3d time

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

The cosmic sector

Post by Djchrismac » Fri May 20, 2016 2:17 pm

Read the following papers in order and you should find the answers you are looking for mate:

Understanding the Reciprocal System RS2-102: Fundamental Postulates:
Extra-Dimensional & Extra-Terrestrial Entities --daniel:
The Colonization of Tiamat Part V: The Annunaki Strike Back --daniel:
If you haven't already, I would read up on all of the daniel papers, RS2 papers and all of the forum posts that you can, in order to get a better perspective. It is a long slog but well worth it and although some of the RS2 papers are quite technical, many of the forum topics and the daniel papers describe the universe of motion in a way that is easier to understand. I also found the book Etidorhpa, which mirrors RS2 physics in every way, was excellent for describing the same thing using different terms:

Etidorhpa, or, The end of earth: the strange history of a mysterious being and the account of a remarkable journey as communicated in manuscript to Llewellyn Drury who promised to print the same, but finally evaded the responsibility which was assumed by Lloyd, John Uri, 1849-1936:
To save you some time (although I still recommend the long haul of reading up on everything and asking any follow up questions on the forum), the Extra-Dimensional & Extra-Terrestrial Entities paper describes what being in the cosmic sector would actually be like:
The Interrelation of 3D Space and 3D Time

In order to move beyond the three dimensions of space (the first three densities) and into the realm of

equivalent space (and the temporal dimensions it represents), a basic understanding of the two, co-

existing sectors of the universe is helpful.

Our everyday life exists in a material sector, comprised of 3D space and clock time. As a balance tothis, there also exists a cosmic sector, comprised of 3D time and clock space. Together, they form a very nice symmetry to existence, the symmetry of a universe of motion. But it is important to realize that they are not different “halves” of the Universe, but exist side-by-side like “parallel dimensions” that are 90 degrees out of phase with each other. There are a few ways to visualize this interrelation:
  • The sine and cosine trigonometric functions are 90 degrees out of phase—when a sine wave is crossing zero, the cosine wave is at its extreme; when the cosine wave is crossing zero, the sine wave is at its extreme. The cosine would be the yang, spatial wave and the sine the yin, temporal wave.
  • Geometrically, as the difference between points and lines of a 2D diagram, such as a triangle, where you can draw the triangle by connecting 3 points, or intersecting 3 lines.
  • Geometrically in 3 dimensions, between vertices and faces. For example, a tetrahedron can be drawn by connecting 4 vertices, or intersecting 4 planes to make faces. This is the visualization that is the most helpful in the 3D macrocosm of the natural world.
From our conventional reference frame, we see 3D space as “connect a dot.” We identify locations, then connect locations to create pathways and geometric structure. 3D time, being unobservable, acts between those locations as a force or force field—time is the line between two points, or the face between three vertices that can expand or compress to move the relative positions of the spatial points, which we interpret as the pushing or pulling of electric and magnetic fields.

The Cosmic Sector

Because of the reciprocal relation between space and time as motion, everything that we see in space has its temporal equivalent. If one were to move their consciousness out of the material, spatial sector and in to the cosmic, temporal sector, everything would appear inside-out.

However, if you were born in the realm of 3D time, you would claim that folks living here in the material sector had everything inside-out, upside-down and backwards, because your consciousness would be adjusted to viewing time as locations, and space as force fields. It is all a matter of perspective.

Extra-Dimensional Entities

Now we have the basics to understand extra-dimensional entities, the majority of which are entities with a presence in 3D time. This includes entities that are native born in the cosmic sector that have learned to access space, and entities in the material sector to have obtained conscious access to the realm of 3D time.

Consider a cosmic creature, a native-born temporal entity that has their physical structure in time, and therefore can only interact with 3D space as force—they are invisible to our normal, waking consciousness, yet since time changes space, we can still bump into things that aren’t there and they can make things fly around the room without any observable cause. Ghosts, poltergeist and the like are all entities of this nature—entities with a structure in 3D time.

And yes, we appear as ghosts to the cosmic life in 3D time, as we cross the barrier in the other direction!
It'd not easy changing the perspective of a lifetime but stick at it and eventually things will begin to fall into place.... i'm still figuring things out myself, we all are, so you are not alone.


adam pogioli
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

how many pieces of the unity pie?

Post by adam pogioli » Sat May 21, 2016 4:47 am

I think it is confusing to say that the two sectors are not two halves of existence since they are described that way. Why are they 90 degrees out of phase and not 180? Another thing that seems confusing is saying that these two sectors are exact mirrors of each other with no difference between them when viewed from their native terrain. In esoteric philosophy the inner worlds are organized differently than the material world. In fact RA specifically uses the RS theory terms describing them this way, saying that the time/space perspective native to the "inner planes" sees many possible worlds in overview where as space/time we can work to integrate them. Aurobindo calls the two sectors involutionary and evolutionary. Seth calls them the probability system and the reincarnational system. In any case as we know, they are not really completely separate sectors. Though in the inner planes, all beings are segmented by vibration rate--like beings are on planes with like beings. Here in the evolutionary/external realm, beings of all types and levels mix. The involutionary planes pass through and interact with us as fields. The picture has always been one of descending involution and ascending evolution at least in terms of complexity. So two streams passing through each other brought to my mind a 180 degree phase relationship.

But perhaps those streams are the directions up and down the axis that divides the sectors at a right angle. Douglass A. White talks about the phase wave and the matter wave in similar ways to RS:http://www.dpedtech.com/VelocityEquation.pdf He makes good analogies for seeing that reciprocal of normal velocity as not just some invisible sector, but essential to what mind is always doing: getting an overview perspective by stepping into that orthogonal dimension and making correlations in an abstract phase space. It is actually a popular trend in academic theory when studying complex systems to think of any emergent higher order structure as being a kind of "phase entity". A person for instance in his immaterial substance is one of these "phase" entities, and so exerts causal power through this non-local phase dimension, by seeing and making connections between apparent motions that have no localized space time basis at all. Life and Consciousness alter the phase relations and brings that cosmic sector into play with matter. Its not that it is a magical invisible realm, it is the very magic of mind that alters the dimensions of time to achieve effects in space.

In any case I think it helps to see the connections in so many other systems, to see that reciprocal systems thinking is actually a broader tradition than just one eccentric theory. This website just happens to be the place where it is being extended to the deepest levels of physical theory. Though I am still confused about dimensions and degrees of seperation....

If you divide a circle of unity into orthogonal dimensions shouldn't there be four? 90 degrees times 4? The following has been my amateur intuition-- just that when the symmetry of unity is broke the most one can have is three dimensions because the fourth will always have all the remaining order that can never be objectified and so appears as a never ending flow of return, a mirror of all that is repressed in the forced stability of a three dimensional frame.

Arthur M. Young says something kind of like this in his book Mathematics Physics and Reality. He says since 1 point is 0 dimension, with 2 you get a 1 dimensional line, 3 a 2d plane, and 4 a 3d solid. Past that, any additional points are "internal" in that they create diagnals to store information. He says seven is the max points without creating subsets and is the max points on a torus that can be connected without crossing lines.

In any case I have found these ideas help understand the dimensional structure. I am sure I am missing something here and would appreciate any corrections. But I like the idea that 3 dimensions is the max for objectifying the universe with additional dimensions being internal, that create a 7 point structure starting with a reference point, that can reappoach unity through increasing density of internal relations but never obtain it completely, hence the evolutionary progression.

Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

3d time

Post by jpkira » Sun May 29, 2016 4:36 am

thank you for seeing what I believe is the obvious failing in this theory and many others like it - the proponents see it as self evident and when asked why point to other papers and say its just so. Why it does explain some things it leaves others open to many more questions than answers. faster than light fits - but is it the only answer? Black holes are "not there" - really? I am seeking my own answers and appreciate your time.

adam pogioli
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

I don't think anyone has been

Post by adam pogioli » Mon May 30, 2016 4:28 am

I don't think anyone has been arguing for the theory being self-evident. Larson did have a habit of presenting his conclusions like they were the natural consequences of his premises, when, like you say, they often open up as many questions as they answer. This website is full of attempts to answer some of those questions, though of course it raises many more. I think people would just like you to be a little more conversant with the theory since you are asking questions that have been explored extensively by Larson, but I also think what you are asking is something more philosophical that maybe needs to be adressed on that level. I think it is fair for you to want justification for spending the time it takes to learn this material, to be convinced that it isn't just an eccentric theory, but part of a rich culture of ideas--which I think it is. I think it is important to understand that whether or not you accept the particular way the RS system approaches these issues, they aren't conjured up out of nowhere. If you want more philosophical and cultural background for the kind of esoteric and interdisciplinary science that I think helps frame these ideas, please check out my website for further reading:http://www.creativecoherence.org/.

But even without diving into esoteric thought, any honest look at mainstream physics confronts one with the seemingly bizarre issues of other realms. In the paper I linked to above by Douglass A. White, he uses the physics concept of phase in an analogous way to the way those here use the cosmic sector. Now one can certainly take the attitude of the physicist that imaginary quantities and the phase aspect of the wave is without content or physical meaning, but I think the appeal to those with a predilection to the occult and spiritual side of existence, is that this reciprocal realm describes that part of reality quite well. In a way it is self-evident to many of us in a way that perhaps would not be to someone who doesn't take the imagination seriously (or the deeper meaning of imaginary numbers that represent them).

Though many people these days are open to these kind of ideas but get confused by the many diverging theories or by vague, facile generalizations. There is a lot of far out speculation even by mainstream physicists concerning the meaning of the quantum. There are lots of other answers out there, but I think this website has the best physics material in the scientific underground. Admittedly it is difficult and takes time to even grasp the basics. I came upon it years ago in my research but only about 6 months ago did I learn enough to see how rewarding a deeper study would be. I think it helps to get a broader education in alternative culture and ideas to see the full value, and see how much of the best ideas are confirmed or have a form in the RS system, and in contrast how much other attempts at interpreting physical theory are narrow and insular in comparison.

So rather than just say the reciprocal of 3d space is 3d time and it must be that way because it helps explain a lot of physics, I think it helps to situate the physics more philosophically and phenomenologically and say:

Classical physics reached a limit with relativity and quantum phenomenon that brought it into contact not just with "far out" regions as Larson sometimes put it, but with the importance of perspective and the observer in determining the causal order of phenomenon. This wasn't just a fluke of modern physics but was part of the whole transition from the classical to the Modern and Modernist era. (If you want a more in depth look at this transition and its impact on culture here is an essay I wrote: http://www.creativecoherence.org/2016/0 ... d-fiction/)

But I do think framing the cosmic sector as a kind of seperate reciprocal physical realm is misleading. In the details of the theory it is clear that the sectors are part of a larger structure. On the other hand there is much discussion of comsic sector entities like planets and galaxies that are spread out in space but concentrated in time which is taken to mean that it's like some mirror universe. I think this is a mistake, if only for the way it makes it seem like there is the whole other universe nobody knows about, which I can understand people are skeptical about no matter how well it explains a black hole or whatever. On closer inspection, what seems clear to me is that the cosmic sector and 3d time are not some bizarre idea about a parallel reality we can't see but about the very substance of our reality that is imbued everywhere with the stuff of time, or if you will, the stuff of mind.

Seen that way, RS theory stands out not in the nature of its objects of study but in its coherence. Quantum electro dynamics has been struggling with virtual realms and time reversals for decades and it isn't just speculation. It is the only way they can make the ideas work, especially when you get into any phenomenon dealing with phase conjugation, which is key when talking about life. RS theory doesn't pull some realm out of its hat, it puts the realms physics has been dealing with awkwardly for a 100 years on much more logical and productive ground.

Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

RS theory

Post by jpkira » Mon May 30, 2016 7:46 am

Well said. I have read more than half the papers posted on this site and will look at your site. I do agree modern main stream physics seems to just find more questions and created more contrivances to make their ideas "real". We spend billions looking for the building blocks of the universe and understand almost nothing about gravity and how our reality is really working. The realm of consciousness and sub consciousness and dreams are banished as not repeatable and certainly don't fit the scientific method - huh? so that makes them part of what - some other place?

Any way thank you for taking the time to talk to me at a level that at least rings of common sense and not built on "I am smarter than you - that's why I see the REAL truths!".

Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:52 am

3d time and wave phase

Post by sstivender » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:02 pm

Adam, I had to chime in here because I hear from you some of the same thoughts I have been digging into. To looks to me the phase of a probability wave is very much like what I would expect rotations in 3d time to look like.

Interference patterns can produce locations where there is a zero chance of an object showing up, how can this be? Can time somehow progress normal to our time in this location?

There seems to be a conclusion in the RS that you can only have 3 dimensions in either space or time. Multiple spatial dimensions seem to only be compatible with a scalar time, while multiple temporal dimensions only seem to be compatible with scalar space. Something to do with the direction reversals if I remember correctly. But I don't buy into that. We should be able to incorporate 3 dimensions of space coincidentally with 3 dimensions of time.

My thought is that three dimensional time is all around us but we only see it as a scalar because it is moving so fast. A small displacement at a right angle has an incredibly small impact. However, at the quantum level, or natural unit level, the ratios of space to time are closer to unity and the addition of just one unit of time has a measurable impact.

The cosmic sector is also just as real and present in our universe as the material sector. There is no parallel universe that we can only reach by passing through some magic gate. The material and cosmic sectors are really one in the same: only one universe. Our everyday experiences are so accustomed to accounting for displacements in space that we are not skilled in speaking about vectorial temporal displacements.

As you can probably tell I am not a well trained physicist and my thoughts are not well developed, but the way I see it, this forum is for people that have new thoughts about our physical universe. I see the post from the member asking what is motion in 3d time and the answers posted by the regular members. There is a feeling of circular explanations that I have run into in the past. I applaud your attempt at an alternate approach to an explanation.

adam pogioli
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am


Post by adam pogioli » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:07 pm

As I am sure you can tell, I am no physicist either, nor an engineer like many of those here. I find the crazy ideas here the most familiar, but struggle with the more mathematical aspects of the theory. I am in the alternative health field where I am always evaluating different theories and their corresponding technologies. My degree is in the social sciences and have spent most of my life studying the cultural context of ideas, which I find helps me evaluate any field or theory without necessarily understanding the details that those more involved are steeped in. Though unlike most scientists and engineers these days, many of the people involved with this website are pretty aware of other ways of thinking. I find the people and material here refreshingly comprehensive and open to this particular theory's connections with the culture at large.

Perhaps what you are experiencing as a circular explanation is bound to happen with such a comprehenisve theory. One weakness in this theory that might be holding it back is a natural product of its strength, or at least natural in this post-modern value climate. Larson conceived it at a time when grand theories had fallen dramatically out of fashion. Post-WW2 theory is characterized by the incredulity towards meta-narratives. One can mourn this loss of coherence, but it was an important turn away from the absolutist rhetoric that lead to the melodramatically violent clash of cultures, and which continued to lend ideological support to the cold war. The last major theorists of the Modernist era had many of the same intuitions of Larson; people like Whitehead and Gebser tried to see in relativity an opportunity to open up the somewhat closed grand systems of the previous era which took perspectival space for granted, into an open system that embraced time and creativity. But in the end it was people like Heidigger following Nietzsche that would influence future theory in his emphasis not just on openness to change and time but on a complete destruction(which becomes deconstruction with Derrida) of metaphysical absolutes. Parallel developments happend in physics as complementarity became the anti-metaphysical and anti-epsitemological doctrine of choice. Grand theories still are put forth of course but they are surrounded by an academic culture of pragmatic utilitarianism that renders them anything but theories of everything. We know enough now to know a complete theory in physics, even if it was possible, is hardly a complete theory of everything.

But another thread after the wars can be followed where the heterogeneous currents set loose by the post-modern turn were coming together in a general science. Emerging out of war time information theory, cybernetics had a lot of similar qualities to today's scientific underground in that it was developed mostly by engineers outside their professional discipline. They began what has become a thriving trans-disciplinary science culture. Unlike the the grand narratives of the Modernist era, what you have in the interdisciplinary sciences is an openness not just to time and other perspectives, but to a reflexive awareness of the model itself and, of course the modeller. This has had an effect on academic theory through cybernetic writers like Gregory Bateson who influenced the biggest transitional figure from post-modernism to the emerging complexity-science paradigm: Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze has been dead for decades now but he still is the biggest name in Theory, especially where it dovetails with science. The buzzword in Theory that is most relevant here is: virtual. Deleuze's ontology is materialist, but like RS there is an economy between the actual (material sector), virtual (cosmic sector), and intensive (scalar). But these trends in theory I think still struggle with the concepts of time they have inherited from Bergson. Bergson famously debated Einstein on time, and though his ideas are more radical than Einstein, they only anticipate dimensions of time that are fleshed out more coherently with rs2 and somewhat by others in the scientific underground. Suzie Vrobel's fractal time and the endophysics her group has developed is an interesting example, though they are more sucessful with observer systems. The fractal has been a particularly fruitful concept for understanding time, and it has leaked through from the controversial physics of el Nasschie and the scale relativity of Notalle down through to the biophysics community with people like Mae Wan Ho and the New Age with people like Dan Winter and Nassim Haramein.

Though most people seem to still struggle to eschew conventional notions of time. One cybernetic theorist that seems closest to the RS system is a particularly esoteric one named Charles Muses. He has a particularly strange and interesting book called "Destiny and Control in Human Systems: Studies in the Interactive Connectedness of Time(chronotopology)" One of his students is a friend of mine here in Oregon who has developed his work in what he called "hypernumbers" into a whole sophisticated algebra of ontological transformation. Quaternions are just the first level in a dialectical progression. It is interesting as far as I can understand it, but so many of these developments launch off from shaky fundamentals. RS theory I think has got the core principles right that can bring other things into focus. Larson was writing from the perspective of a classical scientist and like other heroes of the scientific underground, because he was reacting to the direction post-classical science was taking, he often is described and understood in reactionary terms. If we are going to take these ideas out of the basement they have to shed neo-classical language that most theorist use. There are many good ideas out there, but with the RS theory and in particular the culture of RS2 here, the retro ether theories of post-tesla people like Dollard and much of the New Age scene with its probelmatic reification of "consciousness" can be put on the same ground as other general systems science theory. The key theme that I see in this context would be that Larson was seeing an advanced reciprocal relation between objective and subjective dimensions, but putting it in the language of classical physics that he knew--with some modifications. Everyone here has done a great job of teasing out the radical ideas and making them explicit. Projective Geometry has long been an obsession of the esoteric science community without a whole lot of understanding as to its concrete meaning beyond the sensed need to integrate the oberver and the modeller into the model. Now we can perhaps see how to do this and can begin to integrate other perspectives with that in mind. But by integrate, I mean connect to, reflect and illuminate, not co-opt and consume. There have been other attempts at integration in the alternative contemporary theory world --like Ken Wilber, Spiral Dynamics, and other New Age spins on systems theory. They become cults and I think people are becoming sensitive to and distrustful of anything resembling an insular system or theory. And if some of what is discussed in the alternative research community is correct, the groups that have developed this science well beyond us are very much cults and totalitarian break away societies. We don't just need to figure out how free energy works, we need a sophisticated and heterogeneous society that can handle it. Thankfully the ideas here are ripe with potential for bringing coherence without closure. Its all about the nature of the reference frame, and how it structures and interfaces with the universe.


Rather than discuss how many dimensions the universe has, which is a pretty absolutist metaphysical framing, I think it more appropriate to say how do a certain number of dimensions structure the universe? In that way the relative and absolute aspects of nature are both put in context. I think what RS concepts are showing, which is, again, echoed by others, is that there at most three spatially objective dimensions. When we objectify the universe we deform it and reduce it down. If we want to see more of the picture we have to add internal dimensions, interiority, virtuality, vitality, mentality, etc... we store memory of time, -- we add temproal dimensions.

What is the nature of a reference frame that objectifies the very parts of the universe that we have chosen to bracket and internalize? I tend to turn to occult literature here, though the RS concepts shed much light on it. I don't think the two sectors are the same. Actually I was implying they were more different than RS theory suggests. But yes I think they are part of one world, which I am sure most would agree with.

Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

read them

Post by jpkira » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:48 pm

So no explanation of moving in Cosmic 3d time. Maybe I missed it. seems illogical and no practical way to describe.

adam pogioli
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

moving in 3d time

Post by adam pogioli » Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:25 pm

Sorry if I was not more explicit, but I was saying that there are many ways of talking about moving in 3d time, most of which have been in the occult traditions where the language is different, but I think it is clear it is the same thing. Daniel's papers develop the connections along a few of these lines, where time becomes a full 3d landscape in the sense that different timelines can be explored objectively the way we would explore different paths through space. I was assuming you were familiar with this description and considered your objection was more that it was too far out and unprecedented--which was my initial reaction after hearing David Wilcock talk about it. David is doing good work, but in his simplifications he can alienate those with a little more scrutiny. I avoided the RA material for years after hearing his take on it. Much like the related material here, I found when I got around to reading it myself it is quite sophisticated. It merely gives a more scientific language to what occultists have been discussing for ages as "inner planes" of existence that RA specifically equates with the RS concept of time/space, the cosmic sector.

My larger point was that though one can access the full three dimensionality of time through inner occult training, we need not look any further than the everyday functions of mind to see some of the same effects. And though physics stopped short of exploring mind when it reached its boundaries in quantum physics, other branches of science have picked it up and developed a scientific language for dealing with the relationship of mind and matter, often coming up with concepts that echoe RS theory perspectives. Even physics has been dealing with this "virtual" domain in QED, or "antimatter" in particle physics, though they exclude the connections with consciousness.

But if you want not just a description, but an experience, try lucid dreaming, astral travel, or just smoke some cannabis. Or just let your mind contemplate time and feel its texture, its potential to move in many directions. The best descriptions of time are in the book Seth Speaks and the Unknown Reality by Jane Roberts. But as RA says the advantage of time/space is in the overview experience, yet it is here in space/time that we can work on the details in the present. Smoke some pot and see you can get a kind of bird's eye perspective on your life but you can't make any real deep changes until you come down into the body and work "in the dark with a candle", which is roughly how RA puts it. When you dream, you can go anywhere, anytime, either in a single abstract dimension in the mind or with practice with the astral body or even fully materializing a physical body as advanced beings do. But it is here in our sector that we can wake up. The traditions are clear that the "inner planes" tend to be stagnant and abstract. It is here that the abstract structures of the mind (causal) and life (astral) and subtle physical (etheric), all form a unified medium, a stable spatial reference system, that allows for greater growth and change. So whenever you hear "3d time" I would think 3d mind or more generally, 3d structure; think of a dream space that has become objectified but that lacks the concrete pressure of difference that being in a 3d material space, with all its limitations, involves.

Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 pm

lucid dreaming

Post by jpkira » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:04 pm

Yes - and I am trying to reach those experiences. Really cool how the reality we have established as dimentsional and solid and "timefull" are likely anything but. WE make them that way by observing them. Thank you for the lively discussion and not just telling me to reread the words someone has said are better because - well they are just obvious!

Post Reply