Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Lao (Russell) 2nd thread, by username truthonly
02-07-2017, 02:08 PM
Post: #1
Music The Lao (Russell) 2nd thread, by username truthonly
----Below is a newspaper clipping from the August 17th, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

To the Editor of The New York Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire modern theory of atomic structure is so utterly without parallel or precedent in Nature that fantasy only mildly expresses it. It is to be regretted that the profound thinking of profound men is thus being wasted on conclusions which cannot possibly endure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York, Aug. 12, 1930

----This is the end of the newspaper clipping from the August 17th, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

Now Messager asks you readers: Does this above seem like a man who would hide his work from the public and not allow others to utilize his "truth"? He quarreled constantly with the scientific approach as recognized--he knew Tesla and all the better thinkers of the day--would he actually object to a little grandmother using his offerings to tell you-the-people that you are on THE WRONG TRACK SCIENTIFICALLY? Further, while you are sleeping and the truth is hidden by whatever cause--the ENEMY HAS TAKEN THE INFORMATION AND, FROM IT, BROUGHT GREAT WEAPONS THAT CAN DESTROY YOU.


----Below is a newspaper clipping from the August 24th, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

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

To the Editor of the New York Times:

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

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

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

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

Accounting for the other focus demonstrates Mr. Russell's idea (concept, rather) that the twin focus is a vacuous force functioning just as effectually as its mate, the sun. Thanks to everyday utilities, this function is within the grasp of the lay mind. Now, if the professionals decline to accept this view, why should they "hold out on us", to drop into the vernacular, by failing to account for the second focus without which no ellipse is complete?

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


----This is the end of the newspaper clipping from the August 24th, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

----Below is a newspaper clipping from the August 31st, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

To the Editor of The New York Times:

Several of my contemporaries in the electrical field seem to be particularly incensed because of a statement made by Walter Russell in The Times that "all modern theories of atomic structure have no more relation to nature than green cheese."

Their rancor is based upon the fact that great scientists such as Millikan, Bohr, Rutherford, Langmuir and others of great prominence have proved their theories by experiment, and Russell, who seems to have obtained most of his knowledge by close observation of nature rather than in the laboratory, tells these men that their conclusions are wrong because their fundamental premises are wrong.

Personally I find it hard to accept Bohr's "jumping electron", as Russell calls it, and I find many others equally skeptical. John Langdon Davies in his recent book, Man and His Universe, criticized this belief severely, ending as follows: "Now, if scientists seem to believe these two things are true, it means that the universe is essentially meaningless."

Russell claims that all conclusions of scientists in regard to things electric are based upon the assumption that all masses are "charged" either positively or negatively. This, he says, is fundamentally wrong, for all masses are doubly charged, each one being preponderantly one or the other just as male and female are known to be so.

Russell has set up such a very strong and convincing argument in support of his claim that my traditional electrical training is severely shaken even if I am not a 100 percent convert as yet.

If, however, Russell succeeds in establishing this one claim alone he will have shaken the very foundations of science, for every textbook on electrical practice, physics and astronomy will have to be rewritten and another mass of mathematical formulae will have to be relegated to the waste basket to keep company with much that has gone that way before.

New York, Aug. 27, 1930

----This is the end of the newspaper clipping from the August 31st, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

----Below is a newspaper clipping from the November 2nd, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

To the Editor of The New York Times:

The Times editorial "This Month's Atom" has so filled these intervening days with answering questions as to whether Dr. Dirac's theory was in line with my cosmogony that I am constrained to answer it. Also, I might as well include the question so often asked regarding the comparative relationship of Dr. Robert Andrews Millikan's statement published some time ago, also in the The Times, for both are interrelated.

The editorial says that "when an electron disappears the vacancy left behaves mathematically like a proton."

A hen seeing her duckling brood taking to water could not be more surprised than modern scientists in seeing this "hole" act like a proton. The proton is not a hole, however, as Dr. Dirac concludes, just as a duckling is not a chicken because it acts like one in respect to the hen. The hole is the vacuous force which acts as an expansion pressure force exerted against an equal compression pressure force which is located in mass and culminates at its centres.

Neither is the proton a hole because it acts like one in all respects save direction, more than an inward explosion toward a vacuum is like an outward explosion because it also acts like one in all respects save direction.

Modern science does not recognize the vacuous force in nature, due to the incomplete Newtonian concept which has given us a "one-way" universe instead of the "two-way" universe of my cosmogony. If Newton had completed his gravitational observations and Kepler had been as curious about unmentioned vacuous focus as he was regarding the focus he did mention, science would now understand what this newly discovered negative "hole which acts like a proton" really is and I would not be in the position of being disliked by my scientific friends for playing the part of Copernicus to their Ptolemy.

The following is a brief explanation of the complete cycle of motion which will explain what Dirac found, what he has not yet found and what he and Lodge and others say they do not understand regarding that which he has found.

The electron is a doubly charged mass. The action of integrating any mass is a generative or condensive one which is called the attraction of gravitation. This causes mass to appear around a common centre of high compression pressure and gives rise to the commonly believed error that matter attracts matter, which is not true to nature. The reaction to this action of compression is the expansion of the field which has been rendered vacuous by thus being drawn upon by the gravitative, indrawing, endothermic action of condensation. The expansion of the residual volume, or field surrounding the mass, is a vacuity which Is as equally minus the original equilibrium of the total volume as the centre of the mass is plus that equilibrium.

The force represented by that vacuity is an expansion pressure which is the equal and opposite of the gravitative compression pressure and gives rise to that commonly believed error of light repulsion which is not true to nature.

The "hole" that Dirac describes is the vacuous force of the expansion stroke of the universal pump. This force is correctly described as negative electricity, negative discharge, radiation, radio-activity or by any other name which results in the disappearance of mass into its surrounding tenuous field.

On the contrary, the high pressure point of dense mass is the condensive force which is the compression stroke of the universal pump. This force is correctly described as positive electricity, positive charge, gravitation, condensation or by any other name which results in the appearance of mass into solidity.

These two opposing actions and reactions constitute the electro-magnetic oscillations, or compression-expansion sequences, which are present in every mass and which constitute the mechanistic or life principle of the universe. These sequences have a periodicity of preponderances which are first preponderantly generative and then preponderantly degenerative, which we know of as the phenomena of growth.

We have now completed the cycle of appearance and disappearance of mass through the series of endothermic, inbreathing, positive oscillations of compression pressure and exothermic, outbreathing, negative oscillations of expansion pressure which is the dual characteristic of electricity; but we have one more characteristic of nature as a result of these action and reaction sequences.

This one other attribute of nature is the reproductive or regenerative force which is set up solely by the resistance of each expression of force against the other.

This characteristic attribute of nature to repeat herself, and to do so in waves or striations of periodicities, is because of the dual character of force to express itself always in equal opposition of force.

Every effect of motion thus results in the production of the opposite effect, therefore the negative reaction which results in the disappearance of the electron is accompanied by its equal and opposite action which causes the reappearance of the mass by the reverse action of the "hole".

Hence there can be no such thing as a positively charged mass or a negatively charged mass. All charging masses are simultaneously discharging and all discharging masses are simultaneously recharging other masses in this two-way universe of motion. Energy is kept continually moving between the high pressure hot points of gravitative centres and the low-pressure cold areas of the evacuated fields which surround all masses.

This constant interchange is the cause of the motion of force which moves only for one purpose, and that is find an equilibrium position for which it is ever in search of and never finds, for that position is itself always in motion.

While in search of this ever-moving position the work of the universe, and of man, is performed. There is no other way that work can be performed than by the oscillations of this dually acting electric force as it surges back and forth between the two polar dead centres of force, the gravitative focus and the vacuous focus.

It matters not whether this two-way interchange of potential is between the poles of a battery, which we call electric current, or between dynamos or solenoids, which we call lines of force, or between the high and low barometric pressure position of the weather map, which we call winds, or between the sun and planets, which we call radiant energy, or between elements, which we call radio-activity--all are the same. All are seeking an ever-changing equilibrium position and kept continually on the go and producing that thing which we call energy.

Every mass in the universe is a complete pump oscillating between two equilibrium dead centres of opposed force. Every two masses are reciprocating, collaborating and coordinating their respective energies, each in accordance with its respective and comparative potential. Each mass in the universe is revolving around every other mass in elliptical orbits determined by their mutual ever-moving compression and expansion foci.

All masses, whether electrons in hot suns or electrons in cold space, are simultaneously integrating by their generative oscillation, and disintegrative by their opposed radiative one. This is the completed cycle of the motion of force toward which Dirac has made a step in the right direction.

Robert Andrews Millikan is the only other man who, to my knowledge, has begun to divine nature's secret of the duality of force and continuity of creation in cycles. Dr. Millikan declares: "In the hot stars and the sun, matter is being disintegrated into energy or radiation; in the unimaginably cold expanse of infinite space, radiation or energy is being reintegrated into matter."

If Dr. Millikan had written that all mass, whether in hot suns or cold space, is integrating by its contractive oscillation (which is caused by the cold of its preceding expansive one) and that it is disintegrating by the heat of its preceding contractive one, he would have been right.

