Kozyrev/torsion

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
adam pogioli
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:57 am

Kozyrev/torsion

Post by adam pogioli » Wed May 18, 2016 8:13 pm

Has anyone thought much about Kozyrev's experiments? There is so much vague speculation out there about "torsion" that I think could be cleared up by reciprocal systems thinking. I was surprised to not find any previous discussions about it here.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Torsion fields

Post by bperet » Fri May 20, 2016 11:18 am

David Wilcock and I discussed torsion fields at length, back when I was visiting L/L Research many years ago (Carla and Jim were both on the Board of Trustees for ISUS, and Don Elkins was a friend of Dewey Larson). It is just one of those subjects we never got around to discussing here--and there's a lot of others!

David had this gadget that was a "torsion field generator," which was basically a ring of magnets being spun at high speed. You could feel effects from it at some distance. We also discussed the DNA transmutation properties of it, where it appeared to have the ability to transfer certain characteristics from one form of life to another, or from a healthy system to a compromised one, improving health.

As I recall, we also discussed atmospheric torsion fields that appear to be naturally occurring, which account for some of these mystery spots and trouble with early aircraft when they encountered them. As part of that discussion, we also noticed that a couple of centuries ago these airborne torsion spots were at ground level (documented by the Native Americans) and it appeared that our technology had displaced them upwards, making them a problem for aircraft. (By now, they're probably in orbit!)

Torsion fields are basically "twisting fields" and in the Reciprocal System, fields are how "time changes space," what Larson termed back in the 1950s as "equivalent space." If you want to get a basic understanding of the geometry behind the concept, I suggest taking a look at Nick Thomas's Path Curves, here: http://nct.goetheanum.org/path.htm, which are a behavior of projective geometry. I believe that Thomas' shear/strain system is essentially what is behind a torsion field--but in time, with a projection in space.

I definitely believe that there is something to it, once you get beyond all the crap they are now putting out to cover up what Kozyrev discovered. The aether is just a projection of Larson's cosmic sector on the material side of things, so it is a natural consequence of our theory here.
Every dogma has its day...

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

time and torsion

Post by adam pogioli » Sat May 21, 2016 5:51 am

Thank you Bruce. I just want to say, the last 6 months studying this material have been one of the great intellectual joys of my life. One thing I am sure of is that we have only begun to see the potential in these ideas. Thank you for making this site and yourself available. I think the seeds of the future are here.

I wish Gaia tv would give you a TV show like David, or have him interview you. He is a pretty good interviewer, with Corey Goode anyway. Though its unfortunate that he oversimplifies everything. I guess that is why he is famous though. His moral simplicity and the consequent melodrama is a bit much for me to handle, but what I find interesting is his take on both Kozyrev and Larson, neither of which I would call aether theorists, both of which he reduces down to fit his New Age concept of "energy" and aether. In his defense this is difficult stuff to simplify for people.

I think your use of projective geometry and Nick Thomas is getting at something crucial, though I find you much easier to understand. Thomas is a little over my head past the basics. And your ideas past the basic intro concepts are scattered throughout forums and hard-to-hear videos. But its worth the effort.

I think something key with torsion that you may be overlooking is the kind of cosmic economy of complexity that Kozyrev identifies. It relates to what I just posted in the discussion about 3dtime, namely the model in esotericism of involution and evolution and how the higher order time/space involutionary structures emerge as phase entities in space/time. Kozyrev called all entropic processes time emitters, since the loss of entropy was conserved when it was picked up by another system, the time absorber, the two sites being called right hand and left handed torsion, corresponding to the entropic and negentropic. Are you familiar with this?

With RS there is much discussion of an exchange of matter between the two sectors from speed changes in matter, but is there a concept for the exchange of structure? Or is this all just time structures shifting around and affecting space? If I burn a log and increase entropy thereby emitting time that gets absorbed by another physical process, did the structure go from space to time and back to space? In what sense is the structure of matter in our sector in space and what sense is it in time? If it just has a location in space and all structure in time then I think I need a better definition of some of these terms. I have read 4 Larson books but I get confused reading rs2 at the same time and my wires get crossed.

