RS2--daniel

I like the concept of 'as above, so below' in this theory. I just have a basic question about atomic structure, as I recall the first layer of electrons can hold 2, and the following layers can hold 8... I am trying to see this model in our solar system and not quite getting it. Are we being taught wrong or am I missing something altogether?

Also I just want to say to Daniel how much I appreciate this information, the time and effort you took to put it together, and you putting yourself out here so that an average guy like me can ponder these exotic concepts of our existence.

THANK YOU!

jeff wrote:I like the concept of 'as above, so below' in this theory. I just have a basic question about atomic structure, as I recall the first layer of electrons can hold 2, and the following layers can hold 8... I am trying to see this model in our solar system and not quite getting it. Are we being taught wrong or am I missing something altogether?

You need to see the structure in the context of Dewey Larson's atomic model. I would recommend the book, The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, in which Larson shows the problems with the current model and explains his approach of using magnetic and electric rotations to explain atomic properties, rather than particles.

In Larson's model, the atom is not composed of protons and neutrons, but rotation in 3D time, called the time region. It is analogous to subspace in Science Fiction, or being inside a microcosmic bubble of time. If you could see into 3D time (electron microscopes cannot, so they only see the surface of the bubble), you would find a core of temporal rotation that determines the atomic number--a sun--with captured particles, primarily neutrinos, creating isotopic mass and forming a type of "planetary system," with captured electrons floating around like moons and comets.

bruce wrote:If you could see into 3D time, you would find a core of temporal rotation that determines the atomic number--a sun--with captured particles, primarily neutrinos, creating isotopic mass and forming a type of "planetary system," with captured electrons floating around like moons and comets.

This is equally fascinating to imagine and poetic to read. Well done

bruce wrote: If you could see into 3D time (electron microscopes cannot, so they only see the surface of the bubble), you would find a core of temporal rotation that determines the atomic number--a sun--with captured particles, primarily neutrinos, creating isotopic mass and forming a type of "planetary system," with captured electrons floating around like moons and comets.

Due to scaling, is our Sun a larger version of the atomic temporal core? Is this why the Sun and the stars are not supposed to be visisble outside the Earth's atmosphere - in the same way the electron microscope does not see the 3D time part of the atom?

We do not see sunlight in and of itself inside Earth's atmosphere, just the objects it reflects off of. All visible light seems to be that way. I had never thought of this until recently but now it seems really strange that we do not see light moving through space. Shouldn't the dark space around the Sun be illuminated if sunlight were in the visible spectrum? Some say there are special windows built into spacecraft to allow this stellar "primary" (temporal?) light to be seen as a visible reflection.

I remember one day in science class the teacher fired up a laser but never explained why we could not see the coherent light without the chalk dust in the laser's path. Is a laser temporal FTL motion?

Could this mean that the Sun and the stars are really 3D Time temporal rotations like Larson's description of the atomic nucleus? Could the light we receive from the Sun really be originating from the cosmic sector?

If the Sun is really shining visibly up there, why do Moon landing photographs have shadows going in two different directions?

There was an experiment performed with light bulbs by Tesla and later Farnsworth where self-organizing plasma galaxies, stars, planets and comets appear inside if the bulbs are used with a resonant coil. If these manifestations are temporal, is it the reflection off of the surface of the tube that makes them visible? And does the plasma touching the tube slow down the speed of the light from FTL motion to visible light?

I threw a lot of questions out there but this is more than fascinating. What an initial shock it would be for people to find out the Sun and the stars are not visible in free space, but I think most are probably ready to find out. Enough secrets already. I think this knowledge is as important as learning humanity's true origins.

The reason in my opinion to the light we see only as reflections rather than actual stream of light is because we would be able to see anything else than the stream of light also reflecting from objects and other matter so this is quite simple physics and very much understandable. Although I really dont know if you meant some other like microscopic things about it on sub-atomic level that I cannot answer maybe someone can. Gotta think of that thing myself also.