Science is confused when it comes to energy from the vacuum. This error arises from the misunderstanding that energy lies somehow within matter and space is a void.
WRC teaches that all physical matter is exactly balanced by expanded space.
In other words, when space is compressed it becomes matter and when matter expands it becomes space. They are two opposite expressions of the same one thing. A sun is compressed space and space is an expanded sun.
There is no energy at all within the dynamic universe of motion. Motion is effect only. The Cause of this motion lies in Stillness, lies in the Desire to express. Stillness is the fulcrum about which motion/energy appears.
The oscillating seesaw can only function because the fulcrum is rigid, still and unyielding to the pressure of the levers in motion. The energy is extended to those levers from and by the fulcrum.
Source is Stillness, is the Cause and Fulcrum of all motion. Source is unyielding as every fulcrum must be. Source is Zero Point Energy. ZPE can only be Known and not measured.
Desire to express Cause, is extended into the physical as motion, to create the dynamic universe. This is done directly by Source. The energy science seeks within matter is the DESIRE of Source to express the Idea of Creation.
This will never be found within matter in motion no matter what their mathematical equations tell them. Source is all that exists.
Yet after many years of study of WR writings, I still do not yet understand how to render a device that adds watts to a battery, nor a heater, nor a refrigerator, nor bouyance, using these principles. Can you help?
It is hard to know where one should leave the normally accepted scientific principles behind and where to insert into the mix the more esoteric principles advocated by WRC.
I don’t think WR himself was particularly successful in implementing his own ideas into a working device. My instinct tells me there is something in his work but the breakthrough link
continues to be elusive.
In term of adding more Ahrs to a battery I suspect a completely new battery geometry is necessary and that geometry will be based on carbon. Are you aware of conductive inks ?
You should look up Robert Murray Smith’s work in the UK.
RMS
Hi ☺️
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, I’m familiar with RMS’s work making graphine supercapacitor/battery experiments. I suppose he has lit a fire under the battery industry, given that Samsung and others are now trying to produce commercial graphine battery packs taking cars 500 miles in a charge. Look out Elon, your wall may need some revision….
I also understand enough of WR’s work to recognize generally how he used it to predict certain subatomic elements (patterns), and to intuit that it would be directly applicable to everything from chemistry, “molecular” physics and alchemy (substance and crystal and water generation through cymatics) to electricity, cosmology (Birkleland currents) and power generation, to propulsion/levitation, mysticism (the “word” of God, music, vibration), architecture and more. I also intuit a direct connection between his work, orgone studies, cymatics, Rodin and Leedskalnin’s work. I even perceive a unified field theory in it. However, where Schauberger was able to create specific tools for water (and the Lily Imploder has come from that), I get that I’m missing something that he, Leedskalnin, Tesla and John Hutchinson understood and thus were able to apply. Sometimes it helps me crystallize ideas if I have someone to discuss them with periodically. Would you be open to an ongoing conversation with me on this? If not, do you know others who may be interested?
In any case, thank you for your website, I can see you put a lot of time and effort into it!
Grateful,
Maya
Thanks you Maya,
I can see you too are well up to speed. Looking forward to discussing some of the issues with you 🙂