Bring4th

*I've posted this in Strictly Law of One because I feel it deals with a fundamental issue from the Law of One relating to Ra's cosmology. It just happens to be a science related topic also so mods may think it better suited for the Science and Technology section.*

Greetings fellow seekers. I have a cosmological quandary and I'm wondering if anyone's up for helping me lessen some of the distortion. I'm having a hard time reconciling the photon that Ra and Don discussed with the photon which is understood to a high degree by modern physics.

In the “Standard Model of Particle Physics” the photon is designated as the force carrying particle of the electromagnetic interaction, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation, and as such it makes up the visible light of everyday experience and all the other parts of the EM spectrum (radio, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays). I'm of the understanding that the densities of awareness are a spectral representation of the original thought's vibrations and Ra posits that each density is formed of a quantum of light representing each density. From what I can tell, the photon of Ra's cosmology doesn't seem to be equivalent or even relate directly to that of the Standard Model.

What I'm trying to figure out is where does the phenomena that most people call a photon (EM radiation spectrum) fit into the cosmological scheme of the densities of awareness? I was originally thinking that the regular everyday EM photon we know, since it comes about from electrons oscillating between quantized energy levels, relates to the 1st density light. Electrons are considered a fundamental particle of matter, and I had always thought of 1st density as consisting mostly of the raw matter that makes up our planet. But then I started thinking about matter that isn't bound to a planetary environment (like space dust, solar winds, etc) and I had to reevaluate where 1st density actually begins. That topic deserves its own thread so I won't go into that any further here.

My main concern is the relationship between what we generally know as photons, the visible light and other higher and lower wavelengths that make up the EM spectrum, and the light quanta of awareness which make up the spectrum of densities. My tentative position at this point is that the the basic matter of 1st density which makes up the physical world is a kind of “limited” light, or as David Bohm said, “frozen light”. What I mean is that photons don't have a rest mass and are pure electromagnetic energy at constant velocity, whereas atomic particles have definite mass, are bound, but have electromagnetic properties; they seem to me to be a restriction on the high freedom of the photon. At this point there are atoms and molecules which make up the classical elements which Ra lists as being characteristic of 1st density. From here DNA develops from those interactions and gives rise to 2nd density, which after a damn long time gains reflective self-awareness in 3rd. We can see here the progression of “solid” entities through the experiences which each density has to offer, but the basic photon that is EM radiation isn't solid in any way. So where does that photon fit into the spectrum of densities which makes use of the universal Light substance which is the 3rd distortion of Intelligent Infinity? Is there a distinct difference between the EM radiation which is a fundamental expression of 1st density (and 2nd density as bioluminescence , and both 2nd and 3rd as infrared heat radiation) vs. the 3rd distortion of II that Ra calls Light and which makes up all of the densities?

I'm surprised that Don, given his physics background, never sought to clarify any of this, but perhaps it never crossed his mind. I have no problem seeing Light as the universal substance which Logos uses to express the original thought, I just have a problem fitting in what most humans think of as light into that picture. This is something that's been bugging me for a while so it would be cool to read what others have thought of this issue. Any ideas are welcome and appreciated.

/:idea:

My understanding is that the photon as related to densitities are quantum shifts and 'pulls' to the visible light frequency spectrum. Then a 1st density photon vibrates/moves on red as the base for holding information to possible form elements/molecules then 2 density photon vibrates on orange then being able to hold more information...including DNA formation...green vibration of the photon appears to allow the formation of electrical bodies instead of the mainly chemical ones of yellow vibrating photon....

Quote:27.14 Questioner: I will make a statement that I have extracted from the physics of Dewey Larson which may or may not be close to what we are trying to explain. Larson says that all is motion which we can take as vibration, and that vibration is pure vibration and is not physical in any way or in any form or density, and the first product of that vibration is what we call the photon or particle of light. I am trying to make an analogy between this physical solution and the concept of love and light. Is this close to the concept of Love creating light?
Ra: I am Ra. You are correct.

27.16 Questioner: Then this vibration which is, for lack of better understanding, pure motion; it is pure love; it is nothing that is yet condensed, shall we say, to form any type of density of illusion. This Love then creates by this process of vibration a photon, as we call it, which is the basic particle of light. This photon then, by added vibrations and rotation, further condenses into particles of the densities we experience. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

29.12 Questioner: I believe that Love creates the vibration in space/time in order to form the photon. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is essentially correct.

