Force of Chakra energy

Discussion and ideas concerning the animate (living) realm.
Post Reply
blaine
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Force of Chakra energy

Post by blaine » Thu May 18, 2017 2:26 pm

John St. Clair, the same guy who had the triangular spaceship patent that I mentioned elsewhere also has some interesting patents regarding bioenergy (or chakra energy as he calls it):
https://www.google.com/patents/US200401 ... cQ6AEIPDAD

It seems the crystal allows for a transfer of bioenergy. My guess is that the crystal has a cosmic structure that allows transferred motion through bioenergy resulting in rotational motion in the material sector. It seems that crystals can be a sort of transmitter for bioenergy.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Force of Chakra energy

Post by bperet » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:23 am

blaine wrote:
Thu May 18, 2017 2:26 pm
It seems the crystal allows for a transfer of bioenergy. My guess is that the crystal has a cosmic structure that allows transferred motion through bioenergy resulting in rotational motion in the material sector. It seems that crystals can be a sort of transmitter for bioenergy.
You probably need to qualify that, to "natural crystals have memory." Synthetics do not; they are physical structure only.
Every dogma has its day...

blaine
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Re: Force of Chakra energy

Post by blaine » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:52 am

What is the part of the natural growth process that imparts the cosmic structure that isn't a part of the synthetic growth process?

SoverT
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

Re: Force of Chakra energy

Post by SoverT » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:31 am

blaine wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:52 am
What is the part of the natural growth process that imparts the cosmic structure that isn't a part of the synthetic growth process?
I've wondered this as well. Why would some crystals acquire cosmic structure balance and others not? And in relation to biological beings, it's been mentioned multiple times that some entities on the planet have no cosmic soul, which should not be possible as a matter of motion balance. Particularly when it's also posited that when a human's cosmic side is separated from the material, the imbalance causes the dissolution we call death. Both of these shouldn't both be true, unless there's another type of space-only aggregates that can be stable without balance. A contradiction in terms of The Postulates.

In the case of synthetic crystals, it seems like simply the speed of growth might be a factor in a crystal having no cosmic structure. Though this implies that it simply hasn't had a chance yet and will occur over time.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Force of Chakra energy

Post by bperet » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:50 pm

blaine wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:52 am
What is the part of the natural growth process that imparts the cosmic structure that isn't a part of the synthetic growth process?
It is actually pretty simple... remember that a displacement in time is "material" and a displacement in space is "cosmic." What you are missing is that a displacement in space (yin, angular) is not the same as a structure in space (yang, linear).

All motion has the potential to be spatially displaced. All atoms except the Noble gas series, have a spatial rotation--a cosmic displacement. (The "C" in the A-B-C notation.) When it comes to atomic notation, Larson uses a relative displacement model, which means he picks the smallest displacement from the base, rotational component. It is analogous to counting the number of stairs either up from the lower level, or down from the upper level. If you look at oxygen, 2-2-(2), you obviously see the (2) as a cosmic displacement--a rotation in space. What is not so obvious is that the other end of the staircase we find beryllium, 2-1-2 where it LOOKS like we have a material, electric rotation--but it is actually 2-1-(6).

What gets lost in this understanding is that we are dealing with SPEED, not a "thing." It is like looking at a speedometer that ranges from 0-100. The needle position can be expressed in two, different ways: up from 0, say 0+40 = 40, or down from 100, 100-60 = 40. The needle is still in the SAME PLACE for both measurements.

Then you run into the balance situation at the half-way point, since 0+50 = 50 and 100-50 = 50, so which one do you use? This is the case with carbon, silicon, cobalt, rhodium, ytterbium and nobelium... half-way points that can be expressed as, in the case of carbon, either: 2-1-4 (0%+50%) or 2-2-(4) (100%-50%). You DON'T have two, distinct atoms--same atom, just TWO different perspectives.

That is how displacements work.

Look at the material side of things--atoms form molecules, say H.OH, water. The basic rotations of hydrogen and oxygen are material, in time. BUT--water has a geometry and therefore a structure in space--"lines of force" holding the atoms together--and "lines" means a linear relationship--not a rotation.

The cosmic displacements of hydrogen and oxygen are just "dangling" in the cosmic sector, without any relationship to each other.

What happens with the life unit is that those "cosmic dangles" form a structure in time, a cosmic molecule, so you have "living water," a structure in space coupled with a structure in time.

A synthetic crystal grows by material aggregation--there is only random connection in the cosmic, if any. A natural crystal grows by BOTH material and cosmic aggregation, a balanced, complex structure.