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

time and density

Post by adam pogioli » Sun May 22, 2016 6:51 am

I hope you don't mind some further questions and speculations....It seems like "twist" is more than just some kind of specialized field. You seem to emphasize that there is always this compound relation between rotation and translation, since rotation forms the counterspatial denominator from which we judge linear motion in space. When taken together is not the compound structure always torsion?

Why does it take three dimensions to represent one-dimensional motion? You seem to imply the answer but I haven't seen it explained: Or more specifically: What is the relationship between three scalar dimensions and our three in the reference frame. It is almost like two go into that initial rotational counterspatial movement with the third left as a translation we can measure? Maybe by understanding the compound helical movement maybe we can infer or reconstruct the original three dimensional scalar movement?

I was just reading an excellent book by James H. Bunn called Wave Forms, where he explores language and literature through the lens of symmetry theory. He reads these fundamental transformations as forming an underlying syntax to all language. Since twist is the three dimensional transformation is it not the form of motion that most closely recapitulates or reflects the motion across all sectors and strata?

Is maybe rotation and translation the one and two dimensional projections of that three dimensional scalar motion that through integration we can understand the motion as a shear stress between geometries-- a twist? I understand scalar motion is geometry-free, but I get the picture that this spiral movement is fundamental as a motion between not only sectors but strata.

In fact the esoteric models seem to conform really well to your model of the strata. The whole verticle dimension in spiritual ontology details a loss of sensory and spatial assumptions as you go up the axis back towards unity in one dimension (by reducing speed of consciousness). The broad grouping of levels called "astral" and "causal" are not specific densities as Daniel speculates since these terms are most often used for levels in trance approached through meditation where they are actually simpler in structure not more complex or dense in relationships. Even a simple glance at Indian philosophy will tell you the physical realm is considered more dense with the astral and causal increasingly more subtle. The higher causal entities approached in trance (which I read as in one dimension) resemble greatly your higher strata in description. But the description of time changes greatly resembles a movement left in Larson's speed range diagram into the time region. The far left of Larson's diagram resembles the motionless absolute in Indian philosophy.

In modern western inspired occultism and hybrid systems like Sri Aurobindo's, the idea is not to shed sensory assumptions and return through greater degrees of freedom to dissolve into zero speed, but actually use our three dimensions and all its limitations to reconstruct those higher planes and integrate them.

I keep thinking of Larson's diagram where speed increases as you go right through adding dimensions. At the time region boundary you get a good correspondence of description with the one dimensional experience of unity in yoga philosophy. One must go all the way to the left of Larson's diagram to experience nirvana. But in the West we want to go right. It is only by bringing all three dimensions of the self into unity that we can experience the divine in his complete three fold nature. When mind, heart, and body all are brought into unity, those three natures (called gunas in Indian thought) become the three-in-one Sat-Chit-Ananda(Existence/consciousness/bliss). Sri Aurobindo uses this as the name of God. But in his Western/occult-inspired rendering of Eastern thought, he doesn't just want a solitary experience of God, he wants to evolve the whole material sector into the Divine. Any further right on Larson's diagram and you have the full three dimensional experience of the inner planes approaching the mastery of time at the extreme right approaching infinite speed. In AUrobindo's vision there is a possibility of integration of the inner and external planes into a social experience of three dimensional unity he calls supermind. Later 20th century occultism develops this further with Seth and the RA material.