40.3 Questioner: Thank you. I was also wondering if the first-density corresponded somehow to the color red, the second to the color orange, the third to the color yellow and so on through the densities corresponding to the colors in perhaps a way so that the basic vibration which forms the photon that forms the core of all atomic particles would have a relationship to the color in the density and that that vibration would step up for second, third, and fourth-density corresponding to the increase in the vibration of the colors. Is any of this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is more correct than you have stated. Firstly, you are correct in positing a quantum, if you will, as the nature of each density and further correct in assuming that these quanta may be seen to be of vibratory natures corresponding to color as you grasp this word. However, it is also true, as you have suspected but not asked, that each density is of the metaphysical characteristic complex of its ray. Thus in first-density the red ray is the foundation for all that is to come. In second density the orange ray is that of movement and growth of the individual, this ray striving towards the yellow ray of self-conscious manifestations of a social nature as well as individual; third-density being the equivalent, and so forth, each density being primarily its ray plus the attractions of the following ray pulling it forward in evolution and to some extent coloring or shading the chief color of that density.

40.5 Questioner: Thank you. Taking as an example the transition between second and third-density, when this transition takes place, does the frequency of vibration which forms the photon (the core of all the particles of the density) increase from a frequency corresponding to second density or the color orange to the frequency that we measure as the color yellow? What I am getting at is, do all the vibrations that form the density, the basic vibrations of the photon, increase in a quantum fashion over a relatively short period of time?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. Then you see within each density the gradual up-grading of vibratory levels.

40.9 Questioner: Has the vibration of the photon increased in frequency already?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. It is this influence which has begun to cause thoughts to become things. As an example you may observe the thoughts of anger becoming those cells of the physical bodily complex going out of control to become what you call the cancer.

41.8 Questioner: Then what is the simplest being that is manifested? I am supposing that it might be a single cell or something like that. How does it function with respect to energy centers?
Ra: I am Ra. The simplest manifest being is light or what you have called the photon. In relationship to energy centers it may be seen to be the center or foundation of all articulated energy fields.

Apparently, the 1D photon is the fundamental manifestation that occurs when the unity of space/time is displaced or distorted (due to free will). According to Larson, the primary mechanism for distortion is thought to be a scalar 'vibration'. More complex motions, such as the rotation and rotational vibrations result in particles and atoms.

Crossing to 2D, we have another level of complexity that enables local 1D material aggregates to be assimilated, organized and sustained. Essentially, a 'foothold' in 2D allows control of 1D (and 3D of 2D, etc). These 2D distortions are themselves also vibrations, rotations, etc of space/time.

3D space/time: body - 3D controlled matter
3D time/space: mind - controller of 'controlled matter' (identity/ethics)
2D space/time: body - 2D controlled matter
2D time/space: mind - the controller
1D space/time: body - light and matter
1D time/space: 'mind' - energy 'nonlocal'

Apologies for such a late reply. I just got a new job and haven't been able to dedicate much time here. I was also hoping that others might contribute.

(03-07-2011, 01:06 AM)Crimson Wrote: [ -> ]My understanding is that the photon as related to densitities are quantum shifts and 'pulls' to the visible light frequency spectrum.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. I understand there is a true analogous correlation between colours of the VLS (light) and the spectrum of densities (Light). But, I'm trying to figure out whether the EM spectrum counts as the first level on the scale of 1st density or whether it's outside of the densities altogether.

I have trouble with the following bolded text from the Law of One:

Quote:27.16 Questioner: Then this vibration which is, for lack of better understanding, pure motion; it is pure love; it is nothing that is yet condensed, shall we say, to form any type of density of illusion. This Love then creates by this process of vibration a photon, as we call it, which is the basic particle of light. This photon then, by added vibrations and rotation, further condenses into particles of the densities we experience. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

I don't see where this fits with the standard model, and this is because I'm not sure Don is describing such a photon, but rather going with the 3rd distortion which forms the densities of Ra's cosmology.

(03-07-2011, 01:44 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]3D space/time: body - 3D controlled matter
3D time/space: mind - controller of 'controlled matter' (identity/ethics)
2D space/time: body - 2D controlled matter
2D time/space: mind - the controller
1D space/time: body - light and matter
1D time/space: 'mind' - energy 'nonlocal'

So are you saying that EM radiation is included in the space/time aspect of 1d? The time/space of 1d is a bit of a mystery to me.

/:idea:

I think of the densities as embodying different physical laws. Thus the "standard model" of modern physics is describing 3rd density physics only. The "added vibrations and rotation" suggest that in higher densities photons, or the corresponding entity, has more rotational degrees of vibrational freedom. In 3rd density physics a photon is specified by having a single "spin" quantum number of 1 (as do the other carriers of force, which become indistinguishable at high energies/temperatures). Particles such as electrons have a spin number of 1/2.

I think (with nothing to back this up besides that it could produce more complex physics) that in higher densities the photon (and other particles) has more than one quantum number that define its behaviour. In certain cases these particles would be able to interact with 3rd density physical systems (e.g. by projection) but would otherwise be incompatible and not interactive (and hence would appear invisible to each other).

(03-31-2011, 03:14 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to figure out whether the EM spectrum counts as the first level on the scale of 1st density or whether it's outside of the densities altogether.

EM spectrum is 1st density. It's the least complex form of light.

(03-31-2011, 03:14 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]I have trouble with the following bolded text from the Law of One:

Quote:27.16 Questioner: Then this vibration which is, for lack of better understanding, pure motion; it is pure love; it is nothing that is yet condensed, shall we say, to form any type of density of illusion. This Love then creates by this process of vibration a photon, as we call it, which is the basic particle of light. This photon then, by added vibrations and rotation, further condenses into particles of the densities we experience. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Don's referring to the Reciprocal System of Theory.

(03-31-2011, 03:14 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]So are you saying that EM radiation is included in the space/time aspect of 1d? The time/space of 1d is a bit of a mystery to me.

Yes. EM radiation is a "vibration" of the photon. I see time/space as non-local.

---

(03-31-2011, 07:27 PM)Etude in B Minor Wrote: [ -> ]Thus the "standard model" of modern physics is describing 3rd density physics only.

It's actually defining a portion of 1st density only. If we get to the point of realizing a physics of biology (2nd density), then I'd imagine we'd have our 'free energy' technology.

(03-31-2011, 09:19 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]EM spectrum is 1st density. It's the least complex form of light.

This leads to interesting thoughts because 8th and 1st density are intimately related. I wonder at what point the EM spectrum lies in the 1st density octave. If 8th and 1st blend into each other then perhaps it's actually at the mid point or even higher.

Quote:Don's referring to the Reciprocal System of Theory.

Right. I've not studied it much to know. Does Larson differentiate between typical photons and The Photon which the entirety of Creation is made of?

Quote:Yes. EM radiation is a "vibration" of the photon. I see time/space as non-local.

Ok, I guess I just find it funny that the photon can mean a very specific thing in science and something all encompassing in the the Larson/Ra use of the term.

Yeah, non-local it must be since there would only be 1 dimension of space. What I meant by 1d time/space being such a mystery to me is that it's incredibly hard to picture what it consists of. What exactly is non-local energy?

----

Thanks Etude for the response. Interesting thoughts for me to ponder.

---

I think the general idea here is that photons of the EM spectrum, though fundamental to lower density (1st-3rd/4th) dynamics, is only one part of the the full spectrum of the Light of Creation, and belongs somewhere in the 1st density octave.

/:idea:

Hi Poffo

Sorry for being late about this. As i understand the reciprocal system of theory, the photon can be thought of as the basic unit of motion, this is scalar motion. 'Vibrational' motion. The various rotations result in different the different phenomena and particles. By the way, there was a Q'uo transcript in which it's mentioned that the imbalance between the energies of space and time are what result in the oscillatory motion, that we detect as 'a particle'. I can't find it now but one can search for it.

There are a good series of essays on the reciprocal system's website. In the collected essays section, look at the series called "Step-by-Step".

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/step/index.htm

The sections i think will be of particular interest to you are sections D,E and F.

From section D:

