RS2--daniel

It seems a number of members of these fora have memories, dreams or subconscious recall of some fairly advanced technology. Perhaps if we share what we know, we may find a pattern--or better yet--rediscover the technology for ourselves.

As most of you already know, I became interested in Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physical theory back around 1991, and it's been something of an obsession with me since then. I suspect that there was something about Larson's unique ideas that kicked something deep in the back of my mind... something that resonated, but not as an "I knew this before,' but an "Aha! Now I understand how it works." But... I also held the contention that Larson's Reciprocal System was just a "really good first draft," and he did not get it quite right. So, I started doing some in-depth research with my friend Prof. KVK Nehru of Hyderabad, India, which eventually led to the development of "RS2: The Reevaluation of the Reciprocal System of theory" and a new way to comprehend the relationships between space, time and consciousness.

Combining what I've learned with what I know (or knew!), I've been able to get some thoughts on just how some of this advanced technology must operation. So, here are my premises and thoughts on the subject:

Larson's basics are right on: the Universe is composed of "motion", not "things." Understanding what that means is important... it is not "motion" as conventionally understood, but as Larson eventually stated, "[Motion] is nothing more than abstract CHANGE in three dimensions." So, the Universe is composed of "change"... but change of what? Larson also includes a reference system of "absolute locations", that move apart from each other, at the speed of light. He calls this the "Natural Reference System." When a "motion", such as an atom, gets involved, what it does is CHANGE THE RATE at which these "absolute locations" move apart from each other... sometimes, to the extent that they start moving TOWARDS each other, rather than apart, and we call that "gravity."

So, all the photons, particles and atoms are nothing but systems of "change", changing the locations of the Universe. In computer terms, it's called a "transformation matrix", that is fed points and "transforms" them into new locations--just as Larson describes.

What Larson failed to include was the concept of reciprocal GEOMETRY... in other words, "points" also have a reciprocal--PLANES. The reciprocal of space is time, so the vacuum of points in space is viewed as a SOLID OF PLANES in time. The effect of these temporal planes is what we call "force fields"--magnetism, electricity, etc. Most of the advanced tech operates using these fields, rotating and bucking magnetic and electric fields and hence--are manipulating TIME to change SPACE. This is a new concept, not recognized by conventional science--and probably limiting them!

The second problem area with Larson's reasoning is that he considered the geometry of both time and space to be LINEAR--proceeding in a line. Yet, when you get into the field of electronics, capacitance and inductance must be represented by rotational quantities--imaginary numbers. We know these fields are an effect of TIME, so therefore, at least from the illusion of our conscious perspective, TIME must be ROTATIONAL in nature--not linear.

Linear space and rotational time can be represented mathematically by complex numbers. So the Universe is "complex," in a way! What is important about this, is that the "complex plane" (or Argand diagram) has both positive and NEGATIVE axes... in other words, there exists something called "negative space".

The annotations in the Varo edition of the Case for the UFO made several interesting claims that led me to believe that the UFOs operate in negative space, outside the field of our perception (we can only perceive positive space--and time only indirectly through the effect fields have upon space.)

Several years ago, I had an interesting experience out on the plains of Wyoming, in the Shirley Basin area... I encountered what I called an "invisible whirly thing". Curiously, it coincided at a point where I thought I finally figured out the Reciprocal System, and understood the Universe. So the dang Universe threw something at me that I could not explain, or even comprehend--the invisible, whirly thing.

It was evening, during a full moon in May. I was walking back to my house, and paused to notice how bright the moon was--so bright, it was like daylight. In the middle of nowhere, it is REALLY quiet, like you can hear a pin drop--5 miles away. And I heard a whooshing sound, coming at me from the south. It reminded me of the sound of a boomerang. I was looking right at the source of the sound... and it came right at me, and flew about 3 feet (1 meter) over my head, and continued on. Yet, I SAW NOTHING! Just heard it. But I was looking right at it, and it wasn't there. Only the sound, with nothing I could perceive to make that sound.

When I encountered the idea of "negative space" through the use of complex numbers to represent motion in the Reciprocal System, it hit me... that "thing" had its dimensions in negative space--it could still AFFECT space, and hence make noise, but was INVISIBLE to human perception, as we cannot perceive (nor conceive) negative lengths.

