Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2015 05:16 pm
how valid is this data
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 839 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by mikehammer
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2015 05:28 pm
@mikehammer,
Mike, what data

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cosmogony+definition
mikehammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2015 06:01 pm
@dalehileman,
walter russell's claim that the whole universe is continually being created by continuous positive/negative spiraled inward and outward simultaneous impulses that continually void each other. I may not be explaining this spot on at the moment, but it will suffice for starters. [This is my 1st go at this type of communication so very green]
cicerone imposter
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2015 07:25 pm
@mikehammer,
I have been thinking that science already proved expansion.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2015 08:01 pm
For reference: http://walter-russell.com/

Seems pretty flaky to me. Mostly a priori stuff, not so much observation.
mikehammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 01:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bummer! That's like answering 'what is Numerology' by saying the first number is one, and nothing else. I was hoping to link with someone who has at least gone into this subject, somewhat.
0 Replies
 
mikehammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 01:52 pm
@FBM,
Thanks for your comment, however brief. Never the less Walter Russell did give rather interesting explanations for often poorly understood subjects like electricity, gravitation, radiation, polarity, thinking and thought, and creative postulates (manifested imagination) amongst other topics, but I've yet to come across any serious discussion about his theories, or has this been burried to avoid 'illumination'.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 01:57 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:04 pm
@mikehammer,
My awareness of Russell's hypotheses is admittedly skeletal. What I've seen of it has been overwhelmingly a priori, though. Descartes had a lot of people going this way for a long time. A smart person (Russell undoubtedly was one) can do a lot when there's nothing but words and ideas to deal with. But what happens when you design and experiment to test your hypothesis, get experimental data and analyze it? I didn't see much of that with Russell, but again, I haven't looked into him with any depth. If you know of experiments he designed and conducted to test his own hypotheses, please link me to them. I do not deny that his ideas (those that I've seen so far) are thought-provoking.
mikehammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 04:40 pm
@Butrflynet,
Thank-you for this link. I'll follow it up.
0 Replies
 
mikehammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 05:09 pm
@FBM,
Thanks a ton for your valued input. So far I have similar views at present but feel compelled to investigate a little further, at this stage. The only compareable data on this subjective reality I've come across so far was in the Scientology Philadelphia Doctorate Course (1953) by L Ron Hubbard which ties in with some of the more esoterical deliberations released by Walter Russell, both of which have far reaching ramifications if the individual is able to devote considerable time toward this end, but will then find himself rather segregated from the majority of mankind - be that as it may. Once again, I thank you for your comments.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 08:47 pm
@mikehammer,
With all due respect, if Russell's work is comparable to L. Ron Hubbard's, then I'm going to let this one slide by without further scrutiny.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jan, 2015 09:40 pm
@FBM,
I was wondering the same thing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2015 04:12 am
Hubbard was one of the slickest flam-flam men who ever came down the pike--slicker than snot on a door knob.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2015 06:07 am
@Setanta,
He had to be. Somehow, despite being known as a science fiction writer, he managed to dupe thousands and thousands into believing Xenu, space ships and a trillions-year-old universe weren't fiction. Wtf. Of course, it also says a lot about the believers...
mikehammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2015 06:13 pm
@FBM,
To FBM, cicerone imposter and Setanta - Point taken. Thanks for your interest but don't you all get your knickers in a twist over this one. I'm a little amazed at how easily you get distracted , slide off the main point and head for safer waters in a subject/person whose been ripped apart ad nauseam.
The Wikipedia links provided fair comment to my initial request, with other links if required, so I remain grateful for that lead. So let's call it a day on this lot. Many thanks to all. MH.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2015 06:24 pm
@mikehammer,
Wiki has nothing to do with what you call distraction; logic 101.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » cosmogony
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 02:20:14