Bring4th Forums
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:
  • Archive Home
  • Members
  • Team
  • Help
  • More
    • About Us
    • Library
    • L/L Research Store
User Links
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:

    Menu Home Today At a Glance Members CSC & Team Help
    Also visit... About Us Library Blog L/L Research Store Adept Biorhythms

    As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.

    You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022) x

    Bring4th Bring4th Community Olio New Insider Material Discusses Sun Transition, Dewey Larson, and More

    Thread: New Insider Material Discusses Sun Transition, Dewey Larson, and More


    Patrick (Offline)

    YAY - Yet Another You
    Posts: 5,635
    Threads: 64
    Joined: Mar 2012
    #31
    11-12-2012, 10:35 PM
    (11-12-2012, 10:32 PM)zenmaster Wrote:
    (11-12-2012, 10:26 PM)Patrick Wrote:
    (11-12-2012, 10:19 PM)zenmaster Wrote:
    (11-12-2012, 10:10 PM)Patrick Wrote: I see myself somewhat in this, but the other self does not always see the same thing I do even if I point to it. Smile

    The more earnest the attempt by both parties, the more likely there will be success. The main barriers here are due to attachments.

    True. I try to let go of attachments sometimes in such situations. But often I simply become unhinged and more confused. Maybe this happens when too much was attached to said attachment that was released? And so I cannot reconstruct a new perspective quickly enough and/or big enough to fit all experiences.

    That's just more attachments. Exactly what is needed easily flows when space is provided.

    Then I need to make some space for this. Smile

      •
    zenmaster (Offline)

    Member
    Posts: 5,541
    Threads: 132
    Joined: Jan 2009
    #32
    11-12-2012, 10:37 PM
    (11-12-2012, 10:35 PM)Patrick Wrote:
    (11-12-2012, 10:32 PM)zenmaster Wrote:
    (11-12-2012, 10:26 PM)Patrick Wrote:
    (11-12-2012, 10:19 PM)zenmaster Wrote:
    (11-12-2012, 10:10 PM)Patrick Wrote: I see myself somewhat in this, but the other self does not always see the same thing I do even if I point to it. Smile

    The more earnest the attempt by both parties, the more likely there will be success. The main barriers here are due to attachments.

    True. I try to let go of attachments sometimes in such situations. But often I simply become unhinged and more confused. Maybe this happens when too much was attached to said attachment that was released? And so I cannot reconstruct a new perspective quickly enough and/or big enough to fit all experiences.

    That's just more attachments. Exactly what is needed easily flows when space is provided.

    Then I need to make some space for this. Smile
    Then exactly what is needed will easily flow. Smile
    [+] The following 1 member thanked thanked zenmaster for this post:1 member thanked zenmaster for this post
      • Patrick
    BrownEye Away

    Positive Deviant
    Posts: 3,446
    Threads: 297
    Joined: Jun 2009
    #33
    11-14-2012, 01:38 PM
    Quote:14These bright flashes of the sun have been reported since 2010 at the higher altitudes, where the atmosphere is thinner and there is no pollution/smog layer. The increased intensity (flash) lasts for several minutes to several hours and tends to be laser-like, causing peculiar damage in a small area, such the sudden death of plants and trees (leaves are burned to a crisp) or the cracking of car windshields.
    The chemtrail patent specifies the reflection of rays away from earth.
    [+] The following 1 member thanked thanked BrownEye for this post:1 member thanked BrownEye for this post
      • Parsons
    BrownEye Away

    Positive Deviant
    Posts: 3,446
    Threads: 297
    Joined: Jun 2009
    #34
    11-15-2012, 01:31 AM
    Quote:If the globalists had not started messing around with geoengineering and genetics some 50 years ago, humanity would have already been in the transition phase to a more complex form of life—a “higher density” expression of consciousness. All the GMO foodstuffs we are exposed to on a daily basis, combined with the chemicals used in climate modification, has delayed certain natural processes from being initiated.
    Oh nice, got this from my guides a year ago. Blocking our evolution.

