(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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

(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.”

(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!

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.

(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?

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

(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.

(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.

(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.

(11-23-2012, 10:24 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Such a change would prove that Larson's theory is correct.

(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.

(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?

(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.

Quote:This is where intellectual development comes into play, as you can reason yourself out of fear by changing that fear into intellectual curiosity.

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

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.

(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.

Quote:Well, it would be unexpected due to lack of observable evidence and theoretical basis.

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).

(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"?

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]

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.

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.

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.

(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?

(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"?

(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.

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.

(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.

(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.