The Concept of "Density" from Channeled Material

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

The Concept of "Density" from Channeled Material

Post by bperet »

(Moved from comments in Kapanadze device topic, referencing Density Bands.)
I've read this part, but I don't think the "Density Bands" is the density present by Ra and the other ufo guys.
Actually, the density information was derived directly from the Ra Material and the comments of Don Elkins (I spent a couple of years working with L/L Research).

First, let me comment on channeled material, in general. The information related by a channel is only as accurate as the knowledge base that the channel has, as their mind is used to interpret the incoming concepts and put words to it. It is not a conscious act, however. Jim McCarty lf L/L explained to me what goes on when a channeling starts, describing it as hearing a voice in your head that you verbalize, but it can only speak the words you know. It does not appear to be a direct connection to the speech center, but rather to the precursors of speech. One of the things that makes the Ra Material intriguing is that Carla, the channel, is a very well-read person and has a wide vocabulary for an incoming entity to select from. But there are limits... there were occasions when I asked Q'uo a question, and they woudl reply that they'd love to answer the question, but the instrument (Carla) did not have the necessary vocabulary or concepts to permit the transliteration to English. So the things to be learned from this, is that two channels may use the word "density" or "dimension," but may not be talking about the same concept. So "context" becomes very important in channeled material.

As to "density"... since Don Elkins was familiar with Larson and his Reciprocal System, it appears that density was chosen over dimension because it is a more accurate description of the concept. And Ra perfers medieval Latin definitions of words, and the root, densitas, refers to either "compactness" (concerning physical structures) or a "degree of complexity" (as in tightly packed information). Since we call the density of physical structures the "state of matter" (solid, liquid, gas), and Ra did not choose to use "state," it can be inferred that "density" refers to the latter, a level of complexity.

Larson's Reciprocal System is based on quanta--discrete units. In Beyond Space and Time (which was published after Don's death), Larson was able to define three levels of complexity, as a natural consequence of a universe of motion: the inanimate, the biologic and the ethical. The approach he used to determine this was perfectly logical: everything that could be described by inanimate law went into the inanimate realm. And when he did that, there was stuff left over--like "life," which did not fit the inanimate laws. In the inanimate realm, you had space OR time; matter or antimatter (cosmic matter) as it is conventionally called. The next quantum leap beyond that was a stable combination of matter and antimatter, which is the basis of the biological realm. Using the same logic, he was able to assign observed phenomena into the biological realm, but still had some stuff left over, such as religion, extra-sensory ability and ethics. All the remainder got dumped into a 3rd, "ethical" realm. However, Larson died before having the opportunity to analyze and break down the ethical realm to see if there were any non-conforming components that would require additional levels of complexity (densities), so the Reciprocal System is limited to these three degrees of complexity: inanimate (1st density), biological (2nd density) and ethical (3rd-7th densities).

With a clear definition of what a "density" is, how it differs from the concept of "dimension" and basic knowledge on the reciprocal and conjugate relationships of space and time, a lot can be done--including calculations. This is where the "density bands" chart originates. If you look on the right side, several things become apparent, that are not explicitly stated in the Ra Material nor by Larson:
  1. The densities overlap--a natural consequence of increasing speed (frequency). As you start to finish one density, you start to enter the next. It may appear a smooth transition, but is stll quantized.
  2. There is a range of frequencies for each density, and a range of those frequencies may coexist in multiple densities. A piano and a flute can both play the note "C," despite being totally different physical structures.
  3. There are both material (space/time) and cosmic (time/space) frequency ranges for each density, that split at unit speed (6.58 Phz).
  4. Larson calculated the "Unit speed" of a photon to be 25.7 Thz, which differs radically from the unit boundary speed of 6.58 Phz. The chart explains the difference--the unit speed boundary is at 6.58 Phz, whereas the 1st density boundary--where you would find the photon--is at 25.7 Thz. Larson calculated the 1st density frequency, not the unit boundary frequency.
  5. Vacuum frequencies (material) are on the top half of the chart, and one finds that these are the ones we use.
  6. Aetheric frequencies (cosmic) are on the bottom half of the chart. Most of these frequencies are well beyond our ability to manage electronically.
As per #2 above, the photon, being at the lowest density and of the simplest structure, can have frequencies across the entire range of densities, analogous to harmonics. More complex structures can have the same frequency as photons, but exist in different densitites. (This is apparently the correlation that Keely found, as he used mechanical frequencies to induce resonances to much higher frequencies.) Just because it is the same note, it does not mean that it is the same instrument playing it.
Every dogma has its day...
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Vacuum density versus Aether density

Post by bperet »

uvg0: I think aether is just a define for this form of us. It exist before space and time are created.
If you were to print out the Density Bands chart and fold the paper along the unit speed boundary (labeled as density 0), the resulting tent structure would show the density structure clearly: the densities would be horizontal cuts, being composed of vacuum (space/time) densities on one side, and aetheric (time/space) densities on the other.

The difference in frequencies is due solely to the reciprocal relationship. If you have a speed of "2", in space/time that would be 1/2 or 0.5. In time/space, it would be 2/1 or 2.0. The reciprocally-related numbers appear to be different frequencies, but that is due to our "spatial observer" perspective. From the "density" perspective, it is just a frequency of "2", measured in space as 1/2 and in time as 2/1.

Larson postulates that motion, the reciprocal relation between space and time, is the content of the Universe. RS2 proceeds from the same assumption. Nothing can precede space and time because without "time" you cannot have "precedence" (temporal ordering or causality). That is why RS/RS2 starts with the concept of scalar motion--a ratio of space to time and nothing else--just a magnitude.

Remove the whole concept of "what came first" and proceed from the assumption that the "what" was "motion"--it all shows up at the same instant. Larson liked to use the analogy of a box, with an inside (time) and outside (space). If you have a box, then you have an inside and outside. If you've got an inside and outside, then you have a box. All the concepts are linked together and none are building blocks.

Take a close look at the 19th century aether research, in the context of RS2. You will find that "aether" is just a name for the "energetic" perspective of time/space, because the relation of t/s = energy. Conventional science uses the "vacuum" perspective of space/time, where s/t = speed. They appear to be contradictory, but are just two views of the same thing--scalar motion.
I am guessing aetheric vibration causes potential of inward rotational motion, which is spiritual gravity.
Concerning aetheric vibration: space is the yang aspect of motion, the linear or translating one and the basis of Newtonian physics. Space does not have a frequency, as there is nothing cyclic until the photon shows up and defines a simple harmonic motion. BUT... from the aether perspective of time/space, space is yin and rotational, and DOES have a frequency.

In conventional, vacuum-perspective science, SPACE is linear and TIME has a cyclic component and frequency. In the unconventional, aether-perspective science, TIME is linear and SPACE has the cyclic component and frequency. (This is where the "arrow of time" concept originates and why aether has a frequency.)

The yin component, being a type of rotation called a "Turn" (loops at infinity, rather than 2 pi), will always have frequency. Therefore, the concept of "aetheric vibration" and "rotation" are one-in-the-same; two different labels for the same concept. As such, one cannot "cause" the other as they are just different names.

Concerning gravity: very misunderstood concept in channeled information. Gravity is a 3-dimensional speed, not an energy. It is mass that is the 3-dimensional energy, the aetheric component.

From what I've been able to infer from your post and others of a similar nature, when one says, "There's no space no time, only gravity," they actually mean that there is only "mass." Again, you cannot separate the concept of space and time from gravity or mass, as that would be like trying to have a box that has neither an inside nor outside. Now, from an aetheric perspective, "only mass" is correct. Aether works like a sculptor, starting with a solid block of the Universe--mass--and chipping away bits to form structure. This is the opposite to the vacuum perspective, where you start with nothing and build things. At unit datum, the aether perspective looks like the Universe is a solid structure (opposite of "nothing" is "everything"). This is where the misunderstanding comes into play. When you correct the error in the wrong choice of words for a concept, it all falls neatly into place.
Latwii: These densities are not a physical property as you know physical property. These densities are condensed out [of] space, and each has its peculiar properties. The thing that you call gravity in your particular density is a function of condensation of your density out of space.
When put into the proper context, Latwii's comment is correct. Densities are not a "physical property" as they are a degree of complexity OF a physical property. When something is "condensed", its energy is increased, making it a more complex structure (additional motion is required to increase energy). "Peculiar properties" indicates that the laws change with the density; inanimate laws do not apply to biological ones. And gravity being a condensation out of space is accurate, when you consider that it must move "inward" (increasing energy and complexity) in space/time.

Consider looking at the Universe like Larson's boxes... insides (time), outsides (space) and a box (unit boundary), that are all required together to make something (motion).
Every dogma has its day...
Sun
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

concept of density

Post by Sun »

And Ra perfers medieval Latin definitions of words, and the root, densitas, refers to either "compactness" (concerning physical structures) or a "degree of complexity" (as in tightly packed information). Since we call the density of physical structures the "state of matter" (solid, liquid, gas), and Ra did not choose to use "state," it can be inferred that "density" refers to the latter, a level of complexity
This is exactly what the "density" i am talking about. Thank you.

I notice your statement of "aether". This means a lot! I will use this though for further analysis. I think i found two models for aetheric resonance study. One is the wireless power transfer discovered by MIT. The "couple theory" they used in their paper also start from the time-dependent form of Maxwell's equation, very interesting. The other one is coherent electrical vibration in enzymes action, proposed by H. FRÖHLICH. I hope i can find another one for cystal structure. I will not put any unprofesstional statement here untill i confirm my idea mathematically. It is really wierd for conventional science to talk about resonance, for it fails to recognize photon as the basic structure of matters.

I never deny the existance of space and time, i just said they were illusion. Space and time will be illusion after we wake up from our incarnation. There are no space no time, and all the incarnations living in space flowing in time stream at the same moment, but there is always a thought(spirital gravity), whose projection is gravity, which is also the causing of vibration. That's how the non-incarnated entities contribute to earth gravity and vibration. Motion is the result of thought, but without space and time, they cannot be projected as motion, such as gravity. I just try to think about things beyond space and time, because i thought aetheric vibration may be something of that. I may make myself misunderstood.

I will study your latter statement and see what i can get.
Post Reply