      •
    Tenet Nosce (Offline)

    Other/Self
    Posts: 2,173
    Threads: 99
    Joined: May 2010
    #35
    11-23-2012, 05:34 PM (This post was last modified: 11-23-2012, 06:30 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
    I'm just now getting to read some of this in more detail and wishing I understood more of Larson's work.

    In the meantime- what do you make of these zenmaster? Have you read them all yet? Or anybody else familiar with Larson's work? Are these claims accurate?

    In particular, from the "Geoengineering" document:

    Quote:One of the issues was that the time travel experiments ran into a “bump,” literally, crossing the 2012/2013 year boundary (conventional calendar) and at the time, it appeared to be some kind of artificial reality that was constructed by the psychic running the chair.

    Quote:In my opinion, this solar transition is the “harvest” or “ascension” to a new state for life on Earth—not just man—all life on Earth. All the physical properties get “kicked up a notch,” as Emeril would say, commonly known as a “higher density” or a “higher dimension.”

    (11-10-2012, 03:12 PM)zenmaster Wrote: Well I for one am glad "daniel" is one of the few "insiders" reaching out. Excellent catalyst. Would not surprise me if he was the reincarnation of Daniel.

    As in the originator of historical eschatology of Judaism?

    Also, funny he is being called an insider! BigSmile

    Quote:I didn't “know” until I became an outsider and several of us former insiders started comparing notes and going “what they heck?” It took decades of research to get to the point where we have a viable model of what is going on.

      •
    Monica (Offline)

    Account Closed
    Posts: 7,043
    Threads: 151
    Joined: Dec 2008
    #36
    11-23-2012, 07:22 PM
    Quote:What we didn't know then, and do know now, is that there is a
    convergence of timelines at that boundary; a /causal nexus/. It is like
    a major intersection in the timescape, where people come together and
    have to make a choice on which road they are going to take, to continue on.
    The equipment being used to project to the future was not able to make
    such a choice (like a car without a driver, going down the road), so I'm
    thinking that the path was "hijacked" into a synthetic quantum5
    environment, and did not follow its natural route. The bump was probably
    the "fall out" of the hijack.

    This correlates with what Q'uo has told us about the time lateral.

    Quote:Change this planet to be resistant to the solar changes they knew were coming and keep their Cabal-istic, 3rd density society going.

    This part doesn't make sense to me (though I haven't read all the docs yet). I would think they were doing the opposite, with all their poisoning...?

      •
    Tenet Nosce (Offline)

    Other/Self
    Posts: 2,173
    Threads: 99
    Joined: May 2010
    #37
    11-23-2012, 09:35 PM
    I'm having a hard time following this part:

    Quote:Sun Heats in Quantum Steps, not a Smooth Transition

    In the Reciprocal System, everything is quantized into discrete units. So is the case with the destructive limits… stars do not heat smoothly, but tend to stay at a specific temperature, then suddenly jump to a new temperature range as the magnetic ionization level increases (which controls the age limit). That is why we have a distinct color-temperature class system for identifying stars. The discrete jumps become very visible when you look at an H-R diagram with the correct evolutionary sequence, as stars move from red supergiants, to orange giants, to main sequence—distinct bars on the graph with few stars between them. The earlier stages of heating up takes bigger jumps than the later ones, so that is obvious here.11 Astronomers consider the giants to be separate from dwarfs because they do not realize the stars heat and condense in quantum steps—they assume a continuous change, so they miss the connection.

    But looking at an H-R diagram, I don't see these jumps he is talking about. Huh

    [Image: HRDiagram.png]
    [+] The following 1 member thanked thanked Tenet Nosce for this post:1 member thanked Tenet Nosce for this post
      • ZenDunk
    zenmaster (Offline)

    Member
    Posts: 5,541
    Threads: 132
    Joined: Jan 2009
    #38
    11-23-2012, 10:09 PM
    (11-23-2012, 05:34 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I'm just now getting to read some of this in more detail and wishing I understood more of Larson's work.

