The biggest scientific claim in the entire Ra material.

[Adonai One]

41.9 Questioner: Then what is the simplest being that is manifested? I am supposing it might be a single cell or something like that. And 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.

The physics community recognizes that the photon is a elementary particle but imagine convincing them that everything we see is transmuted photons? Hahaha.

Everything in this universe, seen and unseen, metaphysical and physical is centered around the photon. Convincing humanity of simply that will unlock limitless potential.

[AnthroHeart]

It would probably simplify a lot of complex equations too.

[zenmaster]

41.9 Questioner: Then what is the simplest being that is manifested? I am supposing it might be a single cell or something like that. And 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.

The physics community recognizes that the photon is a elementary particle but imagine convincing them that everything we see is transmuted photons? Hahaha.

Everything in this universe, seen and unseen, metaphysical and physical is centered around the photon. Convincing humanity of simply that will unlock limitless potential.

The photon is also the first manifestation due to "motion" (space and time ratios) in the Reciprocal System. BTW your statement about "convincing" doesn't really make sense because it ignores the necessary steps involved in learning how to make use of such a concept. Handwaving adds nothing.

[Diana]

The physics community recognizes that the photon is a elementary particle but imagine convincing them that everything we see is transmuted photons? Hahaha.

I don't think that would be difficult for String Theorists to find the conjecture worth contemplating. Although, why convince? If everything is evolving, it follows that there are no set and final answers. Can anyone here really comprehend a hypercube (tesseract)? It is like A. Square trying to comprehend A. Sphere in Flatland. So as the dimensions perceived increase, there is just no way to predict what we will comprehend in terms of what we can now understand.

[Marc]

There are 3 dimensions of space (s/t t/s), no more and no less. That is empirical evidence the rest is just fanciful thinking that has no proof whatsoever.

[Unbound]

I see one dimension of curves, personally.

[Ashim]

Can anyone here really comprehend a hypercube (tesseract)?

Well, yes.

If you are aware of what Ra talked about you will be able to not only comprehend but to make use of this knowledge.

90° is not called the 'right angle' for nothing.

I told the forum already about teleportation and how to do this practically.

As Ra mentioned we should think about this angle as being a portion of the tesseract.
What does this mean?

[Adonai One]

There are 3 dimensions of space (s/t t/s), no more and no less. That is empirical evidence the rest is just fanciful thinking that has no proof whatsoever.

No, that is a subjective abstraction. In fact, Ra mentions a system (Dewey Larson's) that does away with that and unifies space and time.

[Unbound]

I would mention that I had a friend of mine who is more inclined with physics than I to examine Reciprocal Theory and his main issue was that for much of Dewey's writings it remains a theory with few mathematical proofs having been ascertained. There is a Reciprocal Theory 2 project currently taking place to fill in more mathematical calculations and concepts, though.

[Ashim]

I'm no science buff like zen and have no real education in these matters, but the last few pages of this quite interesting report do try to explain this 'photon theory' quite well as far as I can tell.

You may have come across this before on the Project Camelot site. If not it's worth a read.
Very interesting material for the student of the LOO.
http://projectcamelot.org/base_new_berlin.pdf

[Diana]

There are 3 dimensions of space (s/t t/s), no more and no less. That is empirical evidence the rest is just fanciful thinking that has no proof whatsoever.

According to what we perceive now. And, if you put it that way--fanciful thinking--I must point out that we "know" almost nothing in terms of any scientific discipline, all of it being working theories. For instance, the Big Bang is a theory; biologists have almost no understanding of metabolism; and so on. We can utilize working theories well, such as Newtonian physics; but we NOW know the flaws in the Newtonian view yet the equations are useful to us an many (limited) ways.

Consider time. It serves in 3 dimensions to make time horizontal, linear, involving a past and future. There is, in scientific theory, vertical time, which is all time accessible now.

Consider the anomalous (to 3D) findings (which have been unfailingly demonstrated) of quantum physics, for example: the double-slit experiment and wave/particle duality; inherent within a system is all possible outcomes (infinite); quantum entanglement--twin particles seem to defy the "speed limit" of light and communicate instantaneously.

"Empirical" evidence is a good basis for scientific experimentation; but it hasn't been able to scratch the surface of quantum mechanics regarding "knowing" anything, or "understanding" in a century. We can use quantum mechanics but not understand it. We can use Newton's equations and know the underlying basis is faulty. I'd say we, as humans, are pretty resourceful to do this.

But to say there are only 3 dimensions and be done with the subject is not going to advance understanding at all. There is convincing math in String Theory that there are 11 dimensions. The problem with String Theory and "proof" is that we don't have the technology to test it; but the same was true of many theories which later were proved to have some basis in truth by technologies developed much later.

[Adonai One]

I think a good part of Larson's work is rubbish.

20.7 Questioner: Just as a sideline, a side question here: 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. There are those things which are not included in this system...

But a good part of the premises might be sound.

[zenmaster]

It's as if you have unspecified criteria for what constitutes a rubbish theory. Ir perhaps haven't bothered to think about it. What's the test of a non-rubbish theory?

[Adonai One]

It's as if you have unspecified criteria for what constitutes a rubbish theory. Ir perhaps haven't bothered to think about it. What's the test of a non-rubbish theory?

Denying the existence of the electron and other well-established components of physics?

[kycahi]

If that has to do with Larson, you will know that Dewey Larson does not deny the existence of electrons, neutrons, protons, photons etc. His science predicts them.

[kainous]

I don't think that the scientific community would find it hard to accept (except for some hard-liners). In fact, I'll go farther by asking what is Ra's definition of a photon. Scientists already know that energy packets encircling (binding with their wavefunctions) each other causes matter. However, I think the hardest thing will be understanding what each of the fields truly are.

---

A good example would be a electron and anti-electron annihilation, producing two gamma rays (photons of a high-frequency), and the fact that two photons can indeed combine in the right circumstances to reproduce an electron-anti-electron pair. Go a bit further, and you will find that given enough catalysts (high energy bombardment), particles will transform into all sorts of things.

---

Regarding Adonai's skepticism about Larson, he's right that there is an insufficient description of the theory for it to mean anything. It's grossly incomplete (maybe not rubbish though), and is analogous to describing the earth as a big blue marble. It's a great mental image, but really doesn't explain it well.

[zenmaster]

It's as if you have unspecified criteria for what constitutes a rubbish theory. Ir perhaps haven't bothered to think about it. What's the test of a non-rubbish theory?

Denying the existence of the electron and other well-established components of physics?

It doesn't deny the existence of the electron. It says that the electron was never a constituent of the atom.

[Adonai One]

I'll do more than skimming through his works and criticisms of them. It seems my current studies haven't served me well.

[zenmaster]

There's never going to be a theory of that scope which will be satisfying. They all have shortcomings and limitations. The test of a good theory is going to be how useful it is compared to some alternative method of explanation. Most investigators agree that the more parsimonious the better. And that's just what Larson attempted to provide. Unfortunately he did not explain most of his inductive research which led him to many (non-obvious) conclusions. What he has left us with is a system of theory based soley on deductive lines of reasoning which follow the consequences of a set of fundamental postulates.He wanted the theory to be simple and self-contained

[Marc]

There are 3 dimensions of space (s/t t/s), no more and no less. That is empirical evidence the rest is just fanciful thinking that has no proof whatsoever.

No, that is a subjective abstraction. In fact, Ra mentions a system (Dewey Larson's) that does away with that and unifies space and time.

My post is straight from Dewey larson's "new light on space and time". It's amazing how few here understand the reciprocal system in much depth. I guess we are more oriented to spiritual matters...

[Adonai One]

Heheh, I will now have to read Larson's works in-depth. Thank you.

[Marc]

It's not an easy read but once you get the basic understanding of the RS you can then deduce everything else as zenny said. It's the right guideline (as opposed to the ludicracy of quantum theory) and from there you can figure out anything else you want, for more info check out http://rs2theory.org

[Ens Entium]

Unifying the Photon with other quanta (Miles Mathis)

"Abstract: I said in a previous paper that I might be able to unify the photon with all the other quantum particles, and in this paper I will do that. I will also show the mass of the photon, with simple math. This mass is below the current standard-model limits set by various experiments."

"The truth is, it only took a few moments on the calculator to discover that the photon is simply another energy level of the quantum. Notice I said quantum, since we appear to have only one now. I have already unified the electron, positron, proton, anti-proton, neutron, all the neutrinos and all the mesons. I have shown that they are all spin levels or multiples of the same particle."

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

I'd say this is a more 'direct' response. Also, it's a little more accessible. The basic idea is that compound spins (or stacked spins as Miles refers to them) give rise to the "different" quanta or particles.

[Diana]

I'd say this is a more 'direct' response. Also, it's a little more accessible. The basic idea is that compound spins (or stacked spins as Miles refers to them) give rise to the "different" quanta or particles.

String Theory claims the same thing basically: that everything at the most fundamental level derives from open and closed strings vibrating at different levels.

More important than exploring "what is," is how does one align with, and exist successfully in, what is. So, if you look at the observations possible now at the subatomic level, here are 3 (to me) vitally relevant ideas:

1. There is consciousness in everything.

2. Thought affects whatever is focused on.

3. All things are possible.

[AnthroHeart]

3. All things are possible.

Well there are certain limits that prevent all things from being possible. We cannot fly like we can in dreams. Also, cartoon characters aren't real, nor could they be because of biological limitations. These are two of the things I had wished for in the past. But perhaps they are possible in the inner planes.

Now if you're referring to All That Is, it is infinite so somewhere in some reality these things have happened, just not in our current reality.

[Diana]

3. All things are possible.

Well there are certain limits that prevent all things from being possible. We cannot fly like we can in dreams. Also, cartoon characters aren't real, nor could they be because of biological limitations. These are two of the things I had wished for in the past. But perhaps they are possible in the inner planes.

Now if you're referring to All That Is, it is infinite so somewhere in some reality these things have happened, just not in our current reality.

All things are possible within a system, according to quantum mechanics. There is the "Many Worlds" theory whereby everything is played out--all possible outcomes--in different universes. So perhaps you can fly in another universe, or in another part of your soul system which is just as real as your biological body here, but not what this portion of your being is focusing on.

And I can tell you this: as a writer, when I create characters, there is a point at which (and all novelists will likely tell you this) that the characters seems to start creating themselves, doing what THEY want to do. The bigger consideration is this: what is "real"?

[Adonai One]

...

3. All things are possible.

Within the parameters of the given system. I don't see galaxies consuming the entire universe right now due to a cancerous malfunction.

[Ens Entium]

I'd say this is a more 'direct' response. Also, it's a little more accessible. The basic idea is that compound spins (or stacked spins as Miles refers to them) give rise to the "different" quanta or particles.

String Theory claims the same thing basically: that everything at the most fundamental level derives from open and closed strings vibrating at different levels.

It strikes me as more direct since this is closest to the standard idea of the "unit" of light that Don most likely had (and hence the idea Ra used to articulate the information). Ra, Larson's theory and Miles' theory assert that light (Miles' charge field) is the basis of electromagnetic phenomena.

The idea of strings in string theory is much further (off) from what was exchanged between Don and Ra in the sessions.

More important than exploring "what is," is how does one align with, and exist successfully in, what is. So, if you look at the observations possible now at the subatomic level, here are 3 (to me) vitally relevant ideas:

1. There is consciousness in everything.

2. Thought affects whatever is focused on.

3. All things are possible.

Which observations are these?? These ideas are theoretical extensions of a possibly (and more certainly so to me) misguided interpretations of quantum mechanical phenomena.

I don't think the science we have currently can even address or support those ideas in any reasonable way.

[native]

I'd say this is a more 'direct' response. Also, it's a little more accessible. The basic idea is that compound spins (or stacked spins as Miles refers to them) give rise to the "different" quanta or particles.

I've come across his page when researching gravity. He obviously recognizes that current explanations are lacking. Whether right or wrong he seems to be tuned in..pointed in the right direction you might say.

[Diana]

The idea of strings in string theory is much further (off) from what was exchanged between Don and Ra in the sessions.

That's fine. I wasn't trying to argue what specifically went on between Don and Ra.

More important than exploring "what is," is how does one align with, and exist successfully in, what is. So, if you look at the observations possible now at the subatomic level, here are 3 (to me) vitally relevant ideas:

1. There is consciousness in everything.

2. Thought affects whatever is focused on.

3. All things are possible.

Which observations are these?? These ideas are theoretical extensions of a possibly (and more certainly so to me) misguided interpretations of quantum mechanical phenomena.

I don't think the science we have currently can even address or support those ideas in any reasonable way.

Firstly, everything we "know" is all working theory. But, here are my answers in example form to your question (respective to my assertions):

1. Perhaps this is particularly closest to "theory." David Bohm, physicist, Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

2. The double-slit experiment.

3. Quantum superposition.

By the way, I know a particle physicist who told me that even at the graduate level they are teaching outdated information in colleges. She was thinking of starting a business to address this by offering an "update" sort of service to keep them current.

---

...

3. All things are possible.

Within the parameters of the given system. I don't see galaxies consuming the entire universe right now due to a cancerous malfunction.

I do believe I said that earlier: all possible outcomes exist within a system. But if all things are one, is it not reasonable to make the supposition then, that all things are possible?