RS2--daniel

I have a question concerning the following excerpt from 'Homo Sapiens Ethicus':

"The life unit can be considered a 'more complete' expression of scalar motion because it contains both sectors in a single, cellular structure. Atoms and particles, being either spatial or temporal, only have half the story, so to speak."

So, if matter and antimatter meet in a 'destructive' sense, they form an inanimate object, with atomic and subatomic structures existing only in one realm or the other, but not both? Here, matter and antimatter do not meet out of phase to achieve that "intermediate speed range" that forms the living cell, is that correct? So then, if we break down the structures of atoms into their subatomic parts, what do we have in the case of, say, a rock? Being an inanimate object, the structures can only exist in the temporal or the spatial realm. Seeing as how this is not a living thing in the sense of human sentience, i.e. not a "life unit" as defined in the paper, I suppose that the atomic and subatomic structures of the rock would exist in the spatial realm, as no aura/anima would be present in this case? But then, Lone Bear also mentioned that the telepathic terrestrial species of our planet would pick up a rock and say, "B Flat", so in that sense, it may in fact be giving off an aura of some kind. And seeing as how subatomic particles are assigned a color, I wonder how that plays into the equation.

AnAncientAwakening wrote:So, if matter and antimatter meet in a 'destructive' sense, they form an inanimate object, with atomic and subatomic structures existing only in one realm or the other, but not both?

Since matter is a temporal rotation and antimatter (cosmic matter) is a spatial rotation, they operate inversely on each other. Remember that "outward in time" is also "inward in space." Take any material atom, which has it's rotation outward in time... that means it is also moving inward in space (what we call "gravity"). If it meets a cosmic atom, the outward spatial rotation of the cosmic atom will cancel some of the inward spatial motion of the material atom, causing it's temporal rotation to break apart to compensate (it comes unglued). The resulting fragments are particles.

AnAncientAwakening wrote:Here, matter and antimatter do not meet out of phase to achieve that "intermediate speed range" that forms the living cell, is that correct?

Actually, they do all the time. The most common example is the neutron, a combination of a m-proton and a c-neutrino, with a lifetime of about 15 minutes--then it "dies" and the particles go their separate ways. Whether the interaction is constructive (life) or destructive (kaboom) depends primarily on two factors: the geometry of the interaction and the speeds involved.

As an example, head over to the Mall of America and step on the escalator, going up, and keep walking. You are suddenly catapulted up to the next floor in a linear fashion, and thrown off. That is "destructive." Now repeat going up the "down" escalator. You step on, and if your walking speed is the same as the escalator speed, you become "stable" and will be stuck on that escalator for the rest of your life. Geometry and speed match up (constructive)--that's the basis for all of Larson's chemical bonding, too.

AnAncientAwakening wrote:So then, if we break down the structures of atoms into their subatomic parts, what do we have in the case of, say, a rock?

In the RS, atoms are not composed of particles--they are a single, compound motion. Conventional science uses particles to account for the magnitude of rotational speed of the atoms.

Take the same escalator example. If you were to run instead of walk, you would only remain on the escalator for a period of time--a "lifetime," so to speak, before you go flying off the end. This is what happens with particle emission of the atoms. Something comes along and adds to a rotational speed that gives it enough speed to get outside the unit boundary of the atom (the end of the escalator) and shoot out.

AnAncientAwakening wrote:Being an inanimate object, the structures can only exist in the temporal or the spatial realm. Seeing as how this is not a living thing in the sense of human sentience, i.e. not a "life unit" as defined in the paper, I suppose that the atomic and subatomic structures of the rock would exist in the spatial realm, as no aura/anima would be present in this case?

Sure, they have an "aura"--we just call it "electric and magnetic fields." But there CAN be an anima, as in the case of the neutron--the c-neutrino is the "anima." You have to remember the basic reciprocal relation: space-to-time constitutes motion. Antimatter has a net, spatial displacement. Matter has a net, temporal displacement. One tends to flow through the other, without stopping. When it does stop, then you get the life unit--matter and antimatter hooked together, not just passing through. And what makes it get stuck is Larson's concept of "charge"--or what the New Age calls "light." In essence, light is the glue that converts inanimate matter into life.

AnAncientAwakening wrote:But then, Lone Bear also mentioned that the telepathic terrestrial species of our planet would pick up a rock and say, "B Flat", so in that sense, it may in fact be giving off an aura of some kind. And seeing as how subatomic particles are assigned a color, I wonder how that plays into the equation.

Technically, an "aura" is more of a trail, not an emission. You could look at a corn field and say "oh, a tractor drove through here" by the tracks it left in the corn. The LMs do the same with matter--look at the trail it is leaving--but express it as speeds, which past researchers correlated to musical notes and chords (like Keely).