    In the meantime- what do you make of these zenmaster? Have you read them all yet? Or anybody else familiar with Larson's work? Are these claims accurate?

    In particular, from the "Geoengineering" document:

    Quote:One of the issues was that the time travel experiments ran into a “bump,” literally, crossing the 2012/2013 year boundary (conventional calendar) and at the time, it appeared to be some kind of artificial reality that was constructed by the psychic running the chair.

    Quote:In my opinion, this solar transition is the “harvest” or “ascension” to a new state for life on Earth—not just man—all life on Earth. All the physical properties get “kicked up a notch,” as Emeril would say, commonly known as a “higher density” or a “higher dimension.”
    I have read them all. Looks like he's just stating an opinion, with nothing really to go on as far as verifying accuracy. The Montauk project info was very interesting. I think it'd make a great sci-fi movie if done right. Ra simply says instreaming increases and the planet distributes it as it aligns its votices of reception. Ra also said the planet (as sub-sub-logos) takes the energy in just as an individual person would. I wouldn't think any 1D change in the sun would have anything to do with a 4D transition? The planets are on their own clocks as far as density cycles, with at least one other planet capable of eventually moving through all the densities. I'd imagine that the sun would remain rather stable for a few billion years more to provide such an opportunity.

    (11-23-2012, 05:34 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: As in the originator of historical eschatology of Judaism?

    Also, funny he is being called an insider! BigSmile

    Quote:I didn't “know” until I became an outsider and several of us former insiders started comparing notes and going “what they heck?” It took decades of research to get to the point where we have a viable model of what is going on.
    Yes, as in Daniel in the lions den, etc.

      •
    Tenet Nosce (Offline)

    Other/Self
    Posts: 2,173
    Threads: 99
    Joined: May 2010
    #39
    11-23-2012, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 11-23-2012, 10:35 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
    (11-23-2012, 10:09 PM)zenmaster Wrote: I wouldn't think any 1D change in the sun would have anything to do with a 4D transition?

    Observing such a change would provide catalyst to impact consciousness. Such a change would prove that Larson's theory is correct. That would be the modern day equivalent of discovering that the earth is round, or not at the center of the universe. It would mean pretty much everything we think we know is wrong.

    Quote: I'd imagine that the sun would remain rather stable for a few billion years more to provide such an opportunity.

    If the transition is relatively harmless, what opportunity would be lost by making it now?

    At any rate this just impels me more to read Larson's work. I am just starting Beyond Space and Time.
    [+] The following 1 member thanked thanked Tenet Nosce for this post:1 member thanked Tenet Nosce for this post
      • Parsons
    Conifer16 (Offline)

    You're brilliant! :-)
    Posts: 745
    Threads: 56
    Joined: Feb 2011
    #40
    11-24-2012, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 11-24-2012, 12:20 AM by Conifer16.)
    (11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    (11-23-2012, 10:09 PM)zenmaster Wrote: I wouldn't think any 1D change in the sun would have anything to do with a 4D transition?

    Observing such a change would provide catalyst to impact consciousness. Such a change would prove that Larson's theory is correct. That would be the modern day equivalent of discovering that the earth is round, or not at the center of the universe. It would mean pretty much everything we think we know is wrong.

    Quote: I'd imagine that the sun would remain rather stable for a few billion years more to provide such an opportunity.

    If the transition is relatively harmless, what opportunity would be lost by making it now?

    At any rate this just impels me more to read Larson's work. I am just starting Beyond Space and Time.

    ow...... head hurts... will take many days to process... ow......

    :-P lol
    [+] The following 2 members thanked thanked Conifer16 for this post:2 members thanked Conifer16 for this post
      • Oceania, hogey11
    Spaced (Offline)

    Dark Star
    Posts: 2,702
    Threads: 61
    Joined: Jul 2012
    #41
    11-24-2012, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 11-24-2012, 12:51 PM by Spaced.)
    (11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    (11-23-2012, 10:09 PM)zenmaster Wrote: I wouldn't think any 1D change in the sun would have anything to do with a 4D transition?

    Observing such a change would provide catalyst to impact consciousness. Such a change would prove that Larson's theory is correct. That would be the modern day equivalent of discovering that the earth is round, or not at the center of the universe. It would mean pretty much everything we think we know is wrong.

    Also if the Sun became brighter wouldn't it literally mean an increase in the density of light that reaches us in terms of foot-candles?

    Would denser light(love) not impart more energy to everything it struck? Just something I am wondering, I don't have a very firm grounding in these concepts.

      •
    zenmaster (Offline)

    Member
    Posts: 5,541
    Threads: 132
    Joined: Jan 2009
    #42
    11-24-2012, 04:52 PM
    (11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    (11-23-2012, 10:09 PM)zenmaster Wrote: I wouldn't think any 1D change in the sun would have anything to do with a 4D transition?

    Observing such a change would provide catalyst to impact consciousness.
    Yes.

    (11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Such a change would prove that Larson's theory is correct.
    No.

    (11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: That would be the modern day equivalent of discovering that the earth is round, or not at the center of the universe. It would mean pretty much everything we think we know is wrong.
    Well, it would be unexpected due to lack of observable evidence and theoretical basis.

    (11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    Quote: I'd imagine that the sun would remain rather stable for a few billion years more to provide such an opportunity.

    If the transition is relatively harmless, what opportunity would be lost by making it now?
    Short-term instability would seem to be detrimental to evolution of life in the solar system.

    (11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: At any rate this just impels me more to read Larson's work. I am just starting Beyond Space and Time.
    You should start with something which describes the Reciprocal System, like "Nothing But Motion". Also the "Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion"

    Beyond Space and Time is Larson's last book, which attempts to apply his theory to other realms (higher densities).

      •
    marielle (Offline)

    Member
    Posts: 27
    Threads: 3
    Joined: Jul 2010
    #43
    11-24-2012, 10:18 PM
    Here is a new PDF from Daniel talking about ETs and EDs:

    http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/up...EDsETs.pdf

    If your head doesn't hurt by now, it will Smile
    [+] The following 3 members thanked thanked marielle for this post:3 members thanked marielle for this post
      • Monica, BrownEye, Parsons
    BrownEye Away

    Positive Deviant
    Posts: 3,446
    Threads: 297
    Joined: Jun 2009
    #44
    11-25-2012, 01:49 PM (This post was last modified: 11-25-2012, 02:00 PM by BrownEye.)
    Quote:This is where intellectual development comes into play, as you can reason yourself out of fear by changing that fear into intellectual curiosity.
    Went through this a couple weeks ago experimenting with total darkness. A strong fear came up, and felt like I was surrounded by shadow entities, yet at the same time I knew that logically there was nothing to fear. It was more like a body response than anything.

    Quote:If you do not realize you are being influenced, you cannot defend against it.
    Very solid advice here.

    Quote:Do not be willfully ignorant. If you don’t know something, make the attempt to learn it. Even if you can’t figure it out, or don’t remember it, it will sit there in the back of your mind—if that information is needed in an emergency, it will rise up to the occasion.
    This applies not only to extraterrestrial and extra-dimensional encounters, but also to the process of human ascension. The more you know about how it works, the more your consciousness can utilize that information to accelerate your progress along the path.
    [+] The following 2 members thanked thanked BrownEye for this post:2 members thanked BrownEye for this post
      • xise, Parsons
    zenmaster (Offline)

    Member
    Posts: 5,541
    Threads: 132
    Joined: Jan 2009
    #45
    11-25-2012, 02:10 PM
    (11-25-2012, 01:49 PM)Pickle Wrote:
    Quote:The more you know about how it works, the more your consciousness can utilize that information to accelerate your progress along the path.
    There are two ways to know how something works (knowledge creation) - thinking and feeling. Both are equal and complimentary. It's not the knowledge itself that accelerates progress, but the opportunity which it affords. There is also the issue of complexity in any worldview. You can see how unnecessary complexity can be a barrier or maze, stifling progress through confusion and distraction. However, our culture often places high value on the complex because it tends to be more entertaining.

