pretty robust to withstand all that pressure and grinding; but that aspect seems to have been resolved very well by the 'inventor'. You may have noticed that he introduces the objects into the funnel by throwing them INTO the vertex of the cone, and that is just as valid as introducing them at the base or top of the cone.

It does not really matter whether the air within the cone rotates clockwise or anti-clockwise, just like you can easily make the vortex in your bathtub rotate either way.
In essence, the hot compressed air introduced at the base of the cone maintains its starting rotational speed while the very geometry of the funnel augments its velocity and power. This principle can be used for so many industrial applications that it simply boggles the mind.

Even more power can be extracted from such a system if one uses opposing cones (apex to apex). With the proper gases (instead of air), like helium which is the seed of all creation, one can even achieve transmutation of one element into another, however, it would be better to use high-wattage sound so that the proper frequency can be used to better select and control the necessary pressures desired in the end result.

So, here you have it - I hope that my description of the video is adequate to get you thinking. Your comments would be very welcome!

Lancelot.

[Zetetic11235]

So, just out of curiosity, are there any individuals with more standard qualifications that have looked into russell and keely's work? How does one know that this stuff is any more or even reasonably close as far as its legitimacy to modern physics? I would very much like to see some investigations done into russell by a modern physicist.

It is true that according to modern theoretical physics, mass is given by vibrational energy through one dimentional structures called strings(string theory). So resonance makes some sense in that context, but what is supporting these theories?

[Holiday20310401]

I think russel's speculations get the mindd churning, who cares if they're right of not in this case.

[Lancelot]

You are missing the point - Russell's cosmology and physics go BEYOND present-day physics, and its various lofty theories are just that - theories - whereas a reasonable understanding of Russell's physics leaves one with knowledge that can be put to the test and the Windhexe video above is a decent example, and there are others.

Frankly, I was hoping to see some meaningful responses to my explanations. Don't they merit SOME acceptance or even disagreement? Why don't my thoughts stimulate a lively and meaningful dialog here? Maybe I am in the wrong forum!

Lancelot.