To say, however, that matter is disintegrating in hot masses and integrating in cold space is not in keeping with nature's method of creation, for it would not account for the integration of mass in hot suns except by miracles or by "divine ordainment", as they said in the Middle Ages, nor would it account for the disintegration of mass in cold space except by the same method.

In order for that principle to work, Dr. Millikan would have to find a critical point of temperature below which all matter integrated and above which it all disintegrated. This is impossible, for all matter has differing melting points, according to its pressures or densities, these points rising as pressures rise.

We know that above these critical points at which all elements melt the solids disintegrate into liquids, then into vapors and then into gases. But the very act of disintegrating by radiation causes a relatively cold reaction to take place which reintegrates. Both processes are therefore taking place above and below the melting point, and this is as true along the trail of a comet which is luminous and relatively hot in its contractive oscillations at 240 degrees below zero as it is true in Viga's heart which is relatively cold in its expansive oscillations at 300,000 degrees or more.

New York, October 29, 1930

----This is the end of the newspaper clipping from the November 2nd, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

----Below is a newspaper clipping from the November 9th, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

To the Editor of The New York Times:

Some time ago The Times published a letter of mine severely criticizing Walter Russell for presuming to attack the "laws" of Kepler and Newton. Obviously, as a scientist, I resented the sweeping claim of a non-scientist "that science needed a major surgical operation to put it in line for a logical, cosmogenetic synthesis". I felt that it was ridiculous for anybody to criticize such laws, and especially anybody without recognized scientific standing to attempt such surgery.

I now wish to modify my statements and criticisms, for, since writing that letter, my viewpoint has somewhat changed from scathing to one of expectation. What I considered the over-night inspiration of that revolutionary type of man we call a "crank" might be, instead, the result of an intelligent and prolonged study of Nature.

Mr. Russell has evidently approached his solution to the great riddle from the point of view opposite to that of the scientist. He has considered the universe as a whole and offers explanations for the workings of its units as they fit into the whole, while we scientists study the separate parts but as yet cannot fit them together perfectly.

Who is to say that Russell's method of approach is not as valuable as our own, especially when it is carried on by so keen an observer? Let us give him a chance for a proof. The future will tell. I believe we should welcome such a mind, with its freedom from the traditions by which our minds are bound to the extent that we sometimes forget to question. I, for one, do not want to be "set" and invincible.

I am not yet prepared to say that I thoroughly accept Mr. Russell's "two-way" principle, but I am immensely intrigued by it, for it gives this universe of motion a meaning to me that it did not have before. In fact, our universe is rather meaningless even to ourselves; we know very little of the why of anything and many researchers have practically ceased trying to fathom it. In our experiments we see the effects but do not always find a satisfactory explanation of the cause. If it "works" we are thankful, so we do not always worry about the "why".

Mr. Russell's theory may be the method of understanding the nature of electricity, the generation and degeneration of mass and the universal mechanistic principles, through his "two-way" swing of the universal pendulum. In this defending his principles I again repeat that I am only weighing them in my mind at present, but I think the entire scientific world should also seriously weigh them, for, if Russell is right--and he surely thinks he is right--his claim that science needs "a major surgical operation" is justifiable.

A few outstanding and seemingly irrefutable facts stand in favor of the "two-way" principle. First of all, the compression-expansion sequence constitutes a cycle of motion which is mechanistic; it conforms with the known oscillating character of all electrical force. It makes matter comprehensible when each mass is known to be a compression-expansion "pump", or storage battery of polarized force doing the work of the universe.

Russell says that every effect of motion gives birth to its opposite effect, that our degenerative, radiant energy which is wasting away our universe becomes generative energy simply through its gravitational change of direction toward mass instead of away from it. The same radiation which degenerates our sun regenerates this planet as light. Let us give him a chance to prove that and see what the outcome is.

Our "positive" and "negative" are admittedly meaningless words. Russell's dual principle gives them a rational and reasonable meaning which may be mechanically comprehensible. He says that "positive" is plus an equilibrium of a quantum of energy, and that "negative" is minus that equilibrium. In other words, a vacuous condition is created in a given quantum of energy by pumping some of it out of one part (the surrounding field) and into the other part (the central mass). How simple it is to understand an electrical short circuit, or a chemical reaction, when thus explained, or to understand the motion of energy as force seeking an equilibrium.

I remember when we used to think that the current in a battery flowed only in one direction. We now admit its now in both directions. If nature expresses itself universally by a now in both directions, instead of in isolated instances, it is well to know it even though we old-timers have to adjust our practice to it.

I was especially vituperative toward Russell because he dared to tamper with the Kepler law. I can now see that Kepler's mention of a single focus, and his failure to mention the other, coupled with Newton's single attribute of matter to attract matter without mentioning its equally apparent power to repel, deprived science of a possible solution of the universal riddle.

The second focus of Russell's is physically and mathematically necessary to an elliptical orbit. Why did not some scientist think of this instead of waiting 300 years for an artist to tell us about it?

I am anxious to see that other focus proved as the seat of the vacuous force of negative electricity that Russell claims for it. When his present experiments with lines of force are completed, by means of which he expects to prove his contention, and are found to substantiate his claim experimentally, we shall then know that positive electricity is that which is flowing inward, accumulatively, toward a point of compression (which is one of the dead centres of force in the universal machine) and that negative electricity is that which is flowing outward, dissipatively, toward a vacuous field (which is the other dead centre of force).

We shall then be convinced that Russell's contention that matter does not attract nor repel matter is probably true, and that attraction and repression-expansion oscillations with which we have long been familiar in electrical practice, but did not connect up with gravitation or radiation.

I invite the collaboration and criticism of my fellow scientists at large to join me in this, because, should Russell be able to prove his claims, we should all give him due credit, and if he fails, it will then be time to add his theory to the long list of dreams. He is in earnest and at least deserves our support.

New York, Nov. 4, 1930

----This is the end of the newspaper clipping from the November 9th, 1930 issue of The New York Times. ----

----Below is a newspaper clipping from the July 7th, 1931 issue of The New York Times. ----

To the Editor of The New York Times:

During the past weeks people of this country who are interested in scientific and cosmic problems have been reading a good deal of the doings and sayings of Sir James Jeans. The newspapers have given much space to his theory that the universe is running down. At a scientists dinner last week he told not only his large and distinguished audience, but thousands of radio listeners, that only a mathematician could understand the universe. His tones were lugubrious [mournful], his face sad. His message is destruction; his complicated theory withers whatever it touches.

In the Museum of Science and Industry of New York there is on exhibition a group of remarkable paintings which refute the Jeans theory and substitute a simple, constructive idea of a two-way universe. This exhibition and what it implies seems to have escaped the notice of the news-gatherers. The artist is the well-known American, Walter Russell, president of the Society of Arts and Sciences, who has been decorated by many European governments and societies. Mr. Russell's writings have aroused considerable controversy in the columns of The New York Times. Those of his paintings now on exhibition illustrate what he calls the dual action of the one force in the universe. The force, he says, is light, and all matter is "frozen light".

The Jeans theory is pessimistic; the Russell hypothesis is full of hope and beauty. Which of these deserves the attention of forward-looking Americans, especially at this time when the world is looking for" depression proof" ideas.

New York, June 3, 1931.

----This is the end of the newspaper clipping from the July 7th, 1931 issue of The New York Times. ----

Perhaps as you understand more about the rising recognition of Walter Russell's work and consider that which happened to Dr. Nikola Tesla at the hands of the Elite One Worlders and bankers, a lot will become clear to your perceptions. It may well become most clear as to WHY a beautiful woman would enter the picture and the focus be shifted from SCIENCE to metaphysics and the work open for the public domain--was gathered again into disallowance for freedom of USE. There had to be something done lest the Russell explanations take hold and the public demand use of same. The massive change of such information which would wipe out entirely ALL prior concepts of almost everything believed and utilized--would wipe out business as recognized. There had to be something to hold you in the Dark Ages to prevent this massive change to happen. The adversary NEVER misses a beat on his drum, readers-- NEVER!

So, what has happened? The Elite have utilized the scientific knowledge to gain control of the WORLD. YOU have been given NO INPUT OR USE OF ANY OF IT. It has gone to build the very shackles which will terrify, panic and bind you--while you drift aimlessly along never having HEARD of one, Walter Russell and not many more, Nikola Tesla. If the adversarial people and the Federal Court system has its way--the information will again be gathered up and tucked away so that YOU WILL NOT SEE WHAT WAS DONE UNTO YOU.

You can note from the timing of writings that as the scientific community began to recognize this gifted input from higher realms--the physical constraints and temptations of Walter began and was finally pulled-off in the 1940's when Walter neared his 80s. It is simply history repeating itself in negative form and the physical perceptions and needs for ego attention and fulfillment--overshadow the spiritual journey and purpose as a messenger to God's creations. It is ever thus and ever as difficult to rise beyond!

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2017, 03:29 PM
Post: #2
Wink RE: The Lao (Russell) 2nd thread, by username truthonly
Open the attached *.htm file with any browser. That is only an HTML file.
And you will see the real Periodic table, as trying to be described by Walter Russell.

.htm  Periodic Table Compression.htm (Size: 14.65 KB / Downloads: 4)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)