      •
    Tenet Nosce (Offline)

    Other/Self
    Posts: 2,173
    Threads: 99
    Joined: May 2010
    #46
    11-25-2012, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 11-25-2012, 05:06 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
    Quote:Well, it would be unexpected due to lack of observable evidence and theoretical basis.

    The sun making a quantum jump to another stage within the main sequence, and moreover that the new stage would be what we have previously thought of as "previous" would upturn everything. There would be plenty of observable evidence from this, don't you think?

    Quote:You should start with something which describes the Reciprocal System, like "Nothing But Motion". Also the "Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion"

    Beyond Space and Time is Larson's last book, which attempts to apply his theory to other realms (higher densities).

    I started there because of the applications to evolutionary biology that he discusses. It has a summary of the Reciprocal System in Chapter 3, but yes I would obviously need to read his earlier works to get a proper foundation.

    I have a rudimentary knowledge of the idea of the three sectors, and that the relationship between space and time is reciprocal in sectors 1 and 2. But I have as yet little understanding of what it means that the cosmic sector is "identical with the material sector in every respect except that space and time are interchanged."

    How can something so different be in any way "identical"?

      •
    Ashim (Offline)

    All Be One
    Posts: 2,371
    Threads: 144
    Joined: Nov 2009
    #47
    11-25-2012, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 11-25-2012, 05:15 PM by Ashim.)
    (11-25-2012, 05:06 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    Quote:Well, it would be unexpected due to lack of observable evidence and theoretical basis.

    The sun making a quantum jump to another stage within the main sequence, and moreover that the new stage would be what we have previously thought of as "previous" would upturn everything. There would be plenty of observable evidence from this, don't you think?

    Quote:You should start with something which describes the Reciprocal System, like "Nothing But Motion". Also the "Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion"

    Beyond Space and Time is Larson's last book, which attempts to apply his theory to other realms (higher densities).

    I started there because of the applications to evolutionary biology that he discusses. It has a summary of the Reciprocal System in Chapter 3, but yes I would obviously need to read his earlier works to get a proper foundation.

    I have a rudimentary knowledge of the idea of the three sectors, and that the relationship between space and time is reciprocal in sectors 1 and 2. But I have as yet little understanding of what it means that the cosmic sector is "identical with the material sector in every respect except that space and time are interchanged."

    How can something so different be in any way "identical"?

    As above , so below.

    Quote_

    When feeling unison with the universe the magician knows he has reached his Higher or True Self because he has attained mastery of himself and the universe. Thus he feels his "skillful work ascends from earth to heaven and descends to earth again, and receives the power of the superiors and of the inferiors." Therefore, he "hast the glory of the whole worldtherefore let all obscurity flee from thee." Now the miracles are possible.

    Source. http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articl...above.html

      •
    Tenet Nosce (Offline)

    Other/Self
    Posts: 2,173
    Threads: 99
    Joined: May 2010
    #48
    11-25-2012, 08:40 PM (This post was last modified: 11-25-2012, 08:58 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
    For discussion, I came across this:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dewey_Larson

    Quote:Dewey Bernard Larson (1898-1990) was an American engineer best known for developing a Theory of Everything known as the "Reciprocal System." Most of his writing dates from the 1950s and 60s and predates much of the Standard Model of physics, which effectively nullified many of his claims. However, Larson still maintains a strong and passionate following among a few cranks who think that they've stumbled upon some great secret body of knowledge.

    None of Larson's work was ever published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.[1] The only evaluations of Larson's work were performed by known supporters of the Reciprocal System, and have an alarming tendency to use the word "published" when they really mean "uploaded to a WordPress blog."[2]

    Because Larson was nothing more than a lone crank, his Wikipedia page was deleted for the non-notability of the subject.[3] The article in question was entirely a piece of fancruft, based largely on a biography of Larson hosted by his supporters.[4][5]

    ... and it goes on from there...

    This is also interesting:

    41.20 Wrote:Questioner: Could you tell me the difference between space/time and time/space?

    Ra: I am Ra. Using your words, the difference is that between the visible and invisible or the physical and metaphysical. Using mathematical terms, as does the one you call Larson, the difference is that between s/t and t/s.

    Larson says that space/time and time/space are both physical, and that there is a third "metaphysical" sector which exists independent of space and time. Ra says space/time is physical and time/space metaphysical.

    Also, should we interpret this as a blanket "nod" toward Larson's theories?

    Quote:20.7 Questioner: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

    Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex Dewey is a correct system as far as it is able to go.

    Consider these rebuttals:

    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/199....As.r.html

    Quote: Example 1: in their view of stellar evolution stars begin as red dwarfs (low surface temperature, low luminosity) and as they grow older their density, temperature, and luminosity increase, culminating in an explosion. I'd want to see numerical predictions of the history of the Sun: how old it is, how its luminosity has changed with time, how fast it should be changing now, and so on. We know from the fossil record, however, that the surface temperature of the Earth hasn't changed very much over the planet's history, and since this temperature reflects at least partially the energy input from the Sun, the solar luminosity can't have changed by very much either, maybe a factor of two. That sounds like a lot, but the red dwarfs which are the supposed early stage for the Sun are thousands of times less luminous than the Sun is now. This kind of luminosity is incompatible with the geologic record.

    Example 2: the prediction is made that hotter and brighter main sequence stars are denser than the cooler and fainter ones; this is directly contradicted by observations of stars. We can estimate masses and diameters of stars in some binary star systems in which the two stars happen to take turns blocking our view of each other -- these are called eclipsing binaries. By taking repeated spectroscopic observations of the stars we can work out the the orbits of the stars around each other. This involves using the Doppler effect (see here, among many other places on the web, for something about it) to tell how fast the stars are moving -- this same physical effect is used by radar "guns" to measure the speeds of stars, and then using three of Issac Newton's inventions, calculus and the laws of motion and gravitation, to solve for the orbit. (There's a nice description of binary star orbits here. Many of the properties of orbits were discovered by Kepler when analyzing observations of the planets; Newton developed the physics and mathematical tools for understanding why those are.) The orbit tells us how fast the stars are moving, so using that and timing how long the eclipses last tells us how big the stars are (that is, their diameters). The orbit also tells us how much mass there is in the system (the more mass, the more gravity, and the faster things move). Once we have both the mass and the diameter of the stars, then we know the density as quickly as we can do the geometry problem of computing the volume of a sphere when given its diameter; density is equal to mass divided by volume. Once you've done the measurements, the numbers indicate that among main sequence stars the hottest, most luminous stars have the lowest density, while the cool, low-luminosity dwarfs have the highest density.

    Example 3: In some of the stuff "worked out" about the structure of the Sun and the nature of sunspots, the implication is clearly made that the oblateness of the Sun (that is, how flattened the Sun's disk appears to us) should change over the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle, in the sense that it should become more oblate as the cycle progresses and sunspots appear at lower solar latitudes. This also is directly contradicted by observations: the oblateness of the Sun is constant over time within the accuracy of our measurements.

      •
    zenmaster (Offline)

    Member
    Posts: 5,541
    Threads: 132
    Joined: Jan 2009
    #49
    11-25-2012, 11:25 PM
    (11-25-2012, 05:06 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    Quote:Well, it would be unexpected due to lack of observable evidence and theoretical basis.