Metals exhibit this with the concept of "shape-memory," where the pressure (a spatial displacement moving through the time of the atoms) causes a structural configuration on the cosmic side, something the metal can "remember" after being deformed in space and bias the choice of how to bend back.

This is what "tuning crystals" is about... you focus your bioenergy on them in an attempt to cause the cosmic components to form a structure suited to your purpose. What is missed is that vibration--and impulse--need to be applied to the crystal (concepts from L-M technology), to cause significant change to the unobserved half.
SoverT wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:31 am
And in relation to biological beings, it's been mentioned multiple times that some entities on the planet have no cosmic soul, which should not be possible as a matter of motion balance. Particularly when it's also posited that when a human's cosmic side is separated from the material, the imbalance causes the dissolution we call death. Both of these shouldn't both be true, unless there's another type of space-only aggregates that can be stable without balance. A contradiction in terms of The Postulates.
All living entities have a "cosmic connection," but not necessarily the cosmic body we would call a "soul." Take a blade of grass, for example. It is alive, but does not have a "cosmic blade" associated with it--it has "archetypal grass," more like a group entity on the cosmic side that ALL the blades of grass connect to, to maintain the life structure. This shows up in psychology as "collectives" and "archetypes" (the nonlocal and local versions, respectively, of aggregate motion). A "collective" is analogous to "equivalent space" in the RS, whereas the "archetype" is the rotational structure behind it.

Technically, those "entities" that don't have a soul--don't have a "soul," but ARE still connected to something more generic that maintains the living status. Death occurs when the break between the material structure and the cosmic structure (soul or otherwise) is severed.
Every dogma has its day...

adam pogioli
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

Re: Force of Chakra energy

Post by adam pogioli » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:14 am

So are you saying that atoms have no structure, only displacement; but acquire structure in space when they become part of a molecule, and structure in time when they become part of life? Interesting.

SoverT
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

Re: Force of Chakra energy

Post by SoverT » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:42 am

bperet wrote:
Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:50 pm
BUT--water has a geometry and therefore a structure in space--"lines of force" holding the atoms together--and "lines" means a linear relationship--not a rotation.
So does geometry come first, or structure?  This has consistently confounded me every time I set finger to keyboard to code a simulator.
The crux seems to be the idea of location.  Structure requires a concept of relation, which demands some sort of location, whether it be relative or absolute, acknowledging here that absolute is really simply relative to some larger frame of reference. 
To say structure is to say relationship, and my specific complaint is that nowhere in the corpus have I found a rationale for why this structure just happens to be "located" in the same general area as compared to say, the planet.  A single aggregate of HHO should have equal chance of its constituent motions being in separate galaxies, according to scalar motion with no location/relation concept.

Without an A Priori idea of "scalar location", structure should not even be possible.  Adjacency cannot be postulated as a starting point without first  location.  It might be argued that structure or geometry arises from scalar magnitude, but that again leads to the question; why join with this motion and not that motion?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Force of Chakra energy

Post by bperet » Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:13 pm

SoverT wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:42 am
So does geometry come first, or structure?  This has consistently confounded me every time I set finger to keyboard to code a simulator.
You're talking causality in a scalar system where there is none. Remember what the clock is: it is the speed of the progression, the datum to which we measure change. In Nature, geometry and structure operate concurrently because there is no concept of non-concurrency. But in a simulation, we're stuck with clock time--ONE ASPECT of the measure of change, so we have to process it in TWO steps, one for clock time (geometry) and one for clock space (structure). And you just alternate back and forth. It doesn't matter which one you start with, or which one you choose to observe. Those are arbitrary.
SoverT wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:42 am
A single aggregate of HHO should have equal chance of its constituent motions being in separate galaxies, according to scalar motion with no location/relation concept.

Without an A Priori idea of "scalar location", structure should not even be possible.  Adjacency cannot be postulated as a starting point without first location.  It might be argued that structure or geometry arises from scalar magnitude, but that again leads to the question; why join with this motion and not that motion?
I think you may have misunderstood the concept of a "scalar location," which is a contradiction in terms. Try thinking of it as as "scalar association" that binds dimensions together, for purposes of compounding linear and angular velocities, just like you would combine complex quantities into a larger, dimensional matrix. For example, multiply two complex quantities and you get a quaternion. Each complex quantity is an independent dimension (at a scalar location), but when associated (same location), they compound into a higher-dimensional structure, the quaternion.

Simulation works the same way for processing scalar and coordinate system data. They must be alternately processed, like a triangle wave. First do the scalar functions, derive the coordinate system, then do the coordinate relations and re-derive the scalar functions, and repeat. It's a viscous circle, but it works.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply