Strangely, Walter Russell released his theories of the Universal Mechanism in 1947, and subsequently, in 1953, sent it to over 500 fellow scientists
throughout the world, and none showed any interest.
Never once did he mention the word, "holographic." His theory describes the holographic process in detail, leaves out a few words, but other than
that, goes on to prove that it is indeed holographic, before the word was common usage.
In 1948, Dennis Gabor discovered the holographic process. His ground-breaking idea remained mostly theoretical until the invention of lasers in the
1960’s, which allowed his theory to be put into practice and championed as a major discovery.
He was known as the inventor of the holgograph. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1971.
Back to Walter Russell, who one year previously published his work, which went much further than Gabor's (describing the actual universe as the
model), never having use or access to the word 'holographic,' as it was being discovered about that time for the whole world.
I don't know if there are any 'deep thinkers' on this thread, or folks who can follow erudite descriptions, with little background information, but
his basic ideas can be put forth in just several short paragraphs, describing the holographic nature of the universe. He predates Bohm's 'Implicate
Order' many years (1980 when he published his findings of the holographic model). Bohm had been only developing his ideas based on quantum
interconnectedness, causal interpretation of quantum theory, which initially met with indifference or hostility from other physicists, who did not
take kindly to Bohm's powerful challenge to the common consensus.
Anybody who wishes to peruse the true nature of the universal holographic model
, is advised to study Walter Russell's works. There, all is
revealed. It is not simple, however (would it be?).
Also, to the person who casts insults and uses the "F*" word on a public forum, which the Mods should be editing for personal directed abuse, you
might want to read the opinions of other's regarding 'scientits,' some similar to my own views, in this thread:
alt.views of scientists
Here are some quotes:
"I freaking cant stand scientists.Biggest bull shi*ters on the planet."
"Well there maybe the odd one or two scientists that research things that actually might do some good,but the rest just take the pi*s.
Did you know that according to scientist bee's should not be able to fly?
Nutritionists constantly change their minds as to what is good for us and what gives us cancer.I could do that!Just pick a foodstuff and flip a
I don't trust them.They are Greys in white coats."
I have a right to my opinion, and the scientists of Earth have disregarded the nature of moral & ethical preparedness, in their mindless desire forr
discovery, regardless of consequences. Many of them (exceptions), regret some of their mistakes in their twilight years (published statements), but
then, it is too late.
Already, it is too late.
"Just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should be done."
More bombs, anybody? Tea?
[edit on 17-1-2009 by SS,Naga]