RA explains greater density as greater social cohesion and integration of the inner time/space and outer space/time sectors. Whether it is approached from the right or left I imagine it as a spiral of evolution coalescing around the center of Larson's diagram, drawing in the periphery. I am not sure of the visualisation or details but in general it all fits pretty well, though I am not quite sure how the geometric strata fit in exactly. It seems like there would be a corresponding shedding of geometric assumptions in the space region at the far right of Larson's diagram. I would really like to learn more. I really would like to understand your density band diagrams and the frequency spectrum diagrams. I cannot put any of that into context but it seems really important. I will keep searching through old forum posts since it seems your best desriptions are in there. Thank you again.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Conservation of Motion

Post by bperet » Mon May 23, 2016 2:28 pm

I think your use of projective geometry and Nick Thomas is getting at something crucial, though I find you much easier to understand. Thomas is a little over my head past the basics. And your ideas past the basic intro concepts are scattered throughout forums and hard-to-hear videos.
Thomas is over most people's heads... I think I got to page 10 on his Counterspace book before I got lost. I learned projective geometry from computer modeling, back in the 1980s, when you had to do all the matrix transforms yourself to draw something. Time consuming, but educational.

A sound engineer has volunteered to try to fix the audio on those old videos. If he can, I'll fix them up and move them over to the reciprocalsystem.org site, where I'm putting the video library together. (I keep all original material on the RS server, so it can't be blocked out by services like YouTube.)
Kozyrev called all entropic processes time emitters, since the loss of entropy was conserved when it was picked up by another system, the time absorber, the two sites being called right hand and left handed torsion, corresponding to the entropic and negentropic. Are you familiar with this?

... but is there a concept for the exchange of structure? Or is this all just time structures shifting around and affecting space?
Yes, but I refer to it as the "conservation of motion." In the RS, motion can be transformed between linear and angular velocities, or compounded/broken apart--but the net motion must still add up. Larson states in many of his papers that speed and energy are interchangable--it doesn't take any "energy" to convert one to the other, just a matter of geometry and timing, because the transfer can only occur at a unit boundary.

Larson discusses the exchange of structure in detail. It is not a simple flip, but based on angular datums (magnetic = 4, electric = 8). For example, material carbon with displacements of 2-1-4 has the same rotational speed as (3)-(2)-(4), which is cosmic silicon. What you do is take (4-2=2) - (4-1=3) - (8-4=4). In the notation, the principal magnetic is the larger magnitude, so you exchange (2)-(3) to (3)-(2).

When cosmic matter enters the material sector (or vice versa), it needs to find rotational stability, so that is what happens--the rotational structure flips so the net displacement is in time (or space, for cosmic). Vibratory mass (isotopic mass) tends to be thrown off during the transition, which we see as a burst of radiation.
If it just has a location in space and all structure in time then I think I need a better definition of some of these terms.
It is straightforward... the net motion determines if a particle is material (1). In the ratio of motion, the location is what we call the numerator, and the structure is the denominator. (See daniel's Facebook post from this morning.)

What we have found in RS2 is that the "electric" displacement is a structure in time, coupled to the magnetic structure in space. Most atoms have a foot in both sectors (not Noble gasses). Thinking of it that way makes it easier to see you are just shifting rotational displacement from one end of the barbell to the other.
I have read 4 Larson books but I get confused reading rs2 at the same time and my wires get crossed.
Sorry about that; that is why I made this a separate site. The video I did at the library explains the differences between RS and RS2: Introduction to the Reciprocal System

Larson did a really good first draft, but in the 50 years since, we've found more accurate ways to describe concepts that Larson had to make up words for. That is what RS2 is about.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

When taken together is not

Post by bperet » Wed May 25, 2016 11:08 am

When taken together is not the compound structure always torsion?
Torsion has units of pressure, t/s4. Rotation is torque, t/s, and translation is speed, s/t. Torsion would only be produced if a compound structure became bound with another structure, to produce pressure (energy per unit volume). So with the mechanisms under discussion here, I would conclude that what is being transmitted is torque, producing torsion upon interaction. (Of course, any instrument you used to measure torsion would be an interaction.)
Why does it take three dimensions to represent one-dimensional motion? You seem to imply the answer but I haven't seen it explained: Or more specifically: What is the relationship between three scalar dimensions and our three in the reference frame.
See Prof. KVK Nehru's paper, "The Inter-regional Ratio," section 2.

In RS2 where imaginary units are used to represent rotation, a dimension of motion is a quaternion (in most cases), and the vector part, becomes the three, coordinate dimensions. I probably need to do a paper on it... one of the many things on my "to do" list.
Since twist is the three dimensional transformation is it not the form of motion that most closely recapitulates or reflects the motion across all sectors and strata?
Yes. This was mentioned in daniel's Part V paper, where a quaternion rotation was described in terms of Chubby Checker's dance, The Twist.
The broad grouping of levels called "astral" and "causal" are not specific densities as Daniel speculates since these terms are most often used for levels in trance approached through meditation where they are actually simpler in structure not more complex or dense in relationships.
That depends on your source material, as everyone has their own view of planes of existence. I beleive daniel's stuff is based off the Ra Material and Steiner.
Even a simple glance at Indian philosophy will tell you the physical realm is considered more dense with the astral and causal increasingly more subtle.
Gopi would be the expert here, but I see it as quite understandable. We measure density by net, temporal displacement. The physical (material sector) is a structure in time at a location in space--the highest densities you can have. As you transition to the cosmic sector, spatial rotation comes into play, cancelling out some of the effects of temporal displacement giving the appearance of decreasing density. Once you are in the cosmic (3D time), you have a structure in space and location in time--with no density, at all, because there is no longer any temporal displacement. Cosmic atoms would only have a tiny amount of density from their electric rotation, which would be in time.

I am not sure which of Larson's diagrams you are referring to in the remaining message text.
Every dogma has its day...

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

density

Post by adam pogioli » Wed May 25, 2016 11:26 pm

Thank you for trying to decipher my vague ramblings. I will have to think more about this for sure; much of what you are saying makes sense. The diagram I was looking at specifically was on page 203 in New Light on Space and Time. I called it his speed range diagram thinking that was specific enough in context. I have stared at it so much that it has come to seem like the basic scaffolding of the theory. Though I still am not sure I understand it completely. It is easy to forget that although it is a single line, it is actually composed of different combinations of dimensions. I see now this diagram has a different structure than one where the three speed ranges are displayed like in your rs2-106 paper. I think I have an intuitive feel for many of this concepts but the details still trip me up. I haven't read BPOM yet; how exactly these motions in space and time combine to become a structure in time visible in space gets a little tricky. I see in that facebook post of Daniel's you linked to, someone else had a similar problem:







Andrew Gribbons Daniel, how come Larson says this in Beyond Space and Time then? It sounds like he doesn't know material objects are time.

"The behavior pattern of a simple living organism is that of the cosmic sector, but the organism itself is not a cosmic structure; it is a material structure under cosmic control. A purely cosmic structure could not exist in the material environment, other than momentarily."

Sure, it's a material structure that we can perceive and hold. But it's composed of time, a yin/ cosmic structure in a spatial location.






Like · Reply · May 23 at 8:50pm













Image









Daniel Phoenix III Not sure I'm following you... material is location in space, structure in time, which is what we perceive and hold. Life units are linked to a cosmic system, which is location in time, structure in space. Ah, perhaps you are confusing "structure in space" with a "volume in space" defined by locations in space. By structure, I am referring to a compound rotation, of which all the components are at the same location. Volumes are defined by connect-a-dot between locations. Structure is yin, volume is yang. It is a good point that does need some clarification.











Daniel is doing a good job trying to simplify the concepts that I think have changed or are becoming clarified through the rs2 work. Its not your fault if my wires get crossed. You have been clear about differentiating the two theories. I just think all of you working on this thing have opened up a lot more questions than the somewhat closed system Larson presents. He sometimes seems deceptively simple. There was obviously a kind of vertical ontology hiding in Larson all along--a projective geometry, an observer principle, etc. Acknowledging that as you folks are doing, opens up some deeper issues that Larson seems to have wanted to seperate from physics--quite understandably.

I do think looking at the metaphysical traditions can inform the physics. You are right there are many interpretations and traditions. The words ethereal, causal and astral are Western but they are equated with corresponding Eastern concepts in all the modern post-Theosophy mystics (Though RA changed the level of ethereal from the theosophical convention). There is certainly much disagreement in exact meaning, but you definitely see a shift in the 20th century with Aurobindo, Steiner and the later New Age ontology as the concept of material evolution gets more prominence. My point was that I think it is informative to differentiate the concept of density--which is something like the level of complexity in the material vehicle with its apparent concentration of energy in space--from the level of Being in traditional "perrenial" philosophy. I think what we are seeing in the "Great Chain of Being" as Huxley called it, is quiet clearly not the same thing later mystics are referring to in the evolution of the material vehicle. A more complex, energetically dense vehicle can allow a higher level consciousness to incarnate, but calling that higher level the higher density I think covers over some ideas that can illuminate the physics too. I am not sure how exactly. I would like to understand more your EM spectrum chart and density band chart. But I think there is a bigger picture here of activity in three dimensions that gets reduced down to one or two in many of the ways we see things.

The inner planes of involution are home to beings without physical vehicles, but it also is a medium for communication with other physical beings. So when the mind is meditating or dreaming on the astral plane it can be in contact with "4th density" beings. RA suggests that there are 4th density beings of the inner planes when he speaks of those in the inner earth. But I think it is clear that they have a high density because they are not just "astral" spirits but beings that have maintained cohesion of several levels of being/body. RA even suggests they maintain physical bodies and facilities in the inner Earth even though they are native to the inner planes. So I would imagine density could be clustered around different speed ranges, though the idea of high density is more about a broad range of frequencies or their harmonics all being present.

I know this is more of Daniel's area, and he has some interesting speculation I am still reading and digesting. There is clearly a lot going on in these issues. My main point was that there seem to be a few different scales that are often getting confused. Maybe its just me, but in any case it would really help me to know how these fundamental scales relate: speed range, frequency range, density range, and projective strata. Much of this has been discussed before, but it can be hard to put it all together. Frequency seems more related to level of being on the inner plane--a one dimensional speed that can be a component in higher dimensional and higher density motions. As more dimensions are added things get more interesting as I sketched out before following Larson's diagram. Traditional mystics seem to have only been able to reach higher levels through a single dimension sometimes two, mainly by stripping away levels of strata and therefore only got a small part of the picture.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Diagram p. 203 NLOSAT

Post by bperet » Sat May 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Regarding the diagram on p. 203, you would need to include three speed ranges for the time-space and space-time regions, to see the dimensional structure, keeping within Larson's model. What we've been developing for RS2 is derived from what we believe Larson was actually trying to describe, without knowledge of imaginary operators and projective geometry:

Larson's "2 units of motion," speed and energy, that give rise to the 0-1-infinity diagrams are a complex quantity of real (speed) + imaginary (rotational energy).

Larson's speed ranges are a 3D form of rotation through a quaternion, as described in daniel's Part V paper: real (speed), imaginary (1-x energy), imaginary (2-x energy), imaginary (3-x energy), which brings you back to -1, inward "real" speed. There is also a 7D version that arises from the math that seems to apply to life units.

Now, when considering the effects one aspect of motion has upon the other, Larson says that only the "net" motion can be transmitted as a push or pull. Well, because he had a totally yang, linear approach, he missed the torsional component--spin is also transmitted across the boundary as a net, angular velocity. So what gets transmitted between aspects is seen as a complex quantity of speed (linear velocity) and rotation (angular velocity).