Quote:# The vectorial direction corresponding to this inward (negative) scalar direction, like the vectorial direction of the non-rotating photon, is a result of viewing the motion in the context of an arbitrary reference system, rather than an inherent property of the motion itself. The vectorial direction is therefore determined entirely by chance in both cases. However, the non-rotating photon remains in the same absolute location permanently (unless acted upon by an outside agency) and the direction determined at the time of emission is therefore permanent. The rotating photon, on the other hand, is continually moving from one absolute location to another as it travels back along the line of progression, and each time it enters a new location, the vectorial direction is redetermined by the chance proess. Inasmuch as all directions are equally probable, the motion will be distributed uniformly over all directions in the long run. A rotating photon will therefore move inward toward all space (or time) locations other than the one that it happens to occupy momentarily.
# Since space and time locations cannot be identified by observation, neither inward nor outward motion can be recognized as such. It is possible, however, to observe the changes in the relations between the moving units and other physical objects. The photons of radiation, for instance, are observed to be moving outward from the emitting objects. Similarly, each rotating photon is moving toward all other rotating photons, by reason of the inward motion in space (or time) in which all participate, and the change in relative position in space can be observed. This second class of identifiable objects in the theoretical universe thus manifests itself to observation as a number of individual units which continually move inward toward each other.
# As in the case of the photon, the identification is obvious. The rotating photons are atoms. Collectively they constitute matter, and the inward motion in all directions is gravitation.
# In three-dimensional space, the fraction of the inward motion directed toward a unit area at distance d from an atom of matter is inversely proportional to the total area at that distance; that is, to the surface of a sphere of radius d. The effective portion of the total inward motion is therefore inversely proportional to d². This is the inverse square law to which gravitation conforms.
# On the basis of the foregoing, gravitation in the theoretical universe being developed from the postulates is not an action of one aggregate of matter on another. Each atom and each aggregate of atoms is pursuing its own course independently of all others, but because each observable unit is moving inward in space, it is moving toward all others, and this gives the appearance of a mutual interaction. However, if we examine the characteristics of the force that each atom or aggregate appears to be exerting upon the others, we find that this is a force of a very peculiar nature. The gravitational "force" acts instantaneously, without an intervening medium, and in such a manner that it cannot be screened off or modified in any way. These observed characteristics are so difficult to explain theoretically that most theorists have taken the rather unscientific stand that the observations must, for some reason, be wrong, and that notwithstanding the observational evidence to the countrary, the gravitational effect must be propagated through a medium, or something with the properties of a medium, at a finite velocity. It is particularly significant, therefore, that the theoretical characteristics of gravitation, as derived from the postulates, are in full agreement with the observations. Motions which are totally independent of each other will necessarily have just the kind of characteristics that are observed in gravitation.
# In the foregoing paragraphs, it has been noted parenthetically that the gravitational motion may be regarded as a force. The relation between the two concepts can be illustrated by a simple example. Let us assume a motion x existing coincidentally with an equal and oppositely directed motion, y. In this case, we can either take the position that both motions exist and that one neutralizes the other, or we can say that there are two forces tending to cause motion, but that no motion results because the forces counterbalance each other.
# As noted in items 5 and 6, gravitation may take place either in space or in time. When it acts in space, the atoms of matter continue to occupy random locations in time, and vice versa. In an observable aggregate of matter the atoms are therefore widely dispersed in time even though they are are continguous in space. The inverse type of aggregate in which the atoms are continguous in time, but widely dispersed in space, is unobservable.
# In dealing with the magnitude of the gravitational effect, we will need to take into account this point that spatial locations have no independent existence. A spatial location is merely one aspect of a space-time location. Gravitation therefore moves the atoms of matter toward all space-time locations, even though the inward movement is limited to space. Because of the random locations in time, an aggregate of n units of motion occupies n widely dispersed locations in space-time. In the apparent interaction of an aggregate of n effective units of motion with one of m effective units, each of the n units is moving toward each of the m units, and the magnitude of the gravitational effect at unit distance will therefore be nm. The factors that necessitate the use of the term “effective” in the foregoing statement will make their appearance later in the development.
# All matter is subject to gravitation by reason of the same thing that makes it matter; that is, the rotational motion of the atoms. Gravitation is therefore the second of the basic motions (or forces) that determine the course of physical events.

From section E:

Quote:#
It is not possible, however, for a one-dimensional object, such as a photon, to have rotational motions of the same kind in all three dimensions. Rotation of the photon cannot take place independently around the line of vibration as an axis. Such a rotation would be indistinguishable from no rotation at all. The photon may, however, rotate around its midpoint. One such rotation generates a two-dimensional figure, a disk. Rotation of the disk around a diameter generates a three-dimensional figure, a sphere. Since no fourth dimension is available, this process cannot be continued farther. The basic rotation of the photon is thus two-dimensional.
#
With this two-dimensional rotation in existence, the photon may rotate around the third axis in the opposite scalar direction. This is a rotation of the sphere generated by the basic rotation. Since the two-dimensional rotation is distributed over all three dimensions, the additional rotation in the third dimension is not required for stability of the structure, and the total rotation of the atom therefore consists of a two-dimensional rotation of each photon, with or without an oppositely directed one-dimensional rotation. For convenience, we will refer to the one-dimensional rotation as electric rotation, and the two-dimensional rotation as magnetic rotation. At the present stage of development, there are no electric or magnetic forces in the structures under consideration, but the identification of "electric" with "one-dimensional" and "magnetic" with "two-dimensional" will be of advantage when electric and magnetic phenomena are introduced later in the development.
#
The speed of the electric rotation is independent of that of the magnetic rotation, except to the extent that probability considerations favor the magnetic rotation, and the speeds in the two magnetic dimensions are partially independent, inasmuch as this rotation may be distributed spheroidally rather than spherically. Consequently, there are a number of different combinations of rotational speeds, which give rise to corresponding differences in physical behavior: differences in the properties of the various rotational combinations, we may say. The theoretical universe thus contains many different kinds of atoms with different properties. These can be identified as the chemical elements, each element corresponding to a specific combination of rotations.

The rest of section E is interesting because he goes on to show how the various chemical elements are classed according to how rotational motion happens. It makes me think of the bit where Ra says that materials (it was a crystal i think) are "frozen light". I see now, frozen in motion. Really neat.

Here's from section F:
The displacements given are displacements in the time dimensions. net time displacement.

Quote:2. On this basis, the sub-atomic particles are not constituents of atoms, as viewed by current physical theory. They are incomplete atoms; that is, they are rotational combinations which do not have enough net total time displacement to form the two rotating systems that are required by the definition of an atom previously stated.

Quote:Summary of Sub-Atomic Particles
Particle

Displacements
Electron

0-0-(1)
Rotational Base

0-0-0
Positron

0-0-1
Electron Neutrino

½-½-(1)
Muon Neutrino

½-½-0
Proton

1-1-(1)

These are the quote i think address what you're looking for. Let me know what you think...

Alternatively, you could think of the photon being the mediator of electromagnetism and then you can see gravity as the BxV EMF, caused by moving electrons, field asymmetrically acting in the direction of the proton, to give you the central tendency. This then deflects electron orbitals and then atoms to the more massive object (atom).

Let me know if i left out anything here, i haven't looked at RST with regard to strong and weak nuclear forces.

Thank you for bringing this topic up!

(04-01-2011, 03:07 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2011, 09:19 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]EM spectrum is 1st density. It's the least complex form of light.

This leads to interesting thoughts because 8th and 1st density are intimately related. I wonder at what point the EM spectrum lies in the 1st density octave. If 8th and 1st blend into each other then perhaps it's actually at the mid point or even higher.

Quote:Don's referring to the Reciprocal System of Theory.

Right. I've not studied it much to know. Does Larson differentiate between typical photons and The Photon which the entirety of Creation is made of?

Larson posits that the photon is a manifestation of a vibration, or a displacement from unity of space and time (that he calls 'motion'). So motion is primary, not the photon. But the photon would be the most fundamental entity created from this space-time displacement. Larson's 'motion' is also not primarily vectorial (as in 3D cartesian), but scalar in nature.

Larson gets into some speculation about biological and ethical possibilities in the book 'Beyond Space and Time'. I suppose that could be considered to touch on 2nd-density and 3D-density. But Larson was careful not to overreach and actually didn't want the book to be published in his lifetime.

(04-01-2011, 03:07 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-31-2011, 09:19 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. EM radiation is a "vibration" of the photon. I see time/space as non-local.

Ok, I guess I just find it funny that the photon can mean a very specific thing in science and something all encompassing in the the Larson/Ra use of the term.

Most of workable science is particle, field and forced based. Larson thought the RS model was more primary because it explained the origin of particles and forces (i.e. gravity).

(04-01-2011, 03:07 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, non-local it must be since there would only be 1 dimension of space. What I meant by 1d time/space being such a mystery to me is that it's incredibly hard to picture what it consists of.

In Larson's terminolgy space-time = time/space, and time-space = space/time.

(04-01-2011, 03:07 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]What exactly is non-local energy?

Here's a physics professor's take on it: http://library.rstheory.org/articles/KVK...ality.html

(04-01-2011, 03:07 AM)Poffo Wrote: [ -> ]I think the general idea here is that photons of the EM spectrum, though fundamental to lower density (1st-3rd/4th) dynamics, is only one part of the the full spectrum of the Light of Creation, and belongs somewhere in the 1st density octave.

Again, the EM spectrum (measurable radiation with frequency range) is only of 1st density. While 'motion' and 'light' (generic) are part of the entire creation.

What does Nassim Haramein have to say on this subject? I watcehd his theory on Singularity some years ago, must "mercury retrograde review it"

transiten