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

Search this site powered by FreeFind