The Case of Eric Dollard and Anti-Relativity

[bperet]

So I am proposing a new idea here, based on this structure: that there are two different kinds of vibratory motion, a birotation of the dielectric being the photon (as described in Nehru's papers), and a birotation based on the solid, magnetic rotation: EM radiation. In other words, two structures of the photon, the classic, planar one from dielectricity, and a "solid wave" from the magnetic rotation.

I wrote a quick program to plot out the waveforms, based on the solid birotation information provided by Gopi. I ended up with three waves: a planar, dielectric wave, a "solid", magnetic wave, and a pulsed solid, electromagnetic wave that was the merging of the magnetic and dielectric birotations. Used POVray to do a plot of the three, not-so-simple harmonic motions:

BirotationWaves.jpg (34.75 KiB) Viewed 30952 times

These waveforms correspond to a birotation of the associated particles, dielectric=electron, magnetic=muon neutrino, electromagnetic=electron neutrino. (The plot is a series of discs and spheres, as you cannot do differentials with constructive solid geometry techniques--you have to make a union of sections, which is why it appears a little choppy.)

This is what I have extracted from the pre-1920 research on electricity that Eric Dollard references. If anyone is familiar with research along this line of wave/particle associations, please let me know. Right now, it seems unique to RS2, as the 19th century researchers did not have the benefit of Nehru's birotations and dimensional reduction techniques.

[bperet]

I've done an analysis of Dollard's "roots of unity," system, which wasn't that hard with the Reciprocal System because it, too, has its "roots" in unity. These videos are fairly old, so I don't know if Dollard is now familiar with quaternions, but his axial system of roots reduces to three, imaginary axes, which can conveniently be represented as a quaternion in math:

• Real axis: DC
• "j" axis, AC (inductance and capacitance; "i" is not used in electronics as it is the symbol for current).
• "k" axis, Transient DC (transients that taper off)
• "h" axis, Transient AC (recurring transients)

Note that it is not the axis that is significant, but the number of axes that have a non-unit motion to them. For example, if I have a length of 2 inches, then it could run on the X, Y or Z axis. Doesn't matter which one, as it will still be two inches. But if I run 2 inches on two axes, then I define an area, a different concept. And it doesn't matter if it is the XY, XZ or YZ plane, it's still a 2x2 area. The same thing is going on here, but with the rotational dimensions--it is the number of "occupied" dimensions, as Larson would put it, that give you the effects.

I created a summary diagram, and while doing it noticed that the dimensional structure matched that of the spatial states of matter, which got me thinking--perhaps these electrical phenomenon are the aetheric (temporal) states of matter. A corollary to that consequence would be that the concepts of inductance and capacitance are the way we interpret "cosmic mass" in the material sector, and may explain why the units of inductance are exactly the same as mass, and the electrical relations work the same as mechanical ones (voltage = force, current = speed, resistance = mass per time).

Electronics2.png (37.94 KiB) Viewed 30952 times

Miles Mathis makes a very good point in that mathematics are a "diagrammatic" system, a system designed to work on a sheet of paper in two dimensions. If you remember the film, Contact... sometimes you have to think in multiple dimensions to get the sheets of paper to connect up--or in this case, the lines of flux.

Normally, the roots of unity are placed on the 2-dimensional, complex plane, where the roots are just regularly-spaced angles. 4th root is 90 degrees, 8th root is 45 degrees (this is what Dollard discusses in the old videos).

What I did differently was to think in three, coordinate time dimensions, rather than a picture on a sheet of paper, and found you can get 8 roots of unity with one, real axis and three, imaginary axes--all being 90-degrees apart (orthogonal) from each other, which is a tad hard to visualize on a sheet of paper. The end result was a quaternion rotation.

So what it comes down to is that the "transient" axes are not 45-degrees out of phase, but 90-degrees, and the 2D, diagrammatic projection in the illustration has the illusion of 45-degrees. Look at the diagram I made... if you print it out and measure the angles, they are 45-degrees for 2-dimensional thinking! But I can plug it into a 3D computer quaternion, and they will operate in an orthogonal, 90-degree fashion.

With this interpretation, it becomes obvious that we're talking a 3-axis rotation, which is the 3D, coordinate time of the cosmic sector. That would also infer that the "DC axis" is clock space.

[macaddictjay]

Thanks for your responses. Regarding your feedback about Bearden, I assume that you have detected no awareness on his part of Larson's theories. I contacted his website in an effort to get him to look at rs and rs2, and perhaps contact you. I think he would find the Reciprocal Theory a revelation, and compatible with many of his ideas about time and metaphysics. We will see.

Regarding Steven Greer's "Disclosure Project," I shouldn't have used the phrase "forcing governments." Whatever application of force may be called for, it needs to be applied to those in charge (that "global oligarchy" that funded Phoenix III). I'm not too worried at the prospect of a world filled with bananas, but if we don't break the truth embargo we'll have an ocean filled with oil, radiation and dead bodies. What proportion of rhe world's population is likely to grok rs and rs2, as opposed to those who will watch "Sirius" and understand that we are being targeted for extermination by psychopaths, when we could be progressing instead towards a world of peace and abundance? I may never fully comprehend what you know, but I know we face either a grim future or a glorious one, depending on how many people wake up to the information presented in the Sirius documentary (and on websites like divinecosmos.com).

If consciousness turns out to be as powerful an influence on reality as I'm beginning to believe, I hope the prophecies of glory are the ones that become self-fulfilling, rather than the prophecies of doom.

[macaddictjay]

Thanks for the welcome! I've been busy elsewhere; sorry for the 5-month gap. I remain a newbie, and have a non-sequitur to insert here because I couldn't find a better place.

I awoke from a sound sleep this morning with these thoughts about visualizing the concepts of Larson et al (right-brain stuff, of necessity, since there's no math competence in my left):

Before I knew of Larson's Theory (or RS2), I tried to grasp the concept of what "happens" at the transition point one observes when an object is viewed through a magnifying glass, and then that object is moved to a plane at which there is a transition from the object appearing to increase in size (and be "upright") to the object appearing to decrease in size (and be "inverted"). After reading Larson, I saw parallels between this optical phenomena and the reciprocal dimensions of space and time. Special relativity speaks of a dimension being "lost" as one views a hypothetical spacecraft, which is approaching the speed of light, through a telescope. The 3 dimensions of the craft appear to shrink to 2 near the speed of light.

In Larson's view, there are always four dimensions; our "normal" perception is of 3 dimensions of space and one of time. The reciprocal state is that of 3 dimensions of time, and one of space. However, I recall reading that there could also be two dimensions each of space and of time, to add up to the four. This state parallels the transition point in the magnifier views mentioned above, which could (in my mind, for the first time) be visualized as a pair of 2-dimensional, parallel planes in "contact" with each other, and also as the common "skin" of two spherical, complementary "universes." This "skin" could also be an analog to a plate of holographic film.

My thoughts were then drawn to the poor souls at Montauk who got "stuck in the green."

Comments, please?

[bperet]

However, I recall reading that there could also be two dimensions each of space and of time, to add up to the four. This state parallels the transition point in the magnifier views mentioned above, which could (in my mind, for the first time) be visualized as a pair of 2-dimensional, parallel planes in "contact" with each other, and also as the common "skin" of two spherical, complementary "universes." This "skin" could also be an analog to a plate of holographic film.

You may want to look at Larson's book, The Universe of Motion, particularly the sections where he discusses the astronomical "speed ranges." He identifies three:

1. 1-x (low speed), which is your normal, coordinate space and clock time.
2. 2-x (intermediate speed), where one of the spatial dimensions is moving FTL, and you end up with the condition you mentioned, 2D in space, 1D in time and clock time (Larson separates clock time from 3D time, as the clock is always a scalar).
3. 3-x (ultra-high speed), where only 1 spatial dimension remains, 2 are in 3D time, plus clock time.

Any motion past the 3-x, ultra-high speed range results in the transition to the cosmic sector of 3D time, clock space. This is what Quasars are doing--moving from 3-x and leaving the material sector behind.

My thoughts were then drawn to the poor souls at Montauk who got "stuck in the green."

Well, that's not a good place to be (I'm assuming you are referring to daniel's papers on the subject). Interestingly enough, I've been reading a book on how consciousness can alter physical reality, and it seems that an "ethical" person, having Larson's sector 3 access, could use those control units to control whether he is material or cosmic, and unstick himself without any consequence.

[macaddictjay]

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.

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

[bperet]

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.

[macaddictjay]

Thanks for your reply. I still feel like a 6th-grader who crashed a graduate-level lecture. Regardless, I press on like a mud-dauber.

I just finished a book by the late Michael Talbot (from 1992), The Holographic Universe, which also extends the biological model into consciousness. I found it comprehensible to a nonscientist such as myself, as I did daniel's writings. I think it will help me get more from Reciprocal Theory than I can now grok.

[bperet]

Thanks for your reply. I still feel like a 6th-grader who crashed a graduate-level lecture. Regardless, I press on like a mud-dauber.

And the funny thing about that, is that the 6th grader actually has a better chance of understanding the RS, than the graduate student does! Not as many biases in place.

I just finished a book by the late Michael Talbot (from 1992), The Holographic Universe, which also extends the biological model into consciousness.

I read that book back when it came out. You can understand his perspective in the RS framework by considering that the 3D coordinate system (extension space or time) is a shadow of scalar motion in the natural reference system--and there can be many shadows of the same object, hence the holographic description.

I found it comprehensible to a nonscientist such as myself, as I did daniel's writings. I think it will help me get more from Reciprocal Theory than I can now grok.

Daniel's Part 3 of the Anthropology series will be out in a few days. It is being proofread now by some folks on the Antiquatis Forum. It's a LONG paper--28 pages--titled, "Homo Sapiens Ethicus: Life, Death, Reincarnation and Ascension" and is focused on bioenergy and the life unit, and the development of an ethical consciousness that is a precursor to the evolution of man.

Gopi has also put out an introductory paper on the RS that I believe is based on some concepts from Rudolf Steiner, showing how scalar motion is related to the sense of touch, and the coordinate system to sight. Quite interesting approach, particularly for a non-technical person. It is here: Preparing for the Reciprocal System

[Detrix]

Hi, I have not had the privilege to read "Holographic Universe." But the title cause me to ponder an idea, and would like to see if this makes any sense.

• A 2D sheet of holographic film can represent a 3D image.
• The image is the recorded interference patterns on a 2D surface.
• So our universe is the recorded 4D(s³/t) interference pattern, recorded on a 3D volume.

The RS is explaining how the motions interact, how the shadows interact, to create interference patterns.

Just a thought. Thought it was worth sharing here.