    The sun making a quantum jump to another stage within the main sequence, and moreover that the new stage would be what we have previously thought of as "previous" would upturn everything. There would be plenty of observable evidence from this, don't you think?
    Yes.

    (11-25-2012, 05:06 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:
    Quote:You should start with something which describes the Reciprocal System, like "Nothing But Motion". Also the "Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion"

    Beyond Space and Time is Larson's last book, which attempts to apply his theory to other realms (higher densities).

    I started there because of the applications to evolutionary biology that he discusses. It has a summary of the Reciprocal System in Chapter 3, but yes I would obviously need to read his earlier works to get a proper foundation.

    I have a rudimentary knowledge of the idea of the three sectors, and that the relationship between space and time is reciprocal in sectors 1 and 2. But I have as yet little understanding of what it means that the cosmic sector is "identical with the material sector in every respect except that space and time are interchanged."

    How can something so different be in any way "identical"?
    He means the fundamental principles are the same, not a duplicate. In 1D, over-unity speeds result in interaction with the other half.

      •
    Tenet Nosce (Offline)

    Other/Self
    Posts: 2,173
    Threads: 99
    Joined: May 2010
    #50
    11-26-2012, 03:18 AM
    (11-25-2012, 11:25 PM)zenmaster Wrote: He means the fundamental principles are the same, not a duplicate. In 1D, over-unity speeds result in interaction with the other half.

    Oh, I see. I was trying to envision the human body in time/space... doesn't make any sense if the parts cannot move in relation to each other! BigSmile



    Also, just got a new read on this:

    1.0 Wrote:You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought. You are dancing in a ballroom in which there is no material. You are dancing thoughts. You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought.

    This seems to be precisely Larson's basic premise.

      •
    zenmaster (Offline)

    Member
    Posts: 5,541
    Threads: 132
    Joined: Jan 2009
    #51
    11-26-2012, 10:06 PM
    (11-26-2012, 03:18 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Also, just got a new read on this:

    1.0 Wrote:You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought. You are dancing in a ballroom in which there is no material. You are dancing thoughts. You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought.

    This seems to be precisely Larson's basic premise.
    The basic premise is that we exist in a universe of motion, rather than of matter. That is, motion underlies both matter and energy. And there is no "container" for any constituent of the universe. Light actually stays perfectly still, but from the reference point of a gravitating object, it moves at the measured velocity.

      •
    AnthroHeart (Offline)

    Anthro at Heart
    Posts: 19,119
    Threads: 1,298
    Joined: Jan 2010
    #52
    11-26-2012, 10:15 PM
    That makes sense zen. Ra did say that consciousness is unmoved.
    [+] The following 1 member thanked thanked AnthroHeart for this post:1 member thanked AnthroHeart for this post
      • Tenet Nosce
    Tenet Nosce (Offline)

    Other/Self
    Posts: 2,173
    Threads: 99
    Joined: May 2010
    #53
    11-26-2012, 11:14 PM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2012, 11:14 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
    (11-26-2012, 10:06 PM)zenmaster Wrote:
    (11-26-2012, 03:18 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Also, just got a new read on this:

    1.0 Wrote:You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought. You are dancing in a ballroom in which there is no material. You are dancing thoughts. You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought.

    This seems to be precisely Larson's basic premise.
    The basic premise is that we exist in a universe of motion, rather than of matter. That is, motion underlies both matter and energy. And there is no "container" for any constituent of the universe. Light actually stays perfectly still, but from the reference point of a gravitating object, it moves at the measured velocity.

    Well yes, that is what I am getting at. Although I never saw it in 1.0 until after I read some of Larson's work. Ra says- we are not in a universe of matter, but of motion.

      •
    « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

    Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

    Pages (2): « Previous 1 2



    • View a Printable Version
    • Subscribe to this thread

    © Template Design by D&D - Powered by MyBB

    Connect with L/L Research on Social Media

    Linear Mode
    Threaded Mode