Thanks for your very helpful feedback. My "visualization" has not led to an "aha-moment," but I will re-read the book's section on speed ranges and see If I can get closer to understanding the concepts.

Something to remember with speed ranges is that, due to the unit speed progression, everything wants to fly apart at the speed of light--and it is only the inward motion of atoms that keeps them from doing that. In the RS, you do not accelerate UP to the speed of light, you just reduce what is "holding you back" from moving that fast. That is why Larson refers to the speed ranges as 1-x, 2-x and 3-x... the 1, 2 and 3 are the number of units of motion involved. 1-x is the sub-light speed range, since the first unit runs from 0 to 1 (the speed of light). The "x" portion refers to how much UNDER the speed of light you are going.

2-x refers to the second unit of motion, which takes place as energy (t/s), rather than speed (s/t). It runs from 1 to a temporal zero (infinity in space). The intermediate speed is a bit confusing, as it is measured in equivalent space, which is only 2-dimensional (not 3D of the first unit). This, of course, has led to the confusion regarding "free energy" devices that seem to possess "infinite energy"--they DON'T, because they are extrapolating a 3D motion into a 2D "speed zone." The dimensional error ends up with a "divide by zero," which shoots functions to infinity--even though, if done as a problem in equivalent space, you find it is finite, just like everything else.

3-x refers to the third unit of motion, which looks a lot like the 1st unit in that it is speed (s/t), but occurs in the 2nd scalar dimension (1-x and 2-x are in the 1st scalar dimension, and you can only have two... 1 speed and 1 energy, then you have to move to another, scalar dimension to continue to higher speeds). But the problem here is that you've used up 2 of the spatial dimensions in the first, two units of motion... 1-x was 3D, 2-x was 2D, so guess what... 3-x is 1D spatial--expressed as a linear or radial motion.

Once you understand these concepts, then you can look at astronomical objects and determine how fast stuff is moving.

Big, spherical explosions are all 1-x, low speed and totally spatial.

Anything planar, like "rings", are in the 2-x, intermediate speed, since the motion is 2D--planar.

Jets are 3-x, ultra-high speed, the 1D linear motion.

Sometimes, you get a combination of different motions. Supernova tend to do that, as you'll see a ring or two, along with jets bursting out. Even our sun exhibits these FTL motions as the arch structures in solar flares. The initial speed is in the 3-x, 1D range, creating a jet bursting out of the surface of the sun, which cools down quickly and drops to 2-x, 2D range, making the jet fold around into a loop, which then slows more into the 1-x range, bursting away from the sun as a coronal mass ejection, or just being yanked back into the surface.

I've been reading much on the divinecosmos.com site (where I first found Larson's theory and your site). Wilcock is, of course, very much engaged in the study of how "consciousness can alter physical reality."

David and I are old friends. I'm the one that told him about Larson and 3D time.

What's the book you're reading on that subject?

*Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics*, by William A. Tiller, Walter E. Dibble and Michael J. Kohane (all Ph.D.'s, but I don't hold that against them.)

The book is basically a very detailed explanation of experimental data from a series of controlled tests, where people that have exhibited high psi ability are used to do things like alter the pH of water, etc. Very technical; unless you have "bench work," you'll probably not find the massive detail of experimental setups very interesting.

Though based in QM, they are actually using a physics structure very similar to the Reciprocal System, but with different names. They have their D-space (Direct space, 3D space and time), and their R-space (Reciprocal space, the inverse of 3D space and time). They did not figure out that R-space is just the "equivalent space" of 3D time. Though they did correctly identify R-space as the "conjugate" of D-space, like Nehru did with the cosmic sector, back in the 1980s.

To this 8-dimensional setup ([x,y,z,t] [1/x,1/y,1/z,1/t]), they add three more dimensions, the first to account for "emotional" data (9D), the second for "mental" data (10D), and finally "spiritual" data (11D). They are using 11 dimensions to represent the conscious influence upon space.

I find it interesting that it reflects Larson's structure in Beyond Space and Time, where his inanimate level is D-space, the biologic is the combination of material+cosmic (D-space + R-space), and Larson's ethical level being the three extra dimensions they added, (emotional, mental, spiritual). The only difference is that in the RS version, these extra dimensions work the same as the other dimensions, analogous to a consciousness form of electricity, magnetism and gravity.

I found the book quite interesting, as the test data has allowed me to extend the biological model into consciousness, without even having to update the Postulates... "consciousness" just becomes another wrapper around the life unit, as the control unit.

Every dogma has its day...