cosmogony

Mike, what data

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=cosmogony+definition

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]

I have been thinking that science already proved expansion.

For reference: http://walter-russell.com/

Seems pretty flaky to me. Mostly a priori stuff, not so much observation.

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.

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'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

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.

Thank-you for this link. I'll follow it up.

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.

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.

I was wondering the same thing.

Hubbard was one of the slickest flam-flam men who ever came down the pike--slicker than snot on a door knob.

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...

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.

Wiki has nothing to do with what you call distraction; logic 101.