Fwd: van der Waals and Steiner
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:49 pm
Subject: Fwd: van der Waals and Steiner
From: Peter Farrell
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:41 pm
Subject: van der Waals and Steiner
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
In AT Frank was having trouble
looking at van der Waals Nobel Prize Lecture for 1910. I thought
I might briefly summarise the content of that lecture which I
think is important. I would also draw your attention to the 1920
Nobel Prize lecture by Gillaume (http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1920/guillaume-lecture.pdf).
The reason I draw attention
to these is that they both show that famous science of the time
and before the Warmth Course had the expansion (sometimes contraction)
of materials in whatever phase (solid, liquid or gas) depending
on higher powers of the temperature change than the linear term
that Steiner claims. Both of these Nobel lecture have terms in
at least the square of the temperature. Steiner's course does
some simple algebra and then claims something special that arises
from that simple algebra after he obtains terms in the square
and the cube of the temperature change. This is complete nonsense.
Had Steiner done the simplest checking of the literature, or
checked with someone who knew something about this topic at the
time, he would have found these cubic terms already existing
for all forms of matter in the expressions for expansion (or
contraction). I think there are two possibilities: (1) he was
ignorant of these terms and he decided to go ahead and talk to
an audience likewise ignorant and claim knowledge and understanding
that he didn't in fact have (intellectual dishonesty) ; (2) he
did know about these terms and he deliberately ignored them in
his course (simple dishonesty).
I would like to draw your
attention once more to Steiner's approval and encouragement of
deception towards the parents of children at Waldorf Schools.
In the light of that approval, it does not seem at all surprising
to me that examples of similar deception can be found elsewhere
in his writings and lectures. I believe this should leave a reader
to wonder what parts of his writings are honest.
See you, Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 5:33 pm
Subject: van der Waals and Steiner/feel the Heat
golden3000997@c... wrote:
[Quoting Peter Farrell
from the WC]
I thought I might briefly
summarise the content of that lecture which I think is important.
I would also draw your attention to the 1920 Nobel Prize lecture
by Gillaume (http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1920/guillaume-lecture.pdf).
The reason I draw attention
to these is that they both show that famous science of the time
and before the Warmth Course had the expansion (sometimes contraction)
of materials in whatever phase (solid, liquid or gas) depending
on higher powers of the temperature change than the linear term
that Steiner claims. Both of these Nobel lecture have terms in
at least the square of the temperature. Steiner's course does
some simple algebra and then claims something special that arises
from that simple algebra after he obtains terms in the square
and the cube of the temperature change. This is complete nonsense.
Had Steiner done the simplest checking of the literature, or
checked with someone who knew something about this topic at the
time, he would have found these cubic terms already existing
for all forms of matter in the expressions for expansion (or
contraction).
Bradford not sure if this is:
In trying to understand heat dissipation a
question arose for me. In "David's Question - What is Man"
the author, Ed Smith indicated an energy loss that is not accounted
for or merely dismissed in Science.
This heat loss remained unaccounted and not
included because something did disappear from this plane to somewhere,
so it did not =;=.
Ed Smith
David's Question "What
is Man?" pg. 130 to 144
"…science has a
problem, for its conclusion is that there will be a "heat
Death" since it is impossible in a closed system to transform
all heaat into mechanical energy. The very solidification process
is nature's attempt to attain a closed system, but the closed
system never fully arises because the system is not left to itself,
but is worked upon by its whole environment. There is always
a tendency at various points for a closed system to arise, but
a counter tendency appears at once. This alters the abstract
thinking of physics. A closed system is always striving to arise,
but the constitution of the cosmos prevents it.
X Becoming material –
Becoming Spiritual
Heat
Gas Negative form – Condensation
and Rarefaction
Fluids
Solids Form
By analogy, I must look in
`X' for something corresponding to but beyond condensation and
rarefaction, passing over heat just as fluid was passed over
below it. So long as condensation and rarefaction are present,
so is matter. But if we rarefy enough, we finally pass entirely
out of the material realm, becoming spiritual. Thus, we are obliged
to think of `X' as a realm of materiality and non-materiality.