The descriptions of invisibility in the Varo annotations cinched it for me... they were describing a technique to move into negative space, to become invisible--yet retain the ability to affect physical objects, like ghosts.

Which brings up the second concept, which must exist if negative space does... negative time. Atomic structures are positive time displacements, and produce "gravity". A negative time displacement would have the opposite effect--ANTIGRAVITY, but retaining atomic structure. (One of the problems is, if atoms are gravitating, and you expose them to an anti-gravity field, the atoms will come apart and disintegrate. The idea of negative time overcomes this problem.)

Another method of antigravity comes from the post on Mount Lassen... the levitating sleds in the tunnel systems. It was noted that it had a copper base. Copper is diamagnetic--in other words, when exposed to a magnetic field, copper tends to produce its own magnetic field with North and South poles matching up, and hence opposing the magnetic field it is exposed to. If an adequate diamagnetic material could be found that could oppose the Earth's magnetic field, then the material would just "float" on the magnetic lines of force, requiring NO ENERGY to maintain its levitation.

So, those are some of my thoughts. I know I'm a bit "technical", but I'd love to hear your thoughts, even if symbolic. Ever little piece of the puzzle helps to see what the big picture is.

I find it interesting that the arc produced by the magnets on the sled at Mount Lassen was green much like the way Daniel talks about. I have not read the descriptions of invisibility in the Varo annotations (however, I will) but the idea of negative space and negative time seems very plausible and a very exciting subject to research.

When you speak of "negative lengths", what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that the "thing" had it dimensions in negative space but positive time? If it were operating in negative time and space you never would have heard the whooshing sound, yes?

On a somewhat related note, please check out this video if you are so inclined. It is talking about anti-gravity machines and how they work. Would love to hear your thoughts. I watched it a long time ago but it has always stayed with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsagEYfxPgs

Kano wrote:I find it interesting that the arc produced by the magnets on the sled at Mount Lassen was green much like the way Daniel talks about. I have not read the descriptions of invisibility in the Varo annotations (however, I will) but the idea of negative space and negative time seems very plausible and a very exciting subject to research.

The "lime jello" is a common effect when strong temporal displacement enters equivalent space.

If you would like to read more on the concept of negative space, Nick Thomas has written much about it under the name of counterspace. http://www.nct.anth.org.uk/counter.htm

Kano wrote:When you speak of "negative lengths", what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that the "thing" had it dimensions in negative space but positive time?

I would recommend you familiarize yourself with the Argand Diagram, which shows the basic relationships between linear and rotational spaces. Consider the "real" axis to be space, and the "imaginary" axis to be time and notice that time has BOTH a positive and negative direction... and so does space. Our perception appears to be limited to the positive, real axis. Though the lengths may be negative, they are still lengths, and as such effect other spatial structures like the atmosphere to produce sound.

Kano wrote:If it were operating in negative time and space you never would have heard the whooshing sound, yes?

How does +3/+3 = +1 differ from -3/-3 = +1?

Kano wrote:On a somewhat related note, please check out this video if you are so inclined. It is talking about anti-gravity machines and how they work. Would love to hear your thoughts. I watched it a long time ago but it has always stayed with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsagEYfxPgs

Very fascinating video--watched it twice already. I actually know Stan and Holly; met them years ago when they first returned to the United States. I lived in a nearby town, and was a subscriber to their newsletter.

In the RS, atoms are temporal rotations; Larson even defines chemical interactions are rotational speeds and Deyo's descriptions make a lot of sense that a rotation generates a gravitational field. Larson (and me, either) never considered that these rotations would cause "spin rings" in the "solid of time" where they are located--the 19th century ether.

One thing Stan did not cover was what these spin rings bounced off of, to produce stable orbits for planets. Larson actually provides the answer for that: the gravitational limit. It is the point where gravity just stops, because the system is discrete, not a continuum. Once you drop below one natural unit, it is gone. No fractions allowed. The spacecraft we have sent out exploring deep outside the solar system have noticed this--gravity is not dropping smoothly, but in steps.

Something Stan does not know, courtesy of some info provided by the LMs because of difficulties they have had with their spacecraft getting stuck in gravitational nodes, is that the planets have a polarity to them. Mercury and the Earth are positive--we sit on the ridge of a wave. Venus, the Moon and Mars are negative and sit in the valley of a wave. Positive planets have a strong magnetic field and a weak electric one. Negative planets have a strong electric field and a weak magnetic one.

As such, the Venus, Mars and the Moon tend to operate backwards from Mercury and the Earth. And this is what Stan is talking about when he says "Venus does not have a magnetic field" and "rotates backwards." Well, look at Mars... both of the Martian moons also orbit the planet backwards. Once you understand the REAL physics involved, you don't need things like Venus being a wandering planet that just happen to settle into perfect orbit. It clears up a lot of misconceptions.

The "lime jello" is a common effect when strong temporal displacement enters equivalent space.

I find the color that occurs (green-ish), when these strong temporal displacements happen, to be significant. When organic life occurs on Earth in the spatial, the result is a green shoot popping up through the ground. Why does new life choose this color? Could it be that these temporal displacements are green because they are involved in the creation of life in the temporal realm? I have no idea if that even makes sense but it just "popped in there".

If you would like to read more on the concept of negative space, Nick Thomas has written much about it under the name of counterspace. http://www.nct.anth.org.uk/counter.htm

Thanks. I will check it out.

I would recommend you familiarize yourself with the Argand Diagram, which shows the basic relationships between linear and rotational spaces.

Again, thanks and I will look into it.

How does +3/+3 = +1 differ from -3/-3 = +1?

Well, when you put it like that it doesn't. Would negative space and time and how they affect the "now" be related to the idea that by acting now we not only affect our future but also our past? Not sure if there is any relationship but when I heard that concept a long time ago, it made my spidey sense tingle.

Larson (and me, either) never considered that these rotations would cause "spin rings" in the "solid of time" where they are located--the 19th century ether.

Can you say more here? Not sure that I understand what you mean.

One thing Stan did not cover was what these spin rings bounced off of, to produce stable orbits for planets. Larson actually provides the answer for that: the gravitational limit. It is the point where gravity just stops, because the system is discrete, not a continuum. Once you drop below one natural unit, it is gone. No fractions allowed. The spacecraft we have sent out exploring deep outside the solar system have noticed this--gravity is not dropping smoothly, but in steps.

Something Stan does not know, courtesy of some info provided by the LMs because of difficulties they have had with their spacecraft getting stuck in gravitational nodes, is that the planets have a polarity to them. Mercury and the Earth are positive--we sit on the ridge of a wave. Venus, the Moon and Mars are negative and sit in the valley of a wave. Positive planets have a strong magnetic field and a weak electric one. Negative planets have a strong electric field and a weak magnetic one.

As such, the Venus, Mars and the Moon tend to operate backwards from Mercury and the Earth. And this is what Stan is talking about when he says "Venus does not have a magnetic field" and "rotates backwards." Well, look at Mars... both of the Martian moons also orbit the planet backwards. Once you understand the REAL physics involved, you don't need things like Venus being a wandering planet that just happen to settle into perfect orbit. It clears up a lot of misconceptions.

Thanks for this. You, like Daniel, are giving these amazing gifts of knowledge (and inspiration) so I want to say "thank you, Bruce." It is my unique pleasure to have crossed paths with you as well. I'm really looking forward to learning more and more.

Kano wrote:I find the color that occurs (green-ish), when these strong temporal displacements happen, to be significant. When organic life occurs on Earth in the spatial, the result is a green shoot popping up through the ground. Why does new life choose this color? Could it be that these temporal displacements are green because they are involved in the creation of life in the temporal realm? I have no idea if that even makes sense but it just "popped in there".

You know, that never occurred to me and you are right. Life occurs when time enters a spatial structure as a stable combination, and plants are the simplest forms of life (go right down to blue-green algae). It is exactly the same process, on a microcosmic scale. Good find!

Kano wrote:

How does +3/+3 = +1 differ from -3/-3 = +1?

Well, when you put it like that it doesn't.

But don't forget this bit... +3/-3 = -1; -3/+3 = -1.

Kano wrote:Would negative space and time and how they affect the "now" be related to the idea that by acting now we not only affect our future but also our past?

Polarity is direction, not structure. You can consider it this way, regarding clock time: positive is your future, negative is your past. If you have a barking dog in front of you in +time, you can both see and hear him. But if he is behind you in -time, you can hear him, but not see him. Ears are "360 degrees", whereas vision only looks forward. That why people hear things that "go bump in the night" but never see anything.

Kano wrote:

Larson (and me, either) never considered that these rotations would cause "spin rings" in the "solid of time" where they are located--the 19th century ether.

Can you say more here? Not sure that I understand what you mean.

It is from your Stan Deyo video. Atoms are rotations in 3D time, and since time is an ether, they will cause shock waves--that is what Deyo was describing in the video. They reflect back at the gravitational limit to produce stable orbits--in this case, orbiting electrons. Microscopic application of a macroscopic observation. That's what I like about the RS--works the same, no matter where you look.

One thing Stan did not cover was what these spin rings bounced off of, to produce stable orbits for planets. Larson actually provides the answer for that: the gravitational limit. It is the point where gravity just stops, because the system is discrete, not a continuum. Once you drop below one natural unit, it is gone. No fractions allowed. The spacecraft we have sent out exploring deep outside the solar system have noticed this--gravity is not dropping smoothly, but in steps.

Kano wrote:Thanks for this. You, like Daniel, are giving these amazing gifts of knowledge (and inspiration) so I want to say "thank you, Bruce." It is my unique pleasure to have crossed paths with you as well. I'm really looking forward to learning more and more.

Thanks. I can see you are a sharp guy... just don't fear your own intelligence. You will find you learn a lot faster when you try to explain it to someone else. For some reason, the desire to help others allows you to pull upon resources you never realized you had. So try some speculation--venture a guess at your own questions, and see how well you do.

You know, that never occurred to me and you are right. Life occurs when time enters a spatial structure as a stable combination, and plants are the simplest forms of life (go right down to blue-green algae). It is exactly the same process, on a microcosmic scale. Good find!

Fascinating! I am still trying to understand what life might be like when you are interacting/manipulating time rather than space. With regards to movement (which I may be thinking about this wrong), it seems that since the inverse of this 3D space is 3D time, that "movement" or the perception of movement, would be totally different, as the medium in which you are moving is not the same. Instead of being in the void of space, you would be swimming in the solid of time. I think Daniel described it as a bubble in an ocean. In order to move through coordinate time, is there anything physical about that process? In other words, do you think up your destination and that thought is your vehicle for "movement" in coordinate time? Or do you move around in the sense that we understand it here in 3D space where you would get tired, sweaty, etc?

Polarity is direction, not structure. You can consider it this way, regarding clock time: positive is your future, negative is your past. If you have a barking dog in front of you in +time, you can both see and hear him. But if he is behind you in -time, you can hear him, but not see him. Ears are "360 degrees", whereas vision only looks forward. That why people hear things that "go bump in the night" but never see anything.

It would seem that if the dog was in -time, that he would almost be on a different timeline than me, so it would be impossible to hear him. Still need to get my head around this one.

Thanks. I can see you are a sharp guy... just don't fear your own intelligence. You will find you learn a lot faster when you try to explain it to someone else. For some reason, the desire to help others allows you to pull upon resources you never realized you had. So try some speculation--venture a guess at your own questions, and see how well you do.

My sister always says that the biggest thing people fear is their own inner light. They are afraid to shine it on the world. So I do not want to fear my own intelligence. What I do have some issues with are my abilities to comprehend and apply some of the concepts that you guys talk about. I seem to spend all of my free time thinking about how these things concepts might look and feel, with some small break throughs. After reading on your forum at Antiquatis, and of course here, there are some amazingly smart people (Gopi and Raytrek on Antiquatis. BTW, what happened to those guys? Seems like they are not posting anymore). I explain everything I read to my fiancee and she's a great question asker so she always tests my understanding. Thanks for the advice and again, thanks for the really well researched info you are providing.

Kano wrote:Fascinating! I am still trying to understand what life might be like when you are interacting/manipulating time rather than space. With regards to movement (which I may be thinking about this wrong), it seems that since the inverse of this 3D space is 3D time, that "movement" or the perception of movement, would be totally different, as the medium in which you are moving is not the same. Instead of being in the void of space, you would be swimming in the solid of time. I think Daniel described it as a bubble in an ocean. In order to move through coordinate time, is there anything physical about that process? In other words, do you think up your destination and that thought is your vehicle for "movement" in coordinate time? Or do you move around in the sense that we understand it here in 3D space where you would get tired, sweaty, etc?

Daniel's papers should actually be books--they only scrape the surface of the information, so you need to dig a little deeper.

Perception is determined by two things: the observer and the observed. If you have every used POVray (a raytracing program), then you know you have to position the camera, and the "look_at" location. Must have both to produce an image. Time only looks inside out of camera is in space and the look_at is in time. It goes through the distorting lens of equivalent space. When you move the camera into time, as you do when you fall asleep and start dreaming, then it all looks perfectly natural, because the observer and observed are in the same sector, so everything is "localized."

In physics, you cannot move a spatial microscope into time, so they always see the inside-out domain, which has created a lot of devices to explain subatomic systems. And that is the thought we are trained on.

Kano wrote:It would seem that if the dog was in -time, that he would almost be on a different timeline than me, so it would be impossible to hear him. Still need to get my head around this one.

When you walk down the street with your gal, you are walking two, different spacelines. It is not that different--same rules apply.

Kano wrote:My sister always says that the biggest thing people fear is their own inner light. They are afraid to shine it on the world.

She is right; we are educated not to question, and if you are smart, you get harassed.

Kano wrote:What I do have some issues with are my abilities to comprehend and apply some of the concepts that you guys talk about. I seem to spend all of my free time thinking about how these things concepts might look and feel, with some small break throughs.

We've all been in that boat. It comes with time. The brain actually takes about 6 weeks to physically rewire itself for new concepts. And I should warn you now, you will run into some emotional issues as you progress, namely what they call the "Dark Night of the Soul."

Eventually, you'll accumulate so much "food for thought" that the psyche cannot contain any more, so what it does is to shut you down--no energy, depression, "nobody cares" type of attitude that you will swear on a stack of Bibles will never end. But it does end, and when it happens ("when", not "if"), keep that in mind as we've all been through it, and came through it. But when the light does dawn, you will find your consciousness has expanded significantly, and you have a lot more room to think, and a lot of the stuff that seemed confusing suddenly makes a whole lot of sense. But you will also find that you may have a tough time remembering things at first, since you have to figure out where everything got put in the bigger room. Usually in the same area, and that goes away after a couple of weeks.

Kano wrote:After reading on your forum at Antiquatis, and of course here, there are some amazingly smart people (Gopi and Raytrek on Antiquatis. BTW, what happened to those guys? Seems like they are not posting anymore). I explain everything I read to my fiancee and she's a great question asker so she always tests my understanding. Thanks for the advice and again, thanks for the really well researched info you are providing.

They are still around. Most of the folks there just "reply" and do not create new topics. So if I don't post something, nobody starts any new topics of discussion. There was a time when Antiquatis was quite lively, but those people have moved on with their lives. It is just so hard to get free time these days. (Another reason for the Monastery!)

Daniel's papers should actually be books--they only scrape the surface of the information, so you need to dig a little deeper.

Perception is determined by two things: the observer and the observed. If you have every used POVray (a raytracing program), then you know you have to position the camera, and the "look_at" location. Must have both to produce an image. Time only looks inside out of camera is in space and the look_at is in time. It goes through the distorting lens of equivalent space. When you move the camera into time, as you do when you fall asleep and start dreaming, then it all looks perfectly natural, because the observer and observed are in the same sector, so everything is "localized."

In physics, you cannot move a spatial microscope into time, so they always see the inside-out domain, which has created a lot of devices to explain subatomic systems. And that is the thought we are trained on.

Ok, that description made a lot more sense to me.

When you walk down the street with your gal, you are walking two, different spacelines. It is not that different--same rules apply.

So does this one.

We've all been in that boat. It comes with time. The brain actually takes about 6 weeks to physically rewire itself for new concepts. And I should warn you now, you will run into some emotional issues as you progress, namely what they call the "Dark Night of the Soul."

Eventually, you'll accumulate so much "food for thought" that the psyche cannot contain any more, so what it does is to shut you down--no energy, depression, "nobody cares" type of attitude that you will swear on a stack of Bibles will never end. But it does end, and when it happens ("when", not "if"), keep that in mind as we've all been through it, and came through it. But when the light does dawn, you will find your consciousness has expanded significantly, and you have a lot more room to think, and a lot of the stuff that seemed confusing suddenly makes a whole lot of sense. But you will also find that you may have a tough time remembering things at first, since you have to figure out where everything got put in the bigger room. Usually in the same area, and that goes away after a couple of weeks.

Thanks for this. I have already started to feel some of those effects. Good to know its a normal thing.