Ra, session 20 wrote:
Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?
I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex, Dewey, is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the (1) basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand
(2) that which you know as gravity and those things you consider as (3) “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.
First off, one must understand what Ra means by "vibration" and "vibrational distortions". A good example can be taken from the "sound vibrational complex", which is their word for a "name". To the Ra, a vibration is a
pattern, not a
simple harmonic motion (SHM), that is like a unique signature for someone, something, or some process. A "distortion", as used by Ra, is a feature of that pattern that does not conform to its initial design.
For example, the first distortion of the Universe is "Free Will", which would be "Ring-Cosmos" in Fortune's work, and "direction reversal" in Larson's. In any case, it is a distortion of the unit pattern, which Larson calls a
displacement is the cause of change, and the formation of a new "layer" of pattern.
So, what Ra is saying is that "basic concepts of patterns and the study of distortions of those patterns" is where the understanding will come in.
Secondly, an understanding of how "dimension" and "density" are used by Ra is helpful. In general terms, "dimension" is used in the context of “space/time,” (the physical) whereas "density" is used in the context of “time/space,” (the metaphysical) though having a more general applicability. Not only do the concepts of density and dimension work with the aspects of space and time, but also with aspects aspects of “light/love” (space/time) and “love/light” (time/space), so there are 3 dimensions of light, and 3 of love in the 4th density.
Just as “space” and “time” are the two aspects of “motion” (speed, velocity, or energy), “dimension” and “density” are simply the two aspects of complexity (as in the “mind/body/spirit
complex”), and are also inversely, or reciprocally related.
Ra has a tendency to pick words based on their old Latin meanings, therefore it may be prudent to investigate the Latin roots to the words “density” and “dimension:”
Dimension: L. "
dimensio", meaning a "finite measurement."
Density: L. "
denso", meaning to "press together."
Both terms have been given general applicability to space and time and even the conceptual realms, such as the "dimensionality of a problem", and “that guy is really dense!”
It can be seen from the Latin roots that “dimension” has to do with fixed measurements, such as how large an object is. “Density”, on the other hand, has to do with the inverse—how small an object is compressed. The larger the dimensions of an object, the bigger it is. The larger the compression of an object, the smaller it is. Reasonable proof that there does exist some type of inverse relationship between density and dimension, based on the same inverse relationship between space/time and time/space.
MikeWirth wrote:
1. Do you think RS2 has fully explored the fundamental concept of vibration or is there a deeper level that Ra may be referring to? The "principle of alternation" [from Lawlor's Sacred Geometry involving Yin Yang symbol of circle with 2 inscribed circles] or infinite alternating series 1-1+1-1+1-1+.... converging to 1,0 or 1/2 for example.
The component that both RS2 and the RS is missing is that of the "density" model, which amounts to a physical description of these discrete barriers between realities. I had posed a question to Q'uo regarding the 3rd density pattern, but they were unable to answer because the instrument (Carla) simply did not have the conceptual basis, nor vocabulary, to describe it. So, no, RS2 has only scratched upon the vibration/pattern of ontological planes of existence.
What RS2 needs to identify as part of its core system is the mechanism behind "densities", "levels" or "planes" of existence. And, as you may know, Fortune does cover that aspect in
The Cosmic Doctrine -- it just needs to be translated into modern context. I suspect it will reveal a model similar to the Theosophical "Anu" (Ultimate Physical Atom).
MikeWirth wrote:
How will people in 4D directly work with RS vibration concepts as a tool for personal and group evolution? I know that's are large question but any speculations?
By recognizing vibration as a PATTERN, and recognizing the distortions of that pattern to identify areas to understand. One of the techniques I use for self-exploration is to compare myself to the "natural" norm of the great ape. Where there are "distortions" from that 2nd density pattern, we have a 3rd density pattern. We're here in 3rd density to complete the 3rd density pattern, so that is where we should concentrate. Larson's approach to the metaphysical was similar--find out what is physical, look at the world, and all those "distortions" must be metaphysical in nature. It works for both the personal, and collective.
MikeWirth wrote:
How about the other useful and relevant meanings of "reciprocity"? Can they be framed in the phrase "x and y are reciprocal aspects of G"?
As near as I can tell, "reciprocity" is one of the basic patterns of our creation, so everything has its inverse. In the projective geometry that RS2 uses, the "scalar speed" is simply a
ratio -- the generic concept of the reciprocal. So, yes, there are thousands of applications of reciprocity, and they can all be framed and named as a ratio--or better yet, a "pattern" of ratios.
MikeWirth wrote:
Symbiosis is one term that is used to refer to reciprocity and may have 4D and RS2 application. "Love" of course has its place here since it is "pure vibration". Will the next generation of 4D sci-theists develop RS in such a way?
Symbiosis appears to be the basis of a lot of 4th density structure, such as the social memory complex. There will undoubtedly be a lot of application within RS2, particularly at "aggregate" levels.
I try to avoid the use of the word "love" in discussions, as it has so many subjective interpretations that one cannot talk to a group without a major amount of misunderstanding. "Love", in its basic form, and the way the Ra use it, is simply "inward scalar motion"--an attractive principle that brings things together (aka Ring-Cosmos), rather than the original, chaotic one of unit progression. And inward motion (love) is the purest form of free will (distortion) that can be expressed.
MikeWirth wrote:
2. Again, it sounds like Ra is referring to something different regarding gravity, maybe in terms of the spiritual mass formula from Book II? Do concepts such as vortices, continuity, fusion, inversion and the mathematics involved be of use? In the quote, Ra seems to directly link vibration with gravity in a way different from the mass/gravity/inward scalar motion relation but where are they going with it?
Thing about the definitions I made above regarding vibration, love and distortion, then read the quotes again. Ra is talking about the same thing, but in non-technical terms. If you want to discuss it, please post the quotes and your interpretation, so we have a clear starting point.
MikeWirth wrote:
3. "N" dimensions sounds like a Euclidean n-space/time environment wherein all the inner and outer plane environments have a Euclidean existence. The subdensity nesting (7^7^7...) might also need to be defined in these terms.
Nehru proved that there are only three independent dimensions sustainable in a universe based on polarity. The "Euclidean" stratum of geometry is nothing more than a pile of assumptions applied to scalar motion, which we call a "projection". Our physical and metaphysical senses define those assumptions as a type of "consensus reality." Once you understand this, they you will understand why the Ra and others always call our experience an "illusion", because we are looking at the projection of scalar motion, not the motion itself. ("Illusion" does not mean "unreal", it means more "incomplete").
MikeWirth wrote:
There are abstract dimensional concepts used in topology and real measurable fractal dimension in fractal geometry that may be compatible with projective geometry in a way that allows for the "n" dimensions to physically exist. I know from a post you mention there are 15 dimensions in PG. Maybe there are combinatorial operations that can be applied to the above branches and to PG.
There are only 3 "independent" dimensions; dimensions that are self-supportive. But there can be an unlimited number of "dependent" dimensions built upon those three, independent ones, so there is really no limit to the dimensionality of expression.
MikeWirth wrote:
Also, the terms "degrees of freedom" and "parameters" as dimension concepts may need to be expanded or tweaked so they can be integrated into a more complete "n-dimension theory".
If I said "15 dimensions" somewhere, I made a typeo, because it is 15 "degrees of freedom," which is not the same thing as a dimension. Dimensions derive from degrees of freedom.
Good idea to clarify the degrees, parameters, dimensions and density terms. I'll work on that. For me, the "dimensional" model has too many assumptions built it, like Euclidean geometry. I will stick with the ratio model of projective geometry, and try to develop from the point of "non-illusion" to derive the illusions of Euclid.
MikeWirth wrote:
Also, is there a growing interest in RS2 research among Nehru's students? If so, is there a plan for more active online collaboration? Will yours and Nehru's research be put in a published form soon? Thanks.
I have been putting articles out to the public at
http://rs2.antiquatis.org/, as we flush the ideas out on the forum. But as to a general thesis; I still want to study the photon more, and incorporate the ontological plane model into it.
Might want to speak to Gopi (gopiv) here on the board about RS2 students. He and Nehru just did a conference at a University there, and they plan to get a study group going. I'm for on-line collaboration, which is why we have these forums. I am looking at some knowledge-base software to see if that is a better approach to getting ideas across, but right now, the interfaces seem a bit complex for the average, armchair physicist (which most of us are).
Thanks for your input.
Bruce
Every dogma has its day...
