Walter Russell: The dark photon or the secret of the universe.

What is the main secret that Walter Russell unfolded of our universe?


Walter Russell

Most of you are probably not familiar with this name and, if I insist, perhaps you would include him among the poets, politicians or who knows whether bankers of human history. However, Walter Russell was a contemporary scientist of Tesla, Einstein or Schrodinger and as incredible or more so than all of them. Why then is he not so well known? What makes us not have ever heard his theories in the field of quantum physics, theoretical physics, electromagnetism, chemistry or astronomy? The main factor is that his theories are so revolutionary, they break with so many dogmas, that his friend Nikola Tesla once said to him: «Keep them locked up in a safe and put them in such a way that they cannot be opened for another thousand years, when the most advanced humanity will be ready to understand them» .

That’ s how incredible, not because they have been proven to be inconsistent, but because of our still limited knowledge to be able to demonstrate or even assimilate them.

However, lately science is accepting certain liberties that until a few years ago were believed to be implausible; such as that mind and matter, in some way not yet clarified, disturb each other at the atomic level. And this leads me to think that perhaps the time has come when, with a much more open and mature mind than at the time of the First World War, we can unlock the safe of Russell’s theories.

Well, what I would like to talk to you about, and that’s why the title of the article, is the main enigma of science today: the dark photon; the one that supposedly forms part of dark matter and energy, the key to our universe, ninety percent of our entire world. An element that is believed to exist because of the consequences it produces, but no one has managed to observe or capture it yet, not even with special detectors, despite spending billions of dollars on it.

Walter Russell’s amazing periodic table of elements

And what does Walter Russell have to do with all this? What secret does he keep? You might say. Very simple, one of his most brilliant contributions to the world of human beings is his wonderful periodic table of elements (Fig 2), completely different from anything you know. The day I discovered it, it was like an amazing revelation: Finally someone was showing me the bricks of life, the atoms, in a harmonious and uniform, regular and perfect succession. It was the reason for me to go deeper in to him.

Here you have the periodic table of elements studied today so that you can compare it with Walter Russell’s that very few know:

Fig 1. Current periodic table of elements, continuing Mendeleev’s.

.

tabla periodica de walter russell

Fig 2. Walter Russell’s periodic table of elements

.

As you can see, his is an almost perfect Fibonacci spiral which when extended forms a sinusoidal wave that he separates into octaves, thus organizing the atoms. In his arrangement of the elements on this revolutionary natural helix, the inert gases, those atoms which do not interact with any other, are interspersed with the rest forming an axis which is situated in the center of the whole, in a perfect straight line, like the most important pillars. This cannot be a coincidence. Thanks to his table, he managed to discover several elements for science that were unknown at the time. Many names seen on it seem strange because even today they have not yet been discovered or given other names.

Dark photon

If you enlarge the Walter’s table image, you will see how all the elements flow and are placed with perfect precision one after the other without having to force them like a Tetris of dubious criteria, in a structure of unclear order, not at all attractive and as unbalanced or asymmetric as the current one. What struck me most and is also so related to the secret of the universe? That for this visionary, and he wrote this in nineteen hundred, his periodic table does not begin with hydrogen, the supposedly smallest element for us today. No, indeed, in his table there is a complete set of elements with atomic mass lower than hydrogen which, according to him, is beyond our perception. Moreover, between H2 and Helium he places six elements not yet discovered or considered to be isotopes today and which he was the first to reveal, such as Deuterium and Tritium. Hydrogen, curiously, he places somewhere in between…

This may seem crazy, but today, with the search for the dark photon, it has begun to take on the appearance of reality. What if that particle that scientists are looking for is not just one, but dozens of different elements? Why should ninety percent of all matter belong to a single particle? What if Walter Russell a hundred years ago already revealed to us the greatest secret of humanity? I think you will now understand my admiration for him. Who could conceive that in our own world there is a whole material cosmos that coexists with us, but which we cannot perceive.

About the genius

From his biography I will highlight a prodigious fact that in itself would be enough for a film, a curiosity that surely marked his vision of the cosmos: He explains that during his life he suffered several near-death experiences. He crossed the threshold with the beyond and came back alive. In one of them, after being struck by lightning and remaining in a coma, he began to write his theories and drawings. It was probably from there that he brought his unique explanation of the universe. He was also enormously versatile, like Leonardo Da Vinci; painter, poet, sculptor, architect, scientist… A scientific-philosophical genius at the same rank of Plato or Aristotle. Perhaps, as Tesla said, too far ahead of his time.

I did not want to go into his other revolutionary ideas regarding electromagnetism or gravity in its magnificent unification of forces; or that light is everything and matter is nothing more than light concentrated by the electromagnetic force of atoms themselves; as well as his unifying idea of the generation of galaxies and solar systems, because it would take us many more complex articles. For Walter Russell everything is governed by the same laws and properties, from atoms to galaxies. That was his main virtue, bringing together seemingly disparate forces and phenomena. His secret? In his own words, to study Cause and not Effect, unlike science today. The Effect is nothing more than an illusion of perception, the Cause is reality, that is why we find it so difficult to understand it, because we only perceive the effects.

As you see, Walter Russell was not just another human being, he opened our eyes to the fact that this world is much more than what we are able to perceive with our eyes, telescopes, microscopes or particle accelerators.

This is my little tribute to a person unfairly forgotten, who I am convinced will cease to be so in future generations. I am not saying that he will be right about everything, just like the great geniuses who preceded him, but I can venture to say that without him we will not succeed.

.

Link to Walter Russell Part 2:

.The paradox of the infinite universe

Image universe/dark photon: https://pixabay.com/photos/astronomy-bright-constellation-dark-1867616/

4 Replies to “Walter Russell: The dark photon or the secret of the universe.”

  1. Rostislav Alexandrovich says: Reply

    Great write up for Walter Russel periodic chart!
    He is one of the greatest figures of science, and managed to break-thru the “spirutual” context or current, modern, science religion dogma – and has created something which would be the base of just pure science in the future.

  2. I’m a bit perplexed by your acceptance of Walter Russell’s system as a valid alternative to contemporary scientific understanding. It appears that the only relation to his system and that of current scientific models is naming. His intentional lack of formalism subsequently makes his system, evinced by muddled terminology, ambiguous as well as unfeasible to test on paper or in a lab. It seems to me that there is no clear, unambiguous, non-circular definition of any feature of his system, and, perhaps more importantly, no reason why his understanding of the universe should be accepted over our modern, though incomplete understanding. Also, just as a finer point, you confuse elements and particles in your post here; the latter is a constituent of the former. To my knowledge, Russell does not make this distinction because he knew of only one particle, the electron, a generation of a fermion, all of which were unknown not just by Russell but also his peers at the time. It truly is the fault of scientific educators of today failing to delineate hypotheses, such as dark matter or dark photons, from observable, repeatable, mathematically consistent discoveries. There is no evidence that dark matter exists, and any reasons for its hypothetical existence have nothing in common with the elements in Russell’s cosmogony. Hypothetical particles are not missing “keys” to our complete picture of the universe; they’re just that: hypotheticals.

    As such, Russell’s cosmogony should not be viewed as scientific; it is based upon science but ultimately belongs to metaphysics. Specifically, it is a metaphysical framework that adheres too closely to the science of his time. Like any good metaphysical framework, though, Russell’s is built first by taking his peers’ contemporary understanding of physics (including his correct assertion that classical dynamics are correct “to a limit”) and extrapolating to include all the features of modern science (at the time) to provide a broader explanation of “what is that which is,” so to speak. However, if this framework is contradicted by ever-evolving, expanding scientific knowledge, which itself can never be contradictory, then the framework must be either discarded or reconciled. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Russell’s framework has never been reconciled with science beyond the 1920s. At present, this framework does not fit within any contemporary scientific model or submodel describing the known universe, and his I’m afraid his language lacks the necessary precision and constraints to permit any attempt to reconcile it with current science. Matching unfamiliarities in his system with mere hypotheticals in scientific systems doesn’t cut it.

    1. Thanks for your appreciation; I understand your point about taking Russell’s system as an alternative to contemporary scientific understanding. But as you say, there are too many hypothetical solutions today. That means something. In fact, I think our scientific understanding of this universe is yet only 1% of the whole, maybe less. That’s just my perception and in my case the percentage it’s decreasing with age. I have always been an open minded person little fond of strict and immutable human rules. History has always given us good examples of changing those rules. So I think we should be cautious with our findings and take Russell’s theories, if you will only, as possible paths to follow in the future in the search for a truth that is far from being revealed. In my short understanding it will lead us to a new knowledge that will unlock many of our current stuck points, contradictions and paradoxes. But I understand that we are still far from this.

      1. Thanks for the response. Yes, I agree that we may have too many hypotheticals that not only muddy the waters but also speak louder than what we do know. In some sense, it is a bit dismaying to accept the fact that our understanding of the universe is woefully incomplete in terms of the “grand-scale” laws in the age of Newton or Lagrange. However, at more isolated scales, we know far more today than ever before. It’s just at grander scales, we have more questions than answers. In my mind, metaphysical proposals like Russell’s are crucial to our understanding but are, unfortunately, out of fashion in this day and age. If ever they do come back into fashion (you’ll find many physicists turning to philosophy to explain answers and posit other unknowns), then the distinction between science and metaphysics, as well as their necessary relationship, must be delineated properly.

¿Do you like to leave a comment?