So when a quaternion rotation is present in one aspect, what is seen in the inverse aspect is a complex quantity--such as the electrical rotation in atoms--basically the "shadow" of that quaternion rotation is transmitted to the inverse aspect, giving rise to waveforms and wobbly spins, that conventional science ends up breaking down into components to describe, such as the dielectric and magnetic waves of a photon.

Regarding densities, frequencies and the like, those were my early attempts to reconcile the Ra material with Larson's theory, with some Urantia Book thrown in (such as the Ultimaton references). What we have found since is that vibration, in general, tends to be "squealing" when something gets out of whack, in an attempt to compensate for the discrepancies of motion. Look at music for an example. Sound is a vibration and it originates from instruments being tortured (particularly these days!) A bow scraping on a string, air passing a hole and crashing with itself... vibration arises from a disharmony (which I know is contrary to the New Age beliefs). Even in electronics, oscillators are made by misphased feedback.

As daniel put it, linear motion creates a volume in the sector you are observing, whereas rotational motion creates a structure--which is an "inverse volume," because the locations are in the reciprocal aspect.

I spoke a great deal with Carla on densities when she was writing the Wanderer's Handbook. Densities are basically quantum levels of complexity in the Reciprocal System. Larson covers the first three in Beyond Space and Time. (If you don't have BST, order soon from http://rstheory.org as they will be out of print once this last case is sold--think I've got about 40 left.)

Anything beyond 3rd density is speculation at this point, because we do not have the foundation to comprehend those levels of existence, until we actually go and experience them. It is like G'kar trying to describe the First Ones on Babylon 5 to Catherine, using an ant on a flower. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZW8Deq8vE). So I prefer to stick with what we have experienced, because with a good foundation, there are always "natural consequences" that can take us further down the Path.
Every dogma has its day...

Sun
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:50 am

torsion fields as a structure of unit motion/time/aether

Post by Sun » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:20 am

In David Wilcock's show Cosmic Disclosure, Season 2, Episode 13, Viewer Questions Part 1, Corey Goode made this statement that "the galaxy is a giant torsion field. And it has pretty much an ecliptic plane with part of the field, like a north and south, different fields turning in different directions". They also demonstrated it by an animation in the show. I found this animation very well explained the Creation referred by Ra.

In Law of One session 13, Ra explained the creation of universe step by step. The first thing created is intelligent energy. "The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion". In this statement Ra explained the progression of space/time from our point of view, however, this progression is nothing but unit motion in RS. Universe of motion is very sophisticated for anyone who familiar with conventional science to comprehend. I made my own picture of it and i found it no more than a universe of energy. When i consider a universe of energy, a universe can be exist in an energy form without any physical matter exist. Latter in this session Ra explained the born of physical universes. Co-Creators is the ones create light/vibration/matters by interacting with unit motion.

I assume that the unit motion is one of the torsion field showed by Corey, like the north pole, and there is another torsion field created by co-Creaters(all life being from stone to us) oppsing the north pole. These two torsion fields interact with each other thus create bi-rotation/vibration structure, light, and also create an energy grid. These fields soud a lot like aether or torsion of aether. In fact, aether is just a concept help us comprehend.

Space is just a screen for motion/energy to project. Obviously, galaxy can be projected between these two torsion field looks like a ecliptic plane. Only one scalar dimension can be represented in space makes this plane more like a plane. The galaxy model holds good when apply to the whole universe, because they are created in the same way. Space is a way we perceive things. It is not a container. From the space point of view, both of the torsion fields and the energy grid exist inward space, where the time region is. In this sense, obviously, aether is time. Time is a torsion field in space. The first torsion field created by the intelligent infinite cause the galaxy to rotate, so does earth. That is how torsion field related to gravity. The concept of time in conventional science is related but different from the one in RS. Conventional time is an illusion, our perception, the rate of unit motion, the progression of space/time. I accept that the RS time is much more like aether. However, our solar system do travel through time/aether. Obviously, the energy grid in time of the galaxy is more intense and more dense when close to its center.

