Victoria Steele wrote:
Kozyrev was brilliant, but imprisoned by the Stalin government from 1937 to 1948 .... it was during that time locked away that he discovered that he was "being assisted" by a strong force of intelligence that he could not name nor place ...... He came out of his imprisonment gifted with a quiet quality that Paul has already given to Mr. Browns character ... it was said of Kozyrev that he was "tanned and athletic looking and gave off an "impression of great calm ... almost spiritual quality" ... That , I think is a basic commonality between the two men. They both posessed that sense of calm purpose, even under highly stressful situations .... and they both seemed to know what was ahead .....Kozyrev said that gravity was actually a form of aetheric energy "that is constantly flowing into and through an object" .... which is identical actually from what I have seen Paul write of Browns "sidereal radiation." And Kozyrevs basic understanding was that matter could be made to change weight .... in either direction by agitation ( shaking, spinning, heating, cooling, vibrating or breaking ... his words) which strangely ... if you read Browns notebooks carefully is what he calls "Beneficiation" ..... I have lost my notes on the source I was first working off of but if you look up N.A. Kozyrev .... Divine Cosmos ... you will run smack into all of this.
Compare the two men. Compare the work that they both were following (and the spiritual implications) I challenge you. Then lets talk some more. Something very strange is happening here folks and I am glad to see that I am not the only one noticing it. Victoria
While this thread has been idle for some time, I recently began reading Kozyrev (again) regarding his
Experimental Study of The Properties Time. While the full text would be too lengthy to post as a message, I thought this excerpt would be appreciated. Perhaps like Dr. Brown, N. A. Kozyrev also communicated with intelligence "beyond" as well?
N. A.Kozyrev's Axioms of Time
I.Time possesses a quality, creating a difference in causes from effects, which can be evoked by directivity or pattern. This property determines the difference in the past from the future.
II.Causes and results are always separated by space. Therefore, between them exists an arbitrarily small, but not equaling zero, spatial difference. δx
III.Causes and results are separated in time. Therefore between there appearance there exists an arbitrarily small, but not equalling zero time difference δt of a fixed sign.
Axiom II forms the basis of classical Newtonian mechanics. It is contained in a third law, according to which a variation in a quantity of motion cannot occur under the effect of internal forces. In other words, in the body there cannot develop an external force without the participation of another body. Hence, based on the impenetrability of matter, δx ± 0. However, on the basis of the complete reversibility of time, Axiom III is lacking in the Newtonian mechanics: δt = 0.
In atomic mechanics, just the opposite takes place. In it, the principle of impenetrability loses its value and, based on the possibility of the superposition of fields, it is obviously assumed that δx =0. However, in the atomic mechanics there is a temporal irreversibility which did not exist in the Newtonian mechanics. The influence upon a system of a macroscopic body, I. e. they devise, introduces a difference between the future and the past, because the future proves predictable, while the past is not. Therefore, in the temporal environs of the experiment δt ± 0, although it can be arbitrarily small. In this manner, classical mechanics and atomic mechanics enter into our axiomatics as tow extreme systems. This circumstance becomes especially clear if we introduce t he relationship: δx/ δt – C2
In the real world, C2 most likely constitutes a finite value. However in classical mechanics, δx = 0, δt ± 0, and therefore C2 = 0.
I am fascinated with the elegance of his logic and straightforward application in opposition to Newtonian and Quantum Physics alike. Like Dr. Brown, rather than refute them he simply demonstrates a possibility beyond their scope or in the case of time, the logic that affords his axioms a place that is neither "here nor there".
Another observation Ms. Steele is the mention of
tanned and athletic looking which based on photos shown and the times Dr. Brown spend sunbathing, draws another parallel between the two.