Heat thus leads to a condition
where matter itself ceases to be. It stands between two strongly
contrasted regions, essentially different from each other, the
spiritual and material.
Pg/ 133
"Gaseous bodies can interpenetrate
each other; solids cannot. The volume of gas and the pressure
exerted upon it are inversely proportional. Volume and pressure
changes both relate to heat and both are mechanical facts that
can be observed. But the being of heat, the third power in the
equation, remains unknown for ordinary physics, for some of it
appears to be lost in the process, and we are obliged to go out
of THREE-DIMENSIONAL space. Physics can explain the phenomena
only in terms of THREE-DIMENSIONAL space, thus assuring it will
pass over the real nature of heat. This is the point where science
must, as Steiner says, "cross the Rubicon" to reach
a higher view of the world.
"All solids, fluids and
gases expand when heated. Physics textbooks, in calculating the
expansion in area and volume of metals when heated, leave out
the terms in the equations that involve the second and third
powers (the squares and cubes) of the coefficient of expansion
of the metal multiplied by the squares or cubes of the temperature
change. This is done because coefficients of expansion are very
small, so terms involving them are considered insignificant in
practical physics. But Steiner says that the more important things
are obscured by leaving out calculations that seem insignificant
or that cannot be handled adequately, for these second and third
powers of temperature are related to the disappearance of heat
from THREE-DIMENSIONAL space.
How can this fail to grip
the attention of anyone interested in spiritual matters –
fire (heat) simply disappears from the radar screen of matter,
only to again reappear? Surely there must be some connection
with what Christ came to cast upon the Earth
Steiner pointed out that the
physicist Sir William Crookes concluded that temperature changes
had to do essentially with a kind of FOURTH – DIMENSION
in space, but that "the relativists, with Einstein at their
head, feel obliged when they go outside of THREE – DIMENSIONAL
space to consider time as the fourth-dimension.
The problem with this is that
time only applies in three-dimensional space perception. Movement
of a three-dimensional object from one spot to another involves
time. It can occupy Space only in Time. But to understand what
happens to the heat during these transitional periods, we need
another dimension and it is not time. We must go out of space
altogether.
"What still presumes
to call itself science is at pains to express everything in mechanical
terms. But it will have to take the LEAP from what is not alive
in nature to what is; from kinematics to mechanics and then from
external, inorganic nature into those realms that are not accessible
to calculation, where every attempted calculation breaks down
asunder and every potential is dissolved away. Calculation ceases
where we want to understand what is alive.
To help us bridge the gap,
Steiner writes down a certain familiar formula:
Ps = m times V2/2 , where
p=force; s=length of path; m=mass; v=velocity
Physics today cannot find
the transition, and the consequences of this failure are immense.
It has no real human science, no real physiology. It does not
know the human being. When I write V2 I have only something calculated
as spatial movement – only the kinetic. When I write M on
the other hand, I must first ask, "Is there anything in
me myself to correspond also to this?"
Bradford extends the equation into economics;
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/bseqn/bs/bs.html
"In the early '70s economists
Fischer Black and Myron Scholes came up with an equation which
explains why derivatives work. The Black-Scholes equation was
quickly adopted by Wall Street quants to calculate the value
of options in complex derivative dealings. A lot of them being
ex-physicists, they noticed that the structure of the equation
was parallel to the equation used in physics to describe the
dissipation of heat." Rather Important that!
Bradford comments;
Presently we are binding matter to issues
of fallen light. Instead of grasping the Spiritual World and
integrating the equation of the potential of the Christ Being
having entered matter and with Super Force is currently in the
process of engaging mankind in the moral development of Compassion
and Love that lifts Matter out of the Fall into a state of transubstantiation.
To link the equation of Love into the Being
of the Elohim Christ, would change our grasp over the use of
matter and what humans themselves transubstantiate. What in matter
is changed and lost through, warmth, heat and the efforts of
humanity to bring spiritual fission and love to bear on matter
instead of nuclear fission comes from the new forces of compassion,
and the I AM.
I submit clue number three:
"It reveals to us the
carbon atom with its 12 fold micro picture of the zodiac. "The
standard of atomic weights is based on the carbon atom. Carbon12
is defined to have a mass of exactly 12 amu. Carbon12 contains
6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 12 electrons for a total combined
mass of 12.10 amu. The extra 0.10 amu was converted into energy
during the process of fusing hydrogen to helium to carbon in
the core of a star."
Bradford comments;
Please note that O.10amu is listed as being
converted into energy during the process of creating a Star.
This registered loss appears to me to be a transubstantiation
value for humans on the equation of exactly what our Matter,
as mere humans, can do for each of us to change through our bio-dynamic
work, our spiritual work and our educational work, exactly what
the equation of Love might be per- person if used for the transubstantiation
of the planet.
Given the added input that a roaring force
of an Elohim has decided to assist in our Free activity in raising
the initial Sacrifice of the Thrones (Father Forces) that created
the potential for the fall of all Beings and matter as it exists
in the Fourth evolution of our Earth Planet we need a new equation
to replace Einstein's old one. with this new Spiritual Factor
of transubstantiation included.
The Beatles laid out a secret as well which
must be included here. THE LOVE YOU TAKE IS EQUAL TO THE LOVE
YOU MAKE which is another way of saying from the other side E=MC2.
The Beatles equation takes the release of etheric energies from
the side where matter is locked or enchanted LOVE. When you see
that science itself is in a state of denial about matter and
spirit, suffering as it is from the nil effect of the meaning
of Christ's incarnation on the Earth.
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: van der Waals and
Steiner
Peter F.
Had Steiner done the simplest
checking of the literature, or checked with someone who knew
something about this topic at the time, (...)
And
I think there are two possibilities:
(1) he was ignorant of these terms and he decided to go ahead
and talk to an audience likewise ignorant and claim knowledge
and understanding that he didn't in fact have (intellectual dishonesty)
; (2) he did know about these terms and he deliberately ignored
them in his course (simple dishonesty).
And I wonder how Peters friend Mr. Staudenamier
holds up under this criteria? Whew! Out of the horses mouth.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:54 am
Subject: Fwd: van der Waals and Steiner
From: walden
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: van der Waals and Steiner
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Interesting. Thanks, Peter.
Your post points to where I see a large part of the problem here:
anthroposophists seem to imagine a different set of definitions
to certain words than non-anthroposophists. Obviously, the word
"science" is a prime example.
You wrote:
I think there are two possibilities:
(1) he was ignorant of these terms and he decided to go ahead
and talk to an audience likewise ignorant and claim knowledge
and understanding that he didn't in fact have (intellectual dishonesty)
; (2) he did know about these terms and he deliberately ignored
them in his course (simple dishonesty).
I wonder if there might be
a third reason: Steiner believed he spoke honestly but the words
he used stretched the mainstream definition into a very grey
area? His "facts," for example, seem to be facts only
to those who believe He was truly clairvoyant. It seems to me
that if this is the case, we are not speaking in terms of "science"
but rather in terms of "faith." I am not judging anyone's
particular faith and would appreciate feedback from anthroposophically
inclined list members.
-Walden
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: van der Waals and
Steiner
Walden:
Interesting. Thanks, Peter.
Your post points to where I see a large part of the problem here:
anthroposophists seem to imagine a different set of definitions
to certain words than non-anthroposophists. Obviously, the word
"science" is a prime example.
Walden, let's try the word "spiritual
science". Nice try on your catch for Mr. Staudenmaier below,
doesn't help him though.
Walden:
I wonder if there might
be a third reason: Steiner believed he spoke honestly but the
words he used stretched the mainstream definition into a very
grey area? His "facts," for example, seem to be facts
only to those who believe He was truly clairvoyant. It seems
to me that if this is the case, we are not speaking in terms
of "science" but rather in terms of "faith."
I am not judging anyone's particular faith and would appreciate
feedback from anthroposophically inclined list members.
-Walden
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:39 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: van der Waals and
Steiner
At 13:54 15.03.2004, Christine quoted Walden
from the WC:
Interesting. Thanks, Peter.
Your post points to where I see a large part of the problem here:
anthroposophists seem to imagine a different set of definitions
to certain words than non-anthroposophists.
Oh yes. Try "tour" for starters
and move on to "large and attentive audience". From
then on, take one step at a time, word by word. It gets tricky
when you get to philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism, the definition
of which varies, depending upon the ethnic make-up of the speaker.
The more complex the racial mix of the speaker - e.g. quarter-Jewish,
quarter-Slav, and half-Chinese or something like that - the more
disputable are the opinions about assimilation, integration,
segregationalism, separatism race-mix, racism, race, and so on.
Thick volumes could be written about this.
Obviously, the word "science"
is a prime example.
Too advanced for beginners. Try "Scholarship"
and "historicity" first.
MONTANUS.
Morlille, I shall make a stone of you.
NILLE.
Yes speak, that is better.
MONTANUS.
Now you shall hear. A stone cannot fly.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:19 pm
Subject: Fwd: van der Waals and Steiner
From: Peter Farrell
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 12:15 am
Subject: Re: van der Waals and Steiner
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
G'day Walden,
The thing I find most amusing
about your suggestion is the argument about the precise definition
of cult. I am more annoyed by the fact that the DOFs use precise
definitions when it suits them and become much more nebulous
when that suits them better. The immediate reason for me raising
this was the standards of honesty required of Peter Staudenmaier
by the inhabitatnts of AT were clearly not met by Steiner. I
just love that argument about the meaning of a "speaking
tour of Norway".
I don't think Steiner should
be allowed to wriggle out of his deception by the use of fuzzy
and broad definitions. We discussed at length the claim that
Steiner was a scientist. Well he has a responsibility as a scientist
to report the work of others accurately, particularly to those
who do not know that work. Anything short of that is called misrepresentation
and is dishonest. In the warmth course he should have said something
like:
Rods of metal generally (but
not exclusively) expand according to a formula the first two
terms of which may be represented as L=L0+a*L0*deltaT. There
are higher order terms appearing in the literature which are
mostly ignored in texts for beginners because it simplifies the
problem, and these terms are small. They are not ignored in some
practical problems and sometimes become important (see for example
the work by Gillaume on making mass and lengths standards). We
can find the formula for the expansion of a volume by multiplication
of the length, breadth and height of a block. This also gives
us terms which are linear in deltaT, quadratic in deltaT, cubic
in deltaT and so on.
At this point there is a problem
for Steiner because his argument vanishes. The effect he talks
about in the warmth course is no longer there, because it is
an artifact of his simplifying and incorrect assumption.
I think the Einstein article
is more dishonest because the people to whom he was delivering
the lecture were clearly not trained in the sciences and so had
only found out about Einstein and relativity through such means
as popularisations, and Steiner had a duty of care towards them
because he was in some sense their employer. Instead he misled
them about Einstein's theory of relativity, using the deception
as a means to bolster his position as leader and guru of Anthroposophy.
The book as a whole shows he had some days to think about what
he was going to say.
As we have seen, I think the
words which is the most problematic for Anthroposophists are
"lie" and "dishonest". We have seen regular
accusations against Peter S, for what could at most be termed
mistakes, if they were that. We also see regular defenses of
Steiner and Waldorf Schools for their deliberate and calculated
deception. I think the same standards should apply.
See you, Peter
From: walden
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: van der Waals and Steiner
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Interesting. Thanks, Peter.
Your post points to where I see a large part of the problem here:
anthroposophists seem to imagine a different set of definitions
to certain words than non-anthroposophists. Obviously, the word
"science" is a prime example.
You wrote:
I think there are two possibilities:
(1) he was ignorant of these terms and he decided to go ahead
and talk to an audience likewise ignorant and claim knowledge
and understanding that he didn't in fact have (intellectual dishonesty)
; (2) he did know about these terms and he deliberately ignored
them in his course (simple dishonesty).
I wonder if there might
be a third reason: Steiner believed he spoke honestly but the
words he used stretched the mainstream definition into a very
grey area? His "facts," for example, seem to be facts
only to those who believe He was truly clairvoyant. It seems
to me that if this is the case, we are not speaking in terms
of "science" but rather in terms of "faith."
I am not judging anyone's particular faith and would appreciate
feedback from anthroposophically inclined list members.
-Walden
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: van der Waals and
Steiner
Peter Farell:
I just love that argument
about the meaning of a "speaking tour of Norway".
Not as much as I love the argument that one
of your parents is a Waldorf teacher and for this you join the
KKK and then kill a Detroit police officer. PRESS RELEASE PRESS
RELEASE...Disgusting. Dugan has no shame and neither do the critics
for following him down into the pits of ignorance and trying
to continue this whole 'Anthroposophy is a cult and they are
racist KKKrs. Get a life will you? A real one not some cocoon
that lives in a small minded world like Dugans.
Sorry Farell you get no breaks for putting
your foot in your mouth once again. Take a deep breath and THINK
before you post trying to defend Peter when all you do is put
him deeper in the peanut butter.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: van der Waals and
Steiner
Peter Farell
On Dr. Steiner:
Well he has a responsibility
as a scientist to report the work of others accurately, particularly
to those who do not know that work.
Uh Farell, earth to Farell, there you go not
THINKING again. Would you not hold a man who claims himself to
be a HISTORIAN to the same criteria? For instance a Mr. Peter
Staudenmaier of the critics and now AT fame?
Hello hello hello... Whew
Farell:
Anything short of that
is called misrepresentation and is dishonest.
Farell you should be trying to EXTRACT the
foot not keep pushing it in even further. You are way not helping
out Mr. Staudenmaier with this continued line of comments. But
I thank you for them just the same.
Farell:
I think the Einstein article
is more dishonest
Oops, race police on your tail someone call
Miss Diana we have a fresh one in the net. Farell is calling
Einstine dishonest. What is he trying to say about the Jewish
people when he speaks like this? Can someone clarify this thought
maybe give us a little hint of what is going on in that obvious
racist brain of his?
Farell:
The book as a whole shows
he had some days to think about what he was going to say.
Seems Dugan and Staudenmaier have had a few
years not only days to think carefully before maligning a man
as a racist nazi ideologue wouldn't you say Farell?
Farell:
As we have seen, I think
the words which is the most problematic for Anthroposophists
are "lie" and "dishonest". We have seen regular
accusations against Peter S, for what could at most be termed
mistakes, if they were that.
Well isn't that quite generous of you Farell?
Whew. Mistakes, how nice and genteel. Steiner lies but Dugan
and Staudenmaier make mistakes. Good job. How much do you get
paid for this? Are you on the payroll? Which calls to mind another
question I have regarding PLANS: do they get paid to keep on
line and keep the ongoing lies and ugly insinuations going on.
If so this would explain the ongoing pursuit that ever twists
and turns. I mean they could be out of a job if they didn't keep
the lies coming. Hmm. Does Lisa and Dugan get paid?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: van der Waals and Steiner/feel the Heat
R.S.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Medicine/19200331p01.html
"There is no difference,
in this theory, between the carbon in the external world, and
the carbon within our organism. But this theory is mistaken.
For there is within the human organism the potentiality of completely
destroying extra-human carbon through the action of the lower
sphere; of expelling this substance from space and then re-creating
it anew independently through reaction. Yes, it is true; within
us there is a crucible for the creation of extra-human substances
and at the same time a power to destroy them.
Of course, the science of
today will not admit this; not being able to think of the substances
in any other way than as a wanderer, in microscopic amounts (restless
as Ahasuerus). It knows nothing of the life of matter, of its
origin, of its death, nor of how substances die and are re-born,
within our human organism.
This reanimation of carbon
is connected with what manifests as the generation of light in
normal human beings. This internal generation of light meets
the operation of the light from the external world. Our upper
organic sphere is designed so as to enable external light and
internal light to counteract one another, to operate alternately;
and it is the main factor in our human constitution that we have
the power of holding these two sources of light apart, so that
they only work upon each other, without being welded into one
another.
Let us suppose that we are
standing exposed to the light from the external world, receiving
it either through our eyes, or through our whole skin. There
is a screen, so to speak, between the internal, inherent light
within us and the light that operates from without. This external
light has actually only the value of an activator for the generation
of internal light; thus in letting light pour upon us from outside
we activate ourselves to produce inner light."
Bradford comments;
Presently we are binding matter to issues
of fallen light. Instead of grasping the Spiritual World and
integrating the equation of the potential of the Christ Being
having entered matter and with Super Force is currently in the
process of engaging mankind in the moral development of Compassion
and Love that lifts Matter out of the Fall into a state of transubstantiation.
To link the equation of Love into the Being
of the Elohim Christ, would change our grasp over the use of
matter and what humans themselves transubstantiate. What in matter
is changed and lost through, warmth, heat and the efforts of
humanity to bring spiritual fission and love to bear on matter
instead of nuclear fission comes from the new forces of compassion,
and the I AM.
I submit clue number three:
"It reveals to us
the carbon atom with its 12 fold micro picture of the zodiac.
"The standard of atomic weights is based on the carbon atom.
Carbon12 is defined to have a mass of exactly 12 amu. Carbon12
contains 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 12 electrons for a total
combined mass of 12.10 amu. The extra 0.10 amu was converted
into energy during the process of fusing hydrogen to helium to
carbon in the core of a star."
Bradford comments;
Please note that O.10amu is listed as being
converted into energy during the process of creating a Star.
This registered loss appears to me to be a transubstantiation
value for humans on the equation of exactly what our Matter,
as mere humans, can do for each of us to change through our bio-dynamic
work, our spiritual work and our educational work, exactly what
the equation of Love might be per- person if used for the transubstantiation
of the planet.
Given the added input that a roaring force
of an Elohim has decided to assist in our Free activity in raising
the initial Sacrifice of the Thrones (Father Forces) that created
the potential for the fall of all Beings and matter as it exists
in the Fourth evolution of our Earth Planet we need a new equation
to replace Einstein's old one. with this new Spiritual Factor
of transubstantiation included.
The Beatles laid out a secret as well which
must be included here. THE LOVE YOU TAKE IS EQUAL TO THE LOVE
YOU MAKE which is another way of saying from the other side E=MC2.
The Beatles equation takes the release of etheric energies from
the side where matter is locked or enchanted LOVE. When you see
that science itself is in a state of denial about matter and
spirit, suffering as it is from the nil effect of the meaning
of Christ's incarnation on the Earth.
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:43 pm
Subject: THE LOVE YOU TAKE IS EQUAL TO THE LOVE YOU MAKE
holderlin66 wrote:
Now here the riddle exists, what if the Father
forces of the Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones, entered down into
the marrow of Jesus' bones as the whole impulse of the new Sun
of Earth? Here is why, when we look into the Christ Event, compared
to that which Ahriman competed against, from 1933-1945 to the
nuclear externalized forces of Light, locked in matter, we see
exactly what is the difference between the Human I AM on Golgotha
and the much worshipped "Church of the Unrisen Light"
of Dr. Strangelove, as opposed to the True Love of the Father
and the Christ Event for Earth.
R.S.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Medicine/19200331p01.html
"There is no difference,
in this theory, between the carbon in the external world, and
the carbon within our organism. But this theory is mistaken.
For there is within the human organism the potentiality of completely
destroying extra-human carbon through the action of the lower
sphere; of expelling this substance from space and then re-creating
it anew independently through reaction. Yes, it is true; within
us there is a crucible for the creation of extra-human substances
and at the same time a power to destroy them.
Of course, the science
of today will not admit this; not being able to think of the
substances in any other way than as a wanderer, in microscopic
amounts (restless as Ahasuerus). It knows nothing of the life
of matter, of its origin, of its death, nor of how substances
die and are re-born, within our human organism.
This reanimation of carbon
is connected with what manifests as the generation of light in
normal human beings. This internal generation of light meets
the operation of the light from the external world. Our upper
organic sphere is designed so as to enable external light and
internal light to counteract one another, to operate alternately;
and it is the main factor in our human constitution that we have
the power of holding these two sources of light apart, so that
they only work upon each other, without being welded into one
another.
Let us suppose that we
are standing exposed to the light from the external world, receiving
it either through our eyes, or through our whole skin. There
is a screen, so to speak, between the internal, inherent light
within us and the light that operates from without. This external
light has actually only the value of an activator for the generation
of internal light; thus in letting light pour upon us from outside
we activate ourselves to produce inner light."
Bradford comments;
Presently we are binding matter to issues
of fallen light. Instead of grasping the Spiritual World and
integrating the equation of the potential of the Christ Being
having entered matter and with Super Force is currently in the
process of engaging mankind in the moral development of Compassion
and Love that lifts Matter out of the Fall into a state of transubstantiation.
To link the equation of Love into the Being
of the Elohim Christ, would change our grasp over the use of
matter and what humans themselves transubstantiate. What in matter
is changed and lost through, warmth, heat and the efforts of
humanity to bring spiritual fission and love to bear on matter
instead of nuclear fission comes from the new forces of compassion,
and the I AM.
I submit clue number three:
"It reveals to us
the carbon atom with its 12 fold micro picture of the zodiac.
"The standard of atomic weights is based on the carbon atom.
Carbon12 is defined to have a mass of exactly 12 amu. Carbon12
contains 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 12 electrons for a total
combined mass of 12.10 amu. The extra 0.10 amu was converted
into energy during the process of fusing hydrogen to helium to
carbon in the core of a star."
Bradford comments;
Please note that O.10amu is listed as being
converted into energy during the process of creating a Star.
This registered loss appears to me to be a transubstantiation
value for humans on the equation of exactly what our Matter,
as mere humans, can do for each of us to change through our bio-dynamic
work, our spiritual work and our educational work, exactly what
the equation of Love might be per- person if used for the transubstantiation
of the planet.
Given the added input that a roaring force
of an Elohim has decided to assist in our Free activity in raising
the initial Sacrifice of the Thrones (Father Forces) that created
the potential for the fall of all Beings and matter as it exists
in the Fourth evolution of our Earth Planet we need a new equation
to replace Einstein's old one. with this new Spiritual Factor
of transubstantiation included.
The Beatles laid out a secret as well which
must be included here. THE LOVE YOU TAKE IS EQUAL TO THE LOVE
YOU MAKE which is another way of saying from the other side E=MC2.
The Beatles equation takes the release of etheric energies from
the side where matter is locked or enchanted LOVE. When you see
that science itself is in a state of denial about matter and
spirit, suffering as it is from the nil effect of the meaning
of Christ's incarnation on the Earth we come to a startling revelation.
Bradford
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