These are primitive thinking in my mind and may have mistakes. It seems to me that the concept of frequency is not periodically changing of space/time ratio. Frequency and density are related in such a way that when we travel through time/aether, we travel from a point with less energy to a point with the most intense energy periodically. More energy points in unit time, more higher the frequency and more dense. Still have a lot of details to deal with. How the torsion field related to electro-magnetic field....et al. Interestingly, i think the key to tap energy from aether is to create an energy grid resonant with earth or a crystal by manipulating electro-magnatic field, and you should have a receiver also resonant with the grid to collecting echoes. Disharmony with the grid will decrease the energy through time.

Very interesting stuff Corey put on his web:

http://spherebeingalliance.com/blog/mec ... nergy.html

I believe this is the structure of time. Unit motion both rotating and expanding in 3 scalar dimensions and the individualized consciousness oppose this motion forming a vibrational grid. The same model for the galaxy and earth (and human body i think). Travel through cosmic web is actually travel through time. Earth beings should have vibrations in harmony to form a regular/crystallized structure, or the energy is in some kind of chaos. Problem in earth now is that the earth beings is neither in harmony with each other nor with the time region now of the galaxy(or universe?).

However, lots of questions have to be answered. How anti-gravity work with the grid, what is polarity, how this grid related to the magnetic field of earth, how the poles form, how energy centers form, how acupunture works on these nodes of a human body...

Image

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Goode up to no good?

Post by bperet » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:18 pm

You might want to talk to daniel, David's original "insider" who's expertise made David famous, about Goode and the disinformation he is feeding David. You can reach him on the ConsciousHugs forum. In my opinion, spherebeingalliance is New Age gibberish... designed to entertain, not inform. Just compare Goode's writing to daniel (papers available at: http://reciprocalsystem.org/papers/daniel-phoenix-iii) and see who is putting out actual knowledge, versus flashy pictures and no real understanding. As Larson put it, "complexity is entertaining, simplicity is not."

Now apply some common sense... fields are how time changes space--that includes a torsion field. Torsion is not a primary motion, it is the consequence of space/time relationships AS motion.

What we found in RS2 is that the torsion field is biomagnetism, a 2nd density form of magnetism (to use Ra's terms) that has nonlocal field effects in both space and time. That is why it shares some behavior with regular magnetism (1st density), but does things that regular magnetism cannot do.

The toroid view of atomic rotation is somewhat accurate, but incomplete, as it only shows the 2-x speed range (magnetism). 1-x and 3-x are also present, but not represented as a toroid.
However, lots of questions have to be answered. How anti-gravity work with the grid, what is polarity, how this grid related to the magnetic field of earth, how the poles form, how energy centers form, how acupunture works on these nodes of a human body...
Quick answers...

Antigravity works by aligning the 3-x "ultra high" speed motion vector of atoms on a vertical axis, to neutralize the effects of gravity. In a ferromagnet, the magnetic domains are all aligned the same way--in antigravity material, the ultra-high speed domain is aligned the same way, instead.

Polarity is a measure of speed displacement, in space or in time. Basically, a derivative of motion.

The "grid" isn't related to the magnetic field of Earth. It is something different.

Poles form via magnetohydronamic systems, see my paper: The Origins of Planetary Rotation.

Energy centers (chakras) form when there is a knot in the flow of bioenergy, much like the coiled wire inside an incandescent bulb that creates resistance to the flow of electricity to emit light and heat.

Acupuncture works by causing localized injury by the insertion of needles, making the body focus immune response to that location--which also tends to fix other problems, nearby. You just need to remember that there are two aspects to immune response, the body (send them T4 cells) and the soul (3D time, bioenergy). Acupuncture gets BOTH systems moving to heal, whereas drugs only